Sitting of 8 December 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

  QUEEN'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS)
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    World Trade Organisation
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: If she will make a statement on the outcome of the World Trade Organisation Seattle meeting on trade with reference to prospects for better trade access for the world's poorest countries. [100348]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): As I think everyone noticed, the ministerial conference in Seattle failed to reach agreement on the agenda for the next round of trade negotiations. That is disappointing, but of course it is not the end of the story. Given that three quarters of the members of the World Trade Organisation are from developing countries, we are hopeful that big gains can be made. Under the Uruguay round, it was agreed that new talks would take place on trade in agriculture and services; other agreements are up for review. We will be working with others in Geneva to try to secure agreement on a new round that will bring real benefits to developing countries.
    Mr. Cunningham: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that third-world debt and tariff reductions in the developed countries will be high on the agenda? That would facilitate trading arrangements so as to help the third world. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend: given the adverse conditions in Seattle, she did a tremendous job on our behalf.
    Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is surprising that there was so much enthusiasm for reducing third-world debt, which we all fully share, but not for
    810
    trading opportunities to allow developing countries to make use of that reduction to build up their economies. That is surely the other side of the equation. We agree strongly that various specific improvements are needed, but a reduction in industrial tariffs could be most important and would bring major benefits to developing countries.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park): Does the right hon. Lady agree that developing countries have a problem with their capacity to negotiate trade deals with the World Trade Organisation? I understand that 30 members of the WTO from the developing countries were not able to send delegates at all, and many others sent only tiny delegations. Does the right hon. Lady agree that it was little wonder that the developing country delegations felt angry and humiliated, with the result that the Latin American, Caribbean and African delegations issued statements on the negotiation process itself? Will she ensure that the Government and the European Union build up the capacity of developing countries before the next trade round, so that those countries can ensure that their voices are heard?
    Clare Short: The hon. Lady is right. During the past two years, we have worked hard to put resources and expertise into training negotiators, analysts and the business people who have to implement the rules and take the benefits of trading opportunities. We have persuaded the EU to put more effort into that initiative, which was announced at Seattle and will continue.
    The reason for the failure was not only that lack of capacity in developing countries. Ironically, we have never had such a representative body trying to negotiate trade agreements. In the past, the GATT—the general agreement on tariffs and trade—was dominated by the rich blocs. Suddenly, the developing countries are at the table and the procedures of the WTO were not attuned to the inclusion of such a large number of countries—so everyone needs to improve. However, the hon. Lady is right: we have been working on capacity building, but we need more of it.
    Mr. Alan Simpson: Was the Secretary of State able to hold discussions with members of the Indian delegation on the proposals that they were trying to float, on the need for developing countries legitimately to protect parts of their domestic agriculture to the point of food security? They want us to draw new distinctions allowing for the use of agricultural subsidies to promote food security rather than product dumping, and they want to be allowed to protect themselves against the theft of their biodiversity on which food security will depend.
    Clare Short: I did not talk to the Indian delegation in Seattle, but I have held various discussions on trade with representatives of the Indian Government. By and large, India takes a protectionist position. The greatest food security is not internal to a country; it is the capacity to purchase enough food from wherever it is needed, and the capacity of all the individuals in the country to purchase the food that they need. Considering food security as an internal issue is not the best way of approaching the subject.

    811
    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for referring to biodiversity, because myths abound on that matter. New inventions are the only intellectual property that can be registered. Under the WTO, there is no threat at all to any traditional knowledge or biodiversity in a country. I am glad to say that that is a myth.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Does the Secretary of State agree with the historian Macaulay that free trade is by far the best thing ever to help the prosperity of mankind, but that it is most difficult to persuade the self-appointed spokesmen of mankind of its merits? In the light of all the criticisms and the organised coalition of attacks on the WTO, will the Government speak out vigorously in favour of free trade and against those who try to use pseudo-humanitarian arguments for protectionism?
    Clare Short: I have been doing my very best to speak out for the benefits of free trade in promoting the economic growth that the poorest countries need to reduce poverty. The fastest reduction in poverty in human history was part of the east Asian advance when those countries attracted inward investment, created exporting opportunities and then invested in education. Other poor countries need the same opportunity. Those who benefit from all the technology that multinational capital brings are somehow calling for the poorest in the world not to have access to that technology; they are mistaken in that call. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman completely.
    Joan Ruddock: Does my right hon. Friend think that, despite the failures at Seattle, there is still a chance that all the rich countries will make a binding commitment to tariff and quota-free access on the exports of the 48 poorest countries? If not, does she think that the European Union could unilaterally pursue such a course?
    Clare Short: Yes; that was one of the EU's big pushes in the negotiations, and the EU is committed to zero tariff access for "essentially all products" from the least-developed countries. We will go ahead and implement that and we will try to get others to agree to do so too. The United Kingdom believes that such access should apply to all products and not just "essentially all". The least-developed countries have the poorest economies on earth and they make up 0.25 per cent. of world trade. Surely, we can all agree to give them the chance of more trade, and zero tariff access might draw in investment. The EU will go ahead and implement that agreement.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: May I congratulate the Secretary of State, because, in her speech in Seattle, she spoke up for free trade? Does she agree that the collapse of the Seattle talks is a huge setback for the cause of free trade? Does she also agree that the apparent winners were the extremists and anarchists who believe that they wrecked the WTO talks, and that the clear losers were the world's poorest who have so much to gain from steady progress towards global free trade? Is not the credibility of the WTO now in need of urgent restoration? What are her proposals for doing that?
    Clare Short: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the consequences of that strange alliance of forces
    812
    thinking that it had been successful. To damage the WTO is to damage the interests of the poorest nations on earth. The irony is that the WTO is only five years old and that, for the first time, developing countries make up the majority of its members and have a chance to make real gains out of trade negotiations. It is ironic that the negotiations were wrecked.
    We need to take the talks forward, but the WTO needs to consider its procedures. The expansion in numbers means that it does not have procedures that are transparent enough for Governments to be clear with their own civil societies about the negotiations. We need to give attention to that, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has said that Britain will make that a priority.
    Mr. Streeter: This is an important point. Can the right hon. Lady give a little more detail about the reform of the decision-making procedures of the WTO, because there are probably only three options? Does she agree that, whatever decision is finally arrived at, it is vital that developing countries have a fair say and a louder voice in the decisions made by the WTO? The humiliation that they suffered in Seattle by being locked out of the greenroom, as it came to be called, while the EU and the United States negotiated has set back their confidence in our commitment to free trade. We need to reform the procedures to resolve that problem.
    Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman slightly overstates the position on the views of developing countries. They were not at the table before. One of the things that may have happened in Seattle is that the United States may have grown up to the fact that the world is globalising and that we need different international instruments to manage it, and certainly all countries and blocs woke up to the fact that developing countries are now at the table. That was a creative outcome of the failure in Seattle.
    I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman that there need to be procedures that much more systematically include developing countries in the negotiations. I cannot announce today the new procedures in the WTO; they must be negotiated and agreed by all the membership. However, we agree that it is an absolute priority to get more transparency and more efficient procedures.
    Mr. Streeter: Finally, as this is such a huge and important issue, is the right hon. Lady aware that, if she pushes our EU partners to drop unilaterally the EU's tariffs and quotas for all goods and exports from the 48 poorest countries in the world, she will receive the wholehearted support of Conservative Members? We should unilaterally drop our tariffs, set an example and move to global free trade by 2020.
    Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I pleased that there is agreement on both sides of the House on the need for zero-tariff access for the least developed countries. We need to get other countries to support that. We have been pushing the EU very hard and, despite the protectionist instincts of some of its members, we have agreement on "essentially all" products, but we need to follow the negotiations about what "essentially all" means, and try to make sure that only a very small

    813
    number of products are excluded. I should be grateful for the hon. Gentleman's help in taking forward those negotiations.

    Danube
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: If she will make a statement on actions taken to unblock the Danube since 1 December. [100349]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): We remain prepared to provide assistance through the European Commission to unblock the Danube, provided that agreement can be reached among the member states of the Danube Commission to allow the work to start.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is my hon. Friend aware that, when my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and I were visiting the technical officials of the Ministry of Reconstruction in Belgrade in September, they made it clear that we would be whistling in the wind to think that there would be any co-operation until such time as the dollars and deutschmarks are on the table not only for pulling out the debris but for the reconstruction of the bridges themselves? In those circumstances, given the dire situation for Bulgaria, Romania and other countries caused by the severing of one of Europe's main arteries, cannot some agreement be reached that does not rely on saying that Mr. Milosevic is a dreadful man?
    Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend must accept that the real problem rests with Milosevic. His Government have consistently refused to allow the river to be cleared unless we agree to rebuild the bridges, and he knows that that is unacceptable. Let me tell my hon. Friend also that the blockage can be bypassed by using a section of the Belgrade canal system—but Milosevic will charge the countries that my hon. Friend has just mentioned exorbitant prices for the privilege of using that section. My hon. Friend must at last realise that the villain of the piece is Mr. Milosevic.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the Minister accept that the blockage of the Danube means that Romania and Bulgaria have paid a heavy economic price for their support of NATO in the action over Kosovo? What impact does he believe the blockage has had on those countries' economies, and how much development assistance and aid are Britain and the international community giving them to make up for the price that they have paid?
    Mr. Foulkes: Of course those countries are suffering, and I said in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that there is a way round that problem. The key lies with Mr. Milosevic. In the meantime, we are providing substantial aid. Over £90 million has been provided by the British Government alone for reconstruction and help in Kosovo and the region. We continue to discuss with the other countries ways in which we can help them in the future. The
    814
    Stability Pact is an important area of co-operation. Of course we want to do everything that we can to help those countries to prosper.
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: I have recently had meetings with the Bulgarian ambassador, the Ukrainian ambassador and Romanian MPs, one of whom represents a Danubian port and whose constituents have lost 2,500 jobs because the Danube is blocked. Does my hon. Friend accept that the country that is least hurt by that problem is Serbia? Will the Government stop taking this rather petulant line and look after the emerging democracies, which after all supported the Minister's point of view?
    Mr. Foulkes: I, too, have spoken to the Ukrainian ambassador and to Ukrainian and Bulgarian Ministers. They recognise where the problem lies. It is a pity that there are not good Back-Bench Members of Parliament like my hon. Friend raising this question with Mr. Milosevic, but of course it is a different story there: we have a vibrant democracy—that is the difference.

    St. Helena
    Mr. Bob Russell: What plans she has to visit the island of St. Helena. [100350]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to visit St. Helena. However, officials from our Department will be visiting the island in January 2000 to discuss with the St. Helena Government the country policy plan for the next three years.
    Mr. Russell: It is just as well that the Secretary of State has no plans to visit that remote island because it has no airstrip, and the only ship, which is the only way to reach the outside world, is currently off the high seas undergoing repairs. I sincerely hope that it will be repaired in time for the January visit.
    Does the Minister agree that there is considerable anger and dismay among the people of St. Helena about their treatment by this Government and the previous Government, which contrasts with the treatment received by the people of the Falkland Islands?
    Mr. Foulkes: The Government recognise the problems of access to St. Helena. I am pleased to tell the House that this week we have agreed to a comparative study that will investigate the relative costs of air and sea access. It will identity the most effective, least costly permanent solution to the island's international passenger and cargo transportation needs. I am sure that it will be widely welcomed.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given its importance to the increased self-sufficiency of the economy and to its sustainable prosperity, will the Minister tell the House what steps the Government envisage taking to assist in the diversification of the island's economy?
    Mr. Foulkes: That is what my officials will be discussing with the councillors of St. Helena when they visit in January next year. That is part of the country's

    815
    policy plan. We are keen to see diversification. We are keen also to see private investment and enterprise. At present, the Government are subsidising St. Helena more than any other area, island or country other than Montserrat, by about £2,000 per person. We want to see economic development so that that subsidy does not have to continue at that level.

    Tropical Diseases
    Mr. Nigel Beard: What steps are being taken to help developing countries combat malaria and other endemic tropical diseases. [100351]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Malaria is one of the world's biggest killers. One million people die as a result of it each year—90 per cent. in Africa and many of them children. The World Health Organisation is leading a roll back malaria campaign more systematically to apply the best treatment and prevention methods. We have committed £60 million to this programme. We are working with others on polio. I made an announcement of our final tranche of commitment today: polio will be eradicated from the world within five years. That is about to be achieved, and it will be a wonderful achievement. We are also working to improve TB treatment and AIDS prevention and supporting the elimination of river blindness in Africa and elephantiasis worldwide.
    Mr. Beard: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. As the overwhelming emphasis of interest of pharmaceutical companies lies in diseases of the developing world, and given that expertise in developing medically useful drugs lies almost exclusively with those companies, will my right hon. Friend consider meeting them to discuss how the development of relevant drugs for tropical diseases might be given greater emphasis in future?
    Clare Short: Yes, indeed; my hon. Friend is absolutely right. All the science, skills and research lie with the big pharmaceutical companies. The poverty of the countries that need new drugs means that the market will not bring those drugs to the people. I have already met Glaxo and SmithKline Beecham. We talked with the World Bank about the way in which we can get the public and private sectors working together both to engage in research and to bring products to the market. I am pleased to say that there is some co-operation. That is part of the WHO's roll back malaria campaign. We need new drugs because an immunity is developing to the existing drugs.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: Is the right hon. Lady aware that, because of global warming, there are projections that the malaria area will spread northwards and southwards? Given that, what assessment has she made of the economic impact of the United Nations, decision that DDT might be banned in future, will have on developing nations?
    Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Malaria is spreading, including dangerous forms of it that go straight to the brain and can kill quickly. In the
    816
    interests of people in the developing world and of ourselves, we need to roll back malaria. The systematic application of what we know—such as bed nets for children with the appropriate chemicals on them—can massively reduce the incidence. I have not examined the DDT question specifically. We are putting a great deal of effort into the roll back malaria campaign. I am optimistic that we can reduce the incidence of malaria, thus preventing the spread and saving many lives in the developing world.

    Kosovo
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: If she will make a statement on progress made on the repair of damaged houses and provision of alternative warm accommodation for refugees returning to Kosovo and on the support given by her Department. [100352]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is co-ordinating efforts to provide warm winter shelter for the 700,000 people in need.
    UNHCR, the European Community Humanitarian Office—ECHO—and the United States Agency for International Development—USAID—are distributing emergency repair kits and roofing repair kits in order to create dry shelter in repairable houses, on the basis of one room per family. Further places are being prepared in collective centres and host families.
    Our Department aims to complement these shelter initiatives by helping to keep essential power and water supplies going during the winter.
    Mr. Griffiths: While it is welcome news that a contribution is being made to ensure that people do not starve or freeze to death, is my hon. Friend aware of the pressures on the non-ethnic-Albanian communities, and will he ensure that every possible support is given to those communities, as well as to the ethnic Albanian communities?
    Mr. Foulkes: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are concerned about violence against Serbs. We have made known our concern, which I know is shared not just by my hon. Friend but by the whole House.
    Mr. Robert Key: Have the Government managed to persuade all those involved to clear the backlog of trucks that are waiting at the Macedonian border? Has the essential equipment that has been held up for so long got through to all corners of Kosovo?
    Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman has identified one of the problems. The road at Blace is a minor road, but it now serves as a major international communications route. That is causing problems. We have done everything possible, along with the international agencies involved, to try to get it cleared, and we shall continue to do so.

    Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative
    Mr. John Healey: By how much the poorest countries qualifying under the heavily indebted poor countries initiative will benefit from the agreement on debt reached at the Cologne summit. [100353]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The proposals for enhanced debt relief agreed at the annual meeting of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in September, which were originally put forward at the Cologne summit, will provide $50 billion of debt relief, which is more than twice as much as before, and will provide a sharper focus on poverty reduction.
    The G7 also agreed at Cologne that all aid debts of HIPC countries should be cancelled, once they have qualified for HIPC. That is worth an additional $20 billion. In addition, the existing Paris Club relief for HIPC countries is $30 billion. That brings the total to $100 billion available for the HIPC countries. The UK Government are extremely grateful for the work of the British faiths and churches and non-governmental organisations for all their campaigning, which made that agreement possible.
    Mr. Healey: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Can she confirm that the Government are prepared to consider a 100 per cent. debt cancellation in certain circumstances, and can she outline the criteria that will be used to determine eligibility for that extra help?
    Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made it clear that, after countries have qualified for HIPC, he, together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—I emphasise that, because who pays for the initiative is important—will be willing to increase the debt relief to 100 per cent. The countries that qualify will be spelled out. I am sure that they will be those that are focusing on the economic change needed to improve their economies and reduce poverty.
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Does the Secretary of State agree that the debt relief programme for the poorest countries, like access to world trade, should be tied to the treatment of children, and that countries that use child labour without providing a proper education and opportunities for children to broaden their lives should not have access to debt relief programmes, any more than they should have access to world markets?
    Clare Short: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman at all. He adopts the same position as the American trade union movement, with which I also disagree. There are 250 million child labourers in the world. They are in the very poorest countries, and only 5 per cent. of them are in traded sectors. It is not that their parents do not care for them; their families are poor and the children work to get food. We need development programmes that help those countries to grow their economy and reduce poverty. Trade sanctions would entrap them in perpetual poverty and perpetuate child labour. It is the wrong remedy. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should not heckle me. He is wrong.

    Afghan Refugees (Iran)
    Mr. Jim Cousins: What steps she is taking to assist the relief of Afghan refugees in Iran. [100354]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): The Government and people of Iran have shown great generosity in hosting large numbers of Afghan refugees. My Department has recently agreed to fund a number of projects in order to improve health and education services and to promote small businesses.
    Mr. Cousins: I welcome what my hon. Friend has had to say about recent improvements, but does he recognise that the fate of those 1 million Afghan refugees in Iran could be a major destabilising factor in the politics of that troubled region? Will he continue to offer every possible assistance to alleviate that problem?
    Mr. Foulkes: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are providing £1.5 million for the refugee assistance programme, which we shall continue to support. The Afghan donors support group is meeting today in Ottawa. I was going to be there, but I felt it more important to be here to answer my hon. Friend.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. [100378] Mr. Nick Harvey: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 8 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Harvey: What hope and reassurance can the Prime Minister give to distressed families in Bristol, Liverpool and elsewhere, including my constituency, who years ago underwent the grief of burying babies only now to discover that hospitals retained hearts and other organs without telling them? Given the breakdown of NHS accountability in Bristol when I and others first began asking questions, how confident are the Government that hospital authorities will give full and frank answers to the chief medical officer's investigation? Will the Government keep open the possibility of a public inquiry to examine witnesses under oath and recommend changes in the law?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely share the concern of the hon. Gentleman's constituents and, indeed, many people up and down the country whose original tragedy has been compounded by this dreadful affair. It is precisely for that reason that the Health Secretary has

    819
    announced an independent and full inquiry. That will be completed as soon as possible. We are quite determined that the practice should be stamped out.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Prime Minister agree that Steven Spielberg's project, which is worth tens of millions of pounds to our economy, is simply excellent news for Britain? Thus encouraged, will he support Lord Puttnam's campaign to preserve some of Britain's oldest cinemas, so as to pass that physical aspect of our heritage to the 21st century?
    The Prime Minister: I am delighted at the news that Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks are to make their new production in this country. It is tremendous news for the entire British film industry, and shows the good state of British art and culture.
    Mr. William Hague: Does the Prime Minister accept that the Deputy Prime Minister's strategy of persecuting the motorist, undermining the road haulage industry, botching the sale of air traffic control and abandoning even the pretence of a policy on London underground is a complete failure and does not remotely represent an integrated transport policy?
    The Prime Minister: I do not accept a word of what the right hon. Gentleman said. In this area, as in many others, what is actually happening is that, after 18 years of Conservative neglect, we are having to sort out the problems that we inherited—but we are sorting them out.
    Mr. Hague: What an utterly complacent answer. If the Prime Minister thinks that transport is improving, he is viewing it from the window of a Daimler heading down the M4 bus lane.
    I have here the Government's annual report on their commitments, which says, item:
    "Develop an integrated transport policy."
    Assessment: "Done." The Government actually think that they have done it, but the only thing that the Deputy Prime Minister has integrated is a chicken masala with an afternoon nap.
    The Deputy Prime Minister said last year:
    "I will have failed if in five years' time there are not fewer journeys by car … I urge you to hold me to it."
    Car use has increased by 13 per cent. since he took office. What is there to show for his two and a half years of stewardship of transport?
    The Prime Minister: Let us leave aside the jokes and consider the policy position. It is correct that road usage has increased, but there has also been a 15 per cent. increase in rail usage, a 12 per cent. increase in London underground usage, and, for the first time, an increase in the use of buses. In other words, there is an increase in demand on the whole system. We will spend more on transport, more on London underground, more on London transport, more on road maintenance and more on railways than the plans that we inherited from the
    820
    Conservative Government proposed. That is not a joke; it is policy, which will make a difference to the people of this country.
    Mr. Hague: The question was about what had been achieved. The Government's annual report states: "integrated transport policy—done." I shall outline their achievements: shambolic U-turn on the tube—done; botched plans for air traffic privatisation—done; hypocritical attacks on car drivers—done; attacks on the haulage industry—done; complete failure of the railways—done. We do not know where the Deputy Prime Minister is, but now that the Prime Minister has appeared on the front cover of "Hello" magazine, is it not time that the Deputy Prime Minister was in "Goodbye" magazine?
    The Prime Minister: I have already explained the increased pressures and the increased usage of public transport and the roads. How do we ensure that we spend more money on transport—[HON. Members: "What have you done?"] Conservative Members ask what we have done—I shall tell them. We are spending £500 million more on transport than the plans that we inherited proposed; indeed, we are spending over £500 million more on London transport. In addition, there are 1,800 new rural bus services under this Government; we have completed the Jubilee line, which the previous Government botched; and we have sorted out the channel tunnel rail link, which was a total mess when we took over. Of course, there is more to do, but we are doing it far better than Conservative plans and policies ever accounted for.
    Madam Speaker: I call Mr. McDonnell.
    Mr. John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington): Me?
    Madam Speaker: McDonnell is the name.
    Mr. McDonnell: It is nice to be recognised. The Prime Minister will know that this morning a listening device was found in the car of the president of Sinn Fein. Will he launch an immediate inquiry and make it clear to all sides—possibly even to our security forces—that nobody will be allowed to undermine the peace process?
    The Prime Minister: I never comment on security allegations and I do not intend to do so now.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Given the Prime Minister's statements on the road this week, has he had an opportunity to examine the main findings of today's Joseph Rowntree Foundation report into deprivation and poverty in our country? Two and a half years into a Labour Government, with a rock solid majority and supported by a benign economic scenario, which of the main conclusions depresses him most: the greater proportion of people on low incomes; the growing gap between those on low and medium incomes; the increasing number of young people who have to be counselled for drug abuse; or the steady increase in premature deaths, especially in the north of England and Scotland?
    The Prime Minister: First, the right hon. Gentleman does not point out, as the authors do, that the report covers

    821
    only a short period of the Government's tenure, before the main policies that we introduced have taken effect. Those policies include: a record rise of 20 per cent. in child benefit; the working families tax credit; and the new deal for the unemployed. The Liberal Democrats opposed the latter policy, which has meant that approximately 360,000 young people have got the chance of gaining work or skills for the first time—150,000 are now in unsubsidised jobs. The issue is not whether we agree that poverty exists, but what we do about it. We are acting on it.
    Mr. Kennedy: I am sure that the Prime Minister, like the whole House, would acknowledge that there is a correlation between income, environment and life expectancy. That being the case, is it not profoundly concerning for us all, and most of all him, that the life expectancy statistics are that much notifiably worse in the north of England and in Scotland than in other parts of the country? Does that not point to the need for a drastic upgrading of Government policy to give more help to those most in need—not only middle England, but those who elected the Government and are looking to them for most but getting least?
    The Prime Minister: Again, the life expectancy variations are far greater within nations or regions than between them. Rather than trying to divide up the country, surely we should be united around policies that target need wherever it exists—whether in inner-city Glasgow, London, Liverpool, Manchester, Plymouth or any of our main cities. All have problems.
    I agree that there are urban problems and rural problems, too, but that is why we have policies such as those that I have outlined: the minimum income guarantee for pensioners; the working families tax credit, which I was talking about a moment ago and which will give an income boost to 1.5 million low-income families; the 10p starting rate of tax; the minimum wage; and paid holiday, which many people in this country are getting for the first time. The difference is that we now have a Government who recognise that tackling those problems is part of the responsibility of the Government. We are not indifferent to social exclusion, in whatever part of the country it exists. We want to tackle it, and that will take time, but we have a policy agenda—which I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will support—that will tackle it.
    Dr. David Clark: While the Government are clearly right to tackle poverty and inequality wherever they exist, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to say from the Dispatch Box that it is Government policy to create prosperity throughout the nation and, at the same time, to reduce the disparities— especially those relating to infrastructure—between the more and the less prosperous regions of the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: Of course it is, and my right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there are disparities between regions as well. My point, simply, is that the disparities that stand out as starkly, if not more so, are those between different income groups within regions. As for regional development and infrastructure, he is absolutely right, which is why 60 per cent. of the increased spending on development agencies is going to
    822
    the northern parts that need it most. We have to get more investment into those areas to attract jobs and companies, and that is precisely what we are doing. [Interruption.] As for the hecklers on the Conservative Front Bench, let me tell the House that the one thing that I found, whatever part of the north-west I went to in the past two days, was that, whether people debated the north-south divide or not, everyone knew who was responsible for inequality in this country: Conservative Governments who, for 18 years, not only created social division but managed to wreck the economy in the process.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce (Gordon): As revealed in the diaries of my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) in The Sunday Times last week, it appears that the Prime Minister considers that being effective at one's job is a qualification for the sack. Given the ineffectiveness of Government policies, inasmuch as half our air space is being privatised and 500,000 homes are being built in the south-east in spite of the protestations that there is no north-south divide, how much more effective does the Deputy Prime Minister have to be before the Prime Minister will consider it safe to fall under a bus, if he can find one?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot remember what I am supposed to have said about the hon. Gentleman according to the diaries, but I think that it may have been right, whatever it was. He should look at the policies that are being pursued. We are increasing transport expenditure. In relation to air traffic control, of course safety has to remain in the public sector. We are trying to strike the right balance between public and private finance to do the reconstruction work necessary to make our air traffic control system work properly. It is the same with the tube. Only under the Labour party's proposals does the private sector take the risk on construction contracts with the public sector running the essential service. It is called public-private partnership, and it is the right policy for the country.
    Shona McIsaac: Will my right hon. Friend assure the 3 million workers who are now entitled to four weeks' paid holiday a year that we will protect those rights to the utmost? The Conservative party has said that it would scrap them. It would also scrap the minimum wage and the 26 new rights at work that we have introduced. Is that not typical of a scrap heap Opposition? [Laughter.]
    The Prime Minister: Conservative Members can laugh as much as they like, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Come the next election, we will remind people that the Government introduced paid holiday and the Conservatives would take it away; that we introduced a minimum wage and they would scrap it; that we introduced the working families tax credit and they would take that away; and that the Conservatives opposed the extra increase in child benefit and are opposed to the £100 that pensioner households are receiving this week. I suspect that, when the Conservatives fight the next election on those policies, there may be a little less smiling.
    Mr. Graham Brady: Now that the Prime Minister has returned from his visit telling people in the north-west that there is no north-south divide, will he turn his attention to the very real divide in the provision for cancer services across the country? The Christie hospital in Manchester receives half the revenue funding that is given to the Royal Marsden, even though the two hospitals are the same size and do the same things for the same number of patients. Will he come up with the resources that the Christie needs to have its own intensive care unit, so that it can be declared a cancer centre for surgery for the north-west, which is the only region that does not have one?
    The Prime Minister: When the hon. Gentleman compares the Christie hospital with the Royal Marsden, anyone would think that this problem had suddenly appeared in the past two and a half years. We applaud the work that Christie hospital is doing, especially on cancer.
    Mr. John Hayes: It is not applause but money that it wants.
    The Prime Minister: I was asked to stop applauding and give money. It is being awarded—£4 million from the new opportunities fund for specialist cancer equipment. That is giving money.
    Mr. Jim Cousins: This Christmas, 500 dealers in the City of London will each receive bonuses of £1 million or more, whereas, as my right hon. Friend knows, every family in the north-east of England will be touched by the facts about poor health, low skills and poor opportunities which he set before the country this week. Will he assure all his many friends in the north that the formula for spending will reflect our needs and will enable the gap in health and hopes to be closed?
    The Prime Minister: Of course we want to remove the gap in health and the education inequalities that exist up and down the country. It is precisely for that reason that we have committed the £40 billion of extra spending. The new deal for school buildings will benefit thousands of schools, including many in our constituencies. Health inequality is undoubtedly linked to poor income levels. Poverty is one of the great factors in poor health. We are targeting these inequalities through our policies such as the new deal for the inner cities, which will put £800 million into some of the most deprived inner-city areas. We are tackling these issues at source, wherever they exist. I really believe that, whether it is north, south, east or west, that is the best way to do it.
    Mr. Shaun Woodward: The Prime Minister should know that, on 25 November, the director of nursing at Radcliffe infirmary in Oxford wrote to general practitioners in my constituency saying that there was now extreme pressure on the hospital, and asking them to slow down their rate of referral. A few days later, on 1 December, the director of nursing wrote again, saying that the hospital had now adopted the level 3 escalation procedure. Hon. Members may know, but others may not, that level 3 means that accident and
    824
    emergency cubicles are full, that an overwhelming number of patients are on trolleys and that patients can no longer readily be taken off ambulances.
    The Oxfordshire health crisis is severe, yet the Prime Minister, along with his Government, has overseen the closure of Burford community hospital. The chairman of the community health trust has resigned as a result. Will the Prime Minister listen? Will he keep the hospital open? At the very least, will he agree to review the matter personally?
    The Prime Minister: The decision about Burford was made by the local health authority. I understand the hon. Gentleman's unstinting support for the hospital, and I do not in any way diminish the point that he has made or the pressures that people are under. I witnessed some of those pressures when I visited a hospital in Manchester. We are trying to improve the situation by reducing the pressures, through new services such as NHS Direct, large amounts of additional funding and the recruitment of extra doctors and nurses—there are thousands more in the system than when we came to office. Improving the situation will take some time, however, because the accumulated problems are extremely serious.
    Helen Jones: In the context of the recent national debate on the way forward for health care, is the Prime Minister aware of events in Warrington? While the local hospital was modernising and improving its services, a private hospital that had been built in its grounds went bust and has now been bought by the NHS. Does the Prime Minister conclude from those events that the Tory plans to privatise health care are not only morally indefensible but economically illiterate? What would he say to the health care workers whose service was described by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) as thoroughly second rate?
    The Prime Minister: I congratulate everyone at Warrington hospital on the work that is being done there. We are trying to provide new services to make access to the health service easier. Yesterday and today alone, 1.5 million people have visited the service NHS Direct on-line, and nearly 1 million have now contacted NHS Direct.
    New services are being provided, but we understand the pressures that people are under. What would be disastrous is the Conservative plan—described as a Trojan horse policy by the Conservative health spokesman—which would mean that in non-urgent cases, including hip replacement cases, people would be forced to take out private insurance. Many simply could not afford to do that.
    Mr. William Hague: How much have the Government spent so far on the national changeover plan in preparing to join the euro?
    The Prime Minister: As we announced at the time, we will spend some tens of millions of pounds on that, but it is absolutely the right thing to do, ensuring that British business is prepared for something that will affect us in any event.
    Mr. Hague: The question was how much has already been spent on the national changeover plan. The Government are spending millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on preparing to join the euro early in the next Parliament, but they will not say how much has been spent. When challenged, the Northern Ireland Office gave details of the tens of thousands of pounds that it had already spent, but other Departments have been instructed not to do so.
    Yesterday, the Home Secretary said in the House:
    "Unnecessary secrecy in Government … has long been held to undermine good governance … and my party has long been committed to change."—[Official Report, 7 December 1999; Vol. 340, c. 714.]
    What is the ball park figure? What has been spent so far— £10 million, £20 million, £100 million?
    The Prime Minister: As I said a moment ago, when we announced the plan we said what the cost would be. [Interruption.] We announced what the cost would be, and people therefore know how much we will spend on the changeover plan. [Interruption.] People know how much we are going to spend. The issue is whether it is sensible to have a changeover plan. Our answer is that it is sensible, because otherwise we would not be in a position either to be prepared for the euro—which will affect business in this country—or to join the euro, even if the country voted for it later.
    Mr. Hague: Well, "people" evidently know how much we have spent so far. Will someone tell the Ministers in the Government where the people are who know the answer because Ministers are not able to provide the answer? Only the Northern Ireland Office is able to provide the answer—congratulations to the Northern Ireland Office.
    When the Governor of the Bank of England and the outgoing lord mayor of London speak of the City thriving outside the euro and the vast majority of people in this country want to keep the pound, is it not time to drop the Prime Minister's commitment in principle to join the euro and his commitment to make a decision early in the next Parliament? Then the cost of the national changeover plan can be reduced to zero.
    The Prime Minister: That is a fascinating example of the difference between the right hon. Gentleman's jokes, lines and gags and policy, because the two people he has mentioned—the Governor of the Bank of England and Lord Levene—are actually both in favour of the changeover plan. There is no point the right hon. Gentleman looking dazzled by that; it is true. Therefore, as ever with him, he can make as many smart comments as he likes, but, in the end, the question is: is it sensible to have the changeover plan or not? The two people whom he has just quoted support the changeover plan. They support the policy of prepare and decide. I quote the Governor of the Bank of England—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I have had enough of Members who are shouting from sedentary positions.
    The Prime Minister: The moment we move to policy, Conservative Members are disconcerted by it. They cannot work it out. The Governor of the Bank of England said:
    "This, in my view"—
    describing Government policy—
    "provides a solid foundation for a continuing, positive and constructive relationship between the United Kingdom and other EU member states, including those participating in … the euro."
    In other words, the policy that we have of prepare and decide is the right one. Why? Because, first, it will affect business. From 1 January 2002, those notes and coins will be in circulation. British businesses will be doing business in Europe, so to scrap it, which is the right hon. Gentleman's policy, would be absolute rubbish. When he gets back up, let him name one single business organisation that supports that. Secondly, it allows us—[Interruption.] Let him name one business organisation that supports that.
    Secondly, under prepare and decide, it gives us the option. He would rule out the option—if he is not going to have a changeover plan—for ever. That is, of course, where Margaret Thatcher and the new right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) are pushing him. What this country wants is not a Leader of the Opposition pushed around by those who want to take his job, but a Prime Minister who actually gets on with the job.
    Mr. Gwyn Prosser: Is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister aware that 39 towns have applied for special city status to celebrate the new millennium? Can he confirm that, overwhelmingly, the most coherent and convincing bid has come from Dover? Considering our proud history and our attractive gateway location and given that, in the British Isles, the very first sunshine of the new millennium will break over our famous white cliffs, does he agree that, on 1 January 2000, when Dover gets its special status, it will be the best reason for celebrating since we won the seat of Dover from the Tories on 1 May 1997?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly tell my hon. Friend that no one puts the case for Dover better than him. However, if I had to adjudicate between all the bids now, it would be very difficult. What is absolutely sure is that, while Dover and the Government are marching forwards into the 21st century, the Tories will be marching backwards.
    Mr. Robert Jackson: A very important decision will soon have to be taken on the next British synchrotron, and that decision will have big implications for future investment in big science and important implications for international collaboration. Will the Prime Minister take a personal interest in that important decision?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly will take a personal interest in it. As I explained to people in the north-west when I was asked about the project, in which they also have an interest, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is closely considering it, and I shall closely consider it, too. We will have to take the best decision in the interests of science and technology.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received a request from the Minister of Agriculture to make a statement on the catastrophic effect that the Intervention Board's decision—if it is allowed to stand—to remove from Devon the last over-30-month scheme abattoir would have on the farming industry and on animal welfare standards?
Madam Speaker: No, I have not. As the hon. Gentleman will know, if the Government intended to make such a statement, it would have been notified on the Annunciator by noon today.
Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, of which you have prior notice. In the light of uncertainty on the matter, Madam Speaker, I wonder whether you are able today to inform right, hon. and hon. Members whether the Palace of Westminster will be open on new year's eve.
Madam Speaker: A number of hon. Members have raised with me the issue of whether the House of Commons should be open on new year's eve for the benefit of hon. Members and their families. I have made a very clear decision that—apart from a party for family and friends in my private apartments, which I normally hold on new year's eve—the Commons should remain closed on that night. Separately, I understand that the Royal Gallery in the House of Lords will be used earlier in the evening for a Government function.
I have based my decision that the House should be closed on the grounds of safety, expense and—most of all—consideration for the staff of the House, who should be allowed to be with their own families on that night.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), the Prime Minister implied that he was responsible for expenditure, out of the new opportunities funds, on the Christie hospital, in Manchester, whereas the Prime Minister is responsible only—
Madam Speaker: Order. That is a matter of political argument and not for me. What is the hon. Gentleman's point of order, to me, which I might be able to resolve?
Mr. Blunt: I believe that the Prime Minister has inadvertently misled the House, Madam Speaker. What arrangements are there for him to be able to correct the record?
Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman believes that the House has been misled and wants to clear up what he thinks is an erroneous point, he must find other ways of asking the Prime Minister a question on it.

Opposition Day
[1st Allotted Day]
Opposition Day

  Tube Investment
  [Relevant documents: Seventh Report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Session 1997–98, on London Underground (HC 715-I) and the Government's response thereto (Cm 4093); Ninth Report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Session 1998–99, on the Integrated Transport White Paper (HC 32-I) and the Government's response thereto (HC 708).]
  Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.33 pm
  Mr. John Redwood: I beg to move,
  That this House regrets the Government's failure to raise private investment for the London Underground; condemns the cuts in investment in the Underground since they took office and the way their failure has squeezed other parts of the transport budget; recommends dropping the failed public private partnership, seeking more private money in another way; and calls on the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to take the necessary action now to expand all types of British transport capacity, including the Tube, so people are able to travel more easily and businesses can move their goods around efficiently; condemns the Secretary of State's failure to make crucial decisions to expand the mainline railway; regrets his decision to make the motorist a whipping boy for his own failure; urges him to follow planning policies which lessen the North South divide rather than worsen it, and which will encourage more people to live near town centres and their points of access to trains and buses rather than on greenfield developments; and concludes that the experiment in so-called joined-up Government between environment, transport and the regions has under this Secretary of State comprehensively failed.
  I have declared my interests in the register—including the fact that my wife works for British Airways—but I am not here to speak on behalf of those interests today. I am here to draw attention to the chaos and crisis that is the Government's transport policy.
  In the past two days, as I lay on my sick bed—[HON. Members: "Oh!"] I am glad that there is so much sympathy. As I lay on my sick bed, with a temperature as overheated as Labour's south-east plans and a chest as congested as Labour's road network, I had the one comfort of knowing that my headache was likely to pass in a couple of days, whereas the huge headache caused to the Government by their transport plans will not only be with us for a very long time, but will get worse and worse. The Government's transport policy is not working, cannot work and will never work. They said that all that they had to do was to tax and hound motorists off the road and they would then go by tube or train instead. After two and a half years of that ridiculous policy, there are more cars on the road, trying to make more journeys, and the policy now looks at if it is in complete chaos.
  The Government's transport policy has recently been given some go-faster stripes by the No. 10 Downing street spin doctors, but it is still stuck in standstill Britain—still caught in the same old traffic jam that the Government have deliberately created.

  829
  The Deputy Prime Minister has been forced to admit that traffic volumes cannot be cut when the economy is growing, so why did he come to office saying that he would do exactly that? Why does he persist in saying that there is an easy answer to get the motorist off the road, while doing nothing to provide that vital alternative that might give the motorist a better way of getting somewhere? It was a great Labour lie that the new Government would improve public transport. Two and a half years on, we see a group of Ministers wedded to their chauffeur-driven cars, busily slashing investment in the tube. Ministers may laugh, but they will not even answer my questions on how often they go to the office by tube or bus. We all know that they will not answer because the answer is never. The Secretary of State is wedded to his car and the Prime Minister is so wedded to his that he even uses the bus lane in it.
  Mr. Malcolm Savidge: How many members of the Conservative Government used to take the tube or bus to work regularly?
  Mr. Redwood: I used to walk to the office every time that I was in London. I have not seen the Secretary of State doing that.
  The Government are slashing investment in the tube and dodging all the important decisions on the railways. The Deputy Prime Minister has shown himself well able to arrange a chauffeured car to go just 250 yd downhill at Bournemouth. Will he try his organising skills on securing more investment in the tube so that Londoners can move around as easily? He has shown himself adept at planning a diving trip to the Maldives. Could he use some of that energy to expand the capacity of the Welwyn viaduct so that more people could come to London by train from the north? After his recent passage to India, could he do something to relieve the worst stretches of congested highway nearer to home? I wonder what India had done so to upset the Government that the Deputy Prime Minister was sent there to talk to them about how to run a transport system.
  Mr. Michael J. Foster: As a former cricketer, I shall try to bowl the right hon. Gentleman a nice slow one. Will he confirm a quotation from him in November 1996? He said:
  "We have gridlock. In many parts of the south-east the traffic queue from one junction runs into the queue for the next. The M25 regularly seizes up. Everyone tells me that something should be done."
  Given his other reputation as being not of this planet, will he tell NASA what he has done with its space probe?
  Mr. Redwood: I see that Walworth road has been working overtime with the hon. Gentleman. He clearly would not have thought of an intervention of his own. Labour cannot claim to have invented traffic jams, but it is clear that the Government have deliberately made them worse, longer lasting and more frequent on important stretches of road. The outgoing Government had road schemes that would have tackled those congestion problems, but this Government cancelled them. The outgoing Government had plans to bring in private capital for the tube and the railways, but this Government have put a spanner in the works. That is why they, not the previous Government, are to blame. Is it not about time
  830
  that the Government recognised that they are governing the country, two and a half years into their period of office?
  Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. Friend will know that a scheme in Weymouth was ready, with planning permission and everything else dealt with and approved by Labour and Liberal Democrat councils, and could have gone straight ahead under the private finance initiative when the Government came to power. After two and a half years, we are still waiting to know whether the scheme will go ahead. In the mean time, when Ministers have come, they have had to sit in traffic jams trying to get into Weymouth.
  Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend makes his point powerfully, underlining my point that the Government have made the chaos far worse, creating problems and then having the audacity to blame someone else.
  Ms Claire Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Redwood: No, I must make a little progress, because many people wish to speak.
  Only six miles out of every 100 travelled are journeys by train. If the Government woke up and decided to implement the 50 per cent. increase in railway capacity that is being suggested by the privatised industry, it would take care of only two years' growth in travel requirements. That is worth doing, and we recommend it, but it will not solve the problem of congestion. They need to sort out the road system as well as the railway system.
  The Deputy Prime Minister has had proposals from Railtrack sitting on his desk for two years now. They involve paying more for new facilities and less for what is already available. Why can he not make up his mind? Why will he not sit down with Railtrack and negotiate a satisfactory package? Does he not realise that he has become the chief obstacle to expanding the railway network?
  Many train travellers would like the Government to get on with the job and to make it easier for companies to run more trains. Will the Secretary of State tell us when there will be action on the Welwyn viaduct and when Paddington will be restored to capacity?
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman appears not to be giving way.
  Mr. Redwood: Does the Secretary of State accept that important engineering works are needed for the safe running of more trains into many of the main London terminuses? The Opposition recommend that the Government do a deal with Railtrack to ensure that the main bottlenecks in the network are dealt with by investment in extra track and signals. We urge the Government to let others into the network, building sidings and branch lines to give more businesses a rail freight option. It has started to happen thanks to privatisation; it now needs some encouragement from the Government. That is the common-sense approach.
  Mr. Bill Rammell: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that, on this crucial issue,

  831
  politicians should be judged by not what they say now but what they did when they were in government. Does he recall an article by Anatole Kaletsky, who writes for The Times and is hardly a friend of the Labour party, in the weeks before the general election saying that one of the issues that would force him to consider voting against the Conservative party was its complete contempt for the public interest in transport? Why does he think that Anatole Kaletsky wrote those words?
  Mr. Redwood: I do not agree with Mr. Kaletsky's judgment on that issue, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman lives up to his fine words. He signed the early-day motion against the Government's half-baked idea of selling off the National Air Traffic Services on the cheap. I trust that he will vote with his conscience, and then I will give him more credence.
  Mr. Martin Salter: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, while some Labour Members have a little local difficulty over the National Air Traffic Services, it is nothing that cannot be sorted out over some good old-fashioned beer and sandwiches? Does he acknowledge that what unites Labour Members is our determination to expose the appalling record of his Government, who scrapped schemes such as crossrail, made a hash of the channel tunnel rail link and deregulated our bus services with a resulting decline in bus usage? Does he accept that the best thing that he could do this afternoon is apologise for the record of his Government?
  Mr. Redwood: The Opposition are setting out some bold and innovative ideas which will make a real difference to the railway and road systems and to transport generally. Again, I look forward to the hon. Gentleman joining us in the Lobby when the issue of NATS is decided. We have strong objections to Labour's proposals. Some Labour Members, for different reasons, are equally strongly against them. We trust that they will do the right thing. I should be very surprised, however, if beer and sandwiches were on offer these days. I think it is Italian fare only for Tony's cronies at No. 10.
  Mr. Tony Clarke rose—
  Ms Ward rose—
  Mr. Redwood: I must now make some progress.
  The Deputy Prime Minister's attitude to Railtrack has perplexed and angered many an observer. First, he blamed Railtrack for the problems of the railway and then he made it the preferred single bidder to take over the Circle and District lines. Finally, he completed the summersault and stopped Railtrack bidding for those lines.
  It was never a good idea to burden Railtrack with responsibility for the tube. We warned the Deputy Prime Minister against it when he first thought of it. Railtrack will be stretched enough to raise all the money that it needs to improve the main line railway. The tube needs billions of pounds of investment in its own right. The Deputy Prime Minister's public-private partnership is two and a half years late, ruinously expensive and already a laughing stock.
  832
  A public-private partnership lies at the intersection of new and old Labour. The Deputy Prime Minister will point to the public part of it; he naively sees it as a way of spending public money without having the Treasury breathing down his neck. The Blairites point to the private part of it, stressing how new and third way it will be. As a result of the rows between the two schools of thought, nothing ever advances or gets better. Tube travellers have to put up with higher fares and an unreliable service. When it comes to transport investment, third way has so far meant no way.
  The two public-private partnerships on the Secretary of State's agenda—NATS and the tube—are causing endless rows between himself, No. 10 and the parliamentary Labour party, which supports him or the Prime Minister from time to time.
  The Deputy Prime Minister attracts more friendly fire than anyone in the Government, and that is saying quite a lot. I dislike the snobbish disdain that the teenage scribblers at the centre of this Government often seem to show for the Deputy Prime Minister. It does not make his difficult task any easier. I hope that Labour Members support me in this.
  We learn that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is eyeing up the Deputy Prime Minister's job. We hear that No. 10 is wild about the way in which the Deputy Prime Minister has upset the motorist. We hear of growing impatience about the lack of results from anything the Deputy Prime Minister touches. We are told by a trade union leader—[Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. The right hon. Gentleman can barely be heard.
  Mr. Redwood: We are told by a trade union leader that the Deputy Prime Minister is in the evening of his political career and, by sources close to the Prime Minister, that he is not up to the job.
  Ms Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Redwood: Not at the moment.
  Labour promised us joined-up government, which would be easier to achieve in a mega-Ministry. The Ministry could, for example, use its planning powers to ensure that more new homes were built in cities and towns, near to train and bus stations, rather than out on green fields near motorways and bypasses. That, in the Government's terms, would be joined-up government. Instead, we have broken-down government. They decide that more homes should be built as far away as possible from the Victorian pattern of railway lines and stations serving the main industrial towns and cities.
  The Government could use their planning policies to encourage a northern renaissance and to limit development in the south. That would remove some of the extra strain that will otherwise come on to trains, buses and tubes in the south. That would be joined-up government. Instead, we have broken-down government. They decide to plough on with more development in the south, even though there is not enough capacity at the moment to transport people who are already there.
  The Government could grasp that people do not use their cars out of malice or spite, but because often there is no alternative. It would be joined-up government to

  833
  have people drive to a station or bus stop and be able to park there. It is broken-down government to do absolutely nothing to make it easier for people to park and ride.
  Mr. John Bercow: Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that it is the greatest possible compliment to his continuing parliamentary effectiveness that, every time he leads a debate, the pre-programmed robots on the Labour Back Benches seek to destabilise him? Does he agree that it is an absolute disgrace that, last year alone, the Secretary of State clobbered the road user to the tune of £32 billion and spent less than a fifth of that sum on transport?
  Mr. Redwood: It is a disgrace.
  Mr. Ian Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Ms Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must be allowed to answer one intervention before he can take another.
  Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is absolutely right. One of the main reasons why this Government are in such chaos over transport is that they are robbing the motorist, but are not spending enough on transport industries. They either have to raise money from the private sector or they have to spend taxpayers' money. They cannot make up their minds, and they end up spending nothing.
  Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman says that there is no investment. What does he say to constituents in Salford who have seen the Government support the introduction of the metrolink?
  Mr. Redwood: One swallow does not make a summer, and there are occasional investments even from this mean Government. However, if one looks at the overall impact, it is simply too little, too late.
  Ms Ward: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. If he is so concerned about passengers on the railways, will he explain to the House why he is opposed to the introduction of the Strategic Rail Authority, which would ensure that there were tougher regulations on the rail companies and that the consumer got a better deal, with improved safety on our railways?
  Mr. Redwood: We oppose more bureaucracy, and we think that the railways need some decisions from this Government, so that the railway industry can get on and invest the massive sums that are clearly needed. The hon. Lady was so busy trying to intervene that she was not listening, but I have already said that there are crucial decisions that only the Secretary of State can take. Once they are taken, billions of pounds of new investment can be brought into the railway industry. However, the franchises need to be renegotiated with the train companies and Railtrack needs a better system of revenue so that there is a fairer balance between new and old capacity, which would make a big difference to its investment plans.
  834
  It is broken-down Government to stop people getting around. Indeed, in many cases, the Government make it much more difficult to park and ride, because in many towns and cities now one cannot drive easily into town even to park at the railway station. The Government tell us that they want an integrated transport policy. Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister could tell us today whether we yet have one, two and a half years into a Labour Government who said that it was one of their most important policies. Or is that integrated transport policy as delayed as the tube public-private partnership? His idea of an integrated transport policy seems to be a lay-by on the A1 where he can swap Jaguars as he speeds south.
  Today's news from the Rowntree Foundation that the gap between rich and poor has started growing again under this Labour Government is further proof that Labour is not working. We were promised a year of delivery. Labour told us that it would make things fairer by helping the less well-off into work. Instead, it has followed policies that have decimated jobs in northern manufacturing areas and stimulated jobs in the southern service economy. That has made its transport problems so much the worse.
  The Government have become expert only at making rhetorical U-turns. Clobbering the motorist proved unpopular, so now we are told that they are the motorist's friend. Meanwhile, the Government still pile on extra taxes and make it much more difficult to drive around. If the Opposition had not stood up for the motorist, would we ever have been told that a change of language was needed? If the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph had not championed the motorist's cause, would we now be hearing warmer words about the car? Cutting all the bypasses and road improvements the Government inherited proved so unpopular that we are now promised a review. Which of the 103 bypasses and road improvement schemes that the Deputy Prime Minister scrapped will he now definitely reinstate?
  Today it is time for the Deputy Prime Minister to give us some answers. He has created standstill Britain and it is time that he found ways to get us back on the move.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Redwood: I shall not take any interventions for the next section of my speech. I hope that the House will listen carefully, because I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister would like to hear my questions. The nation will regard those questions as fair, and the press and the wider public deserve answers. Let us see how we get on.
  When does the Deputy Prime Minister expect to reach agreement on his latest version of the public-private partnership for the tube? How much money is he planning to make available in the meantime to improve the tube? When will investment on the tube get back up to the levels of the last few years of the Conservative Government, and why has he cut it so much? Will his private-public partnership make air-conditioning available on trains as our Londoners tube scheme would have done? Will his public-private partnership enable him to build the Chelsea-Hackney line, as our Londoners tube scheme would have done? As it is unlikely to do any of those things, why does not the Deputy Prime Minister adopt our scheme, which would deliver much-needed large increases in investment at no cost to the public accounts?

  835
  What is the Deputy Prime Minister's estimate of the fees and charges he has incurred, and will incur, putting together his public-private partnership? Has he apologised to Railtrack for wasting £20 million of its much-needed money on preparing a bid for the tube, which he has now deliberately blocked? Does he realise that our Londoners tube scheme, which would sell shares and give free shares to all Londoners, could be allied to a bond issue by the new companies that would raise large sums for the tube? Will he rule out bond issues for his version of the public-private partnership? Would he confirm that, because he is not selling a majority of the shares in the tube, any bond issue he wanted would count as public spending and the Treasury would continue to block him from doing that?
  On the railways, will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us when he intends to meet Railtrack to respond to the company's plans for incentive payments to provide more capacity? How long will it take to negotiate new franchises with all the train operating companies so that they can get on with the important task of investing in more and newer trains?
  When will the right hon. Gentleman take seriously the question of car parking arrangements at rail and tube stations? Does he understand that better car parking is crucial to persuading more people to get out of their cars? When will he start to remove the many impediments placed in the way of drivers trying to get into town and city centres, some of whom want to get into town so that they can park at the station?
  When will the Deputy Prime Minister announce that building 550,000 new homes on the green fields of the south-east would be wrong from every point of view—wrong on grounds of transport and of planning, and wrong because it would make the north-south divide worse?
  Will the right hon. Gentleman today rule out the possibility of a foreign company, especially one influenced or controlled by a foreign Government, buying our air traffic services on the cheap for a knock-down price? [Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. I have a lot of good will, and especially at this time of year, but some hon. Members are making great nuisances of themselves. If they persist, I shall have to name them. I know exactly who they are, and I now ask for proper order in the House.
  Mr. Redwood: When will the Deputy Prime Minister be able to announce some signed contracts for new road schemes? How much extra money is he making available for roads over the next two years, in view of the big cuts that he has made so far and the U-turn that was announced for him by No. 10? Will he explain why, after two and half years, investment in public transport is down, while the volume of traffic is up, and congestion and taxes have risen?
  The Government have failed to provide the public transport that we need so that we can have a choice. They have presided over an opening up of the north-south gap. They watch helpless as thousands of dynamic and talented people come south, and all the Prime Minister can do is tell us on the radio from Merseyside that there are a few rich places in the north as well.
  836
  The Prime Minister and his deputy show how one can go from Jags to riches by coming south. When will they do something to help the people whom they are paid to represent? Their transport policy is rip-off Britain. The motorist is fleeced at the pump, the British haulier is taxed off the road, the tube traveller has to pay ever-higher fares, and less than one fifth of the money collected from road users is spent on transport.
  The Government are the biggest rip-off merchants in Britain. They are the masters of stealth taxes and the muggers of the motorist. We need a big expansion of capacity in transport. We have shown how private money can modernise the tube and expand the railway, while at the same time leaving us cash to spend on bypasses and road improvements.
  When will the Government realise that they must take action now to avoid total gridlock in the years ahead? That requires big new money, which must come either from free enterprise or from the taxpayer. The third way is much delayed: it is in grave danger of being completely cancelled.
  3.58 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the Government's approach for an Integrated Transport Strategy; deplores the previous Government's record of under-investment in transport, fragmentation of bus and rail services and encouragement of ill-planned out-of-town development; in particular condemns their erratic investment in London Underground, which left a £1.2 billion backlog; welcomes the Government's long-term strategy to secure over £8 billion investment for upgrading London Underground over the next 15 years; deplores the official Opposition's plans to privatise London Underground; and welcomes the Government's commitment to an extra £1.8 billion for public transport and local transport plans, improving road maintenance, reducing pollution, and encouraging the major investment needed to widen transport choice.".
  I do not think that that speech was worth coming back for. Have I come all this way to hear a vote of no confidence based on a speech of such poor quality? I should have stayed in India.
  In passing, I note that the Leader of the Opposition has chosen to make some remarks about India. I thought that they were rather insulting to the largest democracy in the world, and to its people. Discussions of climate change problems are the big picture where transport is concerned. We have nothing but respect for the Government of India. The remarks made by the Opposition are terrible and should be withdrawn.
  My expert advisers tell me that, of all the trees in the world, the densest is the redwood. The speech by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) certainly lived up to that reputation.
  When this debate was announced, the right hon. Gentleman toured the studios and briefed the newspapers, saying that he would table a vote of no confidence. As there is no such vote in the motion, I assume that he did not have the support of the Leader of the Opposition. Or perhaps he examined the record and bottled out: he realised that he could not justify a vote of no confidence. Nothing in his speech today could justify the motion. There was an awful lot in it comparing records, and I intend to address that.

  837
  In July, The Times described the right hon. Gentleman's new transport policy as
  "a blast of stale air."
  It referred to muddled thinking, uncosted plans, contradictory statements and "cheap populism". Five months later, the same judgment can be applied to the right hon. Gentleman's speech today. The phrase "shameless opportunism" sums it up. The right hon. Gentleman's opportunism is not just limited to transport—on the day I heard him on the radio accusing the Government of betraying the coal industry, I really learned the meaning of the word. And playing party politics with the Paddington tragedy was beneath contempt. Thankfully, that was rejected by the Leader of the Opposition. Today's motion is another example of opportunism and hypocrisy.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government have done nothing to improve transport. Let us compare the record of the Tory Administration, in office for 18 years, with that of this Government, who have been in office for two and a half years. The Opposition's last spending plans, published in their Red Book, would have cut almost £1 billion from transport expenditure over the past two years. In 18 years, the Tories fragmented our national railway system in a cut-price privatisation that planned for stagnation, and then sold the system off cheap. They introduced competition and left us with deteriorating services heading for decline. That is the common judgment on the privatisation of the railway system. The previous Government also failed to take a decision on train protection systems in the nine years after Clapham. [Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Miss Kirkbride, do you want to intervene? If not, keep quiet.
  Mr. Prescott: In other words, shut up and listen.
  Just two and a half years into a Labour Government, more than 1,000 extra train services run each day. We have taken a decision on train protection and created the Strategic Rail Authority to look after the public interest and lever in the investment that the right hon. Gentleman talks about. And we have appointed a regulator with a bite as well as a bark, by providing extra powers to ensure that the promises made by Railtrack and other bodies are carried out. The regulator told me that he did not have those powers before, and that is why I made those changes.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Prescott: In a second. The Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, rail users, train companies and everyone else all welcome the Strategic Rail Authority—except the right hon. Gentleman, who has apparently dragged his party along with him, Conservative Members on the Select Committee having previously supported our proposition. The right hon. Gentleman wants to know about crucial decisions on main line railways. How many times—
  Mr. James Gray: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Prescott: Sit down and listen to the record. The Tories have accused the Labour Government of doing nothing.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Prescott: Oh, sit down.
  Mr. Jenkin rose—
  Mr. Gray: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker: I think that it is probably a point of frustration, but I shall hear it.
  Mr. Gray: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have the honour to serve on the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned what I have said on that Committee, but he will not give way so that I may correct his mistake.
  Madam Speaker: As I understand it, the Secretary of State is saying that he wishes to make some progress and will give way later.
  Mr. Prescott: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Select Committee's record is there for all to see. I intend to continue to explore the record on the charges made against us.
  Investment in the railways has been mentioned. How many times did the Tories announce the start of the west coast main line renewal during their 18 years in office? How many times did they do nothing? That renewal is happening now. Railtrack has let contracts worth nearly £800 million for the first phase of the upgrade. The right hon. Member for Wokingham asked why I had not agreed that. This afternoon, the European investment bank has announced a £400 million loan to help finance it.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Prescott: No. The Tories are going to hear about their record. They may not like it, but they are going to get it.
  In 18 years, the Tories—
  Mr. John Townend: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Prescott: Just listen. The Opposition have a lot to learn. In their 18 years, the Tories deregulated buses.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Prescott: Passenger numbers went down by a third.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Madam Speaker: Order. Please sit down, Mr. Jenkin.
  Mr. Prescott: They are going to hear it this time.

  839
  Under the Tories, many villages lost their bus services; in just two and a half years, Labour has reversed the decline and created 1,800 new and improved rural services. In their 18 years, the Tories spent more than £70 billion on roads, but car per mile usage rose from 70 to 100—a 40 per cent. rise. Yet the right hon. Member for Wokingham has the audacity to talk about congestion.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Prescott: I am giving nothing.
  The official roads survey of 1997 found that the condition of Britain's roads was the worst since records began in the 1970s. So after the Tories had spent £70 billion on them, the roads were at their worst since records began. Their legacy was potholes and disinvestment. There was one innovation of course—they gave us the cones hotline.
  In only two and a half years, Labour has increased spending on road maintenance by 20 per cent. The shadow Secretary of State claims to be the motorist's friend, and says that we have imposed a tax on the motorist. But his Administration introduced the automatic fuel duty escalator from 1993. The Labour Government, in only two and a half years, has ended the fuel duty escalator.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Prescott: In a second.
  In addition, any future real increase from fuel duty will be hypothecated to roads and public transport for the first time. No other Government have done that, and I hear nothing from the Opposition about it. Would they adopt such hypothecation?
  Mr. Jenkin: I wish to place on the record my contempt for the Secretary of State's remarks about my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who has never sought to bring safety into party politics. It was the Secretary of State's remarks that lowered the tone of the debate on rail safety.
  The Conservative Government invested far more in roads than the present Government are investing.
  If the right hon. Gentleman is claiming to have stopped the automatic fuel duty escalator, will he now promise, on behalf of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor, that, in the next Budget, there will be no fuel duty increases over and above inflation?
  Mr. Prescott: In relation to safety, it was the right hon. Member for Wokingham who appeared on television, within hours of the crash, suggesting that the issue was one for Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am afraid that it is a matter of record. I do not want to betray confidences, but the right hon. Gentleman knows what I am saying to be true.
  Mr. Jenkin rose—
  Mr. Prescott: I am trying to answer the hon. Gentleman's first intervention. [Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Prescott: It is also a matter of fact—the record is available for all to see—that the previous Administration admitted that the introduction of train protection was a cost consideration.
  Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that the Government mounted an incredible media operation to dump the blame for the crash on Railtrack. [Interruption.] Everybody in the rail industry knows that he was keen to shift the blame. Let us put that behind us and ensure that rail safety is discussed in a level-headed and calm fashion, as I know that he and I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham would want.
  Mr. Prescott: It was not me who undermined Railtrack; it was the report of the Health and Safety Commission, which suggested that there was a conflict of interest in Railtrack dealing with safety as well as providing and operating the rest of the railway service. That was also the conclusion—I believe that it was unanimous—of the Transport Sub-Committee which also concluded that there was a conflict of interest. The previous Government were warned about this by the then Opposition, but they took no notice—I am now trying to correct that fatal mistake on safety. I shall take no lectures on safety from the Opposition.
  The Opposition's claim to be the friend of the motorist is certainly not borne out. To answer the question about fuel duty increases put by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin)—[Interruption.] Opposition Members should recall the Chancellor's statement to the House. My right hon. Friend said that he would end the automatic fuel duty escalator; that is our position. However, my right hon. Friend offered the proposition that, if there was an agreement to increase that tax above the rate of inflation, that money—[Interruption.] As I understand it, for years, most of the motoring organisations have been asking why the money raised from the duty does not go into transport. The Chancellor has offered another opportunity—if the demand is there—for that money to be hypothecated for roads and public transport. That is what my right hon. Friend has done and it is clear—[Interruption.]
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Prescott: When money comes up, it certainly brings them up. I want to make some progress; I have given way enough—I have certainly given way more than the right hon. Member for Wokingham did.
  After 18 years of Government, the Tories published a Green Paper in which they supported congestion charging. They produced a reasonable analysis of transport and, in our White Paper, I incorporated the consultations reported in their Green Paper. There was a consensus that we needed to improve the quality of public transport, because we simply could not build our way out of the problem. The Green Paper made it clear that congestion charging and parking charges should be considered. The Tories did

  841
  not say that they would introduce the charges—they did not have the courage to do that—but they suggested them as a possibility.
  I am prepared to accept that the previous Administration realised that spending £70 billion on the roads did not reduce congestion, but increased it by 40 per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "What are you doing?"] We are switching priorities to make public transport more attractive, so that people will make it their choice instead of using private cars.
  Those were the conclusions reached by the Tories. In two and half years, the Labour Government have grasped the issue, legislated for it and brought about a radical change—one that is now supported by every leading candidate for the mayor of London, including one possible Tory one—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Ken Livingstone: I, too, do not think that the Deputy Prime Minister needed to come back for this debate.
  Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that there is a huge consensus, not just among mayoral candidates but among the general public and the business community, in support of the congestion charge that he has described to the House and for which he will legislate? There is a concern, however, that, as the congestion charge is introduced, somebody in the Treasury may take a chance to reduce the transport grant to London. Could my right hon. Friend set those fears at rest by giving a categorical undertaking that that will not happen?
  Mr. Prescott: We have made it clear that there will not be a reduction in other grants and we have made it clear that any congestion charging has to be transparent and directed towards public transport improvements. That is written into the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and it will be written into the Bill that I shall bring before the House. It is additionality, and I think very important additionality.
  Where I disagree with my colleague on this matter is that he seems to believe that such charging can be introduced in a year or two. Reports suggest that it cannot be done for three or four years, but things might move faster if my hon. Friend became the mayor of London—I do not know. I suspect that charging has more to do with filling that old gap in the public financing of the London underground.
  All the mayoral candidates agree about the charge. Every one of them, from the Liberal Democrat candidate to my colleagues who are standing in the election, has chosen congestion charging because it will provide an extra source of income to make up the difference in the London underground system. We will have some debates about that as the process goes on.
  Mr. Redwood: Can we just check a little more on this promise, which has been half given to the House? Will the Secretary of State tell us how much money he is guaranteeing from public funds from his budget for the London underground for the years 2000–01 and 2001–02?
  Mr. Prescott: I will give a statement on that at the appropriate time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] There is nothing clever in that. We are putting our public expenditure in place over three years and we are in the process of
  842
  negotiating the second round of that. It is then that we shall make a decision about resources; there is nothing new about that.
  Mr. Redwood: Does that not prove the point that there is no guarantee at all? It is not even written on a worthless piece of paper. The Secretary of State does not even know whether he has got any money to let the London underground have in the next two years. We cannot believe a word of the claim that the hypothecated money will make all the difference. It is quite obvious that the right hon. Gentleman will be stitched up by the Treasury.
  Mr. Prescott: The right hon. Gentleman seems to forget that we are negotiating the whole public-private partnership for the underground, which will bring investment in on a more sustained level over a longer period than any other Government of either party has been able to achieve. It is a bit much for the right hon. Gentleman to talk about investment in the underground when the sum that he had in his Red Book was £161 million even though £700 million a year was supposed to be available for investment in the underground. I shall come to the right hon. Gentleman's other point in a second.
  The right hon. Gentleman has changed his mind a number of times since he became the Conservative party's spokesman on the subject. On congestion charging—
  Mr. John Wilkinson rose—
  Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman should fight his election campaign outside the House.
  The right hon. Member for Wokingham does not think that it is right for people to pay charges that will finance public transport and better roads. To be fair, he has made that clear in the House and in the debate. However, from what I hear of his statement, he is apparently quite happy for people to pay tolls on private roads. That money will go into private pockets, and he thinks that he can build roads quickly.
  I was interested in the remark, "Going private will get it all speeding along and will open up the business." May I give the right hon. Gentleman a good example of what the Opposition did when they were in government and embarked upon the private sector fast-track for the Birmingham northern relief road? It was Tory Government in a nutshell.
  The project saw the light of day in 1980, just after the Tories had come to office. First, it was in the public sector, but they took it out of that because, they said, they were putting it on the fast track. Then it was put in the private sector, and not an inch of the road had been built by the time they left office in 1997. Seventeen years is a fast track for the private financing of roads—cor blimey!
  I will give the right hon. Gentleman fast track: it took me less than three months to decide to get on with it, and we will begin building the road next year. That is in the first two and a half years of a Labour Government. [Interruption.] The Tories' charges are totally untrue.
  I turn now to something that is near to my heart—the shipping industry. In 18 years, the Tories decimated the British shipping industry. We were an island nation with barely a British-registered fleet. We lost more than 1,000 ships. In two years, Labour has reversed the decline

  843
  through the tonnage tax proposals and shown what can be done. All types of ship—including containers, cruise liners and tankers—are coming back to the British flag, and, with a doubling of the fleet tonnage in 12 months, the red duster now flies with pride. We told the right hon. Member for Wokingham that we could do it, and we have done it.
  Instead of the cuts in transport spending by the previous Administration, we have provided an extra £1.8 billion for public transport and roads, including £700 million for the local transport plans, £300 million more for buses, £300 million more for railways on top of the annual subsidy of £1 billion, and £400 million extra for roads.
  The best vote of confidence in the Government's transport strategy has come from the transport industry itself. It realises that Labour is here for a long time and that it has a long-term strategy. Rail companies have increased their private investment by one third, to nearly £2 billion a year. Bus companies have doubled their investment to £400 million a year; and overall private sector investment is up to £4.4 billion, compared with £3 billion three years ago. We can make public-private partnerships work—and the industry welcomes them—even though they failed under the previous Administration.
  On planning, I am staggered when I hear some of the charges made by the right hon. Member for Wokingham. I am surprised that he wants to drag planning policy into the Opposition motion. He made a quick reference to that and moved on, and I was not surprised. In 18 years, the Tories allowed an explosion of out-of-town shopping centres. The number rose from 450 in 1986 to 1,000 in 1997. Who was in the Department of the Environment during that period? It was the right hon. Member for Wokingham. If ever there was a case for combining the Department of the Environment with the Department of Transport, the Tories' planning decisions on out-of-town development prove it singlehandedly.
  The right hon. Member for Wokingham's remarks about the north-south divide were opportunist. They are the latest example of such opportunism. The Tories invented the divide between the north and south to which he referred. The right hon. Gentleman is now showing concern for the disparity that his party created and then widened in its 18 years in government.
  In two years, Labour has introduced regional development agencies. [Interruption.] Hang on and listen. The Opposition now want to abolish them—is that right?
  Mr. Redwood indicated assent.
  Mr. Prescott: Good. They would deny the English regions all the advantages that development agencies have given Scotland and Wales, which have enabled them to reduce the disparity between them and the English regions. The right hon. Gentleman would deny that opportunity to the English regions. I hope that he will make that very clear come the election.
  The right hon. Gentleman made the point that more money should be available for London. Let us look at the Tory record on London. After 18 years, the Tories left London Underground with massive under-investment, a £1.2 billion backlog and a hopeless contract for the
  844
  Jubilee line extension which starved the rest of the system of investment. The crazy contract for the Jubilee line which was negotiated by the previous Administration means that the project is now two years overdue and £1.23 billion over budget. We had to correct that crazy judgment.
  In 1989, the Tories produced the central London rail study. I thought that it was quite a good study and would lead to something. Eight years later, when they left office, what did we have? The Chelsea-Hackney line was just a line on the map, and the right hon. Member for Wokingham is asking me why I have not finished it in two and a half years. Crossrail is in the long grass. The Jubilee line extension is a shambles, and Thameslink 2000 is going nowhere.
  After two years, Labour has established the Strategic Rail Authority, which is already beginning to have an effect and getting a firm grip on all the complexities of integrating the national rail system and the underground system. We have rescued the Jubilee line and the collapsing channel tunnel rail link. When I took office, I was told, "You will have to pay £1 billion more as we are giving in the keys." I said, "Leave them on the table. I will not be exploited and I will not ask for £1 billion more." I renegotiated the contract and we did not pay the extra £1 billion. The scheme is now on budget, on time and with Railtrack. I am grateful for any good job that is done. When in government, the right hon. Member for Wokingham did not make a proper decision and put a lousy contract together. Labour has rescued the project in two and a half years.
  I shall announce tomorrow that the Thameslink 2000 project, which was delayed for many years by the Tories, is ready to go before a public inquiry. We can now get on with that. We have launched the process of public-private partnership to modernise the tube. That is the legacy that we shall leave for London in the coming elections. We have invested more than £5.5 billion, which the London mayor will inherit. We are proud to pass that legacy to the people of London. We are to be contrasted with a Government who stole control of their transport system. [Interruption.] What we are doing is better than giving the money to shareholders, and it reflects good judgment as regards public accountability.
  The Conservative Government chopped and changed London Underground investment grant year by year. Each year, they announced funding plans for the next three years, but London Transport hardly ever received what the Tories promised. The result was predictable: the massive £1.2 billion backlog in tube investment that we face today. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission—
  Mr. Gray: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Prescott: Let me deal with the point.
  The MMC, which was set up by the Conservative Government in 1991, examined London Underground financing, recognised the decline in services and ordered an inquiry. It said that £7 billion was needed over the next 10 years and at least £700 million a year in core investment. That is not for the Jubilee line but for core investment. What did the Tories do? After one year of

  845
  increased spending during 1993-94, they cut support to £200 million and continued the disinvestment. The previous chairman of London Transport, who was appointed by the Conservative Government, said:
  "Vital investment in the Underground will have to be put on hold because of a one third cut in Government grant … The cuts mean that hundreds of modernisation schemes have been placed in jeopardy."
  That is precisely what I inherited and the difficulties that have to be dealt with now stem from that.
  Mr. Townend rose—
  Mr. Richard Ottaway: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way.
  Mr. Prescott: I have not.
  Mr. Townend: Will my hon. Friend give way to me?
  Mr. Ottaway: No. Sit down. When the right hon. Gentleman's public-private partnership—
  Mr. Townend: The right hon. Gentleman is frightened.
  Mr. Ottaway: Just shut up, will you?
  Madam Speaker: Order. That is my job.
  Mr. Ottaway: I apologise.
  When the right hon. Gentleman has his public-private partnership in place, will he still need Government subsidy or will the operating profit cover the cost of the investment of the PPP?
  Mr. Prescott: That is a reasonable question. I shall make an announcement about a report in a moment or two. The hon. Gentleman will be able to see the Price Waterhouse report. This is an important matter and we want more information about the public debate. I intend to provide that information today. The hon. Gentleman was the Opposition's spokesman when the Greater London Authority Bill was being considered in Committee. He had the honesty to admit that insufficient resources were going into London Underground and that something had to be done. That is a reflection of the previous Administration's record. However, the hon. Gentleman is not on his own in that respect. Even the hon. Member for North Essex was moved to confess:
  "We did not do enough for the tube—I would be the first to acknowledge that".—[Official Report, 27 January 1999; Vol. 324, c. 436.]
  [Interruption.] We can argue about what we are doing now, but not enough was done by the previous Administration.
  Mr. Jenkin: Our plan is to release capital into the tube by putting it into the private sector. In the last three years of the Conservative Government, we invested £3 billion in the tube. In the right hon. Gentleman's first three years, he will have invested slightly more than half that sum.
  Mr. Prescott: That is not true. The hon. Gentleman is using a calculation of public and private investment. He seeks to differ from me on public and private and then
  846
  amalgamates the figures. He admitted in January that the previous Administration did not do enough. The point about disinvestment is right, and that is what I have to deal with. We can argue about the best way of raising the money and whether to privatise the tube. Looking back at the privatisation of rail, the sale of rolling stock companies—ROSCOs—and the sale of our assets at a loss of billions of pounds to the taxpayer, I do not have great hopes of anything that the Conservatives would sell if they came to power.
  We know exactly what the Conservatives were planning from their Red Book—a cut to £161 million this year.
  Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Prescott: No. The previous Administration proposed £161 million this year for tube investment. We are providing £760 million—four times as much—in investment in the tube for the year of comparison.
  Mr. Gray rose—
  Mr. Prescott: I must move on—my time is almost up.
  Just as important, we have levered in an extra £170 million investment through the private finance initiative this year, bringing the committed total to more than £1 billion. We need a stable long-term investment programme, which our public-private partnership will provide.
  I hope that both sides of the House will agree with one point: the Treasury rules that apply to the funding of our public sector industry do not guarantee long-term financing. That is one of the major critiques of financing by the state. At times, public sector industry competes with schools and hospitals for funding, and I believe that education and health should take priority. It is a public expenditure priority problem. A contract for investment, rather than a decision taken by politicians, will ensure investment over a longer period. To avoid disastrous consequences for the long-term development of the underground, I want it to cease to be a political football.
  There are various choices for funding the underground. We can leave it as it is, with public sector financing. That creates serious difficulties. There is the public bond option, which is currently the subject of debate and unites several candidates for mayor.
  There is no magic in bonds. I have used them in certain cases. Private bonds were used in the case of the channel tunnel, and on the London docklands. A judgment must be made as to whether bond financing would suit the circumstances of the underground. It is a matter of how much can be earned on the income stream and how much investment can be obtained. To assist the House, the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, which has just been published, is available in the Library, so hon. Members can study the arguments.
  According to PricewaterhouseCoopers, if bonds had been used to fund the Jubilee line extension, we would have been faced with a bill of £1.5 billion to meet the cost overrun. The report makes interesting reading, and I invite hon. Members to read it carefully.
  Ultimately, as the House knows, the judgment must be made against the public sector comparator. That is what we are required to do. The PricewaterhouseCoopers

  847
  document informs the debate and gives a clear steer that the PPP is the right choice. It would save £4.5 billion, which could be spent on education, health and other priority needs. That is the public expenditure priority problem.
  What PPP really stands for is: publicly owned, in which I have always believed, publicly run and properly financed. Once the assets have been modernised by the private sector, they will be returned to the public sector as a fully publicly owned and operated facility.
  Mr. Ian Bruce rose—
  Mr. Prescott: I cannot give way. I am taking up the time of the House.
  In conclusion, in place of 18 years of Tory indecision, underinvestment, fragmentation and a declining public transport system, we are fundamentally changing its direction.
  Miss Julie Kirkbride: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Prescott: In our White Paper, the first for 20 years, we set out our vision, with legislation—now before the House—to provide new powers, radical new forms of finance, a new framework for public transport and accountability to the public.
  Mr. Owen Paterson rose—
  Mr. Prescott: Doing nothing is not an option. I am not promising the quick fixes that the House has heard from time to time. I am offering and delivering long-term solutions and making decisions, controversial as they are. We will have a transport system that is well worth supporting. I will not offer quick fixes, as did successive Secretaries of State for Transport, who for years ducked the controversial issues and refused to face up to them. A transport revolution, to build a fully integrated transport system of the quality that this country needs and deserves, is what I shall be offering to the people.
  I hope that the right hon. Member for Wokingham will reflect that, in marching up the hill with his confidence vote and climbing down again in humiliation, he has exposed the shameless opportunism and lack of judgment that the Opposition show in so many areas.
  4.35 am
  Mr. Michael Portillo: It is only in politics that one has the opportunity to be a maiden twice over. I first entered this House following a by-election just before Christmas in 1984 in the wake of the death of a Conservative Member. I enter it again today in very similar circumstances. I have to be acutely aware that I am here today only because of the untimely death of Alan Clark.
  Alan Clark is greatly missed in Kensington and Chelsea, where he had many friends and was regarded as a very fastidious Member of Parliament. He is also very much missed in the House. We are told that, these days, the public like their politicians to have a hinterland, and Alan Clark had acres of that. He shocked and entertained
  848
  millions of people by writing about that hinterland in his diaries. Those diaries became best-sellers, and Alan Clark became a national figure.

  In the diaries, there emerged a picture of a man who was frank, outspoken, sure of himself and candid. He came to the House to do what we are elected to do; he thought for himself and spoke up. The sympathy of the whole House goes to his widow, Jane, for her very untimely loss.
  I have a very demanding constituency; I have no doubt about that. It is home to many of the movers and shakers in our nation, particularly in business, media and arts. It also has some of this country's great institutions. It has the museums of south Kensington, the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, the Royal Marsden and the Royal Brompton hospitals—great national institutions indeed. The constituency is also one of villages and communities, where people live among wonderful heritage. They are determined to work and fight for the retention of their way of life and the character of their community.
  Many of the statistics on Kensington and Chelsea would lead one to believe that it is a very affluent area, but it also has its range of problems. We certainly have a fair number of refugees living in bed-sitting rooms along the Cromwell road; we certainly have a number of homeless people. I am here as the representative of all those people, too.
  We also have many elderly people living in leasehold property who are struggling against unscrupulous landlords. Many are facing the expiry of their lease and demands from freeholders for sums of money that they cannot possibly afford. They are living in great anxiety. Those people were promised a great deal by this Government, and they have been duped by this Government. No legislation on the subject of leasehold reform has been forthcoming. I shall fight in this House to ensure that the Government are shamed into acting on their promises.
  What can my constituents expect from me? I have here an item that has been brought to me from Australia. It is an inflatable cushion, which is known simply as "Portillo". The House might be interested in some of its characteristics.
  "Portillo for unrivalled comfort … Portillo for ease and convenience … Portillo has 1001 uses"
  and some advice for the Government—
  "Grab Portillo in the palm of right hand, inserting thumb into opening and grip firmly".
  Perhaps that advice was intended for those on this side of the House. The instructions contain a warning to hon. Members:
  "The rolled-up Portillo is simple to have bounce back to its full size and shape."
  I want to speak about transport, and I declare an interest because I am an adviser to two energy companies. All the candidates in the by-election discovered that it was almost impossible to find voters at home and that the only way of finding them was by going to the underground in the morning during the rush hour and catching a blurred glimpse of commuters as they rushed past. My constituency is full of underground stations and commuters. Those people have been deceived by the Labour party. As I shall demonstrate, there has been no extra investment in the underground; indeed, the Labour Government have invested less in it. Although the system is crowded, there are no proposals for new additions to it.

  849
  People become especially indignant when Ministers are completely out of touch with commuters' daily experience. Ministers talk about driving people out of their cars as though the public transport system were running empty. They talk as if people were driving cars out of sheer bloody-mindedness. That is not so. Many drive because the public transport system is crowded and unreliable, yet the Labour Government have not proposed any additional capacity.
  The Government's only achievement is the creation of a privilege lane on the M4. I call it that because commuters who are stuck in a jam every morning see plutocrats—perhaps donors to new Labour—whizzing by in taxis. The bus lane is misnamed; a bus is hardly ever seen in it. Anyone who believes Government statistics that claim to show that traffic is moving on the M4 should be put into a home for people who believe the Government's statistics. I am keeping an eye on the bus lane, which is currently for "buses and taxis only", and awaiting the day when it is for "buses, taxis and ministerial cars only".
  I was Transport Minister for two years. [Interruption.] Oh yes, and I am extremely proud of the previous Government's record. We ordered the Jubilee line extension, and we built the docklands light railway, which we extended to Lewisham and Tower Hill. We put the trams into Manchester, Sheffield and Croydon, and extended the railway system to Stansted and Heathrow airports. We electrified the east coast main line, and caused the channel tunnel to be built. The Government have not made a single public transport announcement. That is a disgrace.
  We had a vision for London. We planned to relieve the congestion in the west of London and on the M4 corridor by building new rail and road links to the east. We built many new river crossings across the Thames in the east so that we could bring prosperity to east London. Yet, with all those new rail links, Ministers will travel to the dome on new year's eve by car—another snub to the public transport user. What is the Deputy Prime Minister's vision for London? The Government have no such vision.
  Government investment in the underground has been lower than in any year under the Conservative Government. The Deputy Prime Minister tried to shrug that off by talking about the money that went into the Jubilee line, as if our investment in it was worthy of condemnation. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman will listen, I can tell him that, even excluding the money that we invested in the Jubilee line, in every recent year bar one, our investment in the core of the underground was greater than that of the present Government.
  The Deputy Prime Minister's hopes for the future are only hopes because he has put them all in the idea that the public-private partnership will produce the investment that is necessary for the underground. When I was the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, our officials reckoned that they could recognise those Ministers who were suckers. I think that the Treasury saw him coming, because it persuaded him that, with a public-private partnership, there was no need to put any money at all in the Government public spending plans for investment in the underground. I can imagine the scene when it said to him, "Don't worry, John. We'll see you all right if the thing goes wrong." The thing has gone badly wrong. He
  850
  was then given another £365 million to spend over two years. What has happened to that? It has gone into the black hole of the Jubilee line extension.
  Mr. Prescott: It is your contract.
  Mr. Portillo: The right hon. Gentleman does not deny it. That money has gone into the black hole of the Jubilee line extension; it is not available to fund the core of the underground. He ought to be concerned about that, because I heard the Prime Minister say that he was investing more in London underground than the previous Government. That is not true, and I have proved it. Now the right hon. Gentleman has admitted that what little money there is, is going not into the core, but into the black hole of the Jubilee line extension.
  The right hon. Gentleman finds himself with no money—the cupboard is bare—and he is quite wrong to put all his hopes in the public-private partnership because I do not believe for a minute that those bidders will come forward with anything other than a demand that they should continue to receive public subsidy. Some mayoral candidates are in the Chamber, so may I ask in their presence whether the right hon. Gentleman now proposes that all those decisions should become subject to the authority of the mayor of London, since they will slip into the middle distance and be taken during the mayor's period in office? He is in a hopeless position: having sacked Railtrack, what will he do about the sub-surface lines? He has no plans for that whatever. I listened carefully to his speech and list of achievements, but all that the Government have done is establish structures, commission reports and integrate things. My constituents want some railway lines to be built, but he has not provided any new capacity.
  At one stage, it was suggested that the Opposition should table a motion proposing a cut in the right hon. Gentleman's salary, but I am pleased that my right hon. Friends decided, in their wisdom, not to pursue that—first, because he is the fall guy in this situation—perhaps a naive fall guy—and, secondly, because it is so painfully obvious that the Prime Minister intends to cut his deputy's salary to zero. The only question is on which date that will happen.
  Mr. Prescott: Pathetic.
  Mr. Portillo: The skilful briefing from Downing street has set the vultures of Fleet street hovering around the right hon. Gentleman's corpse, and he knows it. The only question for Londoners is whether the change of Secretary of State will at last mean that they will get a change of policy and the policies that they need and so rightly deserve.
  4.48 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: I thought that the speech made from the Conservative Front Bench was a record effort, but it is clear that the rejuvenated retread—the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo)—outdoes even the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) when it comes to barefaced cheek.
  This country had to put up with years of neglect, particularly of public transport, by a Government who were clearly governing without due care and attention.

  851
  Worse than that, their policies were stupid and fragmented the public transport system, leaving all sorts of places outside the major conurbations—rural areas, in which the Opposition claim so much interest—virtually bereft of the bus service that they were used to and breaking up our railway system in an extremely damaging way. The situation here in London is unique in its history: the roads are absolutely choked, which is damaging business severely; the Confederation of British Industry estimates that the delays are costing business in London £21 billion a year; those delays are seriously inconveniencing people who want to get about in London; and the fumes caused by the traffic are seriously damaging the health of Londoners, particularly old and young people.
  Mr. Gray: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not. [Interruption.]
  Because of the blockages on the roads, buses provide an extremely unreliable, slow and inefficient service. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but there is an outbreak of sedentary comments. Far too many are being made, and the right hon. Gentleman should be heard with more respect.
  Mr. Dobson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Worst of all, the Government inherited no sensible plans to improve the service to Londoners. Having come a poor second to Lord Archer the first time that the Tories chose a candidate for London mayor, Steve Norris is now apparently the chosen person. He was the Minister for Transport in London and we are living with the consequences of his negligence.
  However, when it comes to negligence, Steve Norris's record does not compare with the adverse impact on Londoners of the record of the newly elected right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea, who started damaging London's transport system even before he became Transport Secretary. As Chief Secretary to the Treasury, for almost a year he obstructed the proposals of ABB in Derby to provide new rolling stock for the Northern line, and insisted on a different contract, which went to another company. Because the Conservative Government was behind that contract, it was a stupid, ridiculous, incompetent contract, and the rolling stock still has not been fully delivered. We are still living with that inheritance.
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to claim credit for the Jubilee line and to discredit the present Secretary of State for having to meet the excessive costs of the ludicrous contract for which he was responsible. One of the big problems for London has not only been that the tube has been starved of investment, but that the huge sums of money made available for investment have been misused and wasted.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not give way.
  852
  The Jubilee line extension is but the latest example of scandalous waste in major investment projects in London underground. They have all been characterised by huge delays and vast cost overruns. The cost overrun for the Jubilee line of £1,400 million is robbing Londoners twice. The money going into that project would have totally rehabilitated the Northern line. That sort of money is not available to rehabilitate the Northern line, so that scheme is 18 months late. The former Secretary of State for Transport is proudly claiming that he was responsible for that contract. Thank God he is not in government any longer.
  Mr. Portillo: Merely so that the House may judge the accuracy of anything that the right hon. Gentleman says, I should tell him that I was never Secretary of State for Transport. The position that I held in transport I held prior to my position as Chief Secretary to the Treasury. In almost every particular, the right hon. Gentleman has got his facts wrong. Heaven help us if that is the best quality on offer as the Labour candidate for London. Poor old London.
  Mr. Dobson: The right hon. Gentleman claimed credit for the contract, but I do not know whether he did so as a former Transport Minister, as a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury or for that matter as a former Secretary of State for Defence. He certainly claimed credit for it. I do not know whether he thought that he was putting a tactical nuclear weapon in south-east London.
  Mr. Portillo: I realise that the right hon. Gentleman has not been well recently, so I do not want to trespass on him. He very courteously sent me a note telling me in advance that he intended to mention me in his speech, so his remarks were obviously premeditated. The idea that I took him by surprise when I mentioned that I had been Transport Minister is wholly erroneous.
  The right hon. Gentleman got all his facts wrong, including the basic data about which posts I held at which time. That demonstrates the extent of his veracity, and the credence that we should attach to every word that he utters in his speech.
  Mr. Dobson: Before the right hon. Gentleman reminded me of his miserable record as a Transport Minister, I was simply going to refer to the adverse effect that he had on Londoners when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Unless my ears deceived me, he claimed credit for the existence of tram systems all over the country. I recall that, when he was Chief Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman did his best to foul up the tram system which, despite his worst efforts, has now been established between Birmingham and Wolverhampton. The Tory newspapers in Birmingham—whose editor-in-chief has, I understand, just been adopted as a Tory candidate in that city—commented that the last Government were so stupid that they could not make up their mind about whether to finance a tram system in "Brum", as they described it. The right hon. Gentleman interfered, and fouled up that proposition too.
  We need more investment in the tube system—
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that specific point?
  Mr. Dobson: No.

  853
  We need more investment in the tube system, but we need a change in the system to prevent the scandalous delays and cost overruns that we have experienced before. I believe that any solution must be subject to three conditions—conditions that would not apply under the Tories, because they want to privatise the underground wholesale. First, no arrangement should be made that does not leave every operational aspect of the tube in the hands and within the responsibility of the publicly owned and publicly accountable London Underground. Secondly, any arrangements that are made should be vetted at every stage by the Health and Safety Executive, and cleared by it for the purpose of either maintaining or improving current safety levels. Thirdly, whatever arrangements are made should give value for money.
  I think that, subject to those conditions, it is wholly proper and reasonable for my right hon. and good Friend the Secretary of State to investigate the possibility of public-private partnerships. There is a very good example of public-private partnerships in London's transport system: the public-private partnership that has built the docklands light railway extension to south London on time and to price. That contrasts with the scandalous waste and delays that have affected the Jubilee line extension. If we are sensible and try to live and learn, we must learn from the example of the docklands light railway, and seek to apply it to any arrangements that we make for the tube.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Given the three preconditions for the public-private partnership that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, if a successful bidder were not found, would he favour a fully public-sector solution? If so, how much investment should be pumped into the tube?
  Mr. Dobson: I am fairly confident that reasonable bids meeting all three of my preconditions will be found for at least some of the projects. We must look for a way of tying the sources of finance with some responsibility for the successful conclusion of the construction projects that they are funding. We should at least try to place a duty on those who have raised the money for the construction to organise the construction, and then to maintain the plant that they have supplied for a period of years, as a general contract. That would mean that, for the first time in the history of such contracts, the sources of finance would have a vested interest in delivering what had been promised. That would mean that, if the project were late, they would not get paid until it was done. If there were a cost overrun, of which there have been so many, private sector sources of finance would pick up the tab. They have never had to do that, in the past; the public have had to pick it up. The PPP-PFI approach is one way of achieving that.
  One thing is privatised through that approach: the risks and the cost overruns. If people who have entered into arrangements to find the finance, to do the construction and to provide the maintenance fail to deliver, they will pay the price and no one else will. We should apply that approach, if we can, to the renewal of the tube.
  It has been suggested that an alternative method of finance would be a bonds issue for the whole underground.
  Mr. Livingstone: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend is a strong supporter of a bonds issue.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: I will not give way at the moment.
  One of the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) in favour of a bonds issue is that it would cost less—he thinks—to raise some of the money, but people would be willing to take a lower return on their investment because, through a bonds issue, they take not a scintilla of risk; the public and passengers take the risk. Therefore, as I say, we have to come up with a system where private sector suppliers of finance take the risk. If we have just a bonds issue, they will get their money, whether every project is five months or five years late, whether there is a cost overrun of 5 per cent. or 500 per cent.—it is risk-free investment. Therefore, they will take a lower return. I do not think that that is the best way of proceeding.
  Mr. Tom Brake: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not for the time being.
  As I say, we have the example of the success of the docklands light railway. We also have—I refer to my previous incarnation a few months ago as Secretary of State for Health—the example of the private finance initiative for hospitals, which has financed the start of work on 19 major hospital projects in just about as many months. That is working.
  Uniquely in the history of the health service, instead of hospitals being six months, a year or two years late, some hospital managements face a unique challenge as a result of PFI: they may have to take over some of the hospitals that have been built before the original scheduled date. That shows that, if we can tie in the sources of finance with the risk of the construction, they will ensure, in a way that no one has ever done by placing a public sector contract with the private sector, that they deliver what they promised. That is why I support that approach.
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I am following my right hon. Friend's remarks and I think that he is going down the right road. Does he agree that, although there may be a case for issuing bonds in certain circumstances, there can be no case for issuing bonds of £7.5 billion at the same time as imposing a fares freeze for four years, there by making it impossible for there to be an income stream to pay back the bonds? People in the City may be stupid, but they are also greedy. It is inconceivable that they could agree to such a programme. Does he agree that London Transport's current profit, or surplus, of some £300 million per annum would be wiped out by a fares freeze and that it would be impossible to finance the thing at all?
  Mr. Dobson: There is much truth in what my hon. Friend says.
  I make another point before sitting down and giving other hon. Members the opportunity to speak. Even when the existing underground system has been fully renewed—I think that it is likely to happen under the Secretary of State's proposals—all that will do is provide the people of London with a decent, reliable ride on the existing system.
  We also require additional capacity. That is why I strongly support the crossrail project, for which the City has put together a package. I welcome that package, but deplore the fact that, when the previous crossrail project was proposed, Conservative Members—who were then in government—did not lift a finger to help it. If they had supported the project—in their capacity as Transport Minister, as Chief Secretary to the Treasury or just as an oddball Cabinet member—and put their backs behind it, crossrail would now be well on its way to being built, rather than having to be started almost from scratch.
  Many people who live in one part of outer London work in another part of outer London, and they find it almost impossible to get to work by public transport. I believe, therefore, that we need to have something like an outer Circle line, which will probably be a surface railway. Furthermore, some of the line could be provided fairly quickly—by connecting parts of the current system, making the system more systematic, and making a real effort to encourage people to use such a system.
  In the long run—I admit that I am now engaged in describing only a wish list, rather than firm plans—there is scope in London for an outer, outer Circle line, joining up the outer boroughs, Heathrow and channel tunnel connections and increasing people's capacity to reach Gatwick and Stansted, so that we have a modern system that genuinely meets the needs of Londoners. We need a new approach to transport in London—an approach that moulds the system to meet the needs of Londoners, rather than forcing Londoners to fit in with our currently ill-shaped and outdated system.
  In the short term, however, we shall not be able to make those improvements, as they all depend on long-term projects that will involve digging holes in the ground and improving the current tube system. In the short term, we shall have to make the bus system work far more effectively. We shall have not only seriously to enforce current restrictions on bus lanes and red routes, but to extend those restrictions, to give priority at junctions to buses. If we really want people to move in buses, buses will have to have advantages over other forms of road travel.
  Such proposals will upset some people, but—there we are—they will have to be upset. I think that the bulk of people in London will welcome the proposals.
  The Government have provided in the Greater London Authority Act 1999 for the introduction of congestion charging, which has been welcomed by almost all sensible people. Such charging will have to be done sensitively. Although it will also take time to introduce a properly effective system, when we do, it will raise money to spend on public transport.
  On that matter, I differ slightly from my colleagues on the Treasury bench. We cannot introduce a congestion charge and say to people, "This is part of an effort to get you out of your car and on to better public transport",
  856
  unless better public transport is already available. Ultimately, therefore—so that work will be done early, and people will benefit straight away from that work—the Greater London Authority will have to be able to borrow against future income from congestion charging. Providing that we take those approaches, we shall be able to make some progress.
  I commend the activities and hard work done by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and the Ministers in his team. They have been subjected to shameful and disreputable attacks, for which most of the attackers should be deeply ashamed.
  5.9 pm
  Mr. Don Foster: I welcome the conversion of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) to Liberal Democrat policy on congestion charging and the need to have up-front improvements in public transport before its introduction. However, I hope that he will not object if I do not immediately refer to some of his other comments. I shall come to them later. I very much hope that the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) will shortly catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that we shall have an opportunity to compare the speeches of two protagonists in the forthcoming battle for the mayoralty of London.
  There can be little doubt about the outcome of the battle between the Front Benches today. I was amazed to hear an intervention on the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) from a Conservative Back Bencher who referred to his continuing parliamentary effectiveness. I saw little sign of that during his speech. The Deputy Prime Minister rightly questioned whether it had been worth his while coming back from India. I may not agree with everything that he said, but I agree with his conclusion that it was not worth his while. With the customary generosity that the House affords to hon. Members on both sides, I am sure that we are prepared to acknowledge the current illness of the right hon. Member for Wokingham and put his damp squib of a speech down to it. The Deputy Prime Minister has had a bad press over the past couple of weeks, but many of us expect tomorrow's headlines to read, "Prescott wins on points," or, even more likely, "Redwood saves Prescott's job." I fear that that will be the abiding memory of today's debate.
  The right hon. Member for Wokingham's speech was bad not just because of what he said, but for what he did not say. There was not a scintilla of apology or humility in it. Not once did he acknowledge that much of the mess in our transport system is due to the actions of the Conservative Government. The record is clear. In each of the Conservatives' 18 years in office, traffic levels went up, despite the biggest building programme since the Romans. During those 18 years, buses were deregulated and, as a result, the number of people travelling on our buses went down. That correlation is proved by the example of London, where the same deregulation did not take place and the number of people using the buses went up. The Conservatives also presided over the disastrous sale of our railways and the fragmentation of the system into 100 parts. Despite all that we heard from the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), when the Conservatives left office, there was a £1 billion backlog of repair and maintenance work for the tube system.

  857
  That was the Conservatives' record. What did they offer for the future? The right hon. Member for Wokingham told us that they were offering bold and innovative ideas—their so-called common-sense revolution. In my book it is not common sense to have policies that will leave motorists in even longer traffic jams. It is not common sense to propose removing traffic calming measures and speed cameras. It is not common sense to suggest that we can build our way out of the current road chaos.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way as I am a little worried about his last sentence. Only yesterday, I presented him with a document from Weymouth and Portland borough council backing the Liberal Democrat county council's bid for a new road in Weymouth. Is he saying that the Liberal Democrats do not want that road? It is certainly the first priority of Liberal Democrat-controlled Dorset county council.
  Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. If he examines the record, he will see that, for example, I supported the building of a bypass that was much needed to improve the living environment of many of my constituents. I am not aware that the Deputy Prime Minister has suggested that there should be no further road building; the question is whether the main policy for solving the current crisis on our roads is one of continually building more roads or one of a much more selective programme of road building backed by more effective investment in public transport.
  In a sense, I was generous to the Deputy Prime Minister when I compared his speech with that of the right hon. Member for Wokingham but I hope that that will not lead him to believe that we consider all that he is offering as sweetness and light. Increasingly, we have come to the view that his grand vision of an efficient, integrated transport system is a mirage. Many people have growing concerns about whether the Labour Government really will be capable of delivering. An opinion poll carried out by NOP was published today, showing that only 13 per cent. of respondents believe that public transport has improved under the Labour Government. Although a further 7 per cent. believe that things may improve in the near future, 51 per cent. believe that, under the Government's current policies, things will never improve.
  The problem is that the Government have oversold their policies. Like so many other Departments, DETR has been guilty of over-hyping. The Deputy Prime Minister is not the only one at fault. The Department for Education and Employment promised to reduce class sizes, but it has delivered only for the few; for the many, class sizes are rising.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Labour Government have created 700,000 new jobs, so 700,000 more people are on the move every day? The Government's success in that respect may be ahead of their transport policy, so people's perceptions are wrong. Investment in transport is for the long term and we have every confidence that we shall succeed.
  Mr. Foster: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman referred to investment in public transport. In just a few moments I shall return to that subject and link it to the point that he raised.
  858
  Many Departments—from the Department of Health making promises about waiting lists, to the Treasury attempting to persuade people that taxes are falling when in fact they are rising, to the Home Office promising 5,000 additional police officers that are unlikely to materialise—have been guilty of over-hyping, and that is leading to significant problems. It is certainly true in respect of DETR. We need only a few specific examples to illustrate that. In terms of rail funding, for example, almost every commentator now accepts that there needs to be a significant increase in investment in our railways if we are to meet the expected rise in the number of passengers and bring about general improvements, particularly in safety. Yet, under their current proposals, the Government's subsidies to our railways are set to fall significantly—by somewhere in the region of £900 million. Given the Deputy Prime Minister's new-found enthusiasm for hypothecation, the real question is what will now happen to that £900 million saving. Can we at least have an assurance that the money will go into improving at least some other aspect of public transport, or will it simply end up in Treasury coffers?
  Mr. Eric Martlew: The hon. Gentleman seems to forget about the other moneys going into the railways. Does he accept that Virgin is putting in £1 billion for 55 new tilting trains for the west coast main line? My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said that Railtrack had signed up for £800 million already, and will have to spend billions more. The commitment is there to upgrade the west coast main line.
  Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman misses the key point that the Deputy Prime Minister made earlier. The right hon. Gentleman sought to take credit for the fact that, when road pricing is introduced, there would be "additionality"—additional money coming into the overall system. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there will be increased investment from the private sector. No one could deny that, or say that it is not welcome. However, the figures in the Red Book from the Government's own comprehensive spending review say that, while private sector investment will be increasing, the Government's contribution to public transport is falling—despite what the Prime Minister said during Prime Minister's questions today.
  Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman refers to subsidies in contracts that are presently being renegotiated. He knows that the seven-year franchises were too short to guarantee investment—that has been the complaint by the industry. We are renegotiating the franchises. Companies will receive a great deal more income from a 15 per cent. increase in traffic, and will take a longer view of rail investment. The question of how much the state gives—or of the savings achieved—is a matters for the negotiations.
  Mr. Foster: I am glad to hear what the Deputy Prime Minister says. There is considerable confusion over how much money the Government will put in as a result of the outcome of the renegotiations of the franchises. If the right hon. Gentleman is now saying that there is a real possibility that Government investment will significantly increase, to be matched by increased investment from the private

  859
  sector, at least we will begin to see light at the end of the tunnel, with the possibility that the huge gap in funding that every commentator has identified may be filled.
  Mr. Prescott: The subsidy to which the hon. Gentleman refers is a revenue subsidy, not a capital subsidy. The fact that we will get more investment does not mean that the Government have to give any more money. The gap may be made up by the growth in the numbers of passengers on the railways. That is an issue for negotiation—it is not to do with investment.
  Mr. Foster: The Deputy Prime Minister has seen the figures. Certainly, he will have seen that all of the indications from the BBC programmes last week—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman laughs, yet he was seen on television accepting that, in orders of magnitude, the figures were of the right order. That is crucial. There is a huge gap, and there is considerable confusion in the Government over where we are going with this.
  Dr. Peter Brand: Is my hon. Friend aware that, under an early privatisation, ferries within England—and certainly those to the Isle of Wight—did not receive any subsidy? If a franchise is long enough, investments can be made and an efficient service provided. However, that results in having probably the most expensive ferry crossing in the world in distance travelled for each pound in charges. Is there not a fear that, if the Government adopt a hands-off approach on rail travel, we may have an efficient railway system that no one will be able to afford to use?
  Mr. Foster: My hon. Friend makes his point in his own eloquent way. However, to suggest that the Deputy Prime Minister will adopt a hands-off approach is perhaps taking matters a little far.
  I was suggesting that there has been an element of over-hype by the Government, and I sought to give one example. Another example—in a smaller, but important, area—is pensioner bus passes. In July 1998, we were told by the Government that pensioners could expect Government-funded subsidies for travel. Despite all the credit the Government have sought to claim for that, they made it clear in a parliamentary written answer I received today that that money will not be forthcoming until 2001–02. That is another example of over-hyping.
  Mr. Mike Hancock: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Deputy Prime Minister once again illustrated how wrong he is when he suggested that increased revenue would come from increased passenger usage? He fails to understand that increased passenger usage will not materialise until there is a service that people want to use. That will happen only when the Government are prepared to put their money where their mouth is.
  Mr. Prescott: That is happening now.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Sedentary comments, even from Government Front Benchers, do not help.
  Mr. Foster: My hon. Friend makes his point well. Other areas of concern include the direction of the Labour
  860
  party. Before the general election, Labour made it clear that our airspace was not for sale, but now it has made a U-turn and proposed the privatisation of NATS. On road traffic reduction, we all remember the Deputy Prime Minister saying that he would have failed if, in five years, there were not many more people using public transport and far fewer journeys by car. He urged us to hold him to that, but only last week, at the motoring summit, he said:
  "I have never thought that a national year on year reduction in traffic is possible in the real world."
  Mr. Prescott: In traffic movements.
  Mr. Foster: The right hon. Gentleman acknowledges that he has changed his position, but that has led to much confusion. As I said earlier, there is confusion about the Government's stance on Government funding of public transport. Only today in this Chamber, we heard the Prime Minister claim that the Government were investing more in public transport, but that simply is not the case. Over the five-year period of the comprehensive spending review—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman may wave his figures at me, but I got mine from the Library and I hope that he will not challenge them. They are from the Red Book and they demonstrate that the Government will spend £270 million less on public transport during the five-year period than was spent under the previous Administration.
  Mr. Peter Snape: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foster: No, because I want to make some progress and many other hon. Members wish to speak.
  My other concern is the way in which Government policies sometimes appear to be made for the wrong reason. Much has been made of the decision not to go ahead with Railtrack in the proposals for the tube. I am concerned that—whatever the rights and wrongs of the issue—the reason for that decision was purely political. The evidence is clear. On 19 June, the Deputy Prime Minister first announced a possible partnership between the Government and Railtrack. On 30 September—and only then—heads of agreement were signed by the two parties. Those heads of agreement made it clear that the deadline for Railtrack's submission was January 2000. On 8 November, the hon. Member for Brent, East launched his attack on the Government's policies for the tube. On 16 November, an ICM poll showed that the hon. Gentleman was way ahead of all the other candidates. On 19 November the Labour party allowed the hon. Gentleman on to the shortlist, despite all the criticisms he had made of Railtrack's involvement. Although Railtrack was not required to submit its proposal until the end of January, on 22 November, the Government suggested that the Railtrack deal might not be certain. Then, on 30 November, it was ditched by the Government.
  Mr. Prescott: This is an important point. When the heads of agreement were signed, one of them was that there should be integration east and west, and north and south. I received a letter from the Strategic Rail Authority, which is handling matters of integration, informing me that it would not be possible to conclude a deal east and west from Paddington. I had told Railtrack that it could have an exclusive contract if it could provide me with the

  861
  integration plans. It could not do that: in those circumstances, I ended the agreement and put it out to open contract.
  Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the Deputy Prime Minister, who has pointed out that the Strategic Rail Authority advised him that the integration was not possible. However, the reality is that Railtrack was not due to bring forward a proposal—
  Mr. Prescott indicated dissent.
  Mr. Foster: If the right hon. Gentleman is going to intervene, I hope that he will state that he was told categorically by Railtrack, before the date that I have specified, that it was incapable of delivering the programme.
  Mr. Prescott: Yes, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that Railtrack informed me the next day that it was not able to carry out the contract for the integration with the Paddington link in the way that it had suggested. It proposed a two-stage deal, which I did not consider acceptable as it went against what I had agreed. That is why I took the action that I did. Both Railtrack and the Strategic Rail Authority agreed that the contract could not be completed to that timetable.
  Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for putting that clear statement on the record. However, as I said earlier, it is clear to me that the opportunity for Railtrack to see what it could do extended until the end of January. I do not know whether the company would have been able to deliver on the contract, but I am left with the belief that party politics played a large role in the decision, especially in respect of the hon. Member for Brent, East.
  Mr. Jenkin: I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman with this. Railtrack would have been perfectly capable of completing the private finance initiative arrangements for the whole of the sub-surface of the tube and for the north-south integration project. The east-west integration was a relatively minor part of the scheme, and the Deputy Prime Minister used it as an excuse to drop Railtrack like a hot brick.
  Mr. Prescott: East-west integration was a major part of the scheme.
  Mr. Foster: I may not agree with everything that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said about transport, and I do not even agree with his proposals for solving the problems of the tube, but, when it comes to an analysis of what has happened, he and I are as one.
  Mr. Prescott: You are both wrong.
  Mr. Foster: It is clear that the Government have over-hyped what they are capable of doing to improve public transport and solve this country's transport problems. In that respect, they have failed the country. We cannot therefore support the Government's amendment.
  Equally, however, we are extremely disappointed that Conservative Members have not offered an ounce of admission that the previous Government were responsible
  862
  for the vast majority of the current problems. As a result, we shall go into the Lobby and vote against both the motion and the amendment.
  5.33 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The House of Commons is an amazing place. At 3.30 this afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister was under siege. An hour and a half later, he has triumphed in the House and the whole agenda has changed.
  The future role of my right hon. Friend started out as the subject under discussion, but now it is the question of leadership challenges in the Conservative party. Will the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) be a challenger some time in the future? On today's performance, I think not, so perhaps it will be the retread who has just returned to the House, the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo). In addition, there is the side issue among Labour Members of who will be our mayoral candidate.
  In a sense, it is almost a pity to go back to the opening speech, about which I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). The right hon. Member for Wokingham displayed bare-faced cheek in coming to the House and making no apology for the 18 years under the previous Conservative Government during which problems got worse, and in offering no policy proposals for the future.
  What exactly happened during those 18 years? I shall deal first with bus deregulation. Before that, in almost everywhere in my constituency a bus ran until at least 10 o'clock at night, and often later. Pensioners come to me now worried that they will have to give up their driving licences because they are too old to drive a car safely. They say to me, "What can we do? The last bus back to the estate is at 8 o'clock at night. There is no regular service back." For many of those pensioners, bus deregulation destroyed public transport
  Mr. Ivan Henderson: Has my hon. Friend been told by his constituents how pleased they are with the Government's investment in rural transport? In my area, 130,000 passenger journeys have been made on the Essex village link since the Government invested that money. One customer commented:
  "It would seem that these buses are used by regulars. People who would otherwise be housebound have a new dimension for enjoyment. I shall use it again (and probably again)".
  I have one more quote.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think not.
  Mr. Bennett: I certainly appreciate my hon. Friend's comments. It would be unfair of me to claim that a large part of Denton and Reddish has rural bus services. The point is that many people are not able to drive, because they are too old, too young or disabled. They have to rely on the buses, and the bus service was destroyed by deregulation.
  The previous Government claimed that the bus services in Manchester needed more competition, leading to the privatisation of the old municipal services. There is no more competition now than there was before, but we have

  863
  a far worse service. Wage rates for drivers have been substantially reduced, there are some driver shortages and buses do not always turn up.
  As for rail privatisation, one has only to stand on Stockport station to see six different rail companies jostling to get their trains on to platform 2. If a train is a couple of minutes late, the situation snowballs. People want to know where the blame lies, but it is extremely difficult to apportion blame.
  The previous Government promised that the new Swanwick centre for National Air Traffic Services would be up and running first one year, then the next, and then the next. They never gave the management the opportunity to make it work. The way in which that contract was left was a tragedy. There was no guarantee under the previous Government that, if a project went wrong, the contractor, rather than the public, would meet the cost. The Jubilee line is another example.
  I want to refer to the positive aspects of transport. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, in arguing strongly for a new Department, recognised a major fault in that the previous Government did not join up pollution, planning and transport. They all go together so any problems must be dealt with across the board, not piecemeal. Of course, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is big, and doing that is difficult. I sit on the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs and, although I appreciate the extent of the Department's problems, I also appreciate the extent of my right hon. Friend's success.
  When the Labour party came to office, the failure of the water companies was an issue. Leakage was a problem, as was the amount of water unnecessarily flushed down the toilet. Huge amounts of sewage were dumped in the sea and on land. My right hon. Friend got the water companies together and laid down the law. The leakage rate reduced dramatically and water conservation has improved marvellously. My right hon. Friend also got on to the regulator and achieved an environmental settlement and a price cut for consumers. Our water supply and sewage treatment will be first class, something that is long overdue. When they privatised the water industry the previous Government claimed that we would enjoy those benefits, but all that happened was that profits were ripped off.
  My right hon. Friend went to Kyoto and fought vigorously for an agreement. I accept that there is a long way to go, and from his opening remarks it seems that it is a question of persuading many developing countries, as well as countries such as the United States, to go along with such an agreement. However, at least he has pushed the agenda along so that people are now talking about those issues. He can take a great deal of credit for raising that issue at home and around the world.
  Little things can make a tremendous difference. Local authorities were being crippled by compulsory competitive tendering, so my right hon. Friend has pushed through a best value regime, which will soon be in legislation and which will make a great difference to many things that ordinary people take for granted.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's praise for the Secretary of State; I am sure
  864
  that his job will soon be in the post. Yesterday, I met people from Westminster who are concerned about a planning application to floodlight the Labour party headquarters at Millbank tower. That sounds very un-Kyoto to me. Can the hon. Gentleman influence the Labour party to stop that happening?
  Mr. Bennett: Personally, I would say no to the proposal, but some people like a lot of floodlighting. That is not really the key issue before us. It would make a minuscule difference—the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues could do more just by turning off one or two lights at home.
  I was disappointed to hear the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea complain about leasehold. Plainly, he has not read the Queen's Speech. As I look at the Ministers on the Government Front Bench, I feel some sympathy for them because they will spend so much time in Committee dealing with Bills that were announced in the Queen's Speech—and the one on leasehold reform is another triumph.
  Having praised my right hon. Friend—justifiably; I would praise him only if he came up with the goods—I have to turn to Greater Manchester's metro system. The Prime Minister was in the north on Monday, and I thought it a little unfair that the Deputy Prime Minister could not be there to drive the tram out of Piccadilly and up to Salford. However, another part of the system—the third—is now in place, and we have planning approval for the other eight lines required in the area. The local authorities are committed, and work-based parking charges of about 49p per space could raise the revenue to pay for the system. All we need is the Government's approval. That would make it easier for people to leave their cars at home and journey across Manchester.
  I plead only that we should get such schemes off the ground soon, although I know that solving transport problems cannot be done quickly. I can say "Well done" to my right hon. Friend after an excellent two and a half years, but, by the time the next election comes, we in Greater Manchester would like to see some bulldozers moving earth and the imminent arrival of a 10-line tram network in the conurbation.
  5.43 pm
  Mr. Richard Ottaway: I am always intrigued by speeches from the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), which tend to be off-beat and interesting. However, if he thought that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions had a triumph today, I should like to know what he would judge to be a failure. The Secretary of State's speech was, as ever, muddled, and he failed to answer the serious questions. He is good at the knockabout and he can thump the table, but when it came to serious questions from Front-Bench or Back-Bench Members, he was woefully lacking.
  As we approach the end of the millennium, there is no doubt that London is the centre of Europe, a city and a capital of which we can be proud. All eyes will be on projects such as the dome, the London eye, the Croydon tram link and the Jubilee line extension. We are right to be proud of those projects, but my hon. Friends and I are proud of the fact that they were instigated by a Conservative Government—a Conservative Government had the vision to promote them. We are nervous lest the Labour Government mess them up.

  865
  Under the surface, all is not well. There is no doubt that the tube is suffering—all parties agree about that. Parts of the tube are excellent, but parts of it are squalid. Escalators are static; stations are grubby and squalid. For many people, tube travel is the nastiest of activities. The London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, in a note that was widely circulated, stated that
  "passengers have had to endure a year of misery with strikes, line closures, escalator failures and summer temperatures that are so high that to carry livestock would be illegal."
  That is what London's commuters have to put up with but, in response, the Government can only blame the previous Conservative Government. However, the Government cannot get away from the fact that breakdowns and delays are getting worse on the underground, and investment is down.
  Speaker after speaker—including the Minister for Housing and Planning, when we both served on the Committee considering the Greater London Authority Bill earlier in the year—has pointed out that investment has risen under the Labour Government. However, we have only to read the figures for total investment expenditure during the 10 years until 1997, given in the evidence of London Transport to the Transport Sub-Committee, to realise that the average amount per annum in cash terms, without adjustment for inflation, was £700 million. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said that, viewed from any angle, it was clear that investment in the underground has gone down under the Government.
  When Labour Back Benchers grab their research department briefings, they refer to the Conservative spending planned beyond 1997 as proof that expenditure would have gone down. However, they know that, in addition to those projected figures, we would have invested the proceeds of the privatisation of London underground. That would have made up the shortfall and would have kept the figures high—way above anything proposed by the Labour Government.
  There is no doubt that more investment is needed in the underground, as the Deputy Prime Minister pointed out today. However, we also need action. The Government give us words, words, words—but no action. After the general election, the early talk was of swift action on the underground. In June 1997, during an Opposition Day debate, the then Minister of Transport, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang), tabled an amendment applauding the Government' s
  "swift action on options for public-private partnerships to improve the Underground".
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the financial advisers who had been retained to advise the Government on PPP. He said that
  "we shall be using them for only a few months".—[Official Report, 25 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 869.]
  The Government thought that they would crack the problem in a few months. The swift action has been nothing but talk.
  However, the Deputy Prime Minister began to get the message. During Second Reading of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, he said that he would not be rushed. Today, he told us that there was no quick fix and that he would take his time. That is probably the only pledge on London underground that he has been able to keep.
  Mr. Gray: Is my hon. Friend aware that "Consensus for Change", the Labour party's pre-election manifesto
  866
  document stated that a Labour Government would bring "immediate benefits" to the travelling public? In that context, is he aware that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions plans to announce a 10-year plan for the improvement of transport? Does that not demonstrate that the Government are well aware that they cannot provide immediate benefits to the travelling public?
  Mr. Ottaway: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. The Government say one thing and do another in all policy matters.
  The delay in dealing with the underground has now become a scandal. It is clear that no public-private partnership will be ready when the mayor takes office in July 2000 after his two-month period of grace following the election.
  During the Secretary of State's time in office, there has been the debacle of Railtrack being excluded from the bidding process for the underground. It is being unfairly blamed before the inquiries into the Paddington crash have been properly completed but, at the same time, the Government think that it is good enough to run the channel tunnel rail link; they are happy to take its money when it suits them. However, under pressure from the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), the Government have backed down on Railtrack's involvement in the public-private partnership for the underground. The resulting delay will add hugely to the burden of the new mayor. He will have a big enough job as it is, because the Government have raised expectations about his role to such a level that the Archangel Gabriel himself would not be able to meet them. They do absolutely nothing to assist.
  What a mess the Government are getting into over future funding. The Liberal Democrats and the hon. Member for Brent, East want a wholly publicly run London underground backed by bonds; the Government want a partial privatisation; and Conservative Members want a whole privatisation. The 'Liberal Democrats and the Government miss the essential point that a pound is a pound, whether it comes from the bank, a bond or the Treasury. The important decision is how that money is managed when managers have their hands on it. What counts is how it is spent.
  The Government admit that the present management of the London Underground is not up to it. At Prime Minister's Question Time last week, the Prime Minister said that one needed private sector involvement in running the underground. Today, the Deputy Prime Minister described the Jubilee line contract as crazy, but who entered into that contract? The present management of London Underground negotiated it. That is why Bechtel had to be brought in; the present management of London Underground were simply not up to the job. We all know that the Croydon tramlink is a completely private sector project.
  The Government advocate a system that will retain the very managers who run London Underground, so that they will continue to run it. The very weakness of London Underground—the people who will not stand up to the Spanish practices of the trade unions—is the present management. It is nuts for the Liberal Democrats, the Government and the hon. Member for Brent, East to argue that those managers are the right people to take the underground into the future.

  867
  Such proposals will not work, and commentators have rightly condemned the plans. Simon Jenkins, who is no fool when it comes to talking about London, wrote in the Evening Standard that the Government
  "should privatise by simply floating the Tube, lock, stock and barrel, on the Stock Market … flotation as a single business is better than hacking the tube system up, down and sideways merely to appease some slaves to outdated ideology."
  I could not put it better myself.
  The Economist also knows what it is talking about. It said:
  "The government's plans for the London Underground make no sense … Labour's self-financing plan for renewing the capital's crumbling tube network is seriously flawed."
  Such commentators are not foolish, so it is high time that the Government recognised that their plans are flawed. They should respond to what everyone outside the bunker in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions says.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: The hon. Gentleman quoted with approval the article in the Evening Standard that said that the tube should be privatised "lock, stock and barrel". Does he also agree that the people who would subsequently have control of the tube could do exactly what they like with fares?
  Mr. Ottaway: I do not think that that is so. The mayor will integrate with the new privatised sector. I have no doubt that the success of every privatisation is largely dependent on the role of the regulator. The mayor could be the regulator in the Conservative party's proposals.
  The public-private partnership will be a ball and chain around the ankle of the new mayor of London. It was interesting that, when I asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether the operating profit would cover the costs and the investment of the PPP, he said that he would answer that question, but did not do so. I am pretty sure that the PPP will not cover all the costs of the London Underground, so I hope that any future mayor of London will send the bill to the Government.
  There is no doubt that all tube and public tramway systems need subsidy. That is why, when we announced our privatisation policy, we said that the proceeds from the sale would be reinvested as our subsidy. I have to tell the Liberal Democrats and the hon. Member for Brent, East that the principle behind the idea of bonds is distinctly flawed. In New York, on top of the sums raised by the bonds, there has had to be a government subsidy of ․1.7 billion in just the past year.
  I ask the Under—Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), who has responsibility for transport in London, to answer the question that I put to the Deputy Prime Minister. When the PPP is in place, will the operating profit cover the cost and the investment, or will subsidies still be necessary in addition to the PPP?
  Where is the vision for the London underground? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) said in his excellent second maiden speech, the previous Government had the vision to introduce the docklands light railway, the Jubilee line extension, the Croydon tramlink, modernisation of the
  868
  east London line, Thameslink 2000, the Paddington express and the link to Stansted. That was the vision of a Government who know where they were going on transport policy. Passenger numbers on public transport systems are now up by 20 per cent. but no increase in capacity is planned.
  Fares are increasing, there is more overcrowding and public transport is less reliable. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is not in the Chamber now, but his proposal for an outer Circle line sounds great. However, where will the money come from to pay for it? If God forbid, the right hon. Gentleman becomes the next mayor of London, he will not have the money to build an outer Circle line around London. That is more talk from the Labour party, without any action. The public will know where the blame lies.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: I wish to make two points. First, will not the Croydon tramlink, which will not be a radial line, be a test of whether PPP can survive in the private sector and fund some of the link? Secondly, under the Conservative party's privatisation plan, if the people running the tube could not make a profit unless they jacked up fares beyond what the mayor would allow, how would the hon. Gentleman solve that problem?
  Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman represents a neighbouring constituency to mine, so I shall not be too tough on him. However, I would have thought that he knew that the Croydon tramlink is not a PPP; it is a private finance initiative built by the private sector and it will be run by the private sector. It will have no public sector involvement whatever. The previous Government had the vision to introduce it—
  Mr. Davies rose—
  Mr. Ottaway: I shall not give way again. About £200 million have gone into the project, of which £140 million came from the previous Government and £60 million came from the private sector. However, there will be no public sector involvement in the management of the project.
  The Government seem to think that congestion charging is the answer to the traffic problems that face London. The Deputy Prime Minister referred to a Green Paper, which was produced in the mid-1990s and said that there was a presumption that congestion charging would be introduced. All presumptions are rebuttable. If the right hon. Gentleman did not know, a Green Paper is a consultation document. That proposal did not appear in any manifesto or White Paper published by the previous Conservative Government.
  I have no doubt that the reduction of congestion is a desirable objective, but I am not convinced that it is achievable. I certainly am convinced that a congestion tax is not the answer. The problem is that people like using their cars. Ministers will be well aware of the pilot schemes that have been carried out to find out how effective a congestion tax will be, and they know that, in London, it will take charges of £8 to £10 to deter someone from making a trip.
  If, for example, the borough of Croydon were to introduce a congestion tax, all the shoppers would boycott Croydon and go to Bluewater, which has just opened

  869
  down the road and which has free parking. I am well aware that the Croydon chamber of commerce is most concerned about Labour-controlled Croydon council's proposals to introduce a congestion charge.
  Mr. Davies rose—
  Mr. Ottaway: I will not give way.
  The problem with the congestion charge is that it discriminates against the mother who is going to collect her children from school, the nurse on her way to night duty and the elderly and disabled who want to use their car to get to the shops. It is, in effect, a stealth tax, and it is not an effective way to tackle congestion.
  The people who will be most affected by a congestion tax are those on low incomes, and that proposal comes from a Labour Government. We must question the very point of the Labour party when a Labour Government are introducing a flat tax that will hit those on low incomes the hardest. It is ironic that it should be left to one-nation Conservatives to defend such people from the Labour party. When that happens, it is a sure sign that the Government have lost touch with the people who elected them in the first place.
  6.1 pm
  Mr. Peter Snape: If anything demonstrates that the Conservative party has lost touch with reality, it is the speech of the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). This is the only legislature in the world that would be having the sort of debate that we are having today. In sensible, grown-up democracies, the argument for a decent public transport system is irrefutable, and in other parts of the world even right-wing parties like the Conservative party accept the necessity for decent basic public transport. Instead, we got the usual tirade.
  I shall not comment on the speech by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), because I think that private grief is best left private, but the hon. Member for Croydon, South had to pursue the argument that the congestion charge is an attack on the lowest paid. I have to tell him that the lowest earners do not drive motor cars, so, whatever happens with congestion charges, they will not usually be the people who have to pay them. I agree with colleagues who have said that, before we can introduce congestion charges, we have to make sure that there is proper public transport provision, particularly in our towns and cities.
  There are those who advocate freezing or reducing tube fares. I shall make only one comment about the tube. As someone who has lived in London during at least part of the week for a quarter of a century, I hope that, if tube fares are reduced or frozen, someone will tell us how the extra passengers are to be carried because, in my experience, there is not much spare capacity. Until long-term improvements to the tube are carried out, the congestion that we see every day, for most of the day, on London's tube service will continue regardless of the level of fares.
  Ms Rosie Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is up to local authorities to decide whether congestion charging is appropriate for their area? We are handing back the power to local authorities to
  870
  make those decisions, and to do so on the basis of what works in their area. My hon. Friend referred to people who do not have access to a car and, in areas such as mine, where 40 per cent. of the population do not have access to a car, people need improvements to public transport so that they can travel to work and get about.
  Mr. Snape: Yes, I could not agree more.
  The hon. Member for Croydon, South said that the Bluewater development would have an enormous impact on Croydon if congestion charges were introduced. Obviously, I do not know that part of the world as well as the hon. Gentleman does, but I would hazard a guess that the Bluewater development will have a pretty significant impact on shopping in Croydon regardless of congestion charges. There are no congestion charges in the west midlands, but the Merry Hill shopping complex has wreaked havoc in many of the small towns in the immediate area. Such out-of-town shopping areas, as approved by the previous Government—Merry Hill is, incidentally, part of an enterprise zone—have an impact well before we start even to talk about implementing congestion charging. The hon. Gentleman should not, therefore, pursue that argument.
  There is no point in Members on opposite sides of the House blaming each other for the situation in which we now find ourselves. Nobody seriously thinks that two and a half years into a Labour Government, some of the major transport construction schemes that are needed could have been carried out already. Let me make it plain—many of the congestion problems that have arisen in the past 20 years would have come about regardless of the political hue of the Government of the day, because, as people become more affluent, they travel more. There are more cars on our roads. There were more cars on the road by the end of the nearly 20 years that the Conservatives were in office, and a few more have been added to that total since 1 May 1997. All that will have an impact on congestion.
  Some of my colleagues apparently believe that the privatisation of the railway industry can somehow be reversed, but I do not think that it can. None of us would have started from this particular point, but this is the point that we are at.
  I was interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) talk about the number of different rail companies whose trains want to enter Stockport and the delays that they cause. I hope that he is not for a moment suggesting that my former colleagues in the signal box should let them all into the platform at the same time. [Interruption.] I shall give way to him in a moment if he likes. As an occasional, if unofficial, visitor to that signal box, I have to tell him that there are many more passenger trains going through Stockport than when I worked there. There are far fewer freight trains but, as they say, there are swings and roundabouts.
  We should be trying to get investment into the railway industry from any source. I find it fascinating that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), talked about the need for the Government to pump in more money. He appeared to be suggesting that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister should tear up the agreement with franchisees—who freely negotiated rail franchises, knowing full well that the

  871
  amount of subsidy would decline year by year—and give them the money anyway. That might be the Liberals' idea of a sensible way to use resources.
  Mr. Brake indicated dissent.
  Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but that is exactly what his hon. Friend advocated in his speech, which was far too long, although it was reasonably interesting.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that it is not for you to remind colleagues about when they should make a declaration of interest but, on a general point, if an hon. Member has clearly declared that he is the director of a transport company, is it appropriate that he should remind the House of his pecuniary interest in that industry at the beginning of his speech?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that all hon. Members will remember their obligations in that regard.
  Mr. Snape: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should have declared an interest at the beginning of my speech. I am of course a chairman of Britain's biggest urban bus company, which is part of the National Express Group, and I am a member of the RMT. I chose to start my speech by referring to the speech made by the hon. Member for Croydon, South, but I should perhaps have declared my interest first.
  That point of order, however, is the usual cheap shot from the Conservative party. I would have got round to declaring my interest eventually, as I always do, for the simple reason that it is far too easy to point the finger. If the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) is ever clever enough to be appointed to a similar post, I will be the first to congratulate him but, given his usual performance in the Chamber, that is pretty unlikely, and let me make it plain that I myself would not give him a job.
  I return to the 20 years of Toryism. During that period, the proportion of freight carried on our congested roads grew by 66 per cent. I am not blaming anybody for that; it happens to be a fact. Yet, in two and a half years, there has already been a substantial increase in rail freight carried by English, Welsh and Scottish Railway. I think—I hope that I carry the House on this point—that the increase is largely due to the encouragement that the rail freight industry is getting from the Government.
  I hope that my Front-Bench colleagues will bear it in mind that the road haulage industry will continue to press for bigger, heavier lorries in the United Kingdom, and that those lorries impact directly on rail freight. Incidentally, I do not have any interest in rail freight to declare, other than my membership of a railway union, but I hope that most of us who care about such matters are pleased about the increase in rail freight and want the trend to continue in the near future.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish mentioned bus deregulation and the patchy service in the Manchester area. That is true of some parts of the country, but in other parts a great deal of investment is going into
  872
  the bus industry. In arranging the bus summit a couple of weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister did his best to encourage the bus industry generally to invest money in new vehicles so that we can make bus travel more attractive than it is at present. Of course, that needs extra support from local authorities. I hasten to tell the Liberals that that is not financial support. It involves not a greater subsidy from local authorities but the provision of bus priority measures and the enforcement of those measures to prevent, for example, lorries being loaded and unloaded in bus lanes, or drivers taking short cuts in bus lanes when the rest of us—I drive a car—are waiting at traffic lights.
  In London, the Evening Standard has been extraordinarily supportive of public transport, for example by running a campaign against those who block bus lanes. Alas, the reverse is true in the west midlands, where the main regional morning newspaper, The Birmingham Post carries out what I can only describe as an hysterical campaign against any sort of bus priority provision. It regularly carries articles attacking the company of which I am chairman and other bus companies in the west midlands. At least there has been a change of editor. The previous editor left to be the Conservative candidate at Edgbaston. Given his far-right views, he would be quite at home in the present-day Conservative party. I wish that The Birmingham Post would emulate the Evening Standard and be rather more supportive of what those who work in the bus industry are trying to do to attract passengers back to buses.
  Make no mistake about it, the bus will be the major people mover outside London. The west midlands are not fortunate enough to have a tube system. However, we have a fairly short metro system, which runs from Wolverhampton to Birmingham through my constituency. Before the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) consults the "Register of Members' Interests" again, let me tell the House that the company of which I am chair has the operating contract to run the system. It is not a publicly owned system. Travel Midland Metro, a subsidiary of a company of which I am chair, operates it.
  We would like to see the system extended. One of the problems with light railway systems is that they are chronically expensive when compared to alternative systems. Where there are steel wheels on steel rails, every safety precaution must be built in. No one, not even ex-railway men, felt the consequences of the Paddington accident more than I did. However, there are three Paddingtons on our roads every week, and people apparently accept that. We have a drive-on-sight tram system for much of the Midland metro route between Birmingham and Wolverhampton. As there is a short stretch of single line into Snow Hill station, all the trams are equipped with automatic train protection. That makes them even more expensive than they are to start with.
  If we are to have belt-and-braces safety procedures whenever we try to open a light rail line, our friends in the Treasury, under any Government, will say that, on the basis of straight comparisons, that is not an economic way of moving people around. Our friends in the Treasury, regardless of a Government's political hue, have watched transport expenditure with enormous care and diligence over the years. Some of us might feel that they have exercised too much care and diligence. However, getting money for public transport projects, particularly railway projects when the railway was in the public sector, was never an easy task.

  873
  I have bored the House with this before but I shall bore it again by pointing out to hon. Members that they can still see Edgeley junction No. 2 signal box just outside Stockport when they take a train to Manchester. Although many promises have been made by various Governments, the Treasury has never found the money to modernise signalling along that stretch of line. There are still Victorian signal boxes from Cheadle Hulme to Heaton Norris junction. That is great for the guys who work in them because they are labour intensive. However, signal boxes built in the 1880s surely do not have any part to play in signalling trains in the last few weeks of the 20th century.
  I am told that modernisation will take place in July next year. I will believe that when I see it. As was once said, we used to have a press conference every other week under the Conservative Government to announce the modernisation of the west coast main line. At last, however, investment cash is going into that line, including the stretch through Birmingham and the west midlands and that towards Manchester.
  I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), who intervened earlier, that Virgin trains is very good at talking up what it is doing. I must correct my hon. Friend because it is not spending £1 billion on tilting trains. The trains are worth £1 billion, but Mr. Branson is leasing them.
  Mr. Martlew: Angel Trains.
  Mr. Snape: That is slightly different. I am not being pedantic, but claims are made about the amount of money that is being spent on railway modernisation that are not always justified. The trains in question are extremely expensive. We have been to see them, and very good they are, too. They will be leased by Virgin trains and it is to be hoped that they will provide a better service for my hon. Friend's constituents and for mine. Many years have passed and it is still taking a great deal of time to bring the line up to the standard that we expect and would demand. It was regarded as the premier line.
  I have detained the House long enough. However, if we are to have a grown-up debate on transport, the Conservative party must move part of the way. We cannot have an Opposition Front-Bench team who say, "We shall sweep away the paraphernalia of traffic cameras, road safety procedures and traffic lights", as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said. One of his predecessors, Nicholas Ridley, used to say the same. I had a great deal of time for him. We secondary modern boys and old Etonians always get on well because we all had deprived childhoods. However, I did not agree with him on sweeping away controls. I certainly cannot agree with the right hon. Member for Wokingham, the Opposition transport spokesman, that switching off traffic lights and removing street furniture will suddenly lead to traffic flowing far more quickly. The Conservative party must grow up. It can start by changing its transport spokesman.
  Mr. Paterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Snape: I will not give way because I am about to resume my place.
  If the Conservative party changed its transport spokesman, and perhaps gave the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) a job, it would at least do no worse than at present.
  6.17 pm
  Mr. John Wilkinson: I instinctively warm to colleagues who do not forget their roots. It was endearing of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) to remind us of his early days in the signal box. Perhaps the best part of the Deputy Prime Minister's speech was when he was harking back to his early days before the mast with P&O and talking about his achievements for the shipping industry. I applaud that. It has to be said that the new tax regime is better; it is to the good of the country. As for the rest of his speech, it was rather like the earth before the creation, being without form and void. It was a flat earth at that. To be candid, we were given very little information about how the integrated transport strategy will work.
  I have been sceptical for many a month about the merits of a London mayor, as I think probably two thirds of Londoners have been, inasmuch as they did not bother to vote in the referendum. However, having heard the right hon. Gentleman's speech on transport, I have become a convert. The role of the mayor in putting London's transport to rights has perhaps been fully vindicated. The right hon. Gentleman's transport strategy has not improved the lot of the travelling public in our capital.
  I appreciated too—I must be more generous—the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has come back from India. He foreshortened his passage to the sub-continent and returned to the Dispatch Box. Obviously, his time out east had some influence on him—he said that climate change is the big picture for transport. That may be so for the right hon. Gentleman, having flown back from the Himalayas, but for my constituents who are strap-hanging their way into London along the Metropolitan line in sweaty, steamy, heaving, smelly carriages which are typical of the underground today, the picture is very different. It may not be the big picture, but it is a real and unpleasant picture. They have to endure purgatorial conditions that are unjustifiable and unnecessary.
  My constituents are served by no fewer than eight tube stations and three tube lines. The London underground system is essential to them, as it is to so many Londoners, to get to work and to fulfil their daily obligations.
  In an arresting and welcome second maiden speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) made some telling points. He stressed the importance of quality of life to his constituents. That is crucial to Londoners, and a great many of them do not have a high quality of life, not least because of the misery that they have to endure because of congestion on the roads and the appalling state of London underground.
  What makes Londoners' life worth while is their sense of community and of belonging, and the sense of heritage of those communities. I was pleased when my right hon. Friend brought that out in his speech. He made a moving tribute to his predecessor, the late and right hon. Alan Clark. He spoke lightheartedly about Alan's hinterland. I am sure that he was referring to Alan's castle and the land down at Saltwood which he loved so dearly.
  The hinterland for central London is, of course, outer London and the ring of the home counties around it, from which so many people commute and to which they return relieved at the end of a long, stressful, tiring day. I was disappointed, therefore, that the Government's amendment to the motion tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), which

  875
  is—rightly—highly critical of the lack of investment in the tube, was so inadequate and recognised so little the stresses and strains that commuters must endure.
  That was the case, too, with the speech of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). He has overcome his depression at no longer being Secretary of State, but sad to say, he has returned to his characteristically ungenerous and unconvincing self. He had little to offer for the improvement of commuting and the London transport system.
  I shall make some simple and straightforward points. The first is that, of course, investment is crucial. The trouble is that we are getting the worst of both worlds. We have not had the public-private partnership. It is stillborn. We do not know when it will come to fruition. Because it has been so long delayed, Londoners are not only suffering inconvenience, congestion and uncomfortable travelling conditions, but are paying an awful lot more for the privilege. Every year, London underground fares go up way above inflation, as they will next year as well.
  Furthermore, the Treasury has to pick up the shortfall, to the tune of £517 million over a two-year period. This was not anticipated, because the Government presumed that there would be moneys coming in from the public-private partnership and the sale of the leases for the infrastructure of the tube.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, if he were mayor of London, which he may be, he would ensure that fares would not rise above inflation, even though, under his scheme, the tube would be privatised? Can he give that guarantee? I do not think so.
  Mr. Wilkinson: I can guarantee to provide leadership for London and a sense of direction. The mayor will have, above all, to choose the appropriate team and to put in place a chief executive and board of Transport for London to integrate the city's transport.
  The tragedy is that the Government had to announce during the Committee stage of the Greater London Authority Bill that the Transport for London organisation, which is central to their plans to integrate transport in the capital, and rightly so, will not come into being until some undefined date in the future, which they cannot yet specify, even half way through their term of office. It is a monumental failure: a catastrophic failure for Londoners.
  With regard to fares, the management of the underground system should be commercial. Appropriate fares should be set at an incentive level to bring in passengers, to get a good return and to provide the revenue stream to generate new rolling stock and to overcome the congestion problems. Without that commercial management, I do not believe that there will be much improvement in conditions for the travelling public on the underground.
  I hope that that answers the question from the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies), which was largely answered earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), who correctly said that the regulator would have a crucial role in ensuring that an appropriate fare level was set.
  876
  I was struck by the omissions from the Government amendment. There is no mention of the public-private partnership. Perhaps the Government think that, if they do not mention it, no one will notice that it has not come about. There is no mention of the extra £517 million to which I referred. There is no mention of Transport for London—understandably so, as it does not exist, but it was in their manifesto and all their early speeches. There is no mention of the fare increases that Londoners endure.
  Interestingly, there is also no mention of the other burdens that will be placed on the travelling public in London—the road user charges and the workplace parking taxes. For my constituents in outer London, the concept of road user charges is anathema, for two reasons. First, they have to go into central London by car, because public transport is so inadequate. Clearly, public transport must be put right before such charges can be considered. Secondly, the inner circle within which road user charges are to be levied will be a barrier. People will park in outer London to avoid having to pay the impost.
  Anyway, a workplace parking tax is a tax on going to work. A mayor who wants to make London the free enterprise capital of the world is not in the business of taxing Londoners more, nor should he be in the business of imposing workplace charges. Employers in London face enough taxation already. Why should they—especially small businesses—face yet another tax?
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Has my hon. Friend noticed that analysis of a number of park and ride schemes shows that drivers often drive further before getting on a bus to go into the town centre than they would if they drove directly to a town centre car park? Very often, such schemes do not reduce pollution, even if they occasionally reduce congestion.
  Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is an expert in these matters. He has brought out new arguments that I would otherwise have overlooked.
  The key point about investment is that it will give the opportunity for new lines to be created. For my constituents, that is crucial. Investment need not be substantial. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), whom I see on the Benches beside me, has long been an advocate, rightly, of extending the Central line from South Ruislip or West Ruislip in my constituency to Uxbridge—a modest increase in the length of the line, which is potentially of considerable benefit to the travelling public from Uxbridge, who could also link on to the Chiltern line and go westwards, beyond West Ruislip.
  Another good example is the Croxley link, which would extend the Metropolitan line out to Watford junction, which would be invaluable for people in Northwood and in northern parts of my constituency. A further interesting example is the difficulty of getting from north-west London directly to Heathrow.
  Good precedents have been set by the private sector. The Heathrow rail link, which is now in operation and is invaluable, was initiated by the Conservative Government, as has been pointed out. It was financed by British Airports Authority plc, British Airways plc and Rai1track. New links are planned from the airport to the south-east, towards Waterloo. I hope that yet another link will be built—certainly when the fifth terminal comes into operation—to the north-west and west, joining the main west line towards Reading.

  877
  If the tube is under commercial management that has flair, vision and a desire to serve London people better, it will have a marketing strategy that is infinitely more imaginative than the present one. I advocate early-bird fares to get people on the network early at a discounted rate, and night-owl fares for people who would otherwise take their cars into London for the theatre, cinema or other entertainment. Those are both imaginative proposals, although I am sure there will be many more.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on initiating this debate. I am glad that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions came back to this country for it. Even though his speech was a bit of a flat-earth one, it was fun while it lasted. I doubt that he will make many more in his present appointment.
  6.31 pm
  Mr. Ken Livingstone: It beggars belief that we should be lectured on the neglect of transport spending and infrastructure by the Conservative party. Over 18 years, with all the money that was coming in from north sea oil, we could have transformed Britain's transport infrastructure into something typical of, say, Germany today. The then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, had a deep antipathy to public transport in virtually all its forms. Let us not forget that, for 11 years as Prime Minister, she maintained a record as a point of principle of never once travelling on a train—no doubt because they are driven by filthy trade unionists.
  We also saw delay in the construction of the channel tunnel. Why? Because of Mrs. Thatcher's complete antipathy to the idea of dependence on trains driven by trade unionists. She hung on to the very end to the idea that we should build a bridge instead of a tunnel, until civil servants managed to persuade her that the winds across the channel would blow most cars off such a bridge. We saw a consistent pattern of neglect and often a quite malignant approach to public transport spending.
  I regret that we did not have the Transport Bill in the first year of a Labour Government. The trouble was that there were far too many demands, such as for Scottish and Welsh devolution. However, the Bill is on stream now. I am very pleased that the Deputy Prime Minister managed to have stipulated in the Act that established the Greater London Authority powers for the mayor to tackle transport problems in London, including the ability to use the congestion charge, which I, unlike the Conservatives, think is central to the task.
  We also know of the tremendous backlog of investment in the London underground. When I heard that retread, the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), lecture us on how he wants new tube lines in his constituency, I remembered the fact that, for 20 years, Labour and Conservative Administrations of the Greater London Council trudged over Westminster bridge to try to persuade successive Governments—primarily those of Mrs. Thatcher and her successor—to allow the GLC to extend the Jubilee line to docklands and to build the Chelsea-Hackney link. If the GLC had been given that permission nearly 20 years ago, the Jubilee line extension would have been working for the past decade, and we
  878
  would most probably have already completed the Chelsea-Hackney tube line, which was of course to go well beyond Chelsea and Hackney.
  Mr. John Hayes: I know that the hon. Gentleman is a man of great integrity and political honesty. Perhaps he will take the opportunity, while talking about the London underground, to correct the information that the Prime Minister gave earlier in answer to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister said that his Government have invested more in London underground since they came to office than the previous Conservative Government. Figures from the House of Commons Library show that spending during the last three or four years of the Conservative Administration, as measured against the first two years of this Administration and projected spending for the next two years, was greater. The previous Government invested more in the tube than this one. Will the hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to correct—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Member is making a speech.
  Mr. Livingstone: I would love to be able to help the hon. Gentleman, but one of the undertakings that I had to make to get through Labour's vetting panel was never again to criticise the Prime Minister.
  As somebody who for five years was leader of the GLC, I remember every year trying to negotiate with the Government for money to modernise the tube and invest, yet, year after year, spending was cut. Some people think that the record of problems stems only from when the GLC was abolished and the Government took over London Transport, but it goes back to the mid-1970s, during which consecutive Governments, dependent on Treasury advice, turned down Labour and Tory GLC Administration proposals for increased investment. We have that problem to resolve.
  I give credit to both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister for beginning to mobilise resources. Nobody denies that there is a debate about the best way in which to raise such money—whether it should be through public-private partnership or bonds—but at least we are having the debate. I suspect that it will be concluded soon—certainly if I have anything to do with it, because I am standing for the Labour nomination on a clear commitment to keep the tube in the public sector and raise financing through bonds. I assume that, if I win, that will be the end of the matter.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Will my hon. Friend explain why, on Third Reading of the Greater London Authority Bill, he voted against the Liberal Democrat amendment, which would have empowered the mayor to raise bonds for the tube, and for the public-private partnership?
  Mr. Livingstone: I did so for exactly the same reason as my hon. Friend tends to vote with the Government: because the Whips told me to. I decided over a long period that one should vote against one's party only when every other avenue has been exhausted. Given that public-private partnership is a meaninglessly wide and vague term that can cover a multitude of sins, it seemed rather pointless to make a great row out of the matter.

  879
  I think that the Labour party was wrong; it should have accepted the Liberal Democrat amendment to allow the mayor to raise bonds. I suspect that we shall return to that matter again and again, whoever is mayor.
  Mr. Don Foster: Does the hon. Gentleman at least take comfort from the knowledge that the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) only three weeks ago was quoted as saying:
  "I would not rule out financing things by bonds for individual projects and schemes"?
  Mr. Livingstone: I find that there is virtually no disagreement among the Labour candidates. Any mayor who looks at the need for infrastructure works in London must be attracted to issuing bonds, if only because of the success of the New York system.
  Much disinformation has been put about, comparing and confusing the disaster of New York's issuing bonds to pay the wages of teachers at the end of the 1960s and in the early 1970s—that could not happen here because it would be illegal for local government to borrow money in any form for revenue spending—and the state of New York's beginning, in 1981, to issue bonds through the metropolitan transit authority in order to transform the underground system.
  I can remember everybody in New York telling me in 1978—all tourists were told—not to use the underground because I might never come out again; it was too dangerous and unreliable. At one disastrous point, a third of all rolling stock was out of commission. Now, the New York underground is world class. It has been transformed by the consistent use of bonds, which have raised $14 billion.
  Mr. Ottaway: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in addition to bonds—I made this point in my speech—the Metropolitan Transit Authority required a $1.7 billion subsidy? Where does he think such money would come from? Is he saying that the bond issue would still have to be backed by Government subsidy?
  Mr. Livingstone: New York's metropolitan transit authority had a sum of money to raise. It raised it in different component parts. It got what it needed from the markets and found the rest through public subsidy. There is nothing to prevent a Labour Government deciding to pay for the modernisation of the tube by issuing bonds and by raising some of the rest from fares—as well as, perhaps, from congestion charges. One would consider all sources of revenue streams in order to raise the total sum. Let us not forget that the metropolitan transit authority has done much more than simply modernise New York's underground.
  Mr. Ottaway: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the Greater London Authority Act does not allow the underground to be subsidised through a congestion charge?
  Mr. Livingstone: A series of revenue streams comes into a British local authority—the Greater London Authority is such an authority—and, under British local
  880
  government law, the first call on the budget of a local authority is the repayment of debt. That is why British local government has such a good credit rating. Even when Derek Hatton ran Liverpool, that local authority never missed a debt payment to the moneylenders. That fact was not regularly spread around Militant at the time, but the authority always paid up. No British local authority has ever defaulted on debt. If the Government did not want the Treasury to raise the bonds, there would be no problem in giving the mayor and the Assembly the power to issue them.
  It is bizarre that the debate was intended to censure the Deputy Prime Minister. That was forgotten a couple hours ago in view of Conservative Members' lacklustre performance. There has been much gossip in the press, suggesting a conflict between the Deputy Prime Minister and the policy unit at No. 10. It is said that the Deputy Prime Minister has been scaring the policy wonks with his desire to introduce congestion charging and his pro-public transport policies. In any conflict on those issues between the Deputy Prime Minister and the pinheads in the policy unit, the former has the overwhelming backing of the majority of Labour Members. His commitment to public transport is the first such commitment for 20 years. He will be backed solidly by Labour Members in proceeding with the programme that he has unleashed. We shall do everything possible to encourage it to progress more rapidly.
  There has been much disinformation about bonds. I begin with a briefing note for Members of Parliament produced by the Labour party, called "Working for London". It makes several points to try to show that bonds will not work. It states:
  "income from fares is simply not sufficient to underwrite the borrowing."
  That is nonsense. London Underground currently spends approximately £300 million a year on maintaining the track and improvement works.
  When people talk about borrowing £7 billion to catch up with the backlog, they refer to work that is going on from day to day. It includes work that should have been done years ago, as well as work scheduled for the end of the 15-year period. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) claimed that the markets would not raise £7 billion, but we must remember that that sum is to be spent over 15 years. The whole sum would not be granted at the same time, kept in a piggybank and doled out over 15 years for a maintenance programme. It would be allocated in a series of tranches.
  The second point that the document makes is that
  "bonds would count as borrowing"
  and would reduce the money available for health and education. Yet again, that is an arbitrary decision by the Treasury. In the western world, only this country would consider that an investment programme in the infrastructure of transport should count against the public sector borrowing requirement, or whatever we now call it. That is nonsense, and means that we take a shortsighted approach to the infrastructure work that Britain needs.
  I sometimes wonder whether the Treasury is on Britain's side, because it has consistently displayed short-term thinking about the programme of public investment that we need to create a modern society. Yet members of the London business community say that the

  881
  worst problem that they face is doing business in a city where roads and public transport are in such a disgraceful state. That is a major hindrance to their ability to make a profit, to employ people and generate wealth. We must start to impose our priorities on the Treasury.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Does my hon. Friend believe that there should be any limit in principle on borrowing to invest in public sector infrastructure in a given year, or does he believe that there should be no ceiling on it in spite of the need for macro-economic prudence and stability?
  Mr. Livingstone: That is the most remarkably stupid question that I have ever been asked, and people have to go some to get that record. Of course, I accept that someone has to set a limit somewhere. We are arguing about where to set it. The Treasury has been unduly restrictive and largely responsible for the parlous state of much of the public sector in Britain. We were originally told that too much public sector investment would squeeze out private sector investment. There is no evidence to sustain that. However, we have been under-investing disgracefully in the public sector for more than 20 years. A huge backlog now exists, and we have to set priorities.
  I have a copy of London First's advice, which, I assume, was sent to all Members of Parliament. It mentions a £25 billion programme of investment in transport in London. It points out that that figure would constitute 2.5 per cent. of London's contribution to gross domestic product over a decade. That is achievable, if we decide that it is important. There have been complaints from the business sector, whose members encounter appalling delays week after week when they try to move from a meeting in the City to a meeting in the west end. The business community knows that the state of transport in London is a major disincentive to people to stay in London and to new work and wealth creation in London. Getting transport infrastructure in London right must be a top priority for the mayor.
  The last real claim in "Working for London"—although it is made four or five times—is that, if we go for PPP, the private sector will accept the risk. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) also made that point. It is argued that, under a bond system, the risk would remain in the public sector. That is true, but it is why the sums of money vary so much. The document points out that the cost overrun on the Jubilee line is almost 100 per cent.
  When we consider the different costs of raising the money, we must bear in mind the fact that Treasury bonds would be issued at 4.5 per cent., whereas, under the private finance initiative—the PPP is effectively that—the charge would be 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. Even if we could persuade firms to do the work at 10 per cent., we would double the cost of raising the money through issuing bonds. The private sector is not stupid; it does not take on the risk for nothing. It doubles the initial cost of the project, and that is at only 10 per cent. Many of the private finance initiative schemes that the Department of Health conducted when building hospitals came in at more than 15 per cent.—200 per cent. more than the initial cost. The private sector takes on the risk, but it charges more than if one had taken the risk oneself.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Is it not the case that almost anything is better than the PPP? Bonds have an advantage in terms
  882
  of a competitive interest rate. However, the genuine denationalisation of the tube system would allow it to run commercially and without a premium, which the PPP would involve. The PPP, with very short leases and the uncertain risks that the private sector has to accept in a management divided between the infrastructure companies in the private sector and the operating companies in the public sector, is the worst of all worlds.
  Mr. Livingstone: I take on board the complaints of my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras that the current leadership of London Underground has handled the Jubilee line unsatisfactorily. Nobody suggests that the money raised should simply be given to the current management of London Transport to repeat the errors that it made on the Jubilee line. The method is clear: we raise the money as cheaply as possible, bring in a contractor to do the work on a contract for a fixed price and at a fixed time. That is the norm in such operations all over the world. Part of the risk is transferred to the private sector, but we would have to pay for that in the initial cost.
  Ms Diane Abbott: Does my hon. Friend agree that the public are grateful that he has opened the debate on financing the improvements to the infrastructure of the London underground? Everyone agrees that we have to make those improvements. It is unfortunate if the dictates of internal party discipline mean that we cannot have that debate. Does he also agree that the balance of opinion—professional, informed and academic—is in favour of some sort of bond issue and against the proposal for a public-private partnership that we have been presented with?
  Mr. Livingstone: The row about the public-private partnership and the bonds issue is interesting—it is a sign of how good the mayoral system might turn out to be. The candidates have provoked the debate, there has been some adjustment of Government policy—they have been forced into a serious debate, which we have not been having—and there has been a brouhaha about the candidates and personalities, or lack of them. Behind all that, there has been a serious debate in the media about bonds versus PPP. I think that the bonds side has won it, although I almost dropped dead when I saw that The Economist had said "Ken Livingstone is right" on the bonds issue.
  I do not want to be cruel to anyone in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, but there was a wonderful moment last Monday when the Evening Standard rang DETR and asked whether it could name a single independent expert who supported its case on the PPP. The only one it could come up with was Deutsche Bank, which of course is not independent—it is advising the Government on the whole affair. There is no independent support for its position, so I think that the PPP will be adjusted to reflect the political realities.
  Mr. Cohen: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Livingstone: I shall take a last intervention.
  Mr. Cohen: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way so that I can make one print before we leave the issue of

  883
  risk. It has been claimed that there will be no risk to the public sector if a PPP is used, but is it not likely that that will not be the case? Is it not almost certain that any PPP contract will say that any major risks such as flooding or disaster would be dealt with by the state?
  Mr. Livingstone: I am happy to confirm what my hon. Friend says. I understand that Lord Macdonald, the Minister for Transport, spent an entertaining couple of hours with members of the London Labour group of MPs and made it absolutely clear that major elements of risk such as flooding and disaster would still be dealt with by the Government. No firm would sign a completely open-ended contract without such a commitment.
  Let me conclude by dealing with congestion charges. Although there are debates in the Labour party over PPP versus bonds they will be resolved by the selection of a Labour, candidate; but coming into focus is the issue that divides the parties—the congestion tax. Unless the Conservative party moves back to the much more sensible position of supporting congestion charging, which it used to hold, it will have no policy to tackle the problems being experienced on our roads. Today's rush hour lasts all day, and extends to Saturdays and Sundays, and London's streets are clogged seven days a week, virtually from dawn until dusk—they are becoming a nightmare.
  Let us not forget that congestion charging is not some wicked Marxist scheme; it comes from the Chicago school of economics and is one of Milton Friedman's little ideas. Many Labour Members have been reluctant to accept it because we would rather have had a congestion charge under which great big expensive cars paid more—that would have put a progressive element into the charge—but we have not been allowed that.
  All the studies show, however, that a reasonable congestion charge could reduce the number of cars driving into central London by 15 per cent., thus freeing up the roads, allowing traffic to move and increasing traffic speed. Resources would also be freed for investment in public transport. A charge of £5 a day to travel into a small congestion zone has been suggested by London First, the business organisation. A small central zone—running between Park lane and the City and between south of Euston road and north of the River Thames—with each car being charged £5 to enter it, Monday to Friday, would produce £250 million. That is where we should look for the money to buy new buses, to hire conductors to speed them up and to get the buses properly cleaned again.
  I know that some of my hon. Friends are unhappy about my commitment to freeze fares for four years, but I must point out that transport policies and patterns change dramatically and quickly. When the Labour GLC cut fares the second time—by 24 per cent., with the permission of the Law Lords in 1983—there was a 70 per cent. increase in ridership on public transport. We got 110 per cent. of our original fare levels in; we cut fares, but still made more income. Although many Members have forgotten this, the following year we were able to cut the rates in London by 7.5 per cent. because that extra money was flowing in.
  Once Londoners realise that they have a Labour mayor, backed by a Labour Government, who is committed to a long-term investment strategy for the underground,
  884
  bringing back more buses, enforcing the bus lane rules and using the congestion charge, travel patterns will begin to change. We will lock ourselves into an improving spiral: the better it gets, the more people will leave their cars at home and in a year or two we will most probably be making money. We will be able to use the increased fare income to start a much bigger expansion of the system.
  The Government's policy is absolutely right. They have tabled an amendment that unites my party—it unites all our candidates, at any rate—and draws attention to the clear and obvious choice facing London: a Tory party that is simply banging the drum to whip up hysteria and pretending that we are anti-car, or a Labour party with a coherent package of policies that will make this city a fit and comfortable place to live in once again.
  6.56 pm
  Mr. James Gray: I have enjoyed taking part in the mayoral hustings which this debate has been for most of the evening, although it has not been particularly enlightening. It has been nice to listen to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), but they have reconfirmed my view that I would prefer, by 100 per cent., my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) as mayor. I wonder where on earth the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) is this evening and why she has chosen not to take part in this important debate on transport in London. Perhaps the press will ask her that question in the days ahead.
  I was particularly unhappy about one remark made by the hon. Member for Brent, East.
  Mr. Livingstone: Only one?
  Mr. Gray: Well, as always, I was unhappy with everything he had to say, although he speaks in such a personable and charming way that it is difficult to disagree with him. I disagreed in particular when he referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) as a retread. Suppose the hon. Gentleman were to be elected mayor of London; who could possibly be more of a tired old retread as leader of local government in London than him?
  Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend will also recall the great honesty with which the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) began his speech. He said that he had spent 20 years coming across to Parliament to try to get money, so I do not know what he thinks the new mayor will get. If he gets the job and a Labour Government are in power, there will be no chance of him ever getting any money.
  Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend makes a good point. As an outside observer, I find it absolutely astonishing that anybody should possibly want the relatively worthless post of mayor of London. It seems to come with no money, no powers and no status at all, so I am baffled that so many people are falling over themselves to gain it, although it takes all sorts.
  The British display a curious trait in conversation. When we get together, we like to complain; indeed, we are great complainers. As we all know, we like to

  885
  complain in particular about the weather—it is only natural, and we all do it. We like to complain about sport, particularly cricket, and the awful performances of the England team are a constant source of amusement to us.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: And transport.
  Mr. Gray: From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman picks me up on the precise point that I was about to make. Since the second world war, we have particularly enjoyed complaining about the awfulness of our transport. We love to say how dirty it is, what delays we have experienced, how desperate the system is and what an awful time we have had reaching our destination. When we arrive, people say, "Oh dear, have you had a terrible journey?" We expect the trains to be late and expect to be held up at airports, but it is interesting to consider the statistics: delays on trains are less than a quarter of those experienced during air travel. We all expect to be delayed when we travel by plane, but are surprised to be delayed when we travel by train.
  We love to talk about British Rail in particular—its awful sandwiches, the awful carriages, the wet platforms, the lateness of the trains, the rudeness of the staff and the fact that there were not enough trains, although they went to the wrong place anyway—and say, "Wasn't Mr. Beeching dreadful to have abolished all those lines?" We love complaining about transport. Within that inherent British characteristic lies the appalling tragedy—the irony—of the appointment of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to take charge of transport: no matter what he does, he will not solve the problems of British transport. Nobody will do that, because they are far too deep and far too intractable to be solved. Even if they were solved, we would still complain.
  We will certainly not solve the difficult, intractable problems of British transport by soundbites, launches, aspirations and glossy brochures, which is all that we have had so far from the right hon. Gentleman. I had the honour to serve on the Transport Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. When the Minister for Housing and Planning appeared before the Committee, we had occasion to comment that the Government suffered from a lack of any policy on transport that was worth talking about, apart from aspirations and glossy brochures.
  The tendency to launch things all the time and talk about hopes and aspirations for the future is typified by the integrated transport White Paper, which was launched with such tremendous acclaim by the Government about two years ago. The Government said that they would produce nine so-called daughter documents, but they have produced only seven. It is typical of the Government that, two and a half years after they came to power, they have not done what they said they were going to do. They produced a huge, glossy paper and seven daughter documents.
  The Government have now gone on from that to the Transport Bill, and what an empty Bill it is, despite its 235 clauses and 26 schedules. The Strategic Rail Authority is yet another new Labour quango—yet another committee which has been designed to solve our problems, but which will do little worth talking about. It is interesting to read the explanatory memorandum to the Bill, which shows that the total take from the 48 per cent.
  886
  privatisation of National Air Traffic Services will be £345 million. NATS has £300 million of debt, which leaves £45 million. The cost of the privatisation will be £35 million, which leaves the sum total of £10 million to £15 million net take. That is hardly a dramatic and fantastic policy. The Bill also contains proposals on road traffic charging and workplace charging.
  After two and a half years in which we had the integrated transport White Paper and the seven daughter documents that the Government got round to producing, we now have this empty little Bill that does little other than to set up another quango. One of the two daughter documents that has not yet appeared is about the Government's action plan to encourage walking. On 29 March, the Secretary of State announced:
  "The Government will also this summer be issuing its action plan to encourage walking."—[Official Report, 29 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 470W.]
  Perhaps it is just as well that it has not been produced, given his bad hair day during the Labour party conference—which we observed with amusement—when he himself ignored the Government's action plan to encourage walking.
  We have heard plenty about London but, in a spirit of helpfulness, I shall address the other half of our motion, which refers to transport in general. The tube has been discussed by right hon. and hon. Friends whose London credentials are better than mine. The central flaw in the Secretary of State's proposals in the White Paper is that he has slipped back into an old Labour way of thinking about transport planning. No longer are we proposing to provide services that people wish to buy and that allow the market to work. No longer are we proposing that we should make British Airways the best airline in the world, so that people will fly on it and the company will make a profit. No longer are we arguing that we should privatise British Airports Authority and make it the best airport authority in the world, so that it offers the best service and people will want to use it. No longer are we proposing to privatise British Rail—of which I am a passionate supporter—in the hope that business men will move in and through the profit motive will improve the railways.
  The Government are now saying, "We clever fellows in London and the civil service in Whitehall know what is best about transport. We are going to have an integrated transport White Paper. Aren't we frightfully clever?" Integrated transport—what a marvellous thing, what a great expression. The commentators in the north London wine bars, the transport lobbyists and the green lobbyists threw their hats in the air and said, "Isn't that marvellous. Integrated transport—just what we've always wanted." Anyone who knows anything about centralised planning in eastern Europe knows that integrated transport is a figment of the Secretary of State's imagination. It does not exist—there is no such thing. It is an easy soundbite—a throw-away line.
  The only way to improve transport—whether on the roads, in the air or on trains—is by using the market. Labour Members do not like that: they like central planning. They want the Government to be in charge and to tell people what is best for them. I shall show how the market could be used better to improve transport. It may seem odd, but I shall use the example of roads policy.
  Presumably, the only purpose of congestion charging is to reduce congestion. All Members are committed to reducing congestion where we can. It is terrible to be

  887
  stuck in a traffic jam. Any sensible politician of any party wants to reduce congestion, but who wants us to reduce congestion on the roads by congestion charging? It is the people who are rich enough to pay the taxes so that they can drive unhindered on the roads. No one ever says, "Fine, bring in congestion and workplace charging and motorist taxation because I can't afford it. If you introduce those measures, I shall volunteer to put my car in the garage and walk to work." Of course no one says that. The only people interested in the motorist taxation that the Government have proposed are those who are rich enough to have the luxury of saying, "Get all those other people off the road, so that I can drive to work safely."
  Let us take an extreme example. The hon. Member for Brent, East suggested a congestion charge for entry into London of £5, and others have referred to a charge of up to £10 a day.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gray: I shall happily do so in a moment.
  There is talk of a workplace charge of up to £2,000 a year in London, although it would be less elsewhere.
  Mr. Livingstone: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gray: In a moment.
  Who is prepared to pay £10 a day, £50 a week, or £3,500 a year for congestion charging and £2,000 for workplace parking—which is £6,000 of taxed income—for the privilege of bringing their car into London? It is the stockbroker who wants to come in from Surbiton to the City of London. He does not mind the charges. He puts them down to his company and it pays the £5,000 or £10,000 a year. Who cares anyway? He will just say, "That's great, thank you very much." It is a fat cats charter.
  What about people on a low wage, old people, young mothers who are dependent on their motor car not only in London but throughout the nation? To those people, £5,000 or £10,000 a year is a lot. If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, perhaps he will deal with that point.
  Mr. Davies rose—
  Mr. Livingstone rose—
  Mr. Gray: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) and then to the hon. Member for Brent, East.
  Mr. Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why, if he is in favour of using market systems alongside policy, he is not in favour of congestion charges? The nature of a market is to ration consumption on the basis of price. He may be against charges for moral reasons, but he cannot at the same time be in favour of using markets. After all, there are public transport choices.
  Mr. Gray: I thought that I was explaining quite well why I believe that congestion charging is not a terribly good thing for ordinary road users. The point that I was
  888
  about to make, if the hon. Gentleman had given me a second, was that the greater the congestion in London, the greater the incentive for people to use public transport.
  I could come to the House from Chippenham, in my constituency, by car. Given the travel allowance system in the House, it would be slightly to my financial advantage to come by car, but I would no more consider driving into London from Chippenham than fly. I always park my car at Chippenham station and come by train. That is by far the most convenient way to travel, because it would take me far longer to come into town by car because of London congestion.
  Congestion charging operates against the market, because it fiddles with the market. My approach is to use the market, but congestion charging interferes with it. I am keen to hear what the hon. Member for Brent, East has to say on the subject.
  Mr. Livingstone: The hon. Gentleman asked about the two taxes that the Government propose for the use of the mayor. There is an overwhelming consensus in the business community in favour of the congestion charge, and overwhelming opposition to a workplace car-parking tax. My view, and the undertaking that I have given, is that we should proceed with the congestion charge and put the workplace car-parking tax on hold. If we are to make changes like this, we need to carry business and the wider London community with us.
  I accept that it is a question of pricing. Going to a film at a cinema in Leicester square will cost £9, whereas seeing the same film at Staples corner will cost £4.50. Why should we assume that driving in the most congested and expensive bit of real estate in Europe should cost the same as driving elsewhere?
  Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman says that the business community is especially keen on congestion charging. That was exactly my point. Of course the business community is keen; of course the banks in the City—I used to work in one—are delighted. They do not care about paying £10. Indeed, they would pay £100 a day to convey their chairmen to the City of London in a quarter of an hour.
  What I want to know is this. What consultations has the Labour party had with groups of disabled people? What consultations has it had with the unions in regard to low wage earners? What consultations has it had with old people—people who need their motor cars, and who will be taxed off the road if the charges are to work? If the Government say that that is not their intention, and that such people will not be taxed off the road, I put it to them that there is no chance that their congestion charge will work. It is certain that the fat cats will not be taxed off the road. If the Government find a way of allowing housewives, young mothers, disabled people or members of the other categories that I have mentioned to stay on the road, the amount of congestion will not be reduced, and all that we shall have is a revenue raiser for the mayor.
  As is clear from the Greater London Authority Act 1999, the tax is for only 10 years, at least here in London. That speaks for itself. The Government are a great one for talking about hypothecation, and how important it is for taxes such as this to go towards improving public transport: they love talking about that. But hypothecation works only if several

  889
  conditions are met. First, a congestion charge must be permanent, and every penny earned through it must go towards improving public transport. However, as the Act makes clear, after 10 years, the money will go to the mayor for him to spend as he wishes.
  Secondly, the charge must be additional. It must not let the Government off the hook, and allow them not to do things that should properly be financed by taxation; it must be confined to public transport projects that the Government would not otherwise initiate. That principle of additionality, which is terribly important, has already been breached in the context of the national lottery. The Government's introduction of the new opportunities fund breaches it fundamentally. Hypothecation must be both permanent and additional, but the Government's proposals adhere to neither of those principles.
  The Government are determined to drive the proud motorist off the road. That may work in the case of certain categories, such as friends of new Labour in their Jaguars, but it will not work for my constituents. It is all very easy for the Government to talk about public transport, to say how important it is to approve of it, and to say that they will use motoring taxes for that purpose. That, of course, is fine for those who have the great good fortune to live in towns or cities, but most people in Britain, who live in the country or in market towns—there is an increasing move from cities into market towns—cannot imagine a form of public transport that could replace the motor car.
  Let us consider Mr. and Mrs. Average in Cepen Park south or Monkton Park in Chippenham, in my constituency. Mr. Average drives to work in his car: he has to, because he works in Swindon, which is 10 or 15 miles away. There is no other method of getting to Swindon, because the station is some distance from where they live. Mrs. Average takes her children to school, goes to Safeway, travels to her job as a primary school teacher in the town, picks up her son on the way back and takes him to football, takes her daughter to ballet, comes home in the evening and then goes out herself. That could not be done without a motor car. No other form of transport could possibly meet Mr. and Mrs. Average's daily transport needs.
  The Government blithely say that they will raise petrol prices to a level higher than anywhere else in Europe—that they will drive them through the roof.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gray: I may do so in a moment, but I am being rather generous in taking interventions.
  The Government say that they will drive petrol prices through the roof, and bung on parking charges and workplace taxes. They say that they will use those charges to pay for public transport. That is fine and hunky-dory for those who happen to live in London.
  Mr. Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he would cut the price of petrol consumption by cutting tax, and would not introduce congestion charges? Would that not cause gridlock in the City of London, and lead to an economic turndown?
  Mr. Gray: It is fascinating that the hon. Gentleman should refer to the City of London. It must have been
  890
  lobbying particularly hard on this issue. My concern is not for the City of London, but for London as a whole, and for the town of Chippenham.
  Mr. Paterson: May I return to my hon. Friend's point about those who live in rural areas? Where I live, two thirds of people drive to work. A congestion charge, or an excessive petrol duty, is a pure tax that will hit the lowest paid. The money—which in my hon. Friend's case will be levied by an authority in Swindon, and in mine by an authority in Telford—will be spent on public transport, and will be of no benefit to those living in outlying villages.
  Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend has made a telling point. As I have said many times, we will certainly vote against the introduction of any congestion charge now or in the future. It would be to the disadvantage of my constituents in North Wiltshire, irrespective of what is felt by the friends of the hon. Member for Croydon, Central in the City of London. I am amazed to hear him speak up for them.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether we would abolish the fuel escalator if we were in power. I was puzzled by what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to say in his pre-Budget statement in recent weeks. He said that the automatic escalator—the automatic increase in petrol prices above inflation—would not necessarily occur, although he was careful not to say that it would not occur. Table B9, on page 154 of the pre-Budget report, shows an increase in fuel duties from £21.6 billion last year to £22.5 billion this year, and to £23.5 billion next year. That means a 4.6 per cent. increase in the Treasury's next tax take in fuel duties.
  If the report is to be believed—given that it was produced by civil servants rather than politicians, I am certain that it is to be believed—it shows that the Government have every intention of increasing petrol duties by more than inflation for at least two years. We will scrutinise the corresponding page in the Red Book next year, to discover whether the Government plan to do the same.
  Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Government are serious about hypothecation, they ought to tell us tonight for what proportion of the proceeds of taxes on road users public expenditure on transport should account by the end of the current Parliament?
  Mr. Gray: Indeed they should, but I suspect that they are reluctant to do so, for the very good reason given by none other than Mr. Lloyd George, the then Prime Minister, in 1909, when he introduced vehicle excise duty. He said, in this place,
  "It is clear that our present system of roads and of road-making is inadequate … the State has for a long period done nothing at all for our roads … both the general public and motorists are crying out for something to be done and we propose to make a real start."
  New Labour language, in 1909!
  Lloyd George continued:
  "my proposal is that the whole of the money raised … should go to the improvement of roads."
  That was hypothecation in 1909, and hypothecation in 1999 is precisely the same. It is very hypothetical. The Government may give lip service to it for a day or two—

  891
  for 10 years, in the case of London—but the possibility that the extra money taken from the motorist's pocket will be used for transport for all time is extremely remote.
  Mr. Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gray: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not. I have been a little generous to him, and I am not certain that either of his earlier interventions justified my generosity.
  Neither the proposals in the integrated transport White Paper nor the Bill that we shall shortly consider will lead to an improvement in our transport system. In fact, we have a standstill Britain, a gridlocked Britain, a Britain waiting in a bus queue in the pouring rain. Incidentally, my researcher tells me that recently he could not use the new Jubilee line extension, which had been closed for a day, and had to stand in the pouring rain waiting for bus in the east end of London—for no less a reason than that the Deputy Prime Minister was going to open the Jubilee line extension, which therefore had to be closed in the meantime.
  This is a Britain standing in a bus queue in the pouring rain; a Britain crammed into a filthy, overheated underground. Nothing that the Deputy Prime Minister has said today, in the integrated transport White Paper or in his Bill will make any difference to those realities.
  It is not necessary for us to knock the Deputy Prime Minister because there are plenty of his detractors on the Government Benches. If I were him, I would find most worrying about the debate the warmth with which some Labour Members welcomed his appearance, saying how unassailable is his position. It is interesting that, in The Times this morning, the Prime Minister's official spokesman described the Deputy Prime Minister as
  "an excellent man doing an excellent job".
  I suspect that that is Campbell-speak for, "He's on his way." If he is not on his way, I rather enjoyed the Private Eye front page today. It has a picture of the Deputy Prime Minister standing in a station. The announcement over the loudspeaker says:
  "I regret to announce that my departure has been delayed."
  7.20 pm
  Mr. Eric Martlew: I was disappointed by the speech of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). It seems that, even on an Opposition day, Conservative Members have to filibuster because not enough of them want to speak. I shall try to be brief as I know that many Labour Members wish to speak.
  I have no wish to speak about the tube. I have no wish to be the mayor of London, but I want to talk about something that is important to that city, as it is to the rest of country: the west coast main line, which starts in Euston, not Glasgow; history tells us that. It is 550 miles long. It is the busiest rail link in Europe. It carries more than 2,000 passenger and freight trains every day. I want to contrast what happened under the Conservative Government with what is happening under a Labour Government.
  The west coast main line was upgraded and electrified in the 1960s. Privatisation did not do that. It was done under British Rail; it was probably British Railways in the 1960s. It was done under a Labour Government.
  892
  The east coast main line was upgraded to a high standard under the previous Government, but the west coast main line had a major problem. No money was put in for many years. As has been mentioned, one of the reasons was that Mrs. Thatcher did not like railways.
  Those of us who go past Crewe station every week when we travel from our constituencies see in the museum the advanced passenger train. It was a tilting train that was designed and built in Britain. It is the predecessor of all the tilting trains that are running in Europe. That train was cancelled by the Conservative Government.
  Mrs. Thatcher did not like the train. An attempt was made to put it in service too quickly. A group of journalists were taken to Glasgow. I am afraid that they overindulged there and returned on the tilting train. As the tilt was not quite right, it made them ill. The train got a bad press and was thrown out.
  I have been to parts of Europe where tilting trains are successfully run and built. People have adapted the technology from the APT and run it in their country. Unfortunately, the UK has to buy that technology back.
  From that time, things started to go downhill on the west coast main line. Hon. Members may remember that there was going to be a train called West Coast 250. It was an advanced version of what runs on the east coast main line. In the early 1990s, the Conservative Government cancelled that train and left us with no plans to upgrade the west coast main line. At that point, I founded the all-party group on the west coast main line. I have co-chaired it ever since with the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day).
  The west coast main line went through many false dawns under the previous Government. As has been said, a press conference was held every other week on its upgrading. We pressured one Chancellor of the Exchequer so much that he announced in the Budget that £500 million would be made available. When I spoke to the Minister with responsibility for transport at the time, Mr. Roger Freeman, I found that there was no money.
  Then, a little money was made available: enough for 13 train sets on the west coast main line—[Interruption.] They are called train sets, as any puffer nutter will confirm. The choice was between those trains and more commuter trains in the south-east. Of course, the Government of the time picked the trains for the south-east and we lost out.
  Then, we had privatisation. Everything stopped for privatisation. In fact, on the west coast main line, many of the trains stopped because maintenance was not carried out. Timetables were reduced. The number of trains was decreased because the trains were not reliable. Privatisation came along. Richard Branson and Virgin Trains took over the line. The only thing that happened was that his reputation plummeted because the trains did not get better; they got worse. It was not until the Labour Government were elected that things started to happen.
  We now have a contract for 55 tilting trains on the west coast main line. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) pointed out, it is not Mr. Branson who owns them. He signed a contract to lease them, but they are owned by a company called Angel Trains. The journey time from Manchester will be reduced to one hour 50 minutes and from Glasgow to under four hours. If I tell hon. Members that it took me

  893
  five and a half hours last week to get to my constituency in Carlisle, they will realise that that is a major improvement.
  A total of £1 billion has been invested in the west coast main line since the Labour Government came to power. Railtrack has put out contracts worth £800 million to help to upgrade the line, but it has deteriorated that much over the years that it is estimated that it will cost £4 billion to upgrade the line. That shows the neglect under the last Conservative Government.
  Come 2002, we will see the benefits of the Labour Government's policy on the west coast main line. We will see tilting trains. Come 2005, they will run at 140 mph. Under the Conservatives, there was total neglect. We were not in London. We were not important, yet the country's prosperity depends on the west coast main line more than on any other line.
  Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I have to suffer the west coast main line and was two hours late getting into London only last week. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, even though, under the Labour Government, we will get new trains and new rolling stock—I believe Richard Branson when he says that—Railtrack is still the problem? If Railtrack does not improve, we will still have the trains that we have today running late. Tilting trains are very nice—I did not go with the hon. Gentleman to see the tilting trains—but they will not improve the position unless Railtrack improves.
  Mr. Martlew: The hon. Gentleman is right, but we have in Tom Winsor a rail regulator—the all-party group on the west coast main line had a meeting today—who will insist that Railtrack gets the line right. If it does not, it will pay the penalty, which will be many millions of pounds. Therefore, I am convinced that, under the present Government, we will see advantages.
  Some of the criticism of the Government is because the new rolling stock is not yet running and the line has not yet been improved but, come 2001–2002, people will see the difference that the Labour Government have made.
  I touch on one more point: the Settle-to-Carlisle railway line. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) is not in his place. His reputation is a bit better in Carlisle than in other parts of the country as he was the transport Minister who saved that line. The only problem was that he did not give us any money, so the line has deteriorated ever since. Only last week, I was there to see the start of work on the line after an extra £18 million was made available because of what the Government are doing.
  A renaissance in the railways is not only in progress, but is necessary—as we all know, we shall not be able to build many more roads. The renaissance is also one of the Government's priorities, and we shall soon see the benefits of it.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Ian Bruce: This will be one of my shortest speeches, as my voice will not last very long, and I am grateful to be called to speak so early. Upstairs, in my locker, I have a small bottle of vodka that I have not opened in about three years. I think that, immediately after my speech, I shall do so.
  894
  It was particularly pleasant to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) make his very welcome speech. Although we have had to wait two and a half years for him to return to the House, I know that his career will continue strongly.
  It was also interesting to be present in the Chamber with some of the candidates for the London mayoralty. The candidates, and the official Opposition motion, really highlighted the London aspect of the debate. In many ways, it is very easy to criticise the Deputy Prime Minister for his lack of progress on transport in London, but anyone doing the job would have made a mess of it. The Deputy Prime Minister has certainly not disappointed us in that probability. In many ways, however, the London aspect of the debate is only a distraction.
  Transport problems in the rest of the United Kingdom—such as, as the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) was saying, those affecting the west coast main line and cities and towns outside London—could be solved. Not every UK town and city suffers from the same traffic problems afflicting London. As many hon. Members represent London constituencies, and all hon. Members know and suffer from London's traffic problems, our analysis of the traffic problem has been Londoncentric. We shall have to decide on solutions without reference solely to London.
  Some interesting statistics have been bandied about in the debate—such as those on how the previous Government, in 18 years, allowed road traffic to increase by 40 per cent. In the past two and a half years, however, road traffic has increased by 13 per cent. Therefore, under the previous Government, traffic increased by 2.25 per cent. annually, whereas, now, it is increasing by 7 per cent. annually. That increase is regarded by some hon. Members as something of which we should be ashamed, but that is nonsense.
  The Government should be saying, "Isn't it brilliant—aren't we doing well? Every year, 7 per cent. more people are driving cars—which is 4.75 per cent. more than under the Tories. That increase is possible because the economy is working very well." When one stops to examine how real people are using—and paying to operate—real cars, one realises that they are able to do so only because they are getting jobs. In the past three or four years, unemployment has been declining rapidly, and we should welcome that.
  We should welcome the fact that people can afford cars, and develop our policies to deal with that fact. It is nonsense simply to play King Canute and say, "The car is bad. Let's ban cars." However, the Government are beginning, slowly—but, I hope, increasingly rapidly, once the Deputy Prime Minister realises that he is on the skids—to change their anti-car policies.
  What have the Government done to deal with road congestion in London? They have done very little to develop policies on overground and underground train transport or on car use. In the past two years, the Greenwich dome and the London Eye have been the Government's real, big policies for London. What are those policies designed to do? Their major purpose is to bring more people into London—the most congested place in the world.
  Mr. Christopher Leslie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 70 per cent. of expected visitors to

  895
  the millennium dome will travel by London underground, and that there are no private car-parking spaces around the dome?
  Mr. Bruce: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman gave me that information, especially as the intervention allowed me to take a sip of water, so that I might keep speaking that bit longer. I am doubly grateful to him.
  If the hon. Gentleman had accompanied us on the countryside march—some Labour Members came along—he would have known what it was like trying to reach the beginning of the march using the underground. Although I know that the Jubilee line will—touch wood—be opening on time to carry passengers to the millennium dome, for the countryside march—which was on a Sunday, not during the week—the underground simply ground to a halt.
  If the hon. Gentleman had ever travelled on the underground—from his remarks, I rather suspect that he has not—he would know that it is ludicrous to think that those hundreds of thousands of people will travel to the dome in the off-peak period. The tickets are expensive, and people will want to get their money's worth. At Disneyland, in America and in Paris, for example, people turn up very early in the morning.
  I am not a spoilsport, and want such events to be held and a success, but such events do not comprise a policy on the underground.
  Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although his comments on the ability to afford the purchase of a car are entirely justified, in that context, he should properly also note that, between April 1993 and May 1997, the unemployment rate was falling at a faster rate than it has done since the general election?
  Mr. Bruce: My hon. Friend and I know those facts very well, but I was trying to get Opposition Members on our side—not to remind them that progress has slowed down. As they will know very well, since the new deal for young people was introduced, the situation for young people has become worse. The Labour Government were doing brilliantly until they introduced that policy.
  Let us assume that the Government will be successful in that new deal policy, and that all young people will find a job when they leave school. What is the first thing that youngsters want when they find a job, or even before finding a job? They want to go out and buy a car. I have four kids and—I am sorry—I cannot stop any of them from buying a car. I certainly did not pay for any of the cars—
  Mr. Bercow: Too mean.
  Mr. Bruce: Yes. Nevertheless, as their father, I could not stop them from buying a car. They went out and bought their own cars. If I cannot stop such a purchase as a father, I do not think that I shall be able to do so as a politician.
  We are constantly being told about technology. We should remember that, of all forms of transport, pollution levels have been reduced only in automobiles. There may be schemes to allow people to reach the dome by public
  896
  transport and to ensure that there is no public car-parking, but people will still drive—to an underground station, probably in a neighbourhood in London, where they will park—[Interruption.]
  The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) is shaking his head, but he really should make a speech on the subject later. The fact is that people going to the dome will park across London, clogging up streets in neighbourhoods in which people are trying to go about their ordinary business, before boarding the underground to the dome.
  We should also be rejoicing, as there is a silver lining to every problem. People are using their cars more, but road taxes are very high. Even without putting another penny on fuel tax, tax revenue is increasing massively. As we heard earlier in the debate, the Red Book shows massive sums being raised in fuel tax, and I think that the Red Book even underestimates the sums.
  The Government are raising massive additional sums from their stealth and direct taxes, and that money should be going, now, to local authorities. I do not believe that local authorities in the type of constituency that I represent will impose congestion charging.
  I am speaking in this debate primarily to try to express to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) what I was trying, in a very short time, to tell him yesterday. Yesterday, I spent 10 minutes talking to him about a road scheme in my constituency, and spent eight of those minutes trying to convince him that his civil servants were wrong to stop him from taking an information package from the leader of the Labour group on my local council, who wanted the Minister to see that information.
  When one is talking to a Minister about a specific problem, one often discovers that civil servants have captured that Minister—who simply does not know what is going on. Ministers are cloistered in their headquarters, at the top of Victoria street, and have their own individual cars to bring them to Question Time. I suspect that there are many ministerial cars outside right now. Each minister has a car—the engine of which is usually kept running, just in case the Minister wants to make a fast getaway, or because the chauffeur is trying to keep warm. They are all using a car.
  As so many new properties were being built off the main road in my constituency—the Dorchester road—it was decided, 40 years ago, that we should have a relief road. In that 40 years, we have withstood the usual planning inquiries and meetings on route changes.
  Twelve years ago, when I arrived in my constituency, I went to the opening of the first part of the Dorchester relief road, which linked the old Dorchester road round the town. The machinery that had been used was still parked there because the authorities thought that they were about to be given permission by the Government to build the rest of the road to Weymouth. Unfortunately, a nature conservation group persuaded the Government to instigate an inquiry. A cetis warbler, which is a common bird in the north of France, had flown across the Channel and set up shop in my constituency. That was such a rare occurrence that we could not have the road. The birds did not nest on the roadside, but they were likely to fly across it once a year or so.

  897
  We have gone through the whole procedure. We have had two public inquiries and every political party has signed up to the brown route. Just when the Conservatives lost power, the project was ready to go ahead under the private finance initiative. It was on the Minister's desk at the time. It has been sitting there for two and a half years, although the Government have sent the scheme back to the council, asking for plans for an integrated transport system rather than just a road. They wanted car parks, bus lanes and cycle tracks. That has all been done and the project is still sitting on the Minister's desk.
  I understand that, on 15 December, the Minister will have a chance to overturn my majority of 77 at one stroke. Most people who voted Labour in my constituency want the brown route to go ahead. Very few road schemes are popular, but this one is. In a poll conducted by the local newspaper recently, 76 per cent. of people said that they wanted it. I appeal to the Minister to make my evening. I have a terrible cold, but I will not need the vodka if he tells us that the brown route will be built. I am very worried, because the civil servants and the Government office for the south-west said that the Government were not going to build any new roads and I could go and whistle for it. They said that the fact that the Government kept asking for more information was just a delaying tactic. The Minister is an honourable and pleasant guy. I hope that he will take his civil servants by the scruff of the neck—or possibly a bit higher up than that—and say "I've got to get this scheme. He's only got a majority of 77. If we can get that road scheme in, we can overturn him at the next general election."
  Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that it ill behoves the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) to look quite so smug, because an articulate espousal of the Conservatives' effective opposition to the Government's transport policies will be one of the many factors that will enable the admirable Mr. David Senior, the prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate for Shipley, to ditch him at the general election and join the Conservative party in government?
  Mr. Bruce: I did not want to be rude or nasty to anybody. I did not realise the hon. Gentleman's constituency. In fact, I was not even sure that he was a Member of Parliament. He is so young that I thought that perhaps someone had sent their research assistant.
  Mr. Leslie rose—
  Mr. Bruce: I shall give way in a moment. If I attack someone I always let them get their own back. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wants to have a go at me or support me. I used to be active in Yorkshire politics—indeed, I still am. I once stood for Yorkshire, West in the European elections and had the good fortune to be able to go around with the then Member of Parliament for Shipley. I know the road problems in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. There is a solution to them, but it requires money and it requires the Government to give the hon. Gentleman his road scheme.
  Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman talked about his scheme waiting for 40 years. The Bingley relief road project has also been waiting for a long time, but I am delighted to announce that my right hon. Friend the
  898
  Deputy Prime Minister has given £60 million for it to be completed. Work will start in April 2001 and will finish in 2004. There is no better illustration of delivery in action than that scheme.
  Mr. Bruce: I am delighted for the hon. Gentleman, his constituents and my many friends in the area. I am also delighted that the Government can be persuaded to spend £60 million for political advantage. I am not asking for as much to make my road in Dorset whole. We are the only county in the United Kingdom with eight Conservative Members and I am the only one vulnerable to the Labour party. I trashed the Liberal Democrats at the election and very nearly allowed Labour to get in instead.
  I was worried to read in the newspaper the other day about the possibility of VAT on ferry fares. I hope that the Minister is listening to this important point. We have a private ferry going from Poole to Swanage. Everybody complains about the fares going up already. If they had to go up by 17.5 per cent.—or even a lower VAT rate—it would be disastrous. Instead of taking the short ferry crossing, people would go the long route round, putting even more traffic on the A31, which has not been improved yet in Dorset, or the Sandford bypass. I am straying into other constituencies, but I am sure that my hon. Friends would like me to mention the problems. I was delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on the Front Bench earlier. I hoped that he was going to be put in charge of London transport, because those of us from Dorset could run it a good deal better than it is being run at the moment.
  We have a park-and-ride scheme at Norden that works very well. I think that the Minister knows it.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I opened it, but the hon. Gentleman was not there.
  Mr. Bruce: I was grateful to the Minister for opening the extension to the Norden park-and-ride scheme. I apologised to him at the time because I could not be there. I did not want to encourage too many people to come out and demonstrate against him as he came along the Sandford bypass. I was surprised that he ever got to the opening, given the number of people who were likely to demonstrate against him. It was good that it was him, because people thought that the Deputy Prime Minister might come and he would never have got to the opening, because people wanted to demonstrate in favour of their bypass.
  The Government have introduced a scheme to extend railways. The Swanage railway is the first private railway that has been rebuilt. Most private heritage railways run on existing track. All the track had been ripped up at Swanage, but it has been built again. A small amount of work is needed to link it to the main system. South West Trains has volunteered to bring an hourly service from Bournemouth to Swanage, which would be a great advantage to my constituents and would give the Labour party some credibility by showing that the Government are doing something about transport.
  I hope that the Minister will give us some good news on those projects. If he does not, I should certainly like some by 15 December.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was distracted from reading

  899
  Horse and Hound in the Library a few moments ago—I was doing some research about the Conservatives—when the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) disturbed me by asking one of her colleagues if he would come and speak in the Chamber because there were not enough Tory Members present. That is an abuse of Parliament. Either we have something to say and should be here or we can go home and let the staff off early.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) has done nothing wrong. What goes on outside the Chamber is nothing to do with me. That is not a point of order and I am sure that the hon. Lady would act honourably at all times.
  7.50 pm
  Angela Smith: I must say that I have some sympathy with my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). When I first heard that the Conservatives were proposing a vote of no confidence in my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, I expected a lively and interesting debate. When the vote of no confidence failed to materialise and the debate was extended to 10 pm, my expectations soared, but there have been times tonight when I have almost lost the will to live, thanks to the filibustering of Conservative Members who scurried to the Chamber with their notes, trying to find something to say. However, they have found so little to criticise in our transport policy that they have been struggling to find enough Members to speak in the debate. Hon. Members may find it hard to believe, but at times there have been more Liberal Democrat Members than Conservative Members in the Chamber. Hon. Members may be shocked by that, but it demonstrates the lack of attendance by Conservative Members during a debate on an important and serious issue.
  The debate has underlined the fact that we face extremely serious transport problems and that the Government have to balance the competing needs of commuters, social travellers, car drivers, public transport and the environment, which has received very little attention tonight. Many of my constituents commute to London for work, social activities and tourism. Despite that, I am one of the few Members speaking in tonight's debate who is not standing for election as London's mayor. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] Although my colleagues are urging me to stand, I must decline.
  The debate has concentrated on London, but I should like to refer to congestion generally. Over a number of years journeys have become longer and more difficult. We do not want a quick-fix solution or a sad attempt at making cheap party political points, such as those we have heard this evening. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said, we need a serious long-term approach to a difficult problem. We need a transport policy that provides choice and is modern, efficient and safe. As I am the first woman to speak in tonight's debate, apart from an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), I must say that it is a shame that we have not heard more about safety issues.
  For a country that used to have pride in balancing a high quality public transport system with the needs of motorists, how did we reach our present predicament?
  900

  I find the complacency of Opposition Members quite staggering. They speak as though the problems that we now face never existed previously, but, in fact, they have not arisen unexpectedly and caught us unawares. Listening to their speeches, one would think that, until 1997, there had never been a traffic jam, that no one had ever waited for a bus, and that no train had ever been delayed. I do not deny that there are serious problems, but if the Opposition are to have any credibility in their criticisms of the Government, they have to admit that their own failures and actions led us here in the first place.
  Like hon. Members on both sides of the House, I am prepared to listen to criticism from members of the public who are frustrated and desperate for a solution, but I take no lectures from Conservative Members who, during their time in government, only made matters worse. Their biggest crime was the loss to the taxpayer of some £895 million in the bargain basement sale of British Rail rolling stock. There has been very little reference to that tonight. We have never had an apology from Conservative Members for that and still no apology is forthcoming. When we consider how that money could have been used to benefit the traveller, and that it now lines the pockets of private business people and is lost to the rail network, it is clearly a public disgrace that we have never had an apology from the Conservatives.
  Mr. Damian Green: I take the hon. Lady's remarks to mean that she is urging the Government to renationalise. If she is not, surely she is guilty of attacking her own Government as well as the previous Government.
  Angela Smith: What a sad intervention that was. I had hoped for an apology for what had happened to that £895 million. Yet again, I find the Opposition's complacency absolutely staggering.
  We should be used to hearing no apologies from the Conservatives as they never apologised for bus deregulation. Hon. Members will remember the great bus wars, when people would arrive at a bus stop and bus after bus would turn up competing for business. Opposition Members are looking anxiously at the clock to see whether they have sufficient speakers for tonight's debate—
  Mr. Mackinlay: The hon. Lady is blushing.
  Angela Smith: Let me stress that my hon. Friend was referring not to me, but to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait).
  The Tories told us that the great bus wars would lead to increased choice and better services and that the competition between existing and new companies would provide better services and more buses. We all know that the result was nothing of the sort.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I have been listening to Labour Members saying how terrible the buses are and what a disaster railway privatisation has been. Why are they not proposing a return to regulation and nationalisation? I do not understand it.
  Angela Smith: Conservative Members ask us what we propose to do about that. We are trying, through the integrated Transport Bill, to put policies in place to deal

  901
  with the problem. The Conservatives wasted millions of pounds of taxpayers' money and we are trying to put the problem right.
  I have lost count of the number of constituents who have complained about inadequate and expensive bus services. They are right to complain. Local authorities are trying hard to finance the provision of bus passes to pensioners who complain that there are too few buses.
  Some people come to Members' surgeries and complain about the transport system, but others do not complain. Instead, they get into their cars and drive. According to a MORI poll, 49 per cent. of respondents said that they would use their cars less if bus services were better; 51 per cent. said that they would be willing to take a bus even if a car were available, and 60 per cent. agreed that the bus was better environmentally than the car. Yet, despite knowing all that, the Tories deregulated the buses, with the result that passenger numbers fell by one third. We are still waiting for an apology. That is how we arrived at our present position, which results from Tory failure.
  The Opposition have accused us of being anti-car. I am certainly not anti-car. I represent many Ford and Visteon workers and I am proud of their contribution to the economy of my constituency, but car manufacturers recognise that the status quo is not an option. The most anti-car policy would be to do absolutely nothing about congestion.
  I was surprised that the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) did not refer to his statements when he was previously in the House. He said that
  "congested roads are the sign of a city which is alive and flourishing, not a city on its knees."—[Official Report, 5 June 1991; Vol. 192, c. 292.]
  Opposition Members may think that congestion is the sign of a flourishing city, but most people sitting in their cars on those congested roads would not agree. Nor is it an option to do nothing about the environmental consequences of traffic and the huge economic and social costs of congestion. The pro-car policy is an integrated and effective transport policy that meets the needs of those who have cars and those who do not. I do not accept the theory of Opposition Members that, because the Government have been so successful in reducing unemployment, everyone now has a car. Some people do not have cars because they cannot afford them or because they prefer not to have them.
  The problem is not that we have too many cars—other countries have greater car ownership, but less car usage. The average number of kilometres—I much prefer miles, but this is very modem information—travelled by a British car is 17,000 per year. The Dutch travel 16,000 km per year by car; the French 14,000 km; the Germans 13,000 km; the Italians 12,000 km and the Japanese just 9,000 km. Those countries cannot be accused of being anti-car, but they have a more balanced attitude to car use and offer travellers public transport alternatives. In Britain, 71 per cent. of people use their cars to get to work. How many of them would choose to take public transport? The MORI poll and other evidence shows that more than 50 per cent. would choose alternative forms of transport.
  I return for a moment to bus deregulation and raise an issue that I would like my hon. Friend the Minister to address. Bus companies often claim that they are unable
  902
  to cross-subsidise bus services—in other words, they are not allowed to use profitable routes to subsidise unprofitable routes, even within the same company. According to the Library, there is nothing in transport legislation to prevent bus companies from cross-subsidising. However, it may be that the problem lies in company law. I understand that some bus companies do cross-subsidise, but others feel that cross-subsidising routes and using the profitable routes to subsidise the non-profitable routes may be acting against the interests of shareholders, because it does not maximise profits. That is something that we should look at.
  It is a quite unpleasant notion that bus companies can choose the profitable routes to run, but come running back to the Government and local councils for help to run non-profitable routes that provide services for people in their area. We need to investigate that and see why profit cannot be channelled into public service. The problem is that, for too long—until this Government were elected—transport was looked at in purely financial terms. The economic costs of congestion are well documented. There is no doubt that businesses suffer from congestion—deliveries can take longer and staff can be delayed. However, all that can be quantified in purely financial terms. Of equal importance are the social and environmental costs.
  I am delighted to report that Essex county council's popular Village link bus services have been honoured by the bus industry awards. This innovative transport scheme received the highly commended award for its achievements in improving public transport in rural areas of Essex county.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell)—who has taken a great interest in rural bus services—passed me this quote:
  "I have not used this service yet, but I am looking forward to the summer because I will now be able to travel to Clacton."
  Clacton is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Henderson). The surprising thing, given that the scheme was opposed by the Conservative party, is that the quote came from a constituent of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin).
  I am not anti-car, and I enjoy driving. I was a member of the House of Commons racing car team last year, with the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce). I saved his skin, because I was last and he was not, so he was not embarrassed. We were conserving fuel and not being too wasteful. We must look at the environmental advances that the car industry has made. I drive a Ford Fiesta, and it would now take 50 of my Ford Fiestas to produce the same exhaust emissions as when the Fiesta was launched. The car companies are playing a role in this area, and I congratulate the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders on the Stop Fuming campaign.
  Recently, the Minister for Science, visited Ford in my constituency, and we were able to look at the innovative work being done to improve the environmental impact of the company's cars. Progress is being made in that regard. I have also had the opportunity to test drive a liquid petroleum gas Ford Focus car, and I urge Ministers to look at the opportunities—as well as the tax incentives—to increase the use of LPG, which can reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 20 per cent.
  The health implications of carrying on as we are and accepting congestion—so praised by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea—are frightening. I am sorry

  903
  that more time has not been spent tonight addressing the health issues. The Department of Health suggests that air pollution accelerates the deaths of between 12,000 and 24,000 vulnerable people each year, and that between 14,000 and 24,000 hospital admissions and readmissions each year may be associated with short-term air pollution. Reported asthma cases have trebled in the past 20 years. The House will agree that those statistics are alarming, and I am appalled that the Conservative party views them so dispassionately. The Opposition's contempt for public safety is well illustrated by their attitude to traffic calming measures. I fully support 20 mph zones outside schools, and I fail to understand how anyone could reject a measure that could save the lives of children.
  The Tories' record on transport is disgraceful, and their policies have led us to where we are today. Where we go from here is crucial to the future. Nobody wants to sit in stationary traffic, watching people walking by. If we carry on as we are, we shall grind to a halt. We must provide a decent public transport system that is properly funded and will encourage people to get out of their cars and on to public transport.
  There was a joke that we used in my constituency at the last election. It worked for us, and I hope that it will work in this case. It was that there are no problems in life—only challenges and opportunities. The previous Government left us enough challenges and opportunities to pick up and run with. but I have confidence that the Secretary of State can deal with these problems.
  8.4 pm
  Mr. Tom Brake: I am pleased that the Deputy Prime Minister has returned to his seat. I hope that he will enjoy what I have to say.
  Mr. Prescott: I am just leaving.
  Mr. Brake: I am insulted. Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister will read my speech in Hansard tomorrow.
  Over the past few years, the state of the tube in London has rarely been out of the news. Sadly, the Government's answer to this crisis has never looked so misplaced. We are now more than half way through the Parliament, but the Government have yet to make a start on delivering the investment that is needed to expand London's underground and give Londoners a real choice and a chance to leave their cars at home and travel by public transport.
  Last week, answers I received from the Minister with responsibility for London showed that, since 1 January 1998, there have been 5,544 delays to passenger services of 15 minutes or more. The combined total for the two years prior to that was 3,554. In 1997, those figures were described by the Capital Transport campaign as a crisis. Delays over these two years have increased by 56 per cent. It is clear that the Government have not only failed to improve the underground service but have presided over a significant deterioration.
  The reasons for some of the delays make interesting reading. The usual suspects are there, of course. Leaves on the track accounted for three delays in the past couple of years, so perhaps some progress has been made in this area. However, vomit caused 10 delays. This involuntary
  904
  action was no doubt induced by reading the leader of the Conservative party's endorsement of the failed Tory mayoral candidate, Lord Archer, as a man of probity and integrity.
  One delay was due to a surfer who was, no doubt, riding on the new wave of investment and improvement promised by the Tories in their latest policy document. They are apparently offering a "Londoners' tube". Let us give credit where it is due. The Conservatives have at least realised that there is a tube in London. A "Londoners' tube"—what on earth does that mean?
  Mr. Green: It means a tube that will be owned by Londoners, in which free shares will be offered to people who live in London, those who work on the tube and those who have season tickets. It is a much better, more practical and more popular policy than the one with which the Government are saddling the tube.
  Mr. Brake: I suppose I should thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but we contacted Conservative central office to ask what the policy amounted to. It was not able to tell us—perhaps the hon. Gentleman should speak to Conservative central office.
  Other reasons for delay included "smell on the train". No doubt, the current Tory front-runner for the job of mayor of London thinks that that is the responsibility of those ghastly people who he believes travel on public transport. The show-stopper among the reasons given has nothing to do with any of the Tory mayoral candidates. Apparently, one of the incidents was "no forward movement" on the train. I can see that that would be a significant problem on a tube train.
  The figures contain further delays. Some 500 delays were due to staff being absent or not in position. Another 500 were due to train defects, and another 500 due to track circuit failure. If more evidence of a failing transport system were needed, Members should consider the quality-of-life indicators that have been released. They show that the number of journeys made by car continues to rise—hence, no doubt, the Government's U-turn on their commitment to reduce road traffic.
  The Deputy Prime Minister has urged us to hold him to his pledges, and I am happy to repeat his statement of 6 June 1997—although he has since denied that he said it:
  "I will have failed if, in five years time, there are not far fewer journeys made by car."
  If the right hon. Gentleman survives the next few years in office, I and my colleagues will be happy to remind him of that pledge—which he repeated on 20 October 1998. I questioned him on the matter and he said:
  "I agree to keep to that commitment: judge my performance in five years."—[Official Report, 20 October 1998; Vol. 317, c. 1071.]
  The bad news is that we are judging him for his performance now, not in five years time.
  Before I consider the Government's response to the problems, I shall briefly consider the Conservatives' policy on transport, and in particular on the tube. They have almost as many policies on the tube as they have mayoral candidates. Of course, that is less true as their candidates are disqualified, drop out or are not allowed to pass go. Official Conservative policy, as expressed in the motion that we are debating today, is to seek
  "more private money in another way".

  905
  That is not very specific. Labour has the third way and the Tories have another way.
  Little more information is offered in the Tories' common-sense revolution document, which promises a
  "free share issue to Londoners".
  The former Member for Epping Forest, Mr. Norris, was reported in the Evening Standard recently as favouring a plan to allow the Government to raise the money needed through the issuing of Treasury bonds. That sounds suspiciously like the proposals made by Susan Kramer, the Liberal Democrat's mayoral candidate.
  The former candidate, Lord Archer, appeared to have a policy on everything except underground funding. However, it has been reported that the Conservatives expect him to pay for his mayoral election campaign—I wonder whether they also expect him to pay personally for improvements to London Underground. They certainly have not identified any other source of funding to provide the investment needed in the tube. Alas, we will never know what the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) would have done with the tube because she has already been blocked from standing, apparently because she is the only Tory mayoral candidate to support the official Tory policy on section 28.
  The Conservatives are supposed to be an alternative government. They need to tell the House how they would raise the £7 billion needed to bring the tube up to scratch. How would they fund the long-term infrastructure development plan for the capital that the London chamber of commerce and industry has called for? We all know that the Tories would not recognise an integrated transport policy if they ran over it on one of their impediment-free roads.
  It is time to move on to Labour. The public-private partnership is now two and a half years behind schedule, and it is unravelling. Labour's mayoral candidates are all off-message. Just three weeks ago, the Prime Minister claimed at Question Time that the bond issue in New York bankrupted the city and that a bond issue here would cost £150 per Londoner. On the same day, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was quoted in the Evening Standard as saying:
  "I would not rule out financing things by bonds for individual projects and schemes."
  He also said:
  "Any PPP approach will need to be tested to see if it is value for money compared to other ways of financing the system."
  The Government have never answered the question about what would happen if the public sector comparator test revealed that the PPP would not be the best value. How many more years would we have to wait then for a proper transport system in London?
  The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras also spoke about Railtrack's involvement, and said:
  "I am not wildly keen on them and I never have been."
  Within six days, a press release from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions announced that Rai1track was no longer able to deliver the integration that it had promised.
  Unfortunately, the Prime Minister is also a cylinder short of a V6 engine. [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] It is a variation on an Australian saying, "a tinnie short of a six pack." Two weeks ago, at Question Time, the Prime Minister again rubbished the very proposals that the right
  906
  hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras had said he was willing to consider. The Prime Minister also claimed that the Jubilee line extension was late because its construction was being carried out by the public sector. I have asked London Transport for a list of the contractors involved in construction of the Jubilee line extension and it makes interesting reading. I am sure that hon. Members will be familiar with some of the companies involved, which include Balfour Beatty, John Laing and Tarmac. Everyone knows that they are not public sector companies as the Prime Minister suggested: they are private sector companies. It is clear that the Prime Minister is as incoherent on this issue as his Deputy. The debate is about raising the finance for the underground, not who should be contracted to carry out the construction work.
  We are consistently told by the Government that the PPP will be required to deliver best value for Londoners. That is a reasonable point to make and I am sure that all hon. Members would agree. However, every expert who has looked at that matter thinks that a bond issue is at least worthy of consideration. Last week, Maurice Fitzpatrick, head of economics at Chantrey Vellacott, said in a letter to the Evening Standard:
  "The private sector investors will require their investment to be repaid to them, together with an interest rate return far higher than the Government would have paid, had it borrowed the money to invest directly in the tube … PPP is not a free lunch. On the contrary it is likely to prove far more expensive than if the Government had borrowed the money directly to build the tube."
  The fact is that the risks that have to be accounted for in the private sector are inherently more costly than they would be for the public sector or, indeed, for a bonds issue.
  The clear consensus now emerging in London is that the way to bring investment in London's tube is to keep the tube in public hands, where safety is best guaranteed, but to allow money to be raised through bonds, outside the constraints of the public sector borrowing requirement. That is what the Liberal Democrats have been saying for years, and that is what Susan Kramer—the Liberal Democrat candidate and an expert in the financing of transport infrastructure schemes—is saying. When the other parties eventually manage to select candidates, it is a scheme that they will end up accepting as providing the simplest and best value method of investing in the tube.
  I welcome the fact that the Government have made the PricewaterhouseCoopers report available in the Library. However, it is a pity that the Deputy Prime Minister has chosen to make that public today instead of a few days ago, because it has been impossible to scrutinise the report before today's debate. Detailed scrutiny would have allowed hon. Members to compare the report's figures with the proposals made by Chantrey Vellacott and the London school of economics. We could have challenged certain assumptions that PricewaterhouseCoopers has made, including the interest rate to be used for the public sector bond issue and the £3 billion that is glibly included as efficiency savings from the PPP, to be achieved through innovation and incentives.
  The Government's welcome openness about the PricewaterhouseCoopers report is not matched by openness about the tube task force that the Government set up in July to consider the tube. I asked the Government a written question about the activities of the task force in the past six months, and the response was not

  907
  very edifying. I was told that it had met once a month but had not produced any research. That was as much of a statement as the Government were prepared to make about the task force and its workings.
  Taking part in a transport debate for the Liberal Democrats in this House is a great pleasure. The Tories' track record of under-investment in public transport confronts commuters every day in the form of cancelled trains, broken tracks, poor safety systems, a dilapidated tube network and congested roads.
  The Labour Government, on the other hand, are full of good intentions and make all the right noises. However, I am sorry to say that the wheels keep falling off their transport policy. Railtrack's involvement in the London underground has jumped the tracks; the part-privatisation of NATS is hitting turbulence on the Back Benches; and U-turns have been performed on road traffic reduction commitments. The Government's transport policy would never pass its MOT.
  To the Conservatives and to Labour, London's commuters say, "A plague o' both your houses!" It is time to make way for a party that understands the problems and has the solutions—the Liberal Democrats and Susan Kramer.
  8.21 pm
  Mr. Patrick Hall: I am pleased to participate in this important debate, which has been colourful, varied, and notable for a second maiden speech from the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo). We have also heard something from the hustings for the London mayoral election; in addition there has been the introduction, by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), of vomit into the discussion.
  However, the most notable revelation came from my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) who, even before the Freedom of Information Bill is enacted, confessed that he spends his time at home reading Horse and Hound. I suppose that that magazine is connected with transport in some way.
  Mr. Mackinlay: We read little else in Tilbury.
  Mr. Hall: One of the key political differences between Britain and the other European Union countries over the past 20 or 30 years has been the way in which transport here has become a deeply ideological issue. In the rest of Europe, in contrast, a consensus between the parties has existed for years. That consensus has not been a weakness, nor has it caused European transport to remain unchanged. In fact, it has led to the sustained improvement of, and investment in, public transport by road and rail throughout the continent. As a result, European economies have been much more stable and have performed more strongly than our economy.
  It is widely understood in Europe that a national and international consensus on transport matters can bring great benefits to the economy, the environment and the quality of life. None of the progress made in that regard in Europe has ever been considered to be anti-car. That is demonstrated by the fact that, although car ownership is higher in Europe than in Britain, people use their cars
  908
  less. That is because viable public transport alternatives are available in Europe in a way that is not true of this country.
  Britain has suffered badly from the lack of that consensus. Our economy has been the weaker for it. People are stuck for hours in traffic jams. Trains are not comfortable: there is standing room only at peak hours, when carriages are like sardine cans even for people with seats. In addition, increasing pollution affects the health of people young and old, especially in certain parts of our cities.
  The cause of the lack of consensus is obvious, and it lies entirely with the Conservative party that emerged from the 1979 general election. As Thatcherism became more confident and entrenched, the prejudice against the public sector and public planning extended to transport policy. There was an obsession with boosting individual car ownership, while at the same time public investment in rail and buses was run down.
  An example of the deep harm that that caused our country can be found in the Bedford and Kempston area. The southern bypass at Bedford opened in 1996. That was under the previous Government, and I am grateful. However, the bypass crosses the track bed of the former Bedford to Cambridge railway line at one point, and it does so 1 m too low to allow trains to use the track bed.
  The problem was raised when the road was designed, and it was mentioned in the local public inquiry. However, it was dismissed, as the well-established view in Government circles at the time was that rail had no future. It was said that there was no chance that that track bed would ever be needed again.
  Three years after the bypass was opened, we have the east-west rail link scheme, a costed and viable plan to reopen and rebuild railway lines. The link will connect the east and west coasts of the country and will run from Bristol through Swindon, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge to Norwich and Ipswich. It will need to go under the section of the Bedford bypass that was built 1 m too low to allow trains through.
  The problem can be overcome in a number of ways. The railway line could go over the bypass, which would be extremely expensive and environmentally damaging. The bypass could be propped up by a metre or so—an incredible but possible engineering exercise—or engineers could cut deeper underneath the road. However, the land around is a flood plain, so pumping facilities would be needed. Whatever course is adopted, extra delay and public expense will be incurred. That will be due entirely to the short-term thinking and entrenched anti-rail prejudice of the previous Government.
  It is ironic to note that, even as the Bedford southern bypass was being opened in 1996, the then Government were already changing their approach to transport. Even then, they recognised that one cannot build one's way out of congestion. After 16 years of Conservative Government, it seemed that the sensible consensus on transport matters evident in Europe might be achieved here.
  The result of the last general election might have reinforced that change, as the Conservatives appeared to have learned that the British people were not impressed with the lack of consensus. However, the Opposition motion before us today makes it clear that the Conservative party believes not at all in consensus.

  909
  The attitude displayed by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), and the policies—if that is what they can be called—set out by other Conservative Members reveal that consensus is the last thing that the Conservatives want.
  Even within the Conservative party, there is no consensus. There are sensible Conservative voices in Parliament and in local councils around the country who want to engage in constructive debate about transport matters and about what is best for the future. That should benefit all of us, but it is not the Opposition's attitude. The Conservative party's cheap populism reveals that it has little to offer.
  That is not what my constituents want. People in Bedford and Kempston want such matters to be tackled properly, and are happy for Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour supporters to engage in the process. People want to be able to use their cars, but not necessarily for every journey. They support the building of bypasses where they are of local benefit. I have mentioned the Bedford southern bypass, but there is also support for the programmed Bedford western bypass, the Clapham bypass on the A428 link and the Great Barford bypass.
  There is support in my constituency for park-and-ride schemes, which have just started in the Bedford area; for a southern parkway station, and possibly a northern one; and for investment on the midland main line at Bedford station. Some has already been made, and I am pleased about that. There is also support for the east-west rail project going through Bedford, as I have just mentioned, and for proper bus-rail interchange facilities and through ticketing. Those facilities do not yet exist in Bedford but they should and could—however, I am disappointed at progress on that project.
  The Government genuinely back all modes of transport—walking, cycling, driving, buses, taxis, trains, ships and planes. All those factors are necessary if we are to work together, where appropriate, to contribute to the strength of the economy, respect the environment and create a better quality of life for all of us. That is what government, of whatever political complexion, should be about. That is what this Government are about. Any political party that wishes to serve the country and contribute to the common good wants that. However, it is clear from the Opposition motion that such a consensual approach is the last thing that the Conservative party is capable of providing.
  8.32 pm
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I have much enjoyed listening to the debate. It has become clear that, despite the establishment of the Strategic Rail Authority, nothing can rescue the authority of the Deputy Prime Minister. As the confusion at the heart of his policies has become clearer, the right hon. Gentleman has performed more U-turns than a rickshaw driver in a traffic jam in Delhi. He speaks of his hopes for British transport when it is clear that he is responsible for a hoax on transport policy in London. His so-called public-private partnership is not the third way but the third-rate way, offering the worst possible value to Londoners and to taxpayers. It has happened because neither the right hon. Gentleman nor his Government colleagues can bring themselves to admit the dynamism, foresight and success of Conservative transport policy in recent years.
  910
  It is a fact that, since privatisation, not only the numbers of people using public transport, but the share of transport undertaken by the public sector, has increased. That is a reversal of 40 years of secular decline in the share of journeys taken for both private and freight purposes.
  Mr. David Taylor: Among the many successes of the previous Government that the hon. Gentleman is about to list, does he rate their valuation of Railtrack at £1.9 billion, compared with the current value of £8 billion, as a fraud on the British taxpayer?
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, because it was the Labour party's virulent attack and its threat of renationalisation when it came to power that depressed the value of the shares when they were sold. The irresponsible attitude of the Secretary of State for International Development—then Labour's transport spokeswoman—forced the Conservative Government to put a warning on the front of the prospectus. Labour's irresponsibility resulted in a massive loss of taxpayers' money. When the Government came to power, of course, they had to do a U-turn and confront the reality that renationalisation simply was not an option.
  I shall happily give way to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) in the hope that his intervention will be more inspiring than the last.
  Mr. Brake: And the ROSCOs?
  Mr. St. Aubyn: We could enter into a lengthy debate about the previous Government's transport policy. My purpose, however, is to remind the House that the Opposition's detailed and well-thought-out motion urges the Deputy Prime Minister
  "to follow planning policies which lessen the North South divide rather than worsen it, and which will encourage more people to live near town centres and their points of access to trains and buses rather than on greenfield developments".
  In Guildford, that aspect of the policies pursued by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is of the greatest concern.
  I shall speak on two issues: the density of housing development on brownfield sites, on which subject I am happy to remind the House of my declaration in the Register of Members' Interests, which is available to all who wish to see it; and the seismic change that will happen in patterns of transport use as a result of the new technologies and new ways of doing things that we debated last week and shall debate again in times to come.
  The Housebuilders Federation believes that it will be necessary to build 1.5 million homes in the south-east alone over the next 15 years or so. That would be the equivalent of building a town the size of Guildford in the south-east every six months. Advisers to the Government have been allowed to perpetrate and promote that staggering threat at the expense of constituents and of people in both north and south.
  Mr. Patrick Hall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I should like to develop my theme first.
  At the same time as we in the south are being threatened with the devastation of our green fields, we read that housing developments are being knocked down

  911
  and erased by housing associations in northern cities in order to create some value in the remaining housing stock. This is no social trend, but a mass migration from the north to the south of our country because of the woeful imbalance in the economic policies pursued by the new Government. That migration lies at the heart of the threat to our green fields.
  We must consider the density of developments. We have all heard horror stories about high-rise developments in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. We all know of the alienation felt by those who lived on those estates. I represented a part of Paddington that had its fair share of high-rise blocks when I was a local councillor, and I can testify to the poor design of some projects.
  We also know that high-rise building has been successful in some parts of the United Kingdom and in other parts of the world. Naturally, it appeals to some single households, of which, we are told, there will be many more in the decades to come. In London's docklands, or in New York or many other places, high-rise developments integrate the living requirements of residents with their need for services, shopping and transport. The key to increasing brownfield development in both south and north is to find imaginative ways by which the density of development can be increased.
  The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) was my representative on the Greater London council when I was a councillor in Paddington. Indeed, his election had a dramatic effect on our share of the vote, which shot up a year later when Londoners realised what they had voted for. God forbid that they should vote for him again, but the Livingstone effect would undoubtedly work to our advantage once more. None the less, the hon. Gentleman made the valid point that bond finance is an alternative to outright sale of the tube or other transport assets to private finance.
  When I went to the United States with the members of the Select Committee on Education and Employment, I was invited by Brett Schundler, the republican mayor of Jersey City, to visit a bond-funded project. Bonds are not a left-wing measure; they are successfully used by right-wing Governments. In Jersey City, the imaginative use of bond finance rescued that city from financial disaster and has regenerated it, under the guidance of the first Republican mayor for 60 years, who is now in his third full term of office.
  I mention that example as our objection to bond finance for the tube is because we need the dynamism, imagination and innovation that the private sector can bring to the difficult problem of transport in London, as it is attempting to do for the problems with our trains and buses elsewhere. Indeed, no one objects to the fact that our buses and trains are built by the private sector. In my constituency, the excellent firm, Dennis buses, has been at the forefront of new developments in bus design.
  In a rather tasteless contribution—there was one valid point—the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington complained about the poor quality of public transport. If people's perceptions of public transport are that it is so down market, those who might use it will refuse to do so. There are new designs for coaches and buses; for example, Dennis buses has designed a bus that kneels at the kerb so that those who are disabled, or who are
  912
  carrying shopping or wheeling children in buggies, can more easily get into the bus. Such conscious developments to benefit the users of public transport will promote the idea of its use to a wider market.
  In my constituency, a consultancy has developed monorail plans for hundreds of towns and cities. The advantage of modern monorail systems—if they can be successfully introduced—is that the cost of the infrastructure is much lower than that of traditional rail systems. The payback and the cost are among the major attractions of monorail. Furthermore, it has been proved that the modern image and visibility of the monorail attracts more users to such services.
  E-commerce also has an effect on transport. In Guildford, our local Tesco allows people to order their weekly shopping on the web and the goods are delivered to their door. That is a return to the local grocery shop concept that was so prevalent decades ago. That type of innovation will reduce traffic. If one van makes deliveries throughout a housing estate, that is much more efficient and requires less road use than if everyone on the estate drove to the local supermarket. We can project to a time when those out-of-town superstores will simply become warehouses and delivery points from which the essentials of daily living can be delivered to the residents of our towns and cities.
  We have to consider what will happen to town centres. They are, of course, attractive places in which to live. The social aspects—the shops, cafés, places to browse for a book—are attractive; we can look forward to the revival of our town centres and inner cities as meeting points. In the process, we shall see a reversal of the trend to the countryside on which the predictions for increased housing in the south-east have been founded.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are hundreds of thousands of small market towns where, at 5 o'clock, everybody disappears because nobody lives above the shops? If we could encourage people back to live in those town centres, there would be less need for commuting and less traffic congestion. The situation would be greatly improved. Does he have any ideas as to how we might develop such a system?
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I am interested in my hon. Friend's comments. I am sure that the same is true in the Cotswolds as it is in Surrey. We need to encourage more people to live in our town and city centres. That is partly an issue of security. With proper systems of closed circuit television and effective policing, we can ensure people's safety in such areas, and that will make them attractive places in which to live.
  Above all, we need sound transport links. I shall mention a final example. Recently, the frequency of the service from Guildford to London was increased from three to four fast trains an hour. Our connections with the centre of London are a valuable component in persuading more people to live in the centre of Guildford.
  The examples that I have mentioned do not form one strategic transport policy. They are the result of a range of policies implemented by a range of bodies in the private as well as the public sector. They recognise that diverse opportunities exist and that no single Department—and, I am afraid, certainly not this Deputy Prime Minister—can understand what is going on and can

  913
  direct what should happen to transport from the top down. That is a doomed policy and we must move away from it as soon as possible.
  8.45 pm
  Jane Griffiths: This debate has been quite fascinating, with a few unfascinating gaps in it from time to time. When I came to the Chamber this afternoon, I thought that there would be, from what I have read in the media, an onslaught on the Deputy Prime Minister and that he would be challenged by the Opposition. There was nothing of the sort.
  My heart went out to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who is clearly not well. His constituency neighbours mine, and we often come into contact with each other. I am sorry that he is not feeling well, and I know that his constituents will be, too. He is a very effective constituency Member of Parliament.
  I had hoped to hear something positive and constructive from the right hon. Gentleman. Conservative Members say that they have a different view from the Government's on how transport should be dealt with and they say that the Government are doing it all wrong. What would they do? We did not hear anything about that. They are on the road to nowhere.
  It is very difficult to hold a debate with Conservative Members. They did not offer anything. They merely said, "Don't do it that way." However, I do not think that even they would suggest that we do nothing and not bother about the problems of increasing congestion on the roads, increasing pollution and an increasing incidence of childhood asthma.
  In my constituency, there is much commuting out to London by train and much commuting in from several places in the area, and almost all of that is by car. That gives us a congestion problem only at the morning peak hour. Several solutions and strategies have been suggested, but there is not just one answer to the problems of congestion and pollution. We cannot say, "Do this: bring in congestion charging and workplace parking charging and everything will be fine." It will not be; we need a series of strategies.
  If we face congestion problems only at the morning peak hour, that is when we need to take measures. For the rest of the day, we do not need to restrict people's choice. At present, people have too little choice about how they make their journeys. I would like my constituents to be able sometimes to drive into central London, but that is impossible. They go by train, because that is their only choice. Sometimes, I would like them to be able to drive to the theatre or wherever, but they cannot do that either. I would like people to be able to take the bus most of the time, but sometimes to be able to drive if they have heavy things to carry. People do not have that choice.
  The Conservative party describes itself as the party of individual freedom and choice, but its policies over 18 years took that choice away. It does not matter whether people have a car or whether they like to drive a car, choices are limited if they are stuck in traffic or cannot make the journeys that they want to make, at the time and with the convenience they want.
  I should like to ask one thing of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, if some of our towns and cities are to have congestion charging. My local authority
  914
  is bidding for pilot status for that scheme, and I commend it for doing so, because it has shown that it wants to take serious action rather than just wringing its hands and blaming the Government. I should like local authorities that are prepared to take that action to be supported.
  One way to resolve the problem of the necessity to have visible improvements in public transport before people use their cars less is to set up partnerships between local authorities and other bodies, possibly in the private sector. I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister will give some thought to supporting local authorities that are willing to take the necessary action.
  I am grateful for having had the opportunity to speak today.
  8.50 pm
  Mr. Owen Paterson: It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate, and a particular pleasure to speak in the same debate as my new right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), who spoke well and clearly and made penetrating points. I thought that the speech by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was lamentable. It was not only bovine and oafish; it was incorrect, and no apology followed.
  I want briefly to address planning. I have been here since 2.30 pm, apart from slipping out briefly for something to eat, and nobody has yet spoken about rural areas. The Government have, in many ways, declared war on rural areas, not only by shifting £500 million of central Government funding to inner cities but by coming up with their extraordinary plans to impose excessive numbers of new houses on rural areas without considering whether the necessary government services already exist or what will obviously be the consequences for the environment and transport.
  It is proposed to impose 36,000 new houses on Shropshire when indigenous growth requires only 18,000. No one can possibly suggest opposing the building of houses to cope with indigenous growth but, when every single publicly funded service in Shropshire, including education, fire and police, is suffering from underfunding, and when there is a £94 million backlog of expenditure on the roads, it does not seem common sense to build twice the number of houses that are needed.
  Mr. Mackinlay: Both parties have got their policy for the south-east of England wrong—the area is on overload. I was listening to the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), who was complaining about the inexorable growth in housebuilding in the south-east. As far as I am aware, Shropshire is not in the south-east. We cannot have it both ways. We have to meet housing need, and a constituency such as North Shropshire could help to spread much more equitably the load caused by the demand for residential properties. From a planning point of view, it would be better if housebuilding were absorbed by such constituencies, taking the pressure off the south-east of England.
  Mr. Paterson: I am most grateful for that intervention because it demonstrates the problem that we are up against, which is central planning, similar to Gosplan, by civil servants, mainly in the south of England, who do not understand local circumstances elsewhere.

  915
  The Government have set an admirable target of 60 per cent. of new houses being built on brownfield sites. Even if we include Telford, which is the main urban area in Shropshire, only 40 per cent. of houses could be built on such sites. That figure comes from the county council and the Council for the Protection of Rural England. The figure for Wolverhampton is about 93 per cent., and the figure for the whole midlands conurbation is about 73 per cent. What is the point of bringing people out of conurbations to small market towns in Shropshire so that they have to drive back to the conurbations to their jobs?
  That brings me on to the congestion legislation—the parking tax. That is a pure tax on my poorest constituents. In Shropshire, 67 per cent. of people in Shropshire drive to work in towns such as Telford, Wrexham and Newcastle-under-Lyme, each of which has its own local authority. Parking or congestion charges must be significant. The Leicester experiment demonstrated that charges must be £10 if people are to be persuaded to leave their car behind and get the bus. If people in Shropshire pay those charges, the revenue will benefit transport services not in the Oswestry district or the North Shropshire district, but in those smaller urban authorities.
  This is a straight hit on my poorest constituents, as is the iniquitous increase in petrol prices. Over the past few weeks, my constituents have seen the price of petrol sail from £3.50 a gallon; it is heading on to £3.60 to £3.70. The Government have been caught out something rotten, because the price of oil has increased from $10 a barrel to about $25, and that cannot be hidden. The last thing people can afford to lose is the use of their cars, because with that they lose their jobs. That is why the intervention of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) was most helpful. It is not sensible to move people out to towns when they have to drive back to other towns where they have jobs.
  Mr. Mackinlay: So where do we put them?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. If hon. Members wish to make interventions, they must rise and make them in the conventional way.
  Mr. Mackinlay: I am extremely sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  When Members advance the argument that is being put forward by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), they must offer a solution. Where are we going to put folk? The quality of housebuilding and the quality of life to be found in Shropshire are most attractive and if taken up will help to stop the gravitational pull to the south-east of England, which is unhealthy both economically and socially. Housebuilding in Shropshire is an extremely good idea.
  Mr. Paterson: I have explained to the hon. Gentleman that we do not have brownfield sites. Telford, for instance, can provide only 40 per cent. of such sites. Why move people out from Wolverhampton, where 93 per cent. brownfield-site building is possible? Is it not more sensible to build there? There is no point in driving up to Shropshire at night and then returning the next day to one's work.
  916
  Having touched briefly on the problem of fuel duties for my constituents who have cars, and who have been hit by a £900 a year increase in tax since the Government came to power, I move on to the appalling damage that is being done to road haulage, England's main strategic haulage industry is responsible for moving 95 per cent. of Britain's goods. Even if rail investment is doubled, the percentage of goods carried by the main industry will decline to only 90. I raised the issue in an Adjournment debate in November, and I hate to say that all my worst predictions are coming true.
  We now have easily the most expensive fuel in western Europe. The Minister is bound to say in his reply that the Conservatives introduced the fuel escalator. We did so when there were only two other countries in Europe with cheaper fuel. The price of fuel in this country is more than twice as much as it is in Spain. It is about 92 per cent. more than the price in Luxembourg. Those are two of our main competitor countries. That is almost entirely the result of the duty. We know that 85 per cent. of the price of diesel is attributable to tax. If we take the average price per litre, duty amounts to 47.4p in this country as against 21.3p in France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. This is an entirely counter-productive measure which will not improve the environment.
  The figures produced by the Library show that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of foreign-owned trucks since the escalator was increased so sharply. In 1997, United Kingdom trucks made 543,000 movements to mainland Europe. Over the past four quarters, up to the second quarter of 1999, that increased to 558,000. However, movements by foreign-owned trucks have leapt from 597,600 to 804,900 in the same period. It is not surprising that they are mainly trucks from France, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg, where there are far more sensible fuel duty regimes.
  Vehicle excise duty has been increased to an incredible £5,750 for a 40-tonne truck in this country, whereas it is £486 in France and £328 in Spain. This has put our truckers at a massive disadvantage, with catastrophic consequences for the industry. However hard one tries to explain the problem, the Government do not understand that there is no environmental gain. The Library figures show that, in 1990, 159 million tonnes of carbon were produced in this country, of which 30 million came from road transport. Freight produced only 16 per cent. Only 5 million tonnes of carbon were produced by the road haulage industry. The Government, however, intend to halve that as part of the national reduction. It is simply unattainable: it will not happen. The load must be carried—95 per cent. of freight must go by road. If the domestic supplier is too expensive, a company will move to a foreign-owned trucker. It is as simple as that. The load must be moved, regardless. There is no option of going by rail, particularly in rural areas.
  I had a fax today on the subject of rural transport from Mr. W. M. Griffiths, who runs a successful agricultural distribution company near Ellesmere. He states:
  "Fuel costs are one of the major items that affect all sectors of agriculture. No items consumed on farms and produced by farms are untouched by the cost of fuel. The abolition of the fuel escalator is a belated effort to help beleaguered agriculture and its dependent industries. A retrospective rebate would be a welcome move to help reduce the ever-increasing cost of transport, especially in the rural areas."

  917
  I rang another of my constituents who was in his cab—I am pleased to say that he pulled his truck on to the side of the road—and he sent me his comments. He is Mr. David Yarwood, of Greyroads Ltd. in Oswestry. He writes:
  "Every week I hear of yet more haulage companies and owner-drivers throwing in the towel, either by liquidation or foreclosure by their banks. Fuel companies are now reluctant to supply hauliers due to the high risk of them not receiving payment. Fuel companies who supply us are insisting on prompt payment and in some cases even C.O.D.
  Over the last 20 years my Company and other hauliers stepped in to carry vital coal deliveries. During both the Rail and Miners' Strikes, we kept the home fires burning, Power Stations going and Hospitals open. We weren't very popular with some people but we were dedicated to our Country."
  I think that that is at the bottom of the Government's policy. There is no gain to the economy, there is a cost to gross domestic product and to the balance of payments, there is a cost in employment, and there is a cost to every single business in the country. The only explanation is that the policy is a dirty old bone being thrown to old Labour as revenge for what the hauliers did during the miners strike.
  9.2 pm
  Mrs. Louise Ellman: Tonight's debate was called by the Opposition. We might have expected to hear a recognition of the problems that their sad and disastrous 18 years in office created for public transport, and we might have hoped for some apology. We might have expected to hear some solutions to the legacy of decline and destruction that they left. Instead, they seem to have short memories. They remember little of what they did.
  The recent speeches from Opposition Members seem deliberately to ignore their record on public transport. By speaking about other issues, they try to divert our attention from what they did. Having initiated the debate, Opposition Members must listen to what we have to say about the result of their disastrous transport policies and what can now be done.
  After all, the country cannot and will not forget that it was the previous Government, ideologically driven by distaste for, and dislike of, everything public, and in particular public influence over public transport, who increased congestion on our roads by increasing the number of cars from 70 per mile to 100 per mile. As a result, the CBI estimated that about £15 billion was being charged to our economy because of congestion costs.
  The Conservative Government deregulated buses, notably outside London, which resulted in a passenger loss of at least one third and an increase in fares. It was local authorities—mainly Labour local authorities—that came to the rescue of people who needed buses to get to work and to go out at times of the day and night that did not make profits for the commercial concerns. Particularly in rural areas, local authorities—again, mainly Labour ones—ensured that bus services survived. While deregulation was under way, I had the privilege of leading Lancashire county council. That Labour-controlled county council kept rural bus services alive, encouraging diversity and experimentation with community-based, publicly subsidised rural services.
  918
  Through their public transport policies, the previous Government did more and more environmental damage. For example, they presided over an increase to 66 per cent. of freight carried on our roads and a fall in freight journeys by rail to 5 per cent.
  The previous Government's public transport policy virtually destroyed our rail service, cutting it into 100 pieces, with disastrous results. Indeed, hon. Friends have referred to the loss of public funds through the virtual giveaway of public assets, such as rolling stock companies, which has been condemned by the Conservative-chaired Public Accounts Committee. Railtrack, as we know, was sold for £1.9 billion, but is now valued at £8 billion.
  I must admit to being bemused every time that I hear a Conservative Member condemn Labour for taxes on motorists. It was the previous Government who increased duty on fuel from 7p a litre to 42p a litre, and it was under their rule that taxes on motorists rose from £4 billion to £21 billion.
  Mr. Paterson: I remind the hon. Lady again that we introduced the escalator when oil prices were much lower and when only two other countries in Europe had cheaper fuel. Our fuel is now easily the most expensive in western Europe—twice as expensive as in Spain and three times as expensive as in Turkey.
  Mrs. Ellman: I am very interested to note that the hon. Gentleman did not deny what I said. Indeed, he reaffirmed it. I hope that he remembers that this Government have stopped the automatic fuel escalator and will ensure that any funds raised from it will go to improving road transport. Not one penny of revenue from his Government's policies did so.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Is my hon. Friend interested to know that, under the Conservatives and their escalator, the tax per litre of petrol rose from '7p to 42p? Does not the intervention of the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) therefore seem a little odd?
  Mrs. Ellman: I accept my hon. Friend's comments. I note that Opposition Members have nothing whatever to say about such an important subject, which is very strange. Instead, they condemn this Government, who have done far less in attacking any motorist than they did during their long and despicable period in office.
  Public transport is of course of great importance to communities and societies; it is important for individuals to be able to move where they wish for work and leisure. Public transport is also important for economic development. I remind Opposition Members, who so foolishly instigated this debate, that they failed to deliver the channel tunnel rail link, and that this Government rescued it by a much more imaginative use of public and private funding, saving the taxpayer more than £1.2 billion in the process.
  It is of great importance to note that the public transport policy pursued by the previous Government failed to secure investment in all our regions. I listened with interest to the important contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), who played a large part in the campaign for investment in the west coast main line. It was an excellent campaign that was conducted on an all-party basis, and brought together local

  919
  authority and private sector interests. Sadly, it was defeated by privatisation. The Government must move forward and try to ensure that investment is made in our regions, including in the west coast main line. If public transport is to play a proper part in developing our economy, it must be based on the interests of people and regions; it cannot be based on short-term financial interest alone.
  In my constituency in Liverpool, we have great opportunities for economic development through the expanding trade at the port of Liverpool. Opportunities for trade with Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are increasing. That trade can be developed properly to bring full benefit to people across the north-west and, indeed, the northern region only if there is more investment in our dock infrastructure. We also need more investment in our rail services so that transport can be linked with the development of new economic opportunities by moving goods in an environmentally friendly way to the east coast ports and across to northern Europe. We need to invest in that trans-European route so that we can improve the economy and the environment simultaneously. The previous Government ignored that sort of policy because they were concerned not with the public interest, but with short-term, private gain. Such an attitude failed our region as it failed our country.
  As the Opposition initiated the debate, we are entitled to ask whether they have learned by their mistakes. They had little to say about what was wrong. Several Opposition Members spoke about the importance of linking transport and the environment; some referred to the importance of considering employment in relation to transport. The Government have, for the first time, introduced a structured process—in which everyone can participate—for achieving that through regional economic strategies that have been put forward by the regional development agencies set up throughout England.
  The Opposition not only opposed devising regional economic strategies, but are pledged to abolish the regional development agencies, which have produced the means for creating those strategies. They have learned nothing. They understand the importance of linking transport with the environment and the economy, but oppose the way in which that is being addressed.
  Mr. Davies: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware of an article in today's edition of the Financial Times, which reported that the chair of a regional development agency said that, with an extra £250 million, those agencies could generate an extra £2.4 billion of tax through the extra economic growth that they could create. Will she join me in underlining the importance of regional development agencies for regional regeneration and to the north-south issues about which we all know?
  Mrs. Ellman: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Regional development agencies are essential for bringing together the private, public and voluntary sectors to examine the economic, environmental and transport needs of regions. That is the way in which sustainable, new employment can be developed to fulfil the differing needs of the different regions.
  I also note with regret that the Opposition are still against the creation of a Strategic Rail Authority, which they oppose in its shadow form. It is the Government's
  920
  attempt to start to readdress the issue—indeed, the concept—of public transport working in the interests of the country and its regions.

  Many of my hon. Friends have drawn attention to the Government's achievements in ensuring that there has been more investment over the past two years in rail, buses and the movement of freight from the roads on to rail. The Government should also be praised for their other transport policies and for being the first Administration for many years to address the decline in our Merchant Navy. The agreement on a tonnage tax is the first step in the attempt to revive British shipping and our Merchant Navy and we must ensure that, alongside the expansion in British shipping, there is an expansion in ratings' jobs, the development of which is being prevented by the international exploitation of labour. We must address that important issue.
  The development of regional air services is another policy for which the Government should be praised. I welcome the additional investment in Liverpool airport, which is helping to boost the Merseyside economy, and look forward to it being linked with investment in Manchester as part of north-west economic development.
  The Opposition initiated tonight's debate on transport, but it has failed to live up to the expectations that they tried to fuel. They promised us fireworks, but have produced a damp squib. I can only hope that they learn from the errors made tonight and in 18 years of running down public transport. I hope that they will join Labour Members in supporting our new Transport Bill and promoting and supporting public transport, in the interests of the public and the country.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: The debate has certainly brought the Chamber to life in a way that the Government frequently find uncomfortable. I have listened to many interesting contributions.
  Mr. Mackinlay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jenkin: If I may, I shall make a little progress. The hon. Gentleman is rapidly becoming the jack-in-the-box of the House. He frequently makes interventions from where he sits, and that is where I shall leave him for the moment.
  There have been many interesting contributions; I regret that I was absent for some and shall study Hansard carefully. Interestingly, there have been pleas from both sides of the House for road schemes, bypasses and traffic relief schemes. That speaks volumes about the state of the Government's transport policy, but the collapse of their so-called public-private partnership for the London underground prompted us to initiate the debate. The events of the past week are symptomatic of much wider failure: if their transport policy had been an outstanding success, I doubt that we would have had to initiate the debate, nor would the Deputy Prime Minister have had to cut short his visit to India and fly back home amidst an atmosphere of crisis.
  The Deputy Prime Minister finds himself floundering because his transport policy is fundamentally misconceived. An increase in state control at the expense of the ordinary citizen in general and increased

  921
  restrictions and taxation on the motorist in particular are the essence of Government policy and the root cause of their failure.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: How can the hon. Gentleman reconcile his comments about extra bypasses—the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) mentioned 100 bypasses and new road developments that we have cut—with cuts in taxation for the motorist? How can he square that circle given the comments in "The Common Sense Revolution" on reducing tax?
  Mr. Jenkin: How does the hon. Gentleman square the rapid increase of taxation on the motorist and the £40 billion of tax increases that the Government have inflicted on the British people with the cuts in transport spending and roads investment? The hon. Gentleman has more explaining to do than I do.
  Transport is about freedom and prosperity. The freedom for individuals and families to travel is one of the most fundamental rights of a free society. That is why the car is just about the most successful and sought-after of all modern inventions. The car has become an icon of personal and family freedom and independence, yet the Government have launched the most astonishing attack on millions of ordinary people for whom the car is not a luxury but a necessity.
  I do not know why the Deputy Prime Minister much of the time looks so bewildered by people's reaction. [Interruption.] Before the election, the Prime Minister promised that there would be no need to increase taxes. Under Labour, after three tax-raising Budgets, Britain now has by far the highest petrol taxes in Europe: more than 85p in the pound is tax. Although the Chancellor says that he has stopped the automatic Budget increases in petrol and diesel tax, those taxes will still go up. Table B9 in the pre-Budget statement shows an increase in fuel duties well above the rate of inflation. All the Chancellor has done is to replace the fuel duty escalator with a new stealth tax escalator. [Interruption.] His spin last month was just another chapter in the great Labour lie.
  Mr. Paterson: The Deputy Prime Minister has just made a sedentary comment about it being a Tory tax. Will my hon. Friend ask him to look at the Government's figures, which clearly show that fuel duties will increase from £21.6 billion to £23.5 billion? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Jenkin: I have asked the Deputy Prime Minister written questions about this issue, but he passes them to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and we do not get an answer. The Government will not say how much of that increase will be for the DETR, and there will be further increases in fuel taxes at the next Budget.
  The Transport Bill imposes yet more taxes on car drives—car-parking and congestion taxes. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Could we please have an end to interventions from a sedentary position by Back Benchers and Front Benchers?
  Mr. Jenkin: What is the point of these tax increases? Before the election, Labour's election website promised
  "to reduce and then reverse traffic growth".
  922
  That was just another part of the great Labour lie to satisfy the green lobby. If the Deputy Prime Minister really wanted to do something positive to slow down traffic growth, he would stop new housing developments sprawling across the green fields of England and concentrate development near, and within, towns where people can choose to use public transport, cycle or walk instead of taking the car. That point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn).
  The truth is that taxes do not stop pollution or reduce congestion, except by forcing the very poorest drivers off the road. The latest traffic figures published by the DETR early in November show that congestion and traffic are growing as fast as ever.
  The freedom for business and industry to transport their goods and to provide services to a wide range of customers is essential to the well-being of the economy. That is why the Government's stealth tax assault on the road haulage industry, which employs more than 1 million people, is such a disaster. The highest haulage taxes in Europe do not mean fewer lorries on the road: just fewer British lorries. Foreign-registered trucks on UK roads increased by 31 per cent. last year. My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) pointed out the disastrous effects.
  People and businesses make millions of individual transport choices every day. A successful transport policy must provide for those choices. Freedom of choice is not just another new Labour slogan to be wheeled out to placate public opinion. The only transport policies that will succeed are those that meet the genuine needs and aspirations of consumers.
  That is why privatisation is the common-sense solution—[Interruption.] I have enjoyed hearing the litany of propaganda that has issued from Labour Members during the debate. However, the fact is, that, after 50 years of decline in passenger miles on the railway when it was owned and operated by the state, it is privatisation that has finally reversed that decline. In only three years—the three years that have elapsed since the release of the railway from the shackles of state control—passenger volumes have increased by 25 per cent. That is because it is the job of managers and staff on the privatised railway not to please the politicians, but to put more bums on seats in order to turn an honest profit for the shareholders.
  The railway still has many failings, but it is privatisation and the profit motive that the Deputy Prime Minister still so despises that is delivering what the right hon. Gentleman actually wants. It is producing huge new investment, and causing people to get out of their cars and on to trains according to their own free choice.
  We are in favour of integration, but not as part of another slick Labour slogan that pretends to offer easy answers. No one should deny that transport is an easy challenge, but it was the Labour party that promised before the last election that it would fix everything quickly. The only integration that will work is integration that is customer-led. For instance, Anglia Railways in my constituency offers single bus and train tickets enabling people to get on a bus, get on a train and go to Stansted airport. Those tickets were not invented by some Minister or civil servant in Whitehall.
  The state can never hope to provide for such a huge, complex and diverse market, whether by direct provision or by way of some kind of master plan for transport.

  923
  If too many decisions are made in town halls and Whitehall, choices are removed from ordinary people, and that is why Britain under Labour is grinding to a halt.
  The Deputy Prime Minister glibly promised an integrated transport policy; he has delivered a standstill Britain. Before the election, Labour policy documents promised to deliver what they called immediate benefits for the travelling public, but the most fundamental weakness in the right hon. Gentleman's strategy is his neglect of roads. The latest national roads maintenance conditions survey shows that our roads are in the worst condition in which they have been since the last Labour Government, and that the United Kingdom is now investing less in roads than any of our major European competitors. Britain is at the bottom of the roads spending league.
  What really takes the breath away is the right hon. Gentleman's hapless public- private partnerships for public transport. Before the election, the present Prime Minister attacked the Conservative party thus:
  "the Government cast around for any hapless part of the public sector to privatise. Air traffic control is floated as a possibility".—[Official Report, 16 November 1994; Vol. 250, c. 15.]
  That notion was described as crazy, but, last week, the Deputy Prime Minister introduced a Bill including provision for the privatisation of air traffic control. There could never be a more glaring example of Labour saying one thing and doing precisely the opposite.
  This is no ordinary privatisation. It is not at all clear how, in this privatisation, the management of NATS will not live in permanent fear of Ministers if the Government remain much the biggest shareholder. It is far from clear how issues of national security can be resolved if control is sold to a foreign bidder. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how he manages to raise so little for investment from the sale? I note that his antics on the railway have helped to halve Railtrack's share price, but to raise only £15 million in net proceeds from the sale of a business that is valued at £800 million suggests an unparalleled degree of commercial incompetence. It is quite simple: the figures relating to the financial and manpower effects of the Bill are given in the notes on clauses. I do not know whether the Secretary of State had the chance to read them on the aeroplane.
  Mr. Prescott: I read them before I came back.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I will not have comments from a sedentary position, even from those on the Front Bench.
  Mr. Jenkin: The notes say that income from the partial sale of NATS to a strategic partner could raise about £350 million. There are outstanding debts of £300 million to be paid. The costs and fees for the deal will be £35 million, so net proceeds will be £15 million. If that is value for money, the Secretary of State has a rather different view from me.
  The chaos of the tube public-private partnership underlines that the Secretary of State cannot cope with the demands of his Department. The PPP was to be his pride and joy. It was to demonstrate that the third way is the new hope for new Labour, but it has turned to dust and ashes.
  924
  I listened with great interest to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), ex-leader of the loony left Camden council of the 1970s and early 1980s, extolling the virtues of the public-private partnership principle. Of course, what he is in favour of is contracting out. That is what the PPP is—it is contracting out. What he does not understand is that it is one thing to contract out a relatively simple project, where the risks are relatively quantifiable—say, a hospital project; he is a recent convert to that—but it is another matter to contract out the unquantifiable risks of deep tube building.
  The risks are so unquantifiable that a decision has to be made: what risks will the purchaser take and what risks will the provider take? The more risks that one transfers to the provider, the more the costs will go up. If the Jubilee line had been contracted out, the risks would have made the deal fantastically expensive. It was not a PPP. The state bore the risk. The increase in costs shows how big the risks were.
  The Secretary of State's bidding process was meant to be opened formally in autumn last year, but Railtrack's potential bid for all the main parts of the PPP deterred the other bidders from coming forward, so, on 15 June in the House, he announced that Railtrack would be given exclusive rights to bid for the sub-surface lines. He said that the plan would be a
  "true example of a modern, integrated transport system."—[Official Report, 15 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 156.]
  Railtrack was in Labour's good books then. Despite the difficulties and uncertainties created by the terrible accident at Paddington, which would delay a small part of the project, on the instructions of Sir Alastair Morton of the Strategic Rail Authority, Railtrack was still preparing, this time last week, to bid formally on 31 January 2000 with a view to completion in eight weeks. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is right. He agrees with that chronology.
  As the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) mounted an increasingly effective campaign for selection as London's mayoral candidate, Railtrack fast became a political albatross about the Secretary of State's neck, so, on the basis of the least excuse, after I am sure a certain amount of active lobbying by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, Railtrack was dropped like a hot brick for the Secretary of State's political convenience.
  Will the Secretary of State confirm that that has the effect of delaying the PPP for the sub-surface lines for another 12 months? Will he confirm that other bidders such as Taylor Woodrow have gone cold on the deal? He should adopt our common-sense plans for a Londoners' tube.
  I heard complaints that we were not making proposals: well, here they are. They include a new tube enterprise, with free shares for Londoners and for season-ticket holders. Management would be free to issue shares and bonds, which are so fashionable these days, particularly with the hon. Member for Brent, East. Management would get the politicians and Treasury out of its hair. Conservatives would support the Londoners' tube, so that it could start new projects for new lines to meet the demands of Londoners. Labour will not do that, however, because Labour is wedded to the dogma of state control.
  Where has the Deputy Prime Minister left the tube and its long-suffering passengers? His transport policy has become an open and shut case. He goes round the United

  925
  Kingdom attending the opening ceremonies of rail infrastructure projects—such as Heathrow Express, the Jubilee line extension and the Croydon tramlink, which are all Conservative achievements—and, then, he comes back to his office and closes the Circle line, the Northern line and various stations, in peak time, because of the danger of overcrowding at mainline stations. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) explained, that situation is a consequence of the current Government investing less in the tube than the previous, Conservative, Government did.
  The Deputy Prime Minister's problems are not all of his own making. He has had to put up with some less than full-hearted support from some of his colleagues and from the spin doctors at No. 10 Downing street. His friends—not Opposition Members—started the speculation on his future. Two years ago, the Deputy Prime Minister teased a junior Minister—the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)—with a crab in a jar. Today, that same man is being spoken of by the Prime Minister's spin doctors as the right hon. Gentleman's successor.
  Whisperers in the right hon. Gentleman's own party are out to get him. Now that the Prime Minister has assured everyone that
  "He is an excellent man doing an excellent job",
  we know that the skids are under him. He is going down the tubes with his own public-private partnership.
  The great experiment in joined-up Government has failed. The creation of the huge Environment, Transport and the Regions super-ministry is nothing but a triumph of spin over substance. Today, yet another Channel 4 poll has confirmed that 79 per cent. of people think that the Government have failed on transport. It is time for the Prime Minister to act.
  The Deputy Prime Minister cannot cope. He must give up some or all of his responsibilities before the standstill in Britain gets ever worse.
  9.37 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): Was that it? This was the debate that was supposed to have us reeling on the ropes, but the truth is that it has been an abject failure for the official Opposition, and especially for their Front-Bench spokesmen—to whom I promise to return.
  Generally, we have heard many and varied—not to say variable—speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House. We have also heard speeches from almost all of the House's would-be mayoral candidates. Inevitably, rather more of the potential candidates are Labour Members—reflecting both the greater abundance of talent among Labour Members and the fact that at least all of our would-be candidates have been allowed on to the shortlist.
  Hon. Members will have heard the speeches of the would-be candidates and come to their own judgment, as they will have done on the speeches of other hon. Members. Unfortunately, time does not permit me to respond in detail to all the speeches, but I shall say this: it was noticeable that, throughout the debate, there were many more Labour than Opposition Members in the Chamber. Although the Opposition have just about maintained their number of speakers, most of them have
  926
  sounded very much like pressed men. It is perfectly clear that the Labour party takes transport seriously—that is widely appreciated across the country—and, doubtless, we shall be rewarded in due course.
  I should say a word about the speeches of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and of his hapless understrapper, the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). It is delightful to see the hon. Member in the Chamber after his four-hour absence from the debate; I hope that he is not poorly, too.
  The right hon. Member for Wokingham has been obliged to return to his sickbed and is, therefore, unable to be with us for the replies. He began the debate with a speech full of complaint and accusation against the Government. He is responsible for the critical motion before us and for his party's transport policies, such as they are. He must answer for them and it is my duty to address them in my response to the debate.
  I remind the House with irony that, only two weeks ago, the right hon. Gentleman was boasting of the "youth and vigour" of his Front-Bench team. It was a ludicrous claim at the time, and that youth and vigour has now been more than a little sapped as a result of a pager message dispatching the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) to the outer reaches of the Back Benches—a sacrifice on the altar of Tory bigotry, cheered on by the party's erstwhile leader. If what we have heard today represents the best that the Conservative party can offer by way of youth and vigour, the Government can relax for a little while longer and we can sleep peacefully in our beds. If that is the best that the Tories can do, my advice to the Opposition Front Bench is to watch out for those telltale vibrations about the midriff—it will be a pager message coming through.
  Today's debate has been a feeble performance by the Opposition. They thought that they had my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on the back foot, but they have failed to press home their attack. My right hon. Friend made a magnificent speech. By contrast, the Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen have looked like puppy dogs snapping at his heels—ineffectual underlings in the shadow of a colossus.
  The hon. Member for North Essex does his best with the poor lead given by the shadow spokesman. It would be helpful if the right hon. Member for Wokingham knew a little more about the subject. He poses as the friend of the motorist—a former member of a Tory Cabinet that presided over a massive increase in road congestion, promised the motorist a fantasy league of road and motorway improvements that were uncosted, unfunded and undelivered, and increased taxes on the motorist from £4 billion a year to £21 billion a year with not a penny of the increase being paid back. Are the Conservatives not aware that, in 1999, under this Labour Government, the cost of motoring in Britain is at its lowest level for 20 years?
  Mr. Jenkin rose—
  Mr. Hill: I am sorry. The hon. Gentleman has not been in the Chamber for the majority of the debate. Most of the Back-Bench speeches have been longer than the time that I have available and I wish to enjoy my day in court. I have much to say and little time in which to say it.
  Are not the Conservatives also aware that, this year, we are spending in excess of £400 million more on trunk road maintenance than was spent in the last year of Tory rule?

  927
  Next year, the figure will be £530 million more. Are they not aware that, this year, we have announced the end of the fuel duty escalator, introduced by the Conservatives, and have promised that every penny raised by any further real increase in fuel duty will go directly to the motorist and public transport—something that the Tories would never do? Where have the Tories been?
  Opposition spokesmen ask where the new train and bus services are. Are they not aware that, in 1999, under Labour, 1,000 more trains are being run each day than when the Conservatives lost power in 1997? Are they not aware that rail passenger journeys increased by 11 per cent. in the past two years, and rail freight increased by 15 per cent? Are they not aware that, in the past 12 months, bus passenger journeys have risen for the first time since bus deregulation and privatisation in 1986? Are they not aware of the 1,800 new and enhanced bus services now in operation as a direct result of the Government's rural bus grant initiative—a commitment to the countryside never contemplated by the Tory Government? Where have the Tories been? I can tell hon. Members where the right hon. Member for Wokingham has been—he has been tying himself and his party in knots over congestion charging and wiping out the lessons even the Tories had begun to learn after 18 years of transport failure.
  The right hon. Gentleman's sidekick, the hon. Member for North Essex, knows exactly what I mean. Speaking on transport and the environment at no less a body than the Institute of Directors earlier this year, he said that in the previous Government's
  "1996 Green Paper we took the transport debate on … The Conservatives agree with much in"—
  Labour's—
  "transport white paper … It rightly gives high priority to environmental issues … We do not rule out road charges for infrastructure investment … In short, Conservative objectives for transport are the same as the Government".
  Well, apparently not now—and the hon. Gentleman will have to make his peace with his boss. I wish him a better fate than the hon. Member for Witney. I have this message for the right hon. Member for Wokingham in his sick bed: in seeking to politicise congestion charging, he is playing a dangerous game. He is breaking what was a growing political consensus, and the country will be the worse for it.
  Frankly, it is a failure of leadership, and it compounds other failures, not least in this debate. The right hon. Member for Wokingham cannot help but be aware that there is a new, lean and hungry presence on the Opposition Back Benches—Members who made rather better speeches than he did. We have all heard about his leader's spring reshuffle. I say to him, "Beware the ides of March". In tonight's debate, and in this motion, the Opposition have the temerity to accuse the Government of carrying out cuts in London's underground. On what planet—I am doing the planet joke—have the Tories been living?
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already comprehensively assisted them in this matter, but let me reiterate the facts; it will not take long. First, as a result of years of Tory under-investment in the tube, the Government inherited a huge investment backlog of
  928
  arrears of £1.2 billion. Secondly, what would have been the Tory solution to that crisis? The answer is yet more cuts in spending. To be precise, the Tories planned a grant to London Transport of just £161 million this year which, after coping with the consequences of the poorly planned Jubilee line extension, would have left no support at all for the core underground network.
  Thirdly, what has Labour done about it? Last year, we announced an extra £365 million funding for London Transport to reverse the Tory cuts, and, this, summer, we announced a further £500 million for this year and next. Fourthly, as a result, London Transport will be able to invest almost £600 million more than it would have done under the plans of the Tory Government—QED, let us hear no more of this claptrap about cuts in tube investment.
  Mr. Gray: Is the Minister aware of information produced by the Library which states that, in 1995–96, the Conservatives invested just over £1 billion, and, in 1996–97, just over £1 billion? In 1997–98, investment was £800 million, and the following year, it was £698 million. This year, investment is £278 million. In other words, investment in the underground has gone down massively under Labour.
  Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman fancies himself as an expert on these matters, but we are talking about the Government's core investment in the tube system, not about expenditure in the Jubilee line extension—a system initiated by the Conservative Government, following bad advice, which has proved to be disastrous.
  Mr. Jenkin: Here are the figures—in the last three years of the Conservative Government, we invested £3 billion in the tube. In the first three years of this Government, they will be investing only £1.7 billion. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) pointed out, that accounts for a lower level of investment in core tube, non-Jubilee line expenditure. That is a cut.
  Mr. Hill: The Opposition are still talking about the investment required in the Jubilee line extension to compensate for their failures in government to initiate sensible and well-founded tube investment. Thus far, the Government's average investment in London's core network is about £480 million a year. The average over the 18 wasted Tory years was £280 million a year.
  The Government's record in providing new and higher investment in London's tube network is excellent, but we cannot simply go on increasing the grant that we give to London Transport. Throwing more and more money at the underground will not solve its problems. It would do nothing to ensure that the money was spent efficiently. It would not prevent the massive cost overruns on construction projects. It would not provide the stable, long-term framework that the underground needs to make the transformation to a modern, reliable service for the next millennium. That we will achieve through the public-private partnership. The Opposition have done their best to rubbish the PPP, and they have failed.
  Mr. Brake: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hill: No. I have been disappointed with the interventions that I have taken so far, and there is a lot more good stuff to come.

  929
  The Opposition said that there would be no interest from the private sector in the PPP, and they were wrong. Five consortiums of leading firms are competing for the deep tube infrastructure contracts, and the bids are due back in March.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: When?
  Mr. Hill: March. When I say March, I mean March—in the new millennium, that is.
  The PPP contracts are sound, and competition for the sub-surface contract will be launched soon. The PPP is on track to provide the step change in the underground that we want. We are not going to be rushed into setting artificial deadlines—we have learned from the mess made over rail privatisation. In good time, we will deliver a solution that offers best value for money.
  Of course, there are other options on offer. The Opposition want to privatise the whole lot—break it up and sell it off, against the will of Londoners. The Opposition, like Charles I, have learned nothing and forgotten nothing. That plan is a recipe for yet more misery for London's travelling public.
  Mr. Jenkin: Who wrote this?
  Mr. Hill: It is good stuff, is it not? Obviously, the Opposition are fazed by the occasional historical and literary reference. We do not try to impose very much on their intellectual resources, but they ought to be receptive to an occasional bit of education.
  Then, of course, we have what might be described as the Weston-super-Mare/Brent-East option: raise the money through bonds, keep the whole operation in the public sector, at—as if by magic—no greater cost to the public purse. That is the black hole approach. Let us be entirely clear. Public bonds are just another form of public borrowing. It is the public sector that carries the risk. If things go wrong, it is the taxpayer or the ratepayer who carries the can. If public bonds had been used to fund the Jubilee line extension, it is London's ratepayers who would have been faced with a bill for almost £2 billion to meet the cost overrun.
  By contrast, and this is vital, under the PPP all the risk is shouldered by the private sector—a point made effectively by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) in his immensely wise and well-informed speech.
  Mr. Snape: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hill: How can I resist my transport guru?
  Mr. Snape: I want to give the Conservatives a break from the drubbing that my hon. Friend is giving them. In the time that he has left, could he address issues north of Potters Bar for the benefit of the rest of us?
  Mr. Hill: The PPP is about far more than different forms of borrowing. It will bring private sector disciplines to bear on the investment programme. It will go far beyond what has already been done under PFI contracts. I remind the House of the conclusions of the most recently commissioned independent report on the PPP. Despite frequent claims to the contrary, the report found that the
  930
  PPP would not double the cost of borrowing, but would lead to improvements in efficiency in the order of 20 to 30 per cent., generating massive efficiencies in the tube investment programme over 15 years.
  The report by PricewaterhouseCoopers, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, and which has now been placed in the Library, specifically examines the cost to Londoners of the PPP compared with public bonds. The report finds that the PPP would save—I repeat save—£4.5 billion, which could be spent on our national priorities of health and education. Bond financing would not achieve that; privatisation would certainly not achieve that. The sensible, lasting solution to the tube's problems is to secure massive investment, to ensure that the money is well spent, and to have a publicly accountable London Underground that is dedicated to improved services for passengers. Only the PPP—publicly owned, publicly run and properly financed—can achieve all that.
  In our 1997 election manifesto, we said that we would introduce
  "a new public private partnership to improve the Underground, safeguard its commitment to the public interest, and guarantee value for money to taxpayers and passengers".
  That is what we said, and that is what we will deliver. On roads, we said that we would invest in maintenance to rescue our motorway and trunk road network from the worst state it had fallen into since records began. This year, we are spending £765 million on road maintenance, which is 40 per cent. more than in the last year of Tory rule. What we said we would do, we are delivering.
  On railways, we said that we would establish a new rail authority to provide a clear, coherent and strategic programme for our railway network. That is why we are bringing in the new Strategic Rail Authority under the Transport Bill. We said that we would encourage more freight on to rail. Rail freight is up by 15 per cent. in the past two years and there are 40 new rail freight terminals. We said that we would encourage more passengers on to rail. Investment in rail is up by a third over the past two years and passenger journeys have increased by 11 per cent. We now have the highest number of rail passenger journeys for 40 years. What we said we would do, we have delivered.
  We need no lessons on transport policy from the party which gave us road congestion—
  Mr. James Arbuthnot rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 369.

  Division No. 14]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Bercow, John

  Amess, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Blunt, Crispin

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Boswell, Tim

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Baldry, Tony

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Beggs, Roy

  Brady, Graham

  931

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Loughton, Tim

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Luff, Peter

  Burns, Simon

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Butterfill, John

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Cash, William

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Chope, Christopher

  Madel, Sir David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Maples, John

  Collins, Tim

  Mates, Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Cran, James

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Norman, Archie

  Day, Stephen

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Ottaway, Richard

  Duncan, Alan

  Page, Richard

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Paice, James

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Paterson, Owen

  Evans, Nigel

  Pickles, Eric

  Faber, David

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Fabricant, Michael

  Prior, David

  Fallon, Michael

  Randall, John

  Flight, Howard

  Robertson, Laurence

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Ruffley, David

  Fox, Dr Liam

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Fraser, Christopher

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gale, Roger

  Shepherd, Richard

  Garnier, Edward

  Soames, Nicholas

  Gibb, Nick

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Gill, Christopher

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Spring, Richard

  Gray, James

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Green, Damian

  Steen, Anthony

  Greenway, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Syms, Robert

  Hammond, Philip

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Hawkins, Nick

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Hayes, John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Heald, Oliver

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Townend, John

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Tredinnick, David

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Viggers, Peter

  Horam, John

  Walter, Robert

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Wardle, Charles

  Hunter, Andrew

  Waterson, Nigel

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Whittingdale, John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Wilkinson, John

  Willetts, David

  Key, Robert

  Wilshire, David

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Woodward, Shaun

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Yeo, Tim

  Lansley, Andrew

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Letwin, Oliver

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Lidington, David

  Mr. Keith Simpson and

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Allan, Richard

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Allen, Graham

  Ashton, Joe

  932

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cummings, John

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Austin, John

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Baker, Norman

  Ballard, Jackie

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Barnes, Harry

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Barron, Kevin

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bayley, Hugh

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Beard, Nigel

  Darvill, Keith

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Berth, Rt Hon A J

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Davidson, Ian

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Benton, Joe

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Berry, Roger

  Denham, John

  Blackman, Liz

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Blizzard, Bob

  Doran, Frank

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Dowd, Jim

  Borrow, David

  Drew, David

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Brake, Tom

  Edwards, Huw

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Efford, Clive

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Etherington, Bill

  Browne, Desmond

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Burden, Richard

  Fisher, Mark

  Burgon, Colin

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Burnett, John

  Fitzsimons, Loma

  Burstow, Paul

  Flint, Caroline

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Flynn, Paul

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Follett, Barbara

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Foulkes, George

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Gapes, Mike

  Cann, Jamie

  Gardiner, Barry

  Caplin, Ivor

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Caton, Martin

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Gerrard, Neil

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Chaytor, David

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Chidgey, David

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Clapham, Michael

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Goggins, Paul

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Gunnell, John

  Clelland, David

  Hain, Peter

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Coleman, Iain

  Hancock, Mike

  Colman, Tony

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Cooper, Yvette

  Harvey, Nick

  Corbett, Robin

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Cotter, Brian

  Healey, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Cox, Tom

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cranston, Ross

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Crausby, David

  Heppell, John

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  933

  Hill, Keith

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hoey, Kate

  Miller, Andrew

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hope, Phil

  Moffatt, Laura

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Moore, Michael

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Morley, Elliot

  Hurst, Alan

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hutton, John

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Mountford, Kali

  Illsley, Eric

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Mudie, George

  Jamieson, David

  Mullin, Chris

  Jenkins, Brian

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Oaten, Mark

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Olner, Bill

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  O'Neill, Martin

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Keetch, Paul

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pearson, Ian

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Pendry, Tom

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kidney, David

  Pike, Peter L

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Plaskitt, James

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Pollard, Kerry

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Pond, Chris

  Laxton, Bob

  Pope, Greg

  Lepper, David

  Pound, Stephen

  Leslie, Christopher

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Levitt, Tom

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Linton, Martin

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Livsey, Richard

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Purchase, Ken

  Lock, David

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Love, Andrew

  Quinn, Lawrie

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Rammell, Bill

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Rapson, Syd

  Raynsford, Nick

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  McDonnell, John

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  McFall, John

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Rogers, Allan

  McIsaac, Shona

  Rooney, Terry

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Rowlands, Ted

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Roy, Frank

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ruane, Chris

  McNulty, Tony

  Ruddock, Joan

  McWilliam, John

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sanders, Adrian

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Martlew, Eric

  Sheerman, Barry

  Maxton, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Meale, Alan

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Merron, Gillian

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  934

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Tyler, Paul

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

  Tynan, Bill

  Snape, Peter

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Soley, Clive

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Spellar, John

  Wareing, Robert N

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Watts, David

  Stevenson, George

  Webb, Steve

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  White, Brian

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Stringer, Graham

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Willis, Phil

  Taylor Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wills, Michael

  Winnick, David

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

  Wise, Audrey

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Wood, Mike

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Woolas, Phil

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Wray, James

  Timms, Stephen

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Todd, Mark

  Wyatt, Derek

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Trickett, Jon

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Truswell, Paul

  Mr. Clive Betts and

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 327, Noes 176.

  Division No. 15]

  [10.15 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Alexander, Douglas

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Allen, Graham

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Browne, Desmond

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Burden, Richard

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Burgon, Colin

  Ashton, Joe

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Austin, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Barnes, Harry

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Barren, Kevin

  Cann, Jamie

  Bayley, Hugh

  Caplin, Ivor

  Beard, Nigel

  Caton, Martin

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cawsey, Ian

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Chaytor, David

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Clapham, Michael

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Benton, Joe

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Berry, Roger

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Blackman, Liz

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Borrow, David

  Clelland, David

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Coaker, Vemon

  935

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Coleman, Iain

  Heppell, John

  Colman, Tony

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hill, Keith

  Corbett, Robin

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Cox, Tom

  Hoey, Kate

  Cranston, Ross

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Crausby, David

  Hope, Phil

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Hurst, Alan

  Hutton, John

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Illsley, Eric

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jamieson, David

  Darvill, Keith

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Davidson, Ian

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Denham, John

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Doran, Frank

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dowd, Jim

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Drew, David

  Kidney, David

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Edwards, Huw

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Efford, Clive

  Laxton, Bob

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Lepper, David

  Ennis, Jeff

  Leslie, Christopher

  Etherington, Bill

  Levitt, Tom

  Fisher, Mark

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Linton, Martin

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Flint, Caroline

  Lock, David

  Flynn, Paul

  Love, Andrew

  Follett, Barbara

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Foulkes, George

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gapes, Mike

  Macdonald, Calum

  Gardiner, Barry

  McDonnell, John

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  McFall, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Godsiff, Roger

  McNamara, Kevin

  Goggins, Paul

  McNulty, Tony

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McWilliam, John

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Gunnell, John

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Hain, Peter

  Martlew, Eric

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Maxton, John

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Meale, Alan

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Merron, Gillian

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Healey, John

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  936

  Miller, Andrew

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Mitchell, Austin

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Moffatt, Laura

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Morley, Elliot

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mountford, Kali

  Snape, Peter

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Soley, Clive

  Mudie, George

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Mullin, Chris

  Spellar, John

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stevenson, George

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Olner, Bill

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stringer, Graham

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Pearson, Ian

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Pendry, Tom

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pickthall, Colin

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pike, Peter L

  Timms, Stephen

  Plaskitt, James

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pollard, Kerry

  Todd, Mark

  Pond, Chris

  Trickett, Jon

  Pope, Greg

  Truswell, Paul

  Pound, Stephen

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Prescott Rt Hon John

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Prosser Gwyn

  Tynan, Bill

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Purchase, Ken

  Walley Ms Joan

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Wareing, Robert N

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Watts, David

  Rammell, Bill

  White, Brian

  Rapson, Syd

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wills, Michael

  Rooney, Terry

  Winnick, David

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wise, Audrey

  Roy, Frank

  Wood, Mike

  Ruane, Chris

  Woolas, Phil

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wray, James

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wyatt, Derek

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mr. Clive Betts and

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Allan, Richard

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Amess, David

  Bercow, John

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Baker, Norman

  Boswell, Tim

  Baldry, Tony

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Beggs, Roy

  Brady, Graham

  937

  Brake, Tom

  Hammond, Philip

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Hancock, Mike

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Harvey, Nick

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Burnett, John

  Hayes, John

  Burns, Simon

  Heald, Oliver

  Burstow, Paul

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Butterfill. John

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Horam, John

  Cash, William

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Chidgey, David

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Keetch, Paul

  Collins, Tim

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Colvin, Michael

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Key, Robert

  Cotter, Brian

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Cran, James

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Letwin, Oliver

  Day, Stephen

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Lidington, David

  Duncan, Alan

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Livsey, Richard

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Evans, Nigel

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Faber, David

  Loughton, Tim

  Fabricant, Michael

  Luff, Peter

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Flight, Howard

  Mclntosh, Miss Anne

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Fraser, Christopher

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gale, Roger

  Madel, Sir David

  Garnier, Edward

  Major, Rt Hon John

  George, Andrew (St lves)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gibb, Nick

  Maples, John

  Gill, Christopher

  Mates, Michael

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Gray, James

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Green, Damian

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Greenway, John

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Moore, Michael

  938

  Moss, Malcolm

  Syms, Robert

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Norman, Archie

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Oaten, Mark

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Öpik, Lembit

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Ottaway, Richard

  Townend, John

  Page, Richard

  Tredinnick, David

  Paice, James

  Tyler, Paul

  Paterson, Owen

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Pickles, Eric

  Viggers, Peter

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Walter, Robert

  Prior, David

  Wardle, Charles

  Randall, John

  Waterson, Nigel

  Robertson, Laurence

  Webb, Steve

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Whitingdale, John

  Sanders,Adrian

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Wilkinson, John

  Shepherd, Richard

  Willetts, David

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

  Willis, Phil

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wilshire, David

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Spring, Richard

  Woodward, Shaun

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Steen, Anthony

  Streeter, Gary

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stunell, Andrew

  Mr. Keith Simpson and

  Swayne, Desmond

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the Government's approach for an Integrated Transport Strategy; deplores the previous Government's record of under-investment in transport, fragmentation of bus and rail services and encouragement of ill-planned out-of-town development; in particular condemns their erratic investment in London Underground, which left a £1.2 billion backlog; welcomes the Government's long-term strategy to secure over £8 billion investment for upgrading London Underground over the next 15 years; deplores the official Opposition's plans to privatise London Underground; and welcomes the Government's commitment to an extra £1.8 billion for public transport and local transport plans, improving road maintenance, reducing pollution, and encouraging the major investment needed to widen transport choice.

  Post Office
  [Relevant documents: The Twelfth Report from the Trade and Industry Committee, Session 1998–99, on the 1999 Post Office White Paper (HC 94) and the Government's response thereto (Session 1999–2000, HC 50).]
  10.28 pm
  Mr. Nick Gibb: I beg to move,
  That the Postal Privilege (Suspension) Order 1999 (Revocation) Order 1999 (S.I., 1999, No. 2863), dated 19th October 1999, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be revoked.
  The motion seeks to annul the statutory instrument laid before the House by the Government in October, which revokes their earlier statutory instrument, laid before the House in July, which would have reduced the Post Office monopoly from £1 to 50p. In July, that was the Government's policy, and the Opposition have moved the motion to enable the Government to stick to their policy.
  This is a classic example of the Government's approach of saying one thing and doing another. They said that they wanted to liberalise the postal delivery market, but the reality is a continuation of the status quo. The motion is therefore designed to help the Government to say one thing and do that thing. It is designed to help new Labour to stand up to old Labour. So often, we hear the language of the free market of deregulation from the Government but the reality is anti-business, increasing regulation and distrust of the free market. Traditional Labour is always there but, tonight, with our help, new Labour can assert itself by voting with us to overturn the Government's latest pusillanimous U-turn. We are seeing the Government's stamp of weak authority.
  The Government have got themselves into a deep mess over their plans for the Post Office. On 8 July, the Secretary of State, with great bravado and flourish, announced his Post Office White Paper, which, he said,
  "sets an agenda for the Post Office … for the 21st century. Today's announcement is good news for the Post Office … because it can now build for the future with real confidence."—[Official Report, 8 July 1999; Vol. 334, c. 1175.]
  In that same spirit of bravado, the right hon. Gentleman, on that same day, laid the order reducing the Post Office monopoly from £1 to 50p.
  The White Paper states:
  "The Government believes that greater competition will bring benefits to the consumer. At present competition is restricted to items costing £1 or more. The Government will take a major first step towards liberalisation by halving the monopoly currently enjoyed by the Post Office to 50p … The Government is committed to further liberalisation of the market."
  That was the Government's position on 8 July.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my hon. Friend link this to the Government's big and shouted campaign about rip-off Britain, which they seem to want to abandon? They got the Minister of State, Cabinet Office to make an announcement and then they shifted him out of his job. Now they are ripping off Britain with the order that is before us.
  Mr. Gibb: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
  940
  The order means that the British consumer will not be able to benefit from the liberalisation of the postal market that would, in the long run, inevitably reduce prices. So much else of rip-off Britain is a consequence of the Government. The extreme increases in petrol and diesel duties are adding to the cost of supermarket space, and they did nothing in the Seattle round last week to seek to reduce the tariffs on imported goods and services for which consumers are paying.
  There we have it. On 8 July, the Government were determined to give the Post Office commercial freedom, and as a quid pro quo were reducing its monopoly from £1 to 50p. That was the considered opinion that the Government had carefully reached. That was the right thing to do to enable the Post Office and its competitors to respond to the fast-changing postal delivery market without jeopardising the Post Office's universal service obligation. The internet means that there are new methods of communication and more household deliveries as people order goods by the internet and by e-mail.
  The proposed changes that the Government announced in July were welcomed by the Mail Users Association Ltd., which said that, while the Government's recognition that greater competition would bring benefits to the consumer was welcomed, it was reassured that the proposed halving of the monopoly to 50p was seen as a major first step towards liberalisation.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Post Office has nothing to fear? The 1999 Trade and Industry Report on the Post Office White Paper weighs exactly 176 g. Is he aware also that, even if the monopoly were reduced to 50p, the Post Office would still have the monopoly to deliver that report, as 50p allows postage of up to 200 g?
  Mr. Gibb: That is right.
  Even this first step of reducing the monopoly would not have had a huge impact on the Post Office. As it admitted, only 6 per cent. of Royal Mail's traffic lies between the £1 and 50p tariff. The Post Office anticipated losing only about a third of that market, so just 2 per cent. of the market would be lost by reducing the monopoly from £1 to 50p.
  In evidence to the Select Committee, the Department of Trade and Industry's civil servants revealed that
  "Ministers determined it was very important to signal a liberalisation of the marketplace and that is what the move to 50p is all about … to signal that more competition in a liberalised marketplace will be in the best interests of the consumer, the UK economy and … the Post Office."
  They went on to say in their evidence:
  "That is the judgment which Ministers have reached."
  What happened to that judgment? The first cracks appeared on 27 July, when the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) and a number of his colleagues prayed against the statutory instrument of 8 July. There followed the summer of discontent—[Interruption.] They are all my own lines. In the run-up to the Labour party conference, there was the real risk of defeat for the Labour leadership, and the Secretary of State in particular.

  941
  The Communication Workers Union wanted the 50p proposal dropped. Derek Hodgson, the general secretary of the CWU, was quoted as saying that, if the Government
  "don't back off, they have got a fight on their hands and they have got a fight that they can't possibly win."
  The Guardian of 29 September summed up what happened next. It reported:
  "Last-minute negotiations between union leaders, party managers and ministers continued last night over the wording of motions that are scheduled to be put to delegates today. However, the indications were that government compromises would prevent a head-to-head conference row. In the most surprising change of policy, trade secretary Stephen Byers' White Paper plans to reduce the Post Office's monopoly on letter delivery from £1 to 50p … will now be referred to the new Post Office Regulator."
  There it is. Despite all the reforms to the Labour party by Neil Kinnock and despite the new Labour project, it is business as usual, with Labour's trade union paymasters determining not only Labour party policy but, more seriously, the policy of the British Government.
  Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. I am a little surprised that he is so surprised about the power of the trade unions. Does he not realise that the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is depending on the trade unions for his selection as the Labour candidate for mayor of London?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. May I remind the House that the matter is before us only until 11.30 pm? Such interventions certainly do not help.
  Mr. Eric Forth: It was a clever point.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it was far from clever.
  Mr. Gibb: My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) made what I considered a fairly valid point. Furthermore, the Labour party is depending on millions of pounds of trade union money to fund its general election campaign.
  Who is the Minister spearheading the U-turn caused by blackmail from the Communication Workers Union? He is none other than the newly appointed Minister and former general secretary of the CWU, the hon. Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson).
  Perhaps we should be grateful to the CWU. Mr. Hodgson, the general secretary, said that he was prepared to allow the monopoly rate to be set by the Post Office regulator. Thank you, Mr. Hodgson, for allowing the Government that concession. We now see who is running Post Office policy.
  Later in the debate, we will hear the Minister give his reasons for the Government's U-turn. I bet that he will not say, "Oh, we had to change our policy because of pressure at the Labour party conference from the trade unions." Despite the masses of press coverage of the row, despite statements from Derek Hodgson and despite the fact that everyone knows it to be the case, the Minister will find another reason to put to the House. The excuse that he will give will be that the Select Committee on
  942
  Trade and Industry recommended the change of policy in its report published on 14 September. That is what he said on television this afternoon, and no doubt it is what he will say tonight.
  As the Minister for Science, Lord Sainsbury, said in the other place,
  "We take seriously the advice of the Trade and Industry Committee; and I hope that noble Lords would not suggest that we do otherwise."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 November 1999; Vol. 607, c. 708.]
  So, let us stand by for the Minister to use that as his reason—and remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you heard it here first.
  If the Minister gives such a reason, it will be extremely odd, because, some nine days after the Trade and Industry Committee report was published, he was quoted in The Times of 23 September as saying:
  "We will look at what the Trade and Industry Committee says but we have already made the order on the monopoly. The reduction is a crucial part of the package of reforms for the Post Office."
  So, he was still defending the reduction in the monopoly—nine days after the report was published, but six days before that crucial meeting at the Labour party conference.
  Also on 23 September, the Minister wrote to every Labour Member of Parliament stressing the importance of reducing the Post Office monopoly to 50p, saying:
  "the reduced monopoly level cannot be extracted without unravelling the entire package".
  It is absolutely clear that the Select Committee report had nothing whatever to do with the U-turn. I therefore trust that the Minister will not insult the House by saying that that was the reason. We know that it is not the reason, he knows that it is not the reason and every Labour Member of Parliament knows, too.
  The Minister might claim that, although he had a copy of the Select Committee report for nine days, he had issued a rebuttal to the press of its main recommendations despite not having read it in full, and that, when he read the report, at the same time as the Labour party conference, he saw the light and urged his Secretary of State to change the policy. If that is so—it beggars belief—he will be the first Minister of this Government to read a Select Committee report 15 days after publication, instead of the usual 15 days before.
  If the Minister insists that the Select Committee report was his reason—if he claims that it is now Government policy to adopt all Trade and Industry Committee recommendations—perhaps he will explain what he is doing about the following concern in the Committee's 13th report on small businesses and enterprise:
  "We have noticed a regrettable habit of relatively prosaic ministerial announcements being dressed up in Ministerial Statements and their accompanying Press Notices with potentially misleading figures."
  Will he now recant all the misleading figures given by his Secretary of State since he took office? The reports also states:
  "We … have grounds for complaint at the apparently scant regard the department pays to its evaluation of its own schemes".

  943
  Let us consider the Trade and Industry Committee's 14th report on the Electronic Communications Bill, which says:
  "We are particularly concerned … that the order necessary to bring
  in
  part I of the Bill ߪ should not be subject to any parliamentary procedure. We recommend that…Parliament should have the opportunity to debate and vote on the issue."
  Despite what the Minister said on Second Reading, is he to announce that he will allow Parliament to vote on the implementation of part I because it is a recommendation of the Trade and Industry Committee?
  The Government's behaviour over this issue is risible, and it is being exposed. For purely internal Labour party reasons, the Government have made a mockery of their policy on the Post Office. The result of revoking the 8 July order will be that Britain will have a Post Office monopoly as extensive as Portugal and Greece, and the UK market will be less liberalised than postal markets throughout Scandinavia and northern Europe, and Italy and Spain.
  The views of the private sector package delivery companies can be summed up by TNT, which has said:
  "If the UK … does not rapidly deregulate its postal market, along with other postal operators, the Post Office will be unable to cope with competition when liberalisation is imposed by Brussels."
  Mr. Forth: Has my hon. Friend noticed that the former trade unionist, who is now the Under-Secretary, is entitled the Minister for Competitiveness? Does my hon. Friend not find that a little mystifying? Following his forensic and skilful analysis of what has gone on, it would appear that the Under-Secretary is in fact the Minister for Trade Unionism and Uncompetitiveness. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we are to have open government, the Minister's title should be changed?
  Mr. Gibb: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. The Minister's title is almost an oxymoron, given his track record during his short term in office.
  The explanation given by TNT about the liberalisation of the market being required by Brussels in the years to come was the key reason given in the White Paper for the liberalisation and the reduction in the monopoly. Paragraph 11 states:
  "The disciplines of increasing competition and independent regulation in its home market should have the additional benefit of strengthening the Post Office and improving its competitive position in the European market and beyond, as liberalisation extends and the markets are opened up."
  Of course those were the Government's words in July, not today.
  Government policy towards the Post Office is in complete disarray: as well as the damage to the Post Office, to customers, to business and to Post Office employees caused by the U-turn, we have the chaos of the Government's stewardship of the Horizon project and their decision to abandon the benefit swipe card, which would have enabled claimants to continue to be paid at post offices. As they know, that decision will cause a 30 per cent, drop in the income of average independent sub-post offices. How much more incompetence can the post office
  944
  network take? In the interests of liberating the postal market and preparing our Post Office for survival in a new, competitive era, I urge the Government to rethink their U-turn and join us in voting for the annulment of this weak and damaging statutory instrument.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that the time limit for the debate is 11.30 and short speeches would be appreciated.
  10.47 pm
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: I find it rather strange that the Conservatives, who consider this a matter of some importance, cut 15 minutes off the debate by having a second vote on the business that we dealt with previously—especially when so many Conservative Members want to speak.
  As an exercise in humbug, the speech of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) takes some beating. Those of us who were Members of the House before the general election well remember the Conservative Government's attempts to introduce the privatisation of the Post Office, and they had to retreat in the face of the refusal of 13 of their own people to support it. [Hon. Members: "Narrow majority."] That is true but, had they wanted to, they could have achieved a majority for a reduction in the monopoly. They did nothing about it. If this issue is so important for the Conservatives now, why was it not important when they had the power to act? They chose not to act, so we need no lessons from them.
  Equally, we need no lessons from the Conservatives about the danger to rural post offices, given the opportunities that they had to arrest the decline when they were in power. What is more, a side effect of agreeing to the motion would be an immediate 6 per cent. cut in the volume of post, which would obviously affect local post offices' business and result in further closures.
  Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. O'Neill: No, I will not. [Interruption.] Because I want to make time.
  Mr. Fabricant: We have 40 minutes.
  Mr. O'Neill: The hon. Gentleman might be fortunate in catching the Chair's eye and may get an opportunity to speak. I shall carry on.
  My colleagues on the Select Committee and I were clear in our mind that it would be pointless to introduce a regulatory regime to the Post Office while denying it the opportunity to pass judgment on the first issue of competitiveness, which was being introduced as part of the liberalisation of our postal system. It was also abundantly clear that, if we are to have a regulatory commission, one of its main roles should be considering questions of this nature and deciding whether 50p is the right figure. Some might have argued that we should have gone further. I am not clear about that.
  Last week, I talked to former employees of TNT who are now working for the nationalised Dutch Post Office, which has 40 per cent. public ownership and no monopoly. The Select Committee also spoke to the

  945
  publicly owned Swedish postal service, which does not have a monopoly. There are a number of contradictory examples across Europe. It is wrong to vest in civil servants sole responsibility for the determination of the market in this area. I think that the Government are correct.
  I envisage that there will be a reduction in the monopoly, but by what measure I am not sure. The Post Office should be competed against to make it more efficient. I do not oppose the order, but it would be foolhardy to introduce it now. The Government are sensible to withdraw the order. It is the responsibility of Government to use the Select Committee system to pause and reflect, and they took that opportunity. It could be argued that the Minister came to a conclusion much quicker than some of his colleagues have done in the past.
  Mr. Forth: Given his position of influence and knowledge, can the hon. Gentleman tell us why the Government changed tack so dramatically during the summer?
  Mr. O'Neill: They changed tack because they recognised that other factors were involved. The major factor was the recognition that the regulatory system should be given the first responsibility for making recommendations of this nature, and that it was not right to give that responsibility to civil servants.
  A number of people made statements in opposition to the monopoly, and some do not want the break-up of the monopoly, certainly not until the European Union proposals come into effect and the directive is introduced. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) recognises that the European Union is making a constructive contribution to the liberalisation of postal services across the continent, and that that will result in a more efficient postal system, which I am sure is what he wants.
  Mr. Owen Paterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. O'Neill: No, I am sorry. I shall finish now, because other hon. Members want to speak.
  The Government's U-turn is a correct move to make.
  Mr. Gibb: Does not the hon. Gentleman find it slightly odd that, nine days after the Government received a copy of his Committee's report, they were still defending the cut in the monopoly from £1 to 50p? The first we heard of any decision to accept the Select Committee's recommendation was on 29 September, during the Labour party conference.
  Mr. O'Neill: The process of decision making in government is a mystery that few of us are exposed to at any time. There is little consolation in being on the Government Benches when it comes to dealing with such matters.
  I think that the Government were correct to change their mind. The Select Committee report gave them the opportunity to pause and reflect, and I think that they came to the correct conclusion. As a consequence, once the regulator has looked into the matter, there will be a better consideration of what the level of monopoly should
  946
  be. When we get that, we will be able to move on and have a better, more liberalised postal service that will be capable of competing internationally, as the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said.
  For those reasons, I am happy to support the Government, to ensure that we have a properly liberalised postal system. That should happen at an orderly pace, and we should take account of the views of all those concerned.
  10.54 pm
  Dr. Vincent Cable: We should consider this matter on its merits. It is patently clear that the Government have made fools of themselves. However, the position that they have ended up with is sensible on economic grounds, regardless of the views of the trade unions.
  I shall try to deal with some of the basic economics of the Post Office. I believe in competitive markets and liberal economics. Let us apply that to this case. The first question is this: what would be the implications for the Post Office of reducing the monopoly amount to 50p? According to the estimate that I have been given—I should be grateful if the Minister clarified this—about £1 million will be taken out of Post Office business. That takes into account the dynamics of the market; the sum may be less. It seems fairly clear, however, that a substantial amount of Post Office business will be lost, with all the implications that that involves for the Post Office network.
  Mr. Christopher Chope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Cable: I shall be happy to do so later, but first I want to expand on what I have said.
  As I understand it, the essential reason for the original proposal to cut the monopoly, and for Conservative Members' promotion of it, is the need for more competition. That is fine on one level, but there is already a great deal of competition with the Post Office. For instance, the massive proliferation of e-mail services has led to an enormous amount of competition, and telephony, faxes and so forth produce day-to-day competition. The Post Office has a monopoly in the statutory sense, but not in the market sense. A question that must be asked, especially by economists like me who believe in the market, is whether competition is always desirable.
  Mr. Christopher Fraser: Yes.
  Dr. Cable: No, it is not. It is usually desirable, but there are instances in which it is not, and this is one of them. There are two practical reasons for that. The first relates to the universal service obligation. The Post Office operates through cross-subsidy. If some of its profitable business is taken out of the cross-subsidy arrangements, what happens? Either the universal service obligation must be abandoned or diluted—I do not know whether Conservative Members are arguing for that—or the element of cross-subsidy must be found in some other way, and the profitable parts of the Post Office must be

  947
  built up through extra charging on the remaining Post Office business. No one has explained how that will be dealt with.
  Mr. Gibb: Has the hon. Gentleman read the Government's response to the Select Committee report, published on 23 November? It states, on page 11, the Government's belief that
  "the current monopoly is higher than is justified by the need to fund the universal service obligation."
  A pound is too high, and even 50p would not jeopardise the universal service obligation.
  Dr. Cable: I do not have a great deal of confidence in the Government's judgment in this regard, because they have vacillated so much. One reason why they were wrong to make that statement is that one of the basic drivers, as it were, behind the Post Office is economy of scale. If the hon. Gentleman examined the regulatory arrangements governing Post Offices in countries such as the United States and Germany, which have big postal systems, he would discover that the marginal cost of a postal operation is about 60 per cent. of the average. Taking a bit of business away will increase the average cost of the remainder. There are very good reasons for not forcing the pace of liberalisation of the Post Office when that would reduce business and lose economies of scale in Post Office operations.
  Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Dr. Cable: On that point, I am happy to give way.
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman mentioned marginal costs. Can he confirm the points that he made by telling us what proportion of Post Office business is under the value of 50p per item?
  Dr. Cable: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a figure off the cuff.
  Mr. Fabricant: I am asking about marginal costs.
  Dr. Cable: We are talking about marginal costs to the system as a whole, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well. The example that I am citing is not based on a particular section of a business, or on a particular point in time. The figure is accepted to the extent that it has been built into the system of regulation in the United States. It is a general principle that would apply under the new system of Post Office regulation that the Government propose. It is a general rule, not simply an anecdote that I have plucked from the air, and I think it something that the hon. Gentleman can understand.
  The Government have already inflicted considerable damage by failing to understand the way in which monopoly networks such as the railway system operate, and they propose to do the same to the Post Office. There is an argument for having a gradual, slow process of liberalisation to which the Post Office system can adapt. Indeed, that has already happened. Because of inflation over the past two decades, the £1 monopoly has already lost 50 per cent. of its value.
  948
  Inflation is a liberalising force. I know that it happened rather faster when the Conservatives were in government; the process of liberalisation through inflation has now slowed down. I refer, of course, to the Governments of the 1970s. However, the basic point is correct. Liberalisation is occurring through inflation.
  There is an argument for faster liberalisation, provided that what is happening is clearly signalled to the Post Office so that it can prepare. That is why the context of the whole discussion needs to be made clearer.
  As we all recognise, the fundamental problem with the Post Office is that it is shortly to sustain some financial blows. One is the loss of the benefits business. The other is that it will have to finance its all-automation system at a cost of £100 million. Inflicting the loss of another £100 million of business at this time is scarcely helpful to the modernisation of the system.
  The central problem of the Post Office is that, far from being a loss-making nationalised industry of the old type, it contributes to a ludicrous extent to the national Exchequer. If hon. Members look at the Post Office accounts for the past five years, they will find that it has been paying roughly 75 per cent. of its net profits to the Treasury, partly through corporation tax, partly through the financial levy. That is a crass way to run a system. Inflicting a sudden, once-and-for-all loss of business through the reduction of the monopoly merely serves to compound the problem.
  The Government are introducing Post Office legislation. We will deal with that in a complex Bill shortly. It will set our Post Office regulatory framework. That is the occasion on which to examine the speed at which liberalisation should happen.
  The Government are trying to push the measure through now. It reflects considerable discredit on them that they thought of it in the first place but did not think it through. To promote it now is opportunist and unhelpful. The Post Office should retain its £1 monopoly arrangements until there is a proper opportunity for an investigation of the economics of the matter by a non-political regulator in one or two years' time.
  11.2 pm
  Mr. Bob Laxton: Reference has been made to my contribution on the issue and to the fact that, along with a number of Labour Members, I prayed against the order that was laid. Why was that? Quite simply, I felt at the time, as did my colleagues, that the Government had got it wrong. Why was that?
  The Select Committee on Trade and Industry took a considerable amount of evidence on the issue. A number of us really cared about some of the matters that concentrated the mind of the Conservative party when it was in government: it was particularly concerned about the threat to rural post offices. Taking an almost pre-emptive strike at the monopoly could have some impact on the profitability of the Post Office and there could be subsequent consequences for rural post offices in particular. The Select Committee was spot on when it concluded that, if a regulator were to be appointed under the changes to the Post Office following the White Paper, the task of assessing the economics of the relevant proposals should be handed to him or her.
  My personal view is that all post office businesses in Europe should reduce progressively their monopoly in postal services. If we do not go down that road, national

  949
  postal companies such as Deutsche Post, which is rapidly gobbling up postal organisations throughout Europe, and the Dutch post office, TNT, will take advantage. TNT's monopoly will come into effect on 1 January and, surprise, surprise, when we recently met its representatives in the Netherlands, they said that they were disappointed that Europe was not following the company's lead and that it should be a trail blazer.
  As I have said, the Select Committee was spot on. I am delighted that the Minister has taken the opportunity to look at the Select Committee report, to take on board its recommendations and to say that the task of assessing the proposals should be given to the regulator when he or she is in post. I only hope that organisations with an interest in those matters will make known to the regulator their views on developing a common approach to reducing the monopoly across the European Union.
  11.5 pm
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I should like to make only one or two points, as I am well aware of the time.
  The hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) said he thought that the Government had changed their mind because of the report from the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. With the greatest respect, the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs has presented four reports— some of which were published as long as four or five months ago—but has not received a reply to them. I therefore wonder whether the Trade and Industry report was the reason for the Government's change of mind. If it was, good luck to the hon. Gentleman and his Committee.
  Regardless of whether the Government have made a U-turn, I fully support the Government's policy. I have been very concerned, for example, about loss of the monopoly, the 5 or 6 per cent. loss of business, and the damaging prospect of automatic credit transfer. In Wales, ACT is likely to see off about 55 per cent. of rural post offices. We tamper with the monopoly at our peril.
  Despite market forces and the need to liberalise, if the monopoly is ended, cherry-picking will inevitably result. In some parts of my constituency, postmen travel 10 or even 12 miles to deliver one letter. If so-called liberalisation is instituted, I do not know what will happen to families who depend on those postmen or what type of service they will be able to expect. The universal service obligation is extremely important, and one can but hope that it will be embedded in any future move to liberalise— or whatever one chooses to call it—the postal service.
  I am therefore pleased that the Government have rethought the matter. The hon. Member for Ochil described that as a U-turn—perhaps it is; I do not know— but, whatever it is, I am pleased that it has happened. The postal service has the confidence of the people of the United Kingdom, and the Government will tamper with its monopoly at their peril. The public are squarely behind the postal service.
  As hon. Members have said, we need to consider the possibility of directing less of the levy to central Government. Such a change may be one way—I know not—of ensuring a better future for the Post Office. It is one option that should be considered.
  In the current situation, I welcome the Government's stance. The official Opposition have come rather late with their prayer. Although I do not know what they hope to achieve today, I am glad that the main issues which must be addressed have at least been aired, albeit briefly.
  950
  I am pleased that the Government have reconsidered. I hope that no rash decisions will be taken, and that the Government will take heed of what is said not only by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, but by hon. Members on both sides of the House and by the public. The public are saying very clearly that the Post Office delivers a very fine, first-class service and that we have to ensure that it continues delivering that service. Destroying the monopoly without substituting other arrangements is not the way forward.
  11.8 pm
  Mr. David Drew: I welcome this opportunity to speak in this debate, even if I am able to do so only briefly.
  I note that not one Conservative Member chose to demur from the Trade and Industry Select Committee's decision, at paragraph (f), on page xxi, to ask the Government to think again about reducing the monopoly levy. One can but surmise that Conservative Members support the Committee's recommendation and concede the logic of the Government's position. Even if the Government have changed their mind, what is wrong with that?
  We often argue in this place that insufficient attention is paid to Select Committees' decisions. I therefore very much welcome the opportunity that we have on Thursday afternoons, tomorrow included, to debate either Select Committee reports or Government White Papers. The Government have listened and acted, but the Conservatives are churlishly trying to find ways to attack the Government, making cheap political points that are undesirable and could have adverse effects.
  Our decisions on the future of the Post Office will have major consequences. The White Paper in the summer contained four key points that the Post Office had to look at in evolving its performance: it had to face up to a liberalisation agenda; it had to keep its universality; it had to consider how it could increase investment; and it had to be brought up to date. Those four points may seem easy to take together, but there is some conflict between them and we are considering how that conflict could break out.
  The performance and innovation unit is looking at the impact on sub-post offices of the Benefits Agency's decision to seek the introduction of ACT at the earliest opportunity. I shall concentrate on the implications of that, because, if we do not get it right, we shall lose many sub-post offices. I see the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) nodding. He knows that the Western Daily Press has been running a vigorous campaign to draw attention to the impact on sub-post offices if ACT is introduced without an understanding of how we can reinvest in them. The hon. Gentleman said that the post offices would lose the benefits trade. If they can get their act together and provide a thoughtful and careful way of doing the business properly they will keep it.
  Earlier this week, I went to ICL to look at the Horizon project. I advise anyone who has time to do so. I found it fascinating. Information technology poses some threats, but there are also many opportunities. It can help to bring about an enhanced postal service and better communications. There is also an opportunity to break into banking, or at least to work with the high street

  951
  banks, which have nowhere near as many branches as there are sub-post offices in many villages and high streets. Thirdly, but by no means least—I am sure that this will be mentioned tomorrow—there is the opportunity of modernising government.
  Those three issues provide opportunities for the whole postal network, but particularly for sub-post offices to show that they have a future and can provide for all people—including the poorest, people drawing benefit and people living in rural areas—the services that they have provided best in the past. Those opportunities can be enhanced if we get it right. That is why it is important that the Government have listened. The issue cannot be treated in isolation. If they got this wrong, the implications of ACT would almost certainly increase. That would inevitably mean closure for some sub-post offices and others would fail to realise their opportunities.
  The Government are right to have rethought the issue. I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister was able to argue in the Western Daily Press a couple of weeks ago about what he, as a former postie, wants. I am sure that he will be able to provide an effective refutation of what the Opposition have come up with. They have failed to understand the importance of getting our postal services right.
  11.15 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Alan Johnson): I listened with great interest to the informed and erudite comments that were made tonight. I also listened to the speech by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb). My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) said that humbug sprang to mind. I would add hyperbole and hypocrisy.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The Minister would not suggest that any hon. Member would be involved in hypocrisy.
  Mr. Johnson: I withdraw that immediately. Perhaps I should have said hysteria.
  We should be grateful to the Opposition for giving us the opportunity to expose yet again their ineptitude in dealing with Britain's essential public services. Of all the issues that they have fumbled over the past 10 years, the Post Office must be the best example of that.
  The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton did not once address the issues in the debate. He accused the Government of saying one thing and doing another.
  Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has admitted to being a member of the Communication Workers Union. According to the Register of Members' Interests, which may now be out of date, he has been loaned equipment by that union. Should he not at least declare an interest, if indeed he should be allowed to speak in this debate?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister has declared his interest. I understood the hon. Gentleman to have said that the Minister had admitted to being a member of a trade union.
  Mr. Fabricant: The Minister did not say that he received goods from that trade union and, as is the convention, he should have declared an interest before making his speech.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It has been known for Ministers and Back Benchers to declare an interest during the course of a speech. Perhaps we should wait and see.
  Mr. Johnson: Like his policy on the Post Office, the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) is out of date. I wrote to the Register of Members' Interests as soon as I was appointed to this position and gave back the mobile phone and the two computers, so I have nothing to declare in that respect.
  I would like to declare, however, that in two and a half years the Government have sorted out the previous Government's mess on Horizon and we are on course for having the entire network on line by 2001. We have ensured that the business is allowed to keep more of the finance that it generates and we have legislation on the stocks to enhance the commercial freedoms that we have already provided to the Post Office and the regulator will be appointed in a few months' time. That is all in line with our manifest commitments.
  Mr. Chope: When will the regulator be appointed? The Select Committee recommendations were premised on the basis that the regulator would be appointed in the autumn. Of course that did not happen. The Minister is now talking about an appointment many months hence.
  Mr. Johnson: As the White Paper made clear, the regulator will be appointed from 1 April.
  In two and a half years, we have stuck to our manifesto commitments on the Post Office. I did some research today. I found a document filed under "Documents of absolutely no political relevance whatsoever". It was the 1992 Conservative party manifesto. It was next to a poster saying, "Vote Archer for London".
  The manifesto on which the Conservative party fought the 1992 election and was then in government for the following five years says:
  "We will legislate to set up a new independent regulator … We will lower the limit on the Post Office monopoly much closer to the level of the first class stamp."
  So, in five years in government, the Conservatives did not a single thing about the recommendations and the policy contained in their own manifesto. Instead, they set off on a wild piece of adventurism that was not in the manifesto—to break up and privatise the Post Office.
  When they found that they could not privatise it, they attempted to plunder it—saying one thing and doing another. In May 1995, when he was the President of the Board of Trade, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) told the House that the Government would reduce the amount of money that they took from the Post Office to 40 per cent. of the post-tax profits. That would have reduced the money paid back to the Treasury to about £175 million. Later that year, the Chancellor of

  953
  the Exchequer hyped that up in the Red Book to £360 million, and they took £1 billion off the Post Office in three years—saying one thing and doing another.
  The situation could have been so different if only the Conservatives had stopped to listen. If only they had listened to that august body, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which, under a Conservative Administration—and with a Conservative majority—said in 1995:
  "We recommend that the Government introduce legislation to convert the Post Office … into a 100 per cent. government-owned plc … in the knowledge that the future sale of any of the Government's shares in Post Office plc would be subject to parliamentary approval."
  That was the recommendation. This is the policy that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said was sound when we announced it in July.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Johnson: I am sorry, but I am not giving way. This position is closed to interventions.
  If Conservative Members had listened to the Select Committee, the Post Office could have had the commercial and financial freedom that it needs, instead of the seven years of stagnation that they condemned it to when they were in government.
  Once we got away from the speech of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, the points raised by other Members were all extremely sound. We will be appointing a regulator, and we advertised two months ago. The regulator will be in place from 1 April. There will be a commission of five people—the postal services commission which, as its first job, will be asked to look at where the monopoly limits should be.
  The speeches by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and others were sound. For a party that is supposedly concerned about rural services, the Conservatives did not mention a word about the universal service obligation. When it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Twickenham, there was a groan—[Interruption.] I apologise—it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. However, there was a groan from Conservative Back Benchers when the hon. Member for Twickenham mentioned it.
  The universal service obligation and the uniform tariff guarantees people in rural communities the same input into, and access to, postal services—irrespective of where they live, and no matter how remote and rural. The point of the monopoly is not that monopolies are a good thing. The monopoly is there to ensure that the universal service can be provided at the uniform tariff, because the Post Office needs volume going through to guarantee that service. If the monopoly level came down to a level that would jeopardise the universal service obligation, it would be a serious blow to rural services in this country.
  Having listened to the Select Committee and others, we are saying that, if the postal services commission says that reducing the monopoly to 50p will jeopardise the USO and that it should be 60p, once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it cannot be put back in again. Once the monopoly limit is changed, we cannot take it up again. It is sensible to say to the postal services commission that it should decide on the level. It may be 50p—it may be lower, it may be higher.
  954
  We have guaranteed the universal service obligation for the first time in the White Paper, and we will guarantee it in legislation. It is important that we protect that. It does not mean that the Government have decided that there is no case for liberalisation. It does mean that the regulator will do its job first before we take that any further.
  Mr. Llwyd: I mentioned the universal service obligation earlier. From what the Minister has said, he appears to presume that the regulator is bound to lower the level. Is that the case?
  Mr. Johnson: No. We have told the regulator that they must set the monopoly limit at a level—
  Sir George Young: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that the French Government have announced that they will ignore the representations of the British Government—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman was courteous enough to approach me with the problem that he wishes to raise. My advice is that it is not related to the debate before us and that he would do better to wait until we have had the Division to raise what he considers to be an important point of order. We must get this debate out of the way first.
  Sir George Young: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand your ruling, but I was anxious that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should have time to come to the House at 11.30 to make a statement. He has just appeared on "Newsnight", and he owes the House an explanation of his failure—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Order. Let me reply to the point of order. There is no point in shouting at me. I have given the right hon. Gentleman good advice and I suggest that he takes it.
  Mr. Johnson: We will remit the issue to the Postal Service Commission, which will make the decision on the basis that the universal service obligation at a uniform tariff—those are two different things—must be protected. In the meantime, we have laid the revocation order that we are debating tonight. The order is necessary to ensure that the outcome of the Commission's review is not prejudged. The Government have accepted the recommendation of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, and it would be wrong simultaneously to press ahead with a cut in the monopoly.
  The Government remain committed to greater competition in postal markets because it is an essential component in ensuring that the Post Office is successful in the new environment it faces. Together with better regulation and new commercial freedoms, greater competition through liberalisation is necessary to ensure that the Post Office is sufficiently challenged to achieve its objective of being a world class company. The revocation of the order reducing the monopoly to 50p results directly from our acceptance that, in that important area, there would be benefit in the new regulator also considering the issue before final decisions are made.
  Developments will not happen quite as quickly as the Select Committee envisaged. It suggested that the regulator might be in office in the autumn. That would

  955
  have been impossible. Our intention is that they should start work next spring. We are doing some preliminary work so that, as soon as they are appointed, they can make the issue their first priority. Some delay is a necessary consequence of the Government's acceptance of the Select Committee's advice, but, as the delay is likely to extend only to a matter of months, that added period of consideration is something that the House should welcome. It will of course be for the commission to tell us what time scale it can work to, but I am confident that it will do an excellent job with a reasonable time scale.
  An overriding duty on the commission is to promote the delivery of the universal service obligation. In essence, that is what the debate tonight is about. It is vital that all customers, wherever they work or live in the UK, should be assured of a world class level of postal services.
  Mr. Gibb: Does the Minister remember writing in his response to the Select Committee report:
  "The Government also believes that the current monopoly is higher than is justified by the need to fund the universal service obligation."?
  Mr. Johnson: I do remember writing that. The point is what the Postal Services Commission, which we are appointing as the independent regulator, thinks. It will be its job to decide those issues. I remind the Conservatives that that was their policy in 1992. They did nothing about it in five years and then raised it tonight in a debate on a revocation order. I have listened carefully to the arguments made in this debate, but I remain convinced of the need for the order. We are providing action on the Post Office where previously there was inertia. We are providing protection where there was previously decline and we are providing innovation where there was previously ineptitude. I hope that the House will oppose the motion and support the order.
  It being half-past Eleven o 'clock Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 17 (2) (Delegated Legislation (negative procedure) and Order [1 December].
  The House divided: Ayes 126, Noes 306.

  Division No. 16]

  [11.30 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Amess, David

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Chope, Christopher

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Baldry, Tony

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  Beggs, Roy

  Collins, Tim

  Bercow, John

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Cran, James

  Blunt, Crispin

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Boswell, Tim

  Day, Stephen

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Duncan, Alan

  Brady, Graham

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Evans, Nigel

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Faber, David

  Burns, Simon

  Fabricant, Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Fallon, Michael

  Cash, William

  Fight, Howard

  956

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Norman, Archie

  Fraser, Christopher

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Gale, Roger

  Ottaway, Richard

  Garnier, Edward

  Page, Richard

  Gibb, Nick

  Paice, James

  Gill, Christopher

  Paterson, Owen

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Pickles, Eric

  Gray, James

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Green, Damian

  Prior, David

  Greenway, John

  Randall, John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Robertson, Laurence

  Hammond, Philip

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Ruffley, David

  Heald, Oliver

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Soames, Nicholas

  Horam, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Hunter, Andrew

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Streeter, Gary

  Key, Robert

  Swayne, Desmond

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Syms, Robert

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Tredinnick, David

  Lidington, David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Viggers, Peter

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Walter, Robert

  Loughton, Tim

  Wardle, Charles

  Luff, Peter

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Mclntosh, Miss Anne

  Whittingdale, John

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Wilkinson, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Willetts, David

  Madel, Sir David

  Wilshire, David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Mates, Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Woodward, Shaun

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Moss, Malcolm

  Mr. Keith Simpson and

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Mrs. Eleanor Laing.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Burstow, Paul

  Alexander, Douglas

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Allen, Graham

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Austin, John

  Barnes, Harry

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Barron, Kevin

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cann, Jamie

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Caplin, Ivor

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Caton, Martin

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Chaytor, David

  Benton, Joe

  Clapham, Michael

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Berry, Roger,

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Betts, Clive

  Blackman, Liz

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Borrow, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Clelland, David

  Browne, Desmond

  Coaker, Vernon

  Burden, Richard

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Burgon, Colin

  Cohen, Harry

  957

  Coleman, Iain

  Hinchliffe, David

  Colman, Tony

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Connarty, Michael

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Corbett, Robin

  Hope, Phil

  Cotter, Brian

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cox, Tom

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cranston, Ross

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Crausby, David

  Hurst, Alan

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hutton, John

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cummings, John

  Illsley, Eric

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Jamieson, David

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Darvill, Keith

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Davidson, Ian

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Keetch, Paul

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Kemp, Fraser

  Denham, John

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Kidney, David

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Doran, Frank

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Drew, David

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Laxton, Bob

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Lepper, David

  Edwards, Huw

  Leslie, Christopher

  Efford, Clive

  Levitt, Tom

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Linton, Martin

  Etherington, Bill

  Livsey, Richard

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Fisher, Mark

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lock, David

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Love, Andrew

  Flint, Caroline

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Foulkes, George

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gapes, Mike

  Macdonald, Calum

  Gardiner, Barry

  McDonnell, John

  George, Bruce (Walsalll S)

  McFall, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McNamara, Kevin

  Godsiff, Roger

  McNulty, Tony

  Goggins, Paul

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mallaber, Judy

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hain, Peter

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Maxton, John

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Healey, John

  Meale, Alan

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Merron, Gillian

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Heppell, John

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hill, Keith

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  958

  Moore, Michael

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Moriey, Elliot

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mountford, Kali

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Soley, Clive

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Spellar, John

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Stevenson, George

  Olner, Bill

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Öpik, Lembit

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Stringer, Graham

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Pearson, Ian

  Stunell, Andrew

  Pendry, Tom

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Pike, Peter L

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Plaskitt, James

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pond, Chris

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pope, Greg

  Timms, Stephen

  Pound, Stephen

  Tipping, Paddy

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Todd, Mark

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Trickett, Jon

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Primarob, Dawn

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Purchase, Ken

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Tyler, Paul

  Rammell, Bill

  Tynan, Bill

  Rapson, Syd

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Raynsford, Nick

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Watts, David

  Rooney, Terry

  Welsh, Andrew

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  White, Brian

  Rowlands, Ted

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Roy, Frank

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Ruane, Chris

  Ruddock, Joan

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Winnick, David

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Wise, Audrey

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wood, Mike

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Woolas, Phil

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mr. Jim Dowd and

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Sir George Young: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that the French Government have announced that they will ignore the representations of the British Government and will persist with the unlawful ban on British beef. Have you received a request, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who has just made an ineffective appearance on "Newsnight", to come to the House to explain his and the Prime Minister's complete failure to protect British farming interests in Europe?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I have received no indication—[Interruption.] Order. The right hon. Gentleman asked me to reply to the point of order.

  959
  The Chair replies to points of order—no one else does. I have received no indication from the Government that there is to be any statement.
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett)rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the right hon. Lady want to make a point of order?
  Mrs. Beckett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My understanding, which can only be imperfect at present, is that there appears—[Interruption.] I do not need any interventions. It appears that the French Government may have made a statement. The British Government have no change of policy to announce. Obviously, if the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) wants a statement from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, we shall consider that request and discuss it through the usual channels. My understanding of the situation at present is that the British Government's position is unchanged; there is thus no change of policy to announce to the House.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair has no power in these matters. The point of order was a question as to whether there would be a Government statement. We have heard from the Leader of the House that there will not be a statement tonight, so I am obliged to continue the business of the House.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Paul Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the Leader of the House is in the Chamber, will she give us an assurance that tomorrow's business can be adjusted, so that we can take this serious matter into account? Tomorrow, there will be debates in this Chamber and in Westminster Hall; they are neither time sensitive nor urgent. Will the Leader of the House give us an undertaking that she will try to change tomorrow's business?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is a Liberal Democrat Whip and has access to the usual channels. These matters are for the usual channels—not for the Chair.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that I have explained my view on these matters.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the guardian of the rights of Back Benchers, will you express the general principle that it is quite disgraceful that the Minister of Agriculture should be parading around on "Newsnight", commenting on a matter that vitally affects one of our great industries,
  960
  which is in grave difficulty, instead of coming to this House to announce that there has been a major setback for the Government? The House needs to be told about that.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The answer is no. I have been here in this Chamber looking after the rules of the House of Commons.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) has said, you are the custodian of the rights of this House, and I ask you a direct question under a point of order. Is it right that a Minister of Agriculture should go to the media to deal with a matter that should be announced in this House and is critical to many constituencies?
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall not take any more points of order on this matter. The fact is that the rules of the House require me to call the next motion.
  Mr. Michael Jack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am taking the motion before us. I am looking after the rules of the House. I have explained my position.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That, at the sitting on Thursday 16th December, any Consolidated Fund Bill ordered to be brought in and read the first time shall be proceeded with as if the Second Reading thereof stood as an Order of the day, and Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills) shall apply.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That, at the sitting on Thursday 16th December, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any messages from the Lords shall have been received.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) to present a petition.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh rose—
  Mr. Jack rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have explained—[Interruption.] Order. I have explained my position, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not going to pursue a matter on which I have already ruled.
  Mr. Jack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek clarification. When my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) made a point of order from the Dispatch Box, the Leader of the

  961
  House was able, in a subsequent point of order, to respond. Given my concern about the issue that other right hon. and hon. Members have raised about the beef ban, would it be in order for the Minister of Agriculture, who is in the Chamber this evening, to respond, if he so wished, to my concern and that of other right hon. and hon. Members? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Order, I am calling for order. The business before us is a petition. I call the hon. Member for Angus.

  PETITION

    Emergency Services
    11.48 pm
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: We may now move into calmer waters, Mr. Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman please take a seat while other hon. Members leave the Chamber quietly?
    Mr. Welsh: I beg leave to present a petition in the name of Mr. James Buchanan, signed by more than 40,000 residents—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should not be standing while an hon. Gentleman is presenting a petition.
    Mr. Welsh: The petition is signed by more than 40,000 residents of Angus and others. The petition declares that the law as it stands does not give the 999 emergency services adequate rights of assured access during their operations on behalf of the general public.
    We all, in some way or other, rely on those emergency services—whether police, fire, ambulance or others—and all sensible motorists would, out of courtesy, give way to allow free passage to those services. Sadly, however, nowadays that courtesy is not always shown, and the petitioners want rights of access to emergency situations strengthened in the general public interest.
    The petition states that:
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to introduce legislation which would force drivers to give way to emergency service vehicles in pursuit of their duties.
    And the Petitioners remain etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  11.50 pm
  Mr. Tim Collins: I wish to raise a matter that is of great concern to a number of my constituents in south Cumbria, although I am sure that, like me, they would have been happy to wait for a few more minutes if another matter of great concern to them, the future of the beef industry, had been the subject of a statement.
  My first, and much happier, duty is belatedly to congratulate the Minister of State for Health on her much deserved promotion. I am sure that it is only a matter of time before she finds herself in an even more elevated position on the Government Front Bench.
  The Minister might be wondering why I applied for the debate, given that, as she will know, the Government announced in July some concessions on the most controversial issue concerning the Medicines Control Agency, namely, the consultation document MLX 249. I say straight away that I very much welcome the concessions that Baroness Hayman announced in her press release of 15 July. None the less, there remain some ambiguities in the Government's position, and I know from representations made to me and to hon. Members on both sides of the House that some concerns remain. There have been a number of developments since July which may prove to be significant. Accordingly, I would like to press the Minister for whatever clarifications she may be able to give.
  Perhaps I should also explain to the House that I have never, to my knowledge, used or consumed herbal remedies. Given that I have a number of close relatives who are general practitioners, nurses or surgeons in the national health service, my background is one that makes me much more sympathetic to, and understanding of, conventional rather than alternative medicine. However, I believe strongly in the principle that consumers should be able to decide these matters for themselves.
  I welcome the statement that was included in the letter that Baroness Hayman wrote to hon. Members on 16 July. She said:
  "The Government is committed to ensuring that consumer choice and the availability of health products are not restricted".
  I hope that tonight we may be able to shed a little light on what the Government mean by that in practice.
  I shall begin at the beginning. MLX 249, the Government's consultation document, appeared on 6 November last year. It included the Medicines Control Agency's letter proposing that the classification process for borderline substances be put on a statutory basis. Those are substances on the borderline between foods, which are regulated by the Food Safety Act 1990, and medicines, which are regulated by the Medicines Act 1968. A new statutory instrument was proposed to put the handling of those substances on a new basis.
  There are serious implications for the reclassification of a health food as a medicine. Unless otherwise exempt, a medicinal product may not be placed on the United Kingdom market without a marketing authorisation or a product licence. That is granted by the licensing authority

  963
  when it is satisfied that the product meets the prescribed standards for safety, quality and efficacy. The point is that there is no way in which the efficacy of many of those substances can be demonstrated, at least not by conventional medical means. Yet there are many people in my constituency and throughout the country who swear by many of those products and testify in great detail about the dramatic improvements in the quality of life that they have had since they began taking them.
  At present, most of those products are classified as foods. As such, they are required by the Food Safety Act 1990 to be safe. Ironically, that is not a requirement which applies to a medicinal product, where frequently quite serious side effects may be contingent upon them. Furthermore, as they are classified as foods, those making and selling them are not permitted to make any claims on the packaging or in the advertising that they will improve people's health. In those circumstances, it seems that there is a strong argument for allowing consumers a continuing freedom of choice. However, if the MCA deems that something is a medicine, a licence is required. My hon. Friends tell me that the cost of obtaining one can sometimes be up to £150,000. That is a huge sum for the very small companies that are often involved in the health food business.
  The original document caused widespread concern, among not only the health food industry but from many consumer groups. Perhaps at this point I should pay tribute, and express my gratitude, to Consumers for Health Choice, and Mr. Christopher Whitehouse in particular, for whose help in briefing me I am most grateful.
  I was visited at one of my advice surgeries by Elizabeth Kan of Kan Foods of Kendal, by Penny Seeds of Living Well, which has a shop in Milnthorpe and another in Grange-over-Sands, and by others on a number of occasions. A large number of my constituents in south Cumbria also wrote to me on the matter and signed petitions in health food shops and elsewhere.
  The concerns at that time related to the lack of an independent appeals body, the possibility that the burden of proof would be placed on the accused, so to speak, and the fact that the consultation period was too short. There were also fears about how the legislation would be interpreted. My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) raised the matter in an Adjournment debate in February this year. In July, when Baroness Hayman announced that the Government were shifting policy, she said that they would do so in three major areas: the review panel would be genuinely independent and would have statutory provision; the burden of proof would not, after all, be reversed; and the MCA would have to give full reasons for its decisions. That has been widely welcomed. I pay tribute to the effectiveness of the campaigns that were mounted, and to the fact that the Government have, however belatedly, shown a willingness to reflect on these matters and take a fresh look in the light of public representations.
  However, some possible difficulties remain. I shall put to the Minister the fears of some of my constituents, with which I hope that she can deal relatively easily. Some people continue to believe that there is an implicit agenda to reclassify most or all herbal and health food products as medicines. They fear that lobbying by powerful
  964
  pharmaceutical companies has led to steps designed to damage the growing health food sector, and that the Medicines Control Agency has a vested interest in redesignating health foods as medicines because it secures income each time an application must be made for a medicinal licence. I hope and believe that the Minister will be able to give firm reassurances to lay those fears to rest, and I would welcome her placing on the record a clear denial of those suggestions.
  In July, the Government undertook to table a new statutory instrument to reflect the changes that they had agreed to make. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us tonight when that measure is likely to be published and when she would expect it to take effect. There remain a number of concerns about the possible content of the new statutory instrument.
  Given the great importance attached to the Government's assurances earlier this year about the composition of the new statutory review panel, can the Minister give the House a specific assurance that the composition, role and functions of the new statutory review panel will be written into the statutory instrument, not simply left to later guidance notes? Can she also assure us that the review panel's composition, role and functions will not be amendable simply by a change in guidance notes, but will also require amendment to the statutory instrument? Naturally, there will be guidance notes for quite a complicated measure. Will they be made available at the same time as the statutory instrument?
  Will the statutory instrument make it clear that the statutory review panel is the final decision-making body, or will it leave the MCA as the final judge and jury in its own case? If the MCA is to be given the residual power to make a final determination in extreme circumstances on clear public safety grounds—which I and many in the industry believe is a perfectly reasonable position—will that condition be written into the statutory instrument? In other words, will the circumstances in which the MCA may make a final determination be made explicit, and will it be clear that the MCA would be expected to overrule the review panel only in a small minority of cases?
  Given that health food manufacturers are small companies, will the Government re-examine the original provision in MLX 249 for a mere two-week period to be allowed for a reply to be made to a provisional determination by the MCA that a substance is a medicine? The Minister will understand that, for many of the small companies operating in the sector, a fortnight's notice is unfair. If there is only one person dealing with compliance or regulation issues, as may be the case with some small health food operators, that person may be away on holiday, ill or travelling on business. A two-week period for a response is a tight timetable.
  Can the Minister shed any further light on the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), on 2 December to parliamentary questions tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean)? Those answers established that the Government are considering new regulations to cover herbal remedies following European Directive 99/83 EC, which was passed in September this year, and also that the MCA is to review its current list of specified and toxic herbs. Does the Minister expect those two processes to expand or reduce the range of herbal products available to consumers in the UK?

  965
  Will the Minister say a word about a matter that has caused great concern in my constituency? Penny Seeds of Living Well mentioned it to me earlier. The MCA has just written to food manufacturers to inform them that it proposes to designate as a medicine St. John's wort, the most popular herbal remedy in the UK at the moment. St. John's wort has been around in this country for many decades and has been used with success for a long time.
  I am told that, ironically, the catalyst for the MCA's decision to seek classification of St. John's wort as a medicine was research published in the British Medical Journal, which established that the remedy's effectiveness in tackling depression may not be an old wives' tale after all, and may be medically provable. I hope that the Minister agrees that it would be the greatest irony of all if it turned out that the provision of scientific proof of the effectiveness of a herbal remedy led directly to the imposition of costly and difficult procedures, resulting in far fewer people gaining access to it than were able to do so when there was no scientific proof of its efficacy. What reassurances might the Minister be able to give?
  I know that the Minister will appreciate that many of the problems stem from the fact that some of the products—whether we call them herbs, dietary supplements or health foods—are not easily classifiable, as either a food or a medicine. She will be aware that the industry believes that its future lies in the fast-growing sector of blended products, in which vitamins, minerals and, perhaps, amino acids are rolled together with a herbal remedy such as St. John's wort. If the herbal remedy element has to be licensed separately as a medicine, the whole range of multi-blend products have also to be licensed individually.
  Would the Minister be prepared to consider seriously the suggestion floated earlier this year by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), the shadow Health Minister, that a new category should be created in which supplements could be grouped? She will know that the industry feels strongly on that point, too.
  In such a category, there would be no requirements to prove the efficacy of the product, as there are at present, but instead a streamlined procedure for dealing with legitimate and important safety concerns. The proposal would ensure that the hundreds of supplements now available—their properties are often questioned by some, while others swear by them—would be protected and would remain available.
  I know that the idea has been supported by many in the industry, and by many consumers too. It was also supported earlier today in conversations that I had with both consumers and sellers of such products in my constituency. Would not a new category of natural remedies, falling between food and medicine, be more accurate, lead to better regulation, and encourage the growth of a burgeoning sector that is much supported by people throughout the country? I invite the Minister to recognise the merits of something that we might both agree is the third way.
  12.3 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I congratulate the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) on having obtained this debate and on his speech, in which he
  966
  detailed very clearly a list of very important questions about MLX 249 and developments under way in the Medicines Control Agency. I shall try to deal with the issues that he raised in turn. Rather than responding to all of them in sufficient detail, I shall also write to him on many of the matters to confirm the points that I have made and to clarify in further detail some other issues. I should point out that this area is the responsibility of my noble Friend Lord Hunt. I shall certainly pass the hon. Gentleman's comments on to him, as he considers these matters further.
  The Medicines Control Agency is responsible for ensuring that medicines available to United Kingdom citizens are safe, of appropriate quality and effective. It regulates medicines in accordance with UK and Community medicines legislation through a system of granting and maintaining product licences, post-licensing surveillance, licensing and periodic inspection of manufacturers and wholesale dealers, and enforcement action against those who break the law.
  The hon. Gentleman referred in particular to the MCA's MLX 249 proposals, whose purpose is to protect public health. They are intended to ensure that the agency gets its decisions right—in a transparent, open and fair way— and I welcome the points that he made about the aims and intentions of MLX 249. Of course, we need to avoid wrongly classifying any product as a medicine, but equally we have a duty to protect consumers by ensuring that all medicines are classified as such, so that the appropriate controls can be applied. The MCA is responsible, on behalf of the licensing authority, for implementing and enforcing the provisions of medicines legislation. That includes deciding whether a product is a medicine or not.
  Like the hon. Gentleman, I am well aware of the concerns that were generated originally by the proposals, but much of the criticism misrepresented their aims and effects and was an unwarranted cause of worry to many people. Many of the responses at that stage were based on a fear that the proposals would change the status of dietary supplements and herbal remedies. That is simply not the case, and I shall return to the specific points that the hon. Gentleman made about herbal remedies. Allegations that vitamins and popular food supplements would become "medicines" overnight were, and are, emphatically untrue. The Government are committed to ensuring that consumer choice and the availability of health products are not restricted, so people will have a wide range of choices to make for themselves.
  The definition of a medicinal product and the criteria against which the MCA must make such decisions are matters of European Community law. The proposals would not alter in any way the definition of a medicine or the criteria for deciding whether a product is a medicine or not. As the law stands, a product that is not clearly a food or a cosmetic is a medicinal product if claims are made that it can treat or prevent disease or if it may be administered with a view to restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions. Such products are subject to the requirements of UK and EC medicines legislation and, as the hon. Gentleman said, normally require a marketing authorisation—a product licence— before they can be sold or supplied.
  The consultation undertaken by the MCA has been genuine and the Government have listened to the concerns that were expressed. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's

  967
  comments in that respect and on the Government's response. As he said, my noble Friend Baroness Hayman was able to announce on 16 July that three important changes would be made to the proposals: first, full reasons would be given in writing for MCA decisions; secondly, the advisory panel to review MCA provisional decisions would be independent of the MCA; and thirdly, the burden of proof in any court proceedings would be borne by the MCA, not the defendant company, as was originally proposed. It has been possible to make those changes without prejudicing our commitment to protect public health and consumers.
  The hon. Gentleman made a series of points and I shall try to answer as many as I can, but I hope that he will forgive me if I come back to him on those that I do not cover this evening. He asked when the relevant statutory instrument would be put before the House and what its content and composition would be. I must refer him to my noble Friend Lord Hunt for further details, although the matter is being considered by Ministers and I can tell him that we intend to introduce the final legislative package later this month.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the review panel. The MCA is inviting nominations to it from interested organisations and will shortly begin discussions with trade associations and consumer groups on the draft guidance that will support the legislation. He also referred to the two-week timetable for notice of wish to review. I can tell him that that has changed to four weeks, following representations from the trade associations. He also mentioned St. John's wort, which has been classified as a medicine in the UK for at least two years. It is widely available as an exempt herbal remedy. There is no intention to change the status of herbal remedies. So long as there is nothing on the packaging about promoting health or about their efficacy, they will retain their current status as a herbal remedy.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether the independent review panel or the MCA, on behalf of the licensing authority, will have the final say. The MCA must have the final say. If it cannot accept the review panel's advice, as the competent authority, it must retain the right to make the final decision. Although that may hardly ever happen, it could be challenged by judicial review. The final decision must rest with the MCA.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether there could be a third way, as he described it, and whether dietary supplements and herbal remedies, or combinations of both, could be described as neither foods nor medicines, but as something in between. That has been suggested. I am aware that the legislation for dietary supplements in the USA, and initiatives currently being pursued in
  968
  Australia and Canada, have been held up as possible models for the development of such a regime. We have no plans to review the way in which supplements are regulated in the UK, but we are following developments on those initiatives with interest.
  There are indications that the USA legislation allows some potent products, such as herbal ephedrine, on to the market with very little control. Details of the new regimes in Australia and Canada have yet to be finalised, but it appears that both will involve pre-market assessment and licensing of products. Indeed, in Australia all supplements will be classed as medicines. If that is the case, the controls could turn out to be more restrictive than those that currently apply to supplements sold as foods in the UK.
  Any such change would require action at the European level. The legal position on borderline products is ultimately governed by the definition of a medicinal product in EC directive 65/65. There are no proposals to change that definition either by member states or by the Commission. Should a debate begin, the UK would consult widely and participate fully.
  Mr. Collins: The hon. Lady rightly refers to the original European directive 65/65, which dates back to 1965. It is about as old as the hon. Lady and me, so perhaps it is time to have a look at it. Will she make the case in the Council of Ministers for at least considering these matters 34 years on, because much has changed in this field in that time?
  Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman is right that much has changed since then, and I shall reflect on the points that he has made.
  As for food or dietary supplements, the Government have made it clear that any maximum limits on the vitamin and mineral content of supplements should be based on safety considerations.
  I am aware that I have not responded fully to many of the points that the hon. Gentleman made, and I shall write to him. I shall also pass on his comments to Lord Hunt. We have ensured that our final proposals go no further than our obligations as the licensing authority to protect public health. Our aim is to promote, both in the UK and Europe, a regulatory environment in which safe supplements are widely available, the public are not put at risk or misled, and medicines law is effectively and promptly enforced. We want to encourage consumer choice in these areas. The Government will take note of the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Twelve midnight.

Preamble
[Mr. Michael Lord in the Chair]

Oil Fabrication
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Touhig.]
9.30 am
Mr. David Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to deal with the important issue of the oil fabrication industry in the United Kingdom. First, I shall focus on the Barmac oil construction yards, some of which are located in my constituency. Hon. Members will be aware that more than 3,000 redundancies were announced in the yards. Secondly, I shall focus on the wider issues that affect investment decisions in the UK continental shelf. I am grateful that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe will reply to the debate. She has an excellent level of expertise on the matter and chairs the oil and gas task force.
I understand that a number of hon. Members may want to contribute to the debate, especially my hon. Friends the Members for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran), for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) and for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor). I am sure that the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) and the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) will also wish to contribute, although that is a matter for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I shall begin with some of the background to the issues surrounding Barmac. As hon. Members may be aware, Barmac is a joint operation, involving Brown and Root and McDermot's. Those corporations are the only two to have survived in their present form since day one of the development of the UK oil fabrication sector. They operate in Ardersier and Nigg in the north of Scotland and their work force statistics will give some context to my points. In 1998, the work force numbered 6,000 people and this year the average work force is 3,500. The work force are skilled, well trained and well managed under the direction of Don Wright, the managing director. They have a comprehensive list of skills, from engineering to IT, fitting, welding, rigging, crane operation, scaffolding and painting.
Barmac's annual wage bill for the highlands and islands is approximately £85 million, which is a substantial sum for the region, and it is the largest private employer in my area and north of the central belt. The joint operation is also one of the largest private employers in Scotland and, interestingly, it is also the largest steel manufacturer in Scotland. Historically, as independent sites, the two yards survived an industry bedevilled by peaks and troughs. Barmac is the largest trainer of skilled labour in Scotland. More than 7,000 people have received training from it, in a variety of skills. Currently, more than 90 apprentices are involved in training.
Oil analysts predict that next year will be the leanest on record for downstream construction work. The
214WH
immediate effect of such changes at Barmac has been the loss of 3,000 jobs. That loss is a tragedy for the work force and for the families who are facing a bleak winter without a wage or job. Both yards face the new millennium with the possibility of care and maintenance costs and near empty books, which may occur in particular towards the middle of next year. If Barmac were to close, the effect on the highland economy would obviously be disastrous. The gross domestic product of the highlands and islands is already less than the European and British averages, which triggered off the area's objective 1 status.
The management and work force have not been waiting for the crisis to happen. They have implemented the CRINE—cost reduction in the new era—regime. They have also opened a dry dock, which gives them a lot more flexibility and for which they had more than £3 million of objective 1 funds. The beauty of dry docks is their flexibility, especially for the construction of floating production vessels.
The management have sought new markets abroad, in Canada, Mexico, Norway and Denmark, and have considered diversification closely, especially in respect of the decommissioning of redundant rigs. Such decommissioning will be an important factor for the UK sector, especially post Brent Spar. The key issue is when it will come on stream. It may be some considerable time before substantial decommissioning work is available to the sector. The management and work force have also looked at renewables, which are very important for the future of the UK sector and not just for Barmac. I refer in particular to wind and wave power.
The campaign to generate new work is very different from that which occurred in the early 1990s, especially for Barmac. In the early 1990s, the game plan was to ensure in the UK continental sector that work went to UK yards rather than to allegedly highly subsidised yards in Spain and Italy. Now, matters are different, and there is little work in the UK sector. The campaign now is to convince the oil and gas companies to bring forward their exploration and drilling work.
What about the wider environment? First, how much oil is there? That is a difficult question to answer. Many seasoned observers, such as Dick Winchester, the director of technology at the Centre for Marine and Petroleum Technology in Aberdeen, estimate that between 4 billion and 4.5 billion barrels of oil remain to be developed. There are also between 80 and 180 undeveloped oilfields. The problem, inasmuch as one exists, is that the remaining fields are very small in the scale of things. Do small fields and large companies go together? Many companies have said that their strategy is to develop much bigger fields, such as the one that is to be developed in the gulf of Mexico. Shell has negotiated a deal in Iran and BP is known to be bidding for 50 licences in the same area.
I am concerned about the UK block leasing terms, which do not provide any incentive to accelerate development work, as ownership periods range from 30 to 40 years. The earliest licences expire in 2010. First, my right hon. Friend the Minister may wish to comment on whether changes should be made to the block leasing scheme to provide greater incentives for oil companies to invest in development in existing and new fields. Such changes may motivate companies to explore and drill.

215WH
My second practical suggestion is that we consider encouraging the establishment of new, smaller companies with fewer overheads and more manoeuvrability than their larger counterparts. Such an approach has worked well in the United States of America, where clusters of small companies have operated a small number of small fields. In the UK, such companies would, of course, benefit from lower corporation tax. Thirdly, I believe strongly that the UK has no national champion or flagship operator in the same way that Norway has Statoil and France has Elf and Total. Despite being free-market companies, those organisations are highly supportive of Norwegian and French industry and technology. I believe that every United States oil company is a United States champion.
I am pleased to have had the opportunity to initiate the debate, to which I know that several hon. Members will wish to contribute. I shall summarise some of my key points. I have faith in the UK fabrication sector generally and in the local Barmac yards. The yards have an excellent work force, are well managed and have world-class facilities. I regret the loss of 3,000 jobs, which is damaging to the fragile highlands and islands economy. I shall meet the major oil companies—Shell, BP, Texaco and Conoco—and my game plan is to bring forward exploration and drilling work. This morning, I met Dr. George Watkins, the chairman and managing director of Conoco and I thank him for arranging such an early meeting.
The investment decisions made by oil companies depend on a series of factors, such as the price of oil, accessibility and geology of fields, demand, level of resources and exploration costs. Perhaps the key issue is confidence. No one can force large companies to invest in the UK sector. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor kept his side of the bargain, as the fiscal machinery remains unchanged.
Perhaps it is now time for the oil companies either to use their licences or to lose them, although some people might say that I would say that. I want to quote from the September issue of Petroleum Review, which said:
"There is an established production infrastructure and a comprehensive construction capacity close to hand."
That is, in the North sea. It continued:
"There is a ready pool of skill, manpower, sympathetic government and regulation, and a ready market for all that can be produced. Taxation is low (the UK is the second or third most attractive regime in the world, Norway less so)."
We need to encourage smaller companies to enter the market, as in the United States, and to look at the development of a UK champion, as in Norway and France. Let us not forget about gas. Gas-fired power stations may prove to be an important factor and the Minister may wish to say something about the current moratorium on those.
The oil industry is a volatile, cyclical and global market, which has been dominated by multinational companies and the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. However, the harsh reality is that decisions by oil companies to mothball exploration in the UK sector condemn thousands of highland workers to the dole over Christmas.
9.41 am
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) on securing this debate at this particular time because all of us, irrespective of our party-political allegiance, share a deep concern about the implications of events at Barmac and about the long-term future of the UK industry as a whole. We do not need to emphasise the scale of the problem in human terms and the manufacturing implications for the highland economy—the loss to the economy that will result from the closures, or at least the mothballing or care and maintenance, whichever term we care to use, of those yards. It is important to remember that the arguments for objective 1 status did not take into account the cyclical nature of the industry. If we revisited that argument now, we might be in a better situation.
I am sure that the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) and I share a sense of déjà vu because, on many occasions, he and I have taken part in meetings with Ministers, Adjournment debates and interventions on debates on this subject, throughout all of which we have tried to ensure a cohesive approach to this important industry, because it is the sole manufacturing industry in the highlands of Scotland. We were all proud of the work undertaken by Barmac in rationalising the yards at Nigg and Ardersier. I find it strange that people still tell me that there is an itinerant work force in those yards. Gone are the days of the Kishorn commandos. In the highlands, we have built up a skilled and dedicated work force, as we saw during the building of the turret for the Schiehallion field, one of the frontiers of the oil fabrication industry. We shall pay tribute to that skilled work force who live in our communities. I know only too well that, when Ardersier and Nigg are doing well, the small shops and hotels in the villages in my constituency do extremely well. When that purchasing power has gone, there will be a knock-on effect on the rest of the economy. In Moray, it is estimated that 500 jobs will go as a direct result of the announcements and that will have a knock-on effect on other sectors.
I am sure that we all wish to make this a constructive debate and that none of us wishes to score party political points. I want to raise one or two issues with the Minister, who chairs the oil and gas task force. Some of us have been arguing in the Scottish Parliament that there should be a general task force to consider the issue as it relates to the highlands and that the task force should include representatives from the oil industry. As the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber said in his opening remarks, it is important to involve the oil industry in discussions because it has the technical expertise—I do not pretend to be a technical expert in these matters. It is important that, in addition to involving local enterprise companies, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the councils, we should include representatives from the oil industry, with their skills and knowledge, to talk this through. I should like a specific task force to be set up, as one was set up to deal with the problems at Continental in the Lothians and Kvaerner in Govan. That would reassure many people in the highlands, who still feel at times that they are regarded as being all tartan, haggis, sheep and granny's hielan hame, when, in fact, we have a skilled facility in our communities that we do not want to lose.

217WH
Such a task force should tackle some of the issues relating to research and development in the smaller fields. Much emphasis has been placed on the Clair field and how that might be developed. Can the Minister tell us what is happening with the Clair field development, what the time scale for that is and what the implications will be? Secondly, from her knowledge of the tax regime, can the Minister give some consideration to how some of these issues have been dealt with by the Chancellor? If we go back to the Finance Act 1997, we can see that the allowance for development drilling was then 100 per cent. If we could have an allowance of at least 100 per cent. for drilling, that might be an incentive to oil companies to consider giving work to our yards.
Thirdly, the royalty and tax system impacts harshly on projects in mature fields. A royalty relief, remission or reduced rate and/or some petroleum revenue tax relief for incremental projects, such as uplift on incremental investment or a petroleum revenue tax credit for such expenditure, could provide a reasonably cheap incentive. The gain in tax revenues from incremental projects might exceed the value of the tax reliefs. The Government would need permission to do that because the oil price is currently high, but I think that it would be extremely worth while in the context of the problem that we face.
In terms of dealing with the immediate crisis, at a meeting last week of all the Members of the Scottish Parliament with constituencies in the highlands and islands, the Scottish Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, indicated that resources would not be a problem if Highlands and Islands Enterprise, which is dealing with this with local enterprise companies, were to require additional resources. Perhaps that needs to be confirmed through Government Departments in England, because it is important. We want to put in place the structures that are necessary to retain the work force in the area. The Department of Trade and Industry and the Scotland Office must ensure that they work closely together, along with the Scottish Executive, to ensure that that will happen. Tomorrow afternoon, there will be a meeting at Ardersier with the Minister from the Scottish Executive and highlands and islands Members of the Scottish Parliament—I am unsure whether Members of Parliament have been invited—
Mr. David Stewart indicated assent.
Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman says that they have. I wonder what input the Department of Trade and Industry and the Scotland Office have made to that.
We do not need to emphasise the scale of the problem in personal and humanitarian terms. We should like a long-term structure for the yards in our constituencies—the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber and I have argued that case long and hard. I know that there is a problem in the United Kingdom because skills are being sought elsewhere in the world, but we have a responsibility, as an oil and gas producing country, to ensure that we retain our skills and give people a secure future.
9.50 am
Mr. Frank Doran: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) on securing it.
This is an important issue for the north of Scotland. I stress the north of Scotland rather than the highlands because what is happening in Barmac reflects events in the oil industry in general. My constituency of Aberdeen is recognised as the oil capital of Europe and we are also experiencing difficulties, although they are not as apparent as the fairly dramatic circumstances at Barmac.
I shall speak about employment in the oil industry and how we should proceed. The industry tells us that it employs 380,000 people directly or indirectly in the United Kingdom. That massive number of people reflects the importance of the industry. However, it is wrong to think of the employment as being concentrated in one part of the country. A survey by the Offshore Contractors Association about a year ago showed that 220 hon. Members in the House had more than 500 oil jobs based in their constituencies. The business permeates the whole of British industry. My local council estimates that 40,000 jobs in its area are directly related to the oil industry.
For 30 years, the oil industry has taken workers from all parts of the UK. When it began to develop in the 1960s and 1970s, the bulk of workers came from the traditional heavy engineering and manufacturing industries on Teesside, Tyneside and Clydeside—I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) is here to represent that interest—and that remains the case. Any day of the week, the southbound train from Aberdeen is full of Geordies and Teessiders who are heading home after two or three weeks on the rigs. It is important to understand the nature of employment in the North sea industry, which includes onshore facilities such as Barmac. It is a cyclical industry. Some of our major economic crises in the past 20 years stemmed from the oil crisis in the early 1970s. At that time, the UK industry was in its infancy, but when the price collapsed from between $32 and $35 a barrel to between $8 and $9 a barrel almost overnight in 1985–86, industry in my area was devastated. It was estimated that the oil industry lost 50,000 jobs virtually overnight. Investment was immediately stopped and no money was spent on new projects. Drilling, exploration and rig construction were halted, although existing contracts were fulfilled. The industry suffered severely for three or four years, especially the onshore fabrication yards in Scotland, such as those at Ardersier and Nigg.
There is a particular culture to offshore employment that is difficult to find anywhere else in Britain. About 10 per cent. and, in some cases, 20 per cent. of onshore and offshore employees are directly employed by oil companies in my area. The remaining jobs are contracted out. A meeting in my constituency on Friday night was attended by 50 or 60 people who run one-person companies—IR35 companies as they are known. They are highly skilled, but the industry refuses to employ them directly. Instead, it prefers to take on employees through agencies or other contracting

219WH
operations. That shows the way in which the industry operates: it demands flexibility. The other 80 to 90 per cent. are employed through single-person companies or other companies to fulfil contractual requirements—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not know who owns the machine that is making that noise, but Madam Speaker takes a dim view of such disturbances.
Mr. Doran: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
That practice underlines the flexibility of and the insecurity in the industry. The people that I was with on Friday night strongly wanted full-time permanent jobs in the oil industry, but they knew that that was not going to happen. In times of downturn—a year ago, the oil price decreased to about $9 a barrel—those people are dispensed with at little notice. They do not figure dramatically in large-scale unemployment such as that experienced at Barmac, but they lose their jobs as readily. However, they know that there will be opportunities when the industry picks up, as it is doing now—today's price is about $25 a barrel. The industry is cautious and there is little sign of real investment over the next year, so the problems will be with us until it is certain that the oil price is stable and it can make longer-term decisions.
The same culture exists in the rig construction yards, although they have managed to achieve some stability. They went through difficult times in 1985–88. Rig construction yards have been an important resource for the oil industry. One of the major failings of the industry is that it has not trained people. Instead, it has developed its facilities offshore and plucked skilled employees from other parts of the country, such as plumbers, boilermakers, electricians and engineers who were drawn into the oil industry as their traditional manufacturing industries declined. The rig construction yards were used as a training base. Many of the people who work in the oil industry were first trained in the yards. I suppose that that could be considered an indirect subsidy by the oil industry, which paid for the rigs, but the enlightened training policy at Barmac has been important in bringing new recruits into the industry. The oil industry's failure to train must be recognised.
I was pleased to hear the reasoned contribution by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) who has a long involvement with the industry. Indeed, we have occasionally worked together on issues. Her speech contrasted sharply with the behaviour of some of her colleagues in Scotland on this issue. Fairly hysterical comments have been made in an attempt to pin the blame for the problems on the Government. It is important to understand the way in which the industry operates and I have deliberately spent time spelling that out. I back wholeheartedly the hon. Lady's suggestion that the Government have a role, but it is important to recognise that the oil industry also has a role.
People throughout the UK have benefited from the oil industry, with which I have been pleased to work closely in my area. It has created employment and paid huge taxes into the national coffers, and it has helped to build
220WH
new skill bases, for example in information technology and underwater technology, which we are beginning to export. That will benefit us in the longer term, but the legacy of the oil industry is that there is little sign of any company bedding down in our communities.
The industry is in a long and slow decline phase. Oil companies in my constituency assure me that we have at least another 30 years and some have shown me the long-term plans that demonstrate their commitment. However, those companies are not making major contributions to the community. The perception is that they come in and take what they need in skills and Government assistance. They work within the system and buy what they need. I realise that they pay heavily for what they do, but they do not seem to feel a social responsibility to the areas in which they operate. There is a sense that, when the oil has gone, they will simply up sticks and go to the next great oil province. There have been a number of recent scares in that respect. For example, when the former Soviet Union territories opened up to western investment, it was strongly felt that, as the oil there would be a lot cheaper to exploit than it is offshore in Scotland, we would lose out on new investment. That has not yet happened, mainly because of the political difficulties in the former Soviet Union, but it could happen at any time.
In conclusion, we should learn the lessons of Barmac—as hon. Members have said, we have been here before. It is, however, important that the oil industry, the Government and local authorities work together. We must recognise the important contribution that our local authorities have made. Aberdeen city council is now recognised as a world expert because it has enabled its local area to make the transition from a non-oil, semi-rural economy, which relied on, for example, fishing, agriculture and meat production, to an oil economy. Other authorities in Mexico, Canada, the former Soviet Union, the far east and Australia are learning lessons from the experiences of Aberdeen city council. Local authorities together with the oil industry and central Government must work out a programme or task force to deal with the industry's decline. What happened at Barmac emphasises the importance of planning for that final stage.
10.2 am
Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate. It is fortuitous that the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) secured the debate, although all the hon. Members present—particularly those of us who represent constitutencies in the highlands and islands—would agree that the reasons that occasion the debate are far from fortuitous. Both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) outlined those reasons and I do not intend to repeat them. I would, however, underscore from a constituency point of view the overwhelming importance of Barmac's presence, not just the immediate employment, massive though that is—it is the largest private commercial sector employer in the mainland highlands—but equally the ancillary and spin-off employment opportunities and the social and economic underpinning that comes with them.

221WH
Although, as a result of redistributions, the Nigg part of the Barmac site is no longer within the boundaries of my constituency—it now lies just over the border in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan)—there is no doubt that over the years one could track, in constituency surgeries and the postbag, the fortunes of the local economy by the employment and contractual fortunes of the Barmac sites—the one is in direct proportion to the other. I fear that we are in for a significant economic downturn next year as a result of the recent shock to the system.
From my dealings in the past decade and a half with Nigg in particular—now Barmac—in its split site and various mutations, there is no doubting or escaping the essentially cyclical nature of the oil industry. One of the lessons that has been learned commendably by those at management level—aided and assisted by the trade unions, which have contributed powerfully and responsibly over the years—is the need for diversification based on substantial investment in forefront technology. The industry has done that to a considerable extent, but of course that in itself is not enough to cushion the blow that has just been felt as a result of the recent downturn in extraction activity in the North sea in particular.
As the debate relates to the UK in general and not just to the local situation—overwhelmingly important though that is to some of us here—it is worth considering the assessment that the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association has made on likely probable developments as they affect the fabrication sector and oil exploration as a whole. It says that the most recent data from Wood Mackenzie
"suggests that the number of probable new developments is down from 45 in 1998 to 38 in 1999."
It goes on:
"However, few are likely to require major platform structures of the kind that will create major employment opportunities in the fabrication yards. Of the 35 proposed near term developments"—
they are only proposed developments; they are not yet contracts—
"17 are expected to use subsea technology tied back to existing infrastructure"—
so less fabrication opportunity there by far—
"9 may use 'not normally manned platforms'"—
more of the same—
"4 may use fully integrated platforms,
5 are expected to be developed by Extended Reach Drilling."
In other words, even with the diminished number of orders likely to come on stream and assuming that the price per barrel remains more buoyant than it has been of late, the changed nature of the technology means that there is less potential for the Barmacs of this world to achieve the huge fabrication contracts that have been their mainstay hitherto. That poses serious questions for the medium to longer term, leaving aside the fact that there are still several decades of North sea extraction left—I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) on that.
222WH
I am, however, critical of the Government in this respect. After the last election, when the then new Chancellor announced his review of the fiscal regime of the North sea, several of us warned that the fact that the price of oil was falling internationally was bound to add to the climate of uncertainty in what is a very reactive business on a global level; and, indeed, it did. Anyone who has dealt with the oil majors over the years knows that the business involves a great deal of brinkmanship—that is the nature of the beast. Some of the companies that announced in lights that they were postponing major developments may well have used the Chancellor's review as an excuse to bring forward an announcement that they may have been likely to make anyway; I am not so naive as to suppose that that was not so. Without doubt, however, the fiscal review, against the backdrop of the plummeting price per barrel of oil internationally, contributed to added uncertainty, which led to some genuine postponements, if not cancellations. That has certainly not helped the domestic fabrication sector.
There needs to be a twofold approach. First, there is the micro-approach. Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Government Ministers sitting in the Parliament and Executive in Edinburgh can attempt to cope with the immediate local economic and social impact. I know that they are trying to do that and they deserve—and will receive—all possible support in their endeavours. However, that is merely Elastoplast after the event. Action is also needed on the macro level, which is where Westminster comes in—the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry in particular. There is an argument to be made—we have been here before under Nigel Lawson's tenure—for fiscal stimulus as it affects marginal field extraction and development, not least the satellite technology around existing fields. The high rates of marginal taxation that are applied to existing satellites could be diminished to try to increase the likelihood of further fabrication contracts.
Our approach needs to work locally and regionally, as well as on a macro level, which is why it is appropriate that the debate takes place here, in the presence of the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe. I have had the opportunity of a brief exchange with the right hon. Lady, whose concern is well documented and whose interest and support are much appreciated, and I also met the Chancellor last week. At a time when the highlands has received such a setback in the cutting edge of technology—coincidental with our traditional sectors all suffering so severely, although for very different reasons—there is an urgent need for the Chancellor to consider in the run-up to the next Budget what tax stimulus he might be able to give. Nigel Lawson's actions some 10 years ago undoubtedly helped confidence nationally and internationally and the flow of orders that followed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I should tell hon. Members that I intend to begin winding-up speeches by calling the Liberal Democrat spokesman at 10.30 am. Three hon. Members who wish to speak have caught my eye; if they are brief, I am sure that they will be able to do so.
10.10 am
Mr. Bob Blizzard: I, too, am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) for securing the debate. The name of his constituency might be rather a mouthful, but, unlike the more obscure name of my constituency, it has the advantage of naming the towns and settlements within it so that people know where it is.
Mr first point is that the oil and gas fabrication industry is not just a Scottish industry—there are fabrication yards along the east coast of England, even stretching down to East Anglia and the town of Lowestoft, which I represent. We have two yards in the town—the Odebrecht yard, which is part of an international company, and the smaller but no less successful KYE yard, which is a local company. We must remember that, in addition, there is a chain of small and medium enterprises that make component parts and supply engineering services which feed into the industry. All of them are affected by reduced investment in the North sea; the task force forecasts that that will fall by 50 per cent. by 2002 if no action is taken. That would affect hundreds of jobs in my constituency, as well as the thousands of jobs of which we have already heard.
The oil and gas industry is enormously valuable to our country. We have so far had tax revenues from it of £89 billion and, as has been said, 30,000 jobs offshore and more than 300,000 on land depend on it. I am told that investment in the North sea is equivalent to the cost of building a channel tunnel every two years. We are dealing with a hugely important industry.
The entire industry suffers from the reduction in investment, but those of us connected with the fabrication yards most feel the effect because the greatest concentration of jobs lies in the yards. The yards are vital to coastal towns up and down the country. They took on people from closed shipyards, just as the supply and standby vessels took on people from the fishing industry. Shipbuilding and fishing were the mainstays of the Lowestoft economy until the shipyards were closed and the fishing fleet was decimated. We are now reliant on the fabrication industry.
The Odebrecht yard in Lowestoft is in the centre of the town, at the entrance of the harbour. It is not big enough to build the jackets; instead, it builds the top sides and the accommodation modules. Visitors to the town often ask what those rising structures are. I tell them, and say also that the structures symbolise a barometer of the health of the local economy—while we have them there and while they move up, people are in work. When one project is completed, there is anxiety about whether another contract will follow. We live with that; there is currently less and less work to bid for.
The changes to the oil and gas towns are comparable with those that have affected coalfield communities. We are extremely dependent. We must not forget that real people and real communities are at the end of decisions. People naturally look to Government and ask what Government can do. In many respects, the Government have already acted—my area, like others, has been submitted for assisted area status and objective 2 European funding. It is important that the Government see the negotiations in Brussels through to the end; the
224WH
granting of the status and the funding is vital to my area. Coastal towns suffer from being peripheral. We suffer from poor transport links in East Anglia. The firms and community of my constituency will need that external support.
I should emphasise to the Minister that it is vital, when we have those designations, that the oil and gas industry is able to access assisted area status funds and European structural funds—we have previously had problems with that. It is important that we encourage industries to diversify into related activities. They will need support with capital expenditure to do that. Lowestoft was given those designations by the Government as recognition that, for a long period, it had been one of the top—or bottom—10 travel-to-work areas for unemployment. The problem will be made worse if we also lose jobs in fabrication. I urge the Government to include in the urban White Paper being devised a special remit for coastal towns, and not just to consider the problems of big inner cities. Whole Government policies could then be driven in that way.
Gas represents a big share of activity in the North sea—our gas reserves will outlast our oil reserves. Why do we continue the moratorium on gas-fired power stations? Extra confidence would be given to the industry if it was lifted. I cannot understand why it was imposed, and I do not think that it is necessary. The Government declared that they wanted to reform the energy pool. It takes several years to build a power station; the operator of a power station would have to take the risk of buiding one knowing that there might be a different energy market once it was completed. It would help if that decision were reconsidered. Gas is the best fuel environmentally after renewables, which can meet only some of our needs.
We should consider what the oil companies could do. They were clearly going to be cautious when the price of oil was as low as $10 a barrel—investment was discouraged. The price has returned to $25 a barrel. We do not know that it will stay at that level, but I ask the oil companies to reconsider and to be more positive about investment in the new situation.
We must focus on the big issue—the macro-economic situation concerning the future of the oil and gas industry. We cannot alter geology. It took millions of years for the oil and gas to form, and we must accept that the North sea industry is now in its mature stage. The big fields have been discovered and, therefore, the days of big kit, such as big platforms, are over. The all-party offshore oil and gas group, which I chair, recently saw what might be the last such construction to be built at the Wallsend yard for the Shearwater project. That does not mean the end of our industry—we can exend its life if we fully exploit the smaller and more marginal fields. Thirty years ago, people were saying that the industry would be finished by now. It is not finished; it has not yet peaked because of innovation, technical advance and cost reduction since those early days. We must maximise the life of the industry of the United Kingdom continental shelf in that way.
The Government industry task force, which has been a model of co-operation between Government and industry, is addressing that matter. The Leading Oil and Gas Industry Competitiveness initiative, supported by

225WH
the Department of Trade and Industry, will also have a great part to play. A special section will study fabrication and how we can learn from the gulf of Mexico and get down to the cost levels of the industry there. We shall have a future if we do that.
Developing opportunities in recommissioning and decommissioning will also be important. In East Anglia, we are keen to be involved in those opportunities as they represent a great source of employment. It will be important to maximise the industry's export possibilities, as we are world leaders. The task force has set an ambitious target of a 50 per cent. increase in exports. That is difficult currently because of the high pound. One of the yards in my constituency told me yesterday that it was buying raw materials from Germany and Italy; if it used our raw materials, it would be uncompetitive when exporting the final product.
We must focus on innovation now because the window of opportunity is small. We cannot build satellites once the major installations have gone or have been closed. We must develop our industry now, while the infrastructure is in place.
The Government have their part to play in the actions identified by the task force. I am pleased that they have already acted by introducing more flexible regulations, modernising the licence award system and granting capital gains tax roll-over relief. It is crucial that the Government recognise that not merely oil price but field size will be the key factor in determining investment for the future. I hope that the Treasury will take a long-term view of taxation and realise that, if it can gradually be planed down as the marginal fields are exploited, it will help to stretch the life of the industry, make the fields more viable and keep more people in work. It will mean more overall tax revenues to the Treasury and enable good environmental husbandry of the finite resources if what is there is taken out when the installations are available to do so.
The Government have agreed to keep royalty and petroleum revenue tax under review. The industry must then convince the Treasury that any relief given will bring forward increased investment. It would help if the oil companies could show that they would respond to the higher oil price by keeping their part of the deal.
We must remember that more jobs are with the contractors and the suppliers than with the oil companies. It is important that the fabrication industry is represented in the task force, which is to be relaunched at the beginning of next year. It should reflect the whole industry, including contractors and fabricators, and also have a geographical balance so that all parts of the country have confidence in it. The trade unions, too, should be fully involved. It is for the industry to decide who it puts forward, but I am sure that ultimately the Minister can insist on a fair and balanced representation from the industry.
There must be a national effort. Oil and gas is a great industry, which has cast off the old image of being dirty and irresponsible; it is now a leading-edge, high-tech industry. We must all work together, remember that there are people at the heart of it and do everything that we can to maintain levels of employment.
10.22 am
Mr. Calum Macdonald: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) for securing the debate and for giving us the opportunity to contribute to it. As you requested, I shall be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I begin by paying tribute to the work force and management of Lewis Offshore, which operates the Arnish yard in my constitutency. I was closely involved with the reopening of the yard in 1991, which seemed like a leap of faith at that time. The economic context was in many ways even less promising than it appears today. Moreover, whereas the Arnish yard had been operated in the 1970s and 1980s by large multinationals, the new operation, when it was restarted, was unique: it was locally managed and very much locally controlled.
Under that local management, the yard succeeded beyond our most optimistic hopes at the time. Employment was consistently about 200 people, largely drawn from those living locally. At times, the number increased to about 500 people, some drawn from outside, adding to spending power in the local economy. Sadly, the company is now in receivership, but it is to its great credit that it kept the yard active for what was, it transpired, the longest continuous period of operation since it first opened in the early 1970s.
As several hon. Members have said, the industry is subject to ups and downs. Arnish has been caught by the current downturn. Given the yard's excellent record in the past decade and the crisis elsewhere in the industry, there is no shame in its present predicament and I firmly believe that the yard still has good prospects for the future. The qualities of the work force are such that it still has a good chance of attracting new investment when the climate becomes more favourable.
In terms of that more favourable climate, a number of hon. Members have already talked of the need to encourage new development. One of the areas to which people look for new development is off the west coast of Scotland. That development will be technically difficult and hugely expensive, but the shift westwards has already begun. I am told that west of Shetland has the largest producing fields on the British shelf. It will be useful to hear the view of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe of the prospects for further development off the west coast in the next few years.
Many hon. Members have mentioned the importance of the gas industry. There are anxieties about the impact of the moratorium on development and production and it will be useful to hear my right hon. Friend's view of it. What has been the impact on gas development? It might be appropriate to have another look at the moratorium.
There is also the prospect of large amounts of work decommissioning old, redundant platforms, as my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber said in his opening speech. The combined value of the work in the next decade and beyond is reportedly billions of pounds. If only a small part of it were won by the yard in my constituency, for example, it would generate contracts even more valuable than have been achieved in the past decade. Again, it would be extremely helpful to know the Department's view of

227WH
how the decommissioning work might develop, how big it might be, when it is likely to start and the likely trend of development.
At the first signs of decommissioning work, British yards face strong competition from Norway. With the help of the Department of Trade and Industry, it is vital that we keep a close eye on the development of that market. An important task for the Government will be to advise and assist British companies to keep abreast of their Norwegian rivals.
The other big tasks for the Government are, first, to keep viable the yard in my constituency and all the other yards that are suffering, so that they continue to be available for future business. The second task will be to maintain the skills and training of the work force so that they can take advantage of any future work in the industry. A third task in my constituency, which is perhaps more directly suited to the Department rather than to the local economic agencies, is to assist Lewis Offshore in its pursuit of outstanding creditors, especially when it is owed substantial sums from companies that are based overseas.
I would welcome the Minister's assurance that the Government are focused on those tasks and that the Department of Trade and Industry will assist the Scottish Executive and Highlands and Islands Enterprise in pursuing these matters. The Government cannot create work, but they can help companies such as Lewis Offshore and the others that have been mentioned this morning to be ready to make competitive bids for work when it arrives. I am sure that such opportunities will come along and I am hopeful, too, that my right hon. Friend will continue to take a close personal interest in the fate of the industry, especially the yards in the highlands.
10.29 am
Ms Dari Taylor: I am grateful to have a few moments to speak at the end of this debate and I am grateful, too, to my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) for securing it.
The Tees is absolutely distraught at the state of the oil and gas fabrication industry, in which more than 8,000 people in that area are employed one way or another. An impact assessment shows that, if the industry goes down, our economy will lose about £220 million. That is a sizeable amount, and it is creating serious trauma.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) stated that many Geordies travel to the north-east of Scotland on a week-by-week basis. He might have added that so do many thousands of Teessiders, who are boilermakers, fabrication workers, engineers and welders. We have a tradition of travelling to where the work is. The commitment of this work force is to work and they want to hear from the Government that they, too, are committed to giving the oil and gas industry a chance.
So much of what I could say has been said in the debate, so I will not repeat it. We have seen Kvaerner's Triton sail out into the North sea. It is an astounding piece of engineering. We have also heard it said that the industry is finished. That cannot possibly be true or
228WH
acceptable. The workers have inordinately high skills. The industry is value added. We should not be allowed to say goodbye to it.
I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central questioning what the industrialists and the industry are doing. My goodness, was he reading my mind? Last year, the industry achieved record profits. It has had difficult times, but in the past 20 years it made record profits virtually every second year. My community wants to know where the payback is. People ask what is being put back in. What is that industrial community doing about it? What will they help to develop? The skills and the technology are there. The community is looking to the industry—to Kvaerner, Odebrecht, and Heerema, which are very large companies. We do not want them to run to the easy fields of Mexico. We want to hear them say that the shallow beds in the North sea are still worth extracting from; that submersible engineering and other forms of engineering are greatly valued; that the work force are valued; and that they have a commitment to the community, so they will stay.
I have had two minutes in which to speak. This industry is crucial for me and my colleages from the Tees, and for the trade unionists. I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me that two minutes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am delighted that we were able to fit the hon. lady into the debate. I knew her late father well. He spoke with great passion; so does she.
10.31 am
Mr. Andrew Stunell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) on securing the debate on a most important issue. Everyone present would agree that we face a tragic loss of jobs. The impact on the local community, the industry and the economy of not only Scotland but the United Kingdom will be devastating, as hon. Members have pointed out.
Broadly speaking, what is happening is part of an overall loss of momentum in the UK oil industry. In part, it is due to the inescapable facts of geological life. Available oil reserves are now smaller and harder to find and they are expensive to extract. The marginal cost of bringing them ashore is also higher. That will have a fundamental and unavoidable impact on the industry in the coming few years, but there is still a good deal of life left in those fields and a good deal of investment still to be made.
Some significant facts of life must also be confronted. This time last year, oil and gas prices were probably historically at their lowest point ever—certainly well below what investment analysts had expected a decade earlier. That has a serious impact on the industry's profitability and the effectiveness and value of investment. The price of oil has multiplied two and a half times, but is clearly in a period of considerable instability. Gas is extremely cheap on the international market.
The industry has also to cope with the political facts of life. Here I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), who

229WH
said that the Government must look back at part of their record of the past two and a half years. The uncertainty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's review of the fiscal regime left the industry unclear about the future economic profitability and viability of its investment in the UK oil sector. His acceptance of that review was a little tentative. In the words of a representative of the oil industry to whom I spoke yesterday, it was acceptance for the time being. This is not the basis on which long-term investment decisions at a marginal and critical level can be soundly based.
The uncertainty of purpose of the fiscal regime was somewhat compounded by another uncertainty—that of developing and exploiting alternative energy systems. The hon. Member for Inverness, East Nairn and Lochaber said that the yard had tried to look at diversification into wave and wind energy fabrication and construction.
We need steadfastness and stability of purpose not only in the oil industry, but in the broader energy market. The key to that is confidence. The industry must have confidence in its investment decisions, not least because it is a global industry and, essentially, perhaps the ultimate market-driven industry. It is not given to sentiment or to spending a great deal of time on its social obligations. Therefore, it is essential for the Government to supply what they can by way of fiscal and investment support and the stable framework so necessary to reassure that investing community.
I make two pleas. The first is to the companies to hang on in there and not give up on the UK industry or the Scottish oil industry. I ask them to have faith in the skills and added value that the Scottish fabrication industry and the wider UK industry have and can contribute to their profitability in the coming decades. My second plea is to the Government—and I want to leave time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for them to respond. I make three requests. Please will they give a clear signal about long-term fiscal stability and help for the industry based in and around the UK oil and gas sector? Please will they respond to several pleas made this morning for a clear direction to their strategy on decommissioning, where a great deal of investment and creation of jobs will be necessary in the future? Please will they give today a clear signal about how they intend to facilitate the diversification of investment into alternative energy technologies? The skills, manpower and capacity are there and, with the alternative sources of energy, we have a rich environment.
This is not the day for scoring party political points. I simply ask the Minister to respond positively to this tragic set of circumstances.
10.38 am
Mr. Nick Gibb: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) on securing this important debate. There is no doubt that the two impending sets of job losses at the Barmac yards at Nigg and Ardersier are personal and economic tragedies not only for the 3,000 individuals directly involved, but for the surrounding community because of the indirect effect of job losses there. The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) pointed out that when the Nigg and Ardersier yards are doing well, the small shops and hotels in her constituency do well, too.
230WH
The reasons for the absence of new orders after the Elf Enterprise Elgin platform, which will be completed in March next year, have been well rehearsed. The UK continental shelf is now a mature development, with remaining reserves confined to smaller fields. The low long-term oil price—recent but temporary hikes notwithstanding—is also a major contributor. Exploration and appraisal drilling are at the lowest level since the 1970s. The 35 proposed near-term developments in the North sea are unlikely to be of the size and type to require substantial new rigs from the fabrication yard. According to the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association, which the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) mentioned, 17 of the 35 developments are expected to use subsea technology, using existing infrastructures; so there will be no need for further infrastructure there. Nine use not usually manned rigs and five are expected to be developed by the new technology in drilling—the extended-reach drilling techniques.
According to the Department of Trade and Industry's figures, whereas development expenditure was £5.1 billion in 1998, it fell to £3.2 billion in 1999 and is set to fall to £3.1 billion next year and £2 billion for the following two years. Despite that, Barmac remains relatively optimistic about the long term. Its managing director, Don Wright, said:
"We may be down, but we are definitely not out".
He went on to say:
"The heavy engineering end of the oil industry is notoriously boom and bust and the bottom of the cycle will be reached by next spring."
That is odd: I had thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had abolished boom and bust, but obviously not in the oil industry. Mr. Wright continued:
"In a worst case scenario, we will be down to 400 next year"—
400 employees, that is—
"But we actually believe that we will have enough success to ensure that we are still employing 800 on average."
There do seem to be some long-term trends, which may be hard to resist. We need to ask whether the Government are doing enough to slow those trends down, or alternatively, whether they are making the situation worse. I pay tribute to the hon Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber for his energy in raising these important matters with industry and the Government. More controversially, his exemplary activity on behalf of his constituents contrasts sharply with the insouciance of the leader of the Liberal party, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West, whose constituency neighbours the Nigg fabrication yard. Although the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber used his opportunity commendably at Prime Minister's Questions last week to raise the subject of the Barmac fabrication yard, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West failed to use either of his two weekly opportunities to raise the issue. Last week, he even made a joke and asked about the London tube instead.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) says that the Government are not to blame. The Government's approach, however, has been confined to establishing the oil and gas industry task force, now to be renamed PILOT, and Leading Oil and Gas Industry

231WH
Competitiveness, which is about lowering costs. As I said, the key question is whether the Government are making matters worse. The answer is yes.
The United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association believes that one of the most important requirements to achieve the goals that the oil and gas industry task force set itself is
"extending the life of existing infrastructure in the UK continental shelf. This provides a large potential for 'brown field' development—but the window of opportunity for incremental investments for maximum reserves recovery is limited.… Currently, such incremental investments are discouraged by taxes as high as 69 per cent."
That 69 per cent. is made up of a combination of petroleum revenue tax, royalties and corporation tax—a combination that still applies to some of the older fields. As the hon. Member for Moray also pointed out, there is scope for the Government to reduce those burdens in the light of changes to the market and, in particular, to the North sea oil sector.
The North sea oil tax review—also referred to by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West—which seems to hang dangerously over the industry, has been put on hold. When the Minister said that the review had been put on hold, she referred to the low price of oil as the reason for doing so. Now that the oil price has increased, I hope that the Government do not intend to reignite the threat that the oil tax review presents to the oil industry.
There is also the gas moratorium, a policy implemented by the Government solely for internal Labour party reasons. It has resulted in higher than necessary electricity prices and carbon dioxide emissions, and lower than necessary demand for North sea gas. Even the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) cannot understand why the moratorium was imposed: the reasons given in the energy White Paper simply do not stack up.
Three Government policies, therefore, are adding to the difficulties of the North sea sector. No one would claim that those three policy solutions could deal with all the problems in that sector, but they would at least be a step in the right direction instead of a step in the wrong direction, which is making matters worse.
10.45 am
The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): May I join right hon. and hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) on securing this debate? He has been particularly active on this issue and those of us who know him would expect nothing less.
I welcome our reasoned and thoughtful debate, marred only by the contribution of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), who gave a singularly ill-informed and ungracious speech. Several important points were raised in the debate and I may not be able to do justice in 15 minutes to the depth of some of them. However, I have been most impressed by the depth of knowledge and the local insights from right hon. and hon. Members and I will convey a copy of the

232WH
Official Report of this debate to the oil and gas industry task force, which will be able to see the ideas and the passion generated in our debate.
Like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor). She had only two minutes, but managed to say what many of us have been trying to say for a long time. I note also that my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) was trying hard to enter the debate, but was unable to do so. I shall seek to converse with him in due course.
I feel a sense of poignancy in this debate, particularly regarding the problems of Barmac at Nigg, Ardersier and Arnish. I recall many years ago visiting Nigg before even a sod had been cut in the grass. The scale of development there has changed considerably now. The history of the Barmac operation in the highlands of Scotland has been put into context for us. We are talking not about metal bashing, but about a major operation with a highly skilled work force. I pay tribute to that work force and to management, who are showing a commitment to the community. The work force are excellent and I know that recent decisions have not been taken easily. I pay particular tribute to the work of the shop stewards at Barmac. I woke up in the early hours of Monday morning to a report from Canada. The convener of shop stewards had been there to look for work opportunities for the Barmac work force.
In common with the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), I am well aware of the multiplier effects of the yards on local communities. The hon. Lady asked about the possibility of a wider task force. She would acknowledge that that is more a matter for the Scottish Executive than for the House. However, I shall liaise with my colleagues in the Scottish Executive, which knows that it can call on my Department's resources to assist in this matter.
I have already met the oil and gas industry task force and I will provide more detail in a moment. I would like to announce now that the oil and gas task force met on 1 December and the main item of discussion was the difficulties faced by the UK fabrication industry. I chaired the task force and was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Fife (Mr. McLeish), who is also a member of the Scottish Executive, and by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scotland Office.
Following that meeting, several plans were formulated. I have asked all relevant Government Departments and agencies to meet, with the facilitation of the Department of Trade and Industry, to discuss their existing strategies in response to the challenges faced by the fabrication industry, to formulate a coherent UK-wide plan to mitigate current difficulties. The Scottish Executive, Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the Glasgow development agency, One North East and representatives from the oil industry national training organisation are to be invited to a meeting in the DTI on 20 December.
Picking up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber about industry champions, one of the great advances since the development of the oil and gas industry task force is the way in which companies operating in an intensely competitive market have sat around a table to examine

233WH
difficulties in the industry to plot a way forward. I want the fabrication industry to enter into that, so that we have a champion for UK fabrication.
Let me try to give some comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South. Much of the debate has been about Scotland. Last week, I spoke at the Northern Offshore Federation, which has a major event planned for February next year, supported by the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It will be a major showcase for the supply industry—not just in the north of England, but throughout the United Kingdom.
Many points have been made today about the decline in the UK continental shelf, but we must separate that issue from the prospects of the industry as a whole. That is what the oil and gas industry task force has been seeking to do. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) made the excellent point about the geological challenge of the UK continental shelf. There is significant change in the North sea and we must manage that change.
The Government's initiative in bringing together the oil and gas industry task force has brought about significant progress. The reduced world demand, caused not merely by the dramatic fall in the oil price, but by the changing nature of energy markets, has been recognised. Indeed, the increase in the oil price has changed the situation a little, too. I shall come back to that when I talk about decommissioning, which has been changed by the increased price per barrel of oil. The continental shelf is undoubtedly maturing and is geologically more difficult. It is imperative therefore to reduce the cost of operating on the UK continental shelf, but we must not lose sight of the opportunities for exploration, production and the development of oil and gas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber spoke about the marginal fields and mentioned that a number of licences have been issued for fields that are not being developed. One exciting initiative by the task force is to set up an organisation called LIFT, the Licence Initiative for Trading, which is a virtual trading market in licences. If a company has a licence for a marginal field that it does not want to develop, it can trade that licence in a way that has not existed before. That initiative will work together with other initiatives such as LOGIC, which stands for Leading Oil and Gas Industry Competitiveness.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, Central (Mr. Doran) talked about small suppliers such as one-man companies and self-employed contractors, many of whom have fantastic expertise. I have seen some of that expertise. It is world-leading stuff, but often, because they are small, they are not plugged into the mechanisms of the large oil companies. LOGIC aims to deal with that and to ensure that, right through the supply chain, big businesses can see what small businesses have to offer. Linked to that is the industry technology facilitator. Many of the far-sighted technological ideas come from small operators, who lack the money or expertise to market them themselves. Through the Department of Trade and Industry, we will help both LOGIC and the industry technology facilitator to make sure that those ideas are marketed too. This is about putting a coherent supply chain into place.
234WH
The task force has far-reaching aims. It is aimed at ensuring that investment is sustained at £3 billion per annum from UK continental shelf activity. That should ensure that production remains at or about 3 million barrels of oil equivalent a day. It is about prolonging self-sufficiency in oil and gas. It is also, and this is the bit that I want to work at particularly hard, about a 50 per cent. increase in export in oil and gas supply products. That amounts to something like £2 billion in value. I shall meet the OSO board tomorrow to talk about export opportunities.
My Department, through British Trade International, works hard to exploit the opportunities for a world-class industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) mentioned that our industry is world class. We believe that it is possible to secure £1 billion additional value from new businesses supporting up to 100,000 jobs—more than there would otherwise have been. We recognise that there will be a decline in jobs. This has been a sensible and reasoned debate which has acknowledged that change. However, there is the opportunity for the future too. We must deal with the short-term issues that affect communities such as those in the north of Scotland and down the east coast of England. That is a key area for us.
A number of right hon. and hon. Members mentioned the fiscal regime. One of the benefits of the task force is that it has brought together industry leaders, and I include trade unionists as well as representatives of the Government, with the Chancellor. One direct consequence of that was capital gains roll-over relief. The industry can therefore discuss the whole fiscal framework for the North sea directly with the Chancellor, who will keep it under review. It is not for me to speak for him, but he is aware of the difficulties in the North sea.
A number of hon. Members asked what the industry is doing about this problem. I have also asked that question and, indeed, I put it to the industry last week. The reply was that the industry took a bad hit in the past year because of the fall in oil prices. I ask the industry now to show its commitment to the people who made it the great success that it is and to recognise the skills that there are in the North sea. I have found a ready response from the industry, but I will keep in touch and I will keep the pressure on too.
A number of hon. Members raised the stricter gas consents policy. There is an irony here. Two weeks ago, I was replying to an Adjournment debate about the coal industry and was asked to ensure that the stricter gas consents policy was kept in place. The policy was put in place to allow us to reform the energy pool. We know from the Queen's Speech that there will be a utilities Bill in this Session, which will allow us to put in place that reform of the energy pool. I do not underestimate the impact of the gas consents policy on the UK oil and gas industry. I am aware of that, as is the Secretary of State. We wish to give fairness, and not favours, to the coal industry and we seek to give the same to the oil and gas industry. We hear what the industry says about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) talked about the problems of Arnish. I am sad that the company is in receivership, which is largely due to a commercial dispute. The local work force are excellent—like the Teesside work force they are international and have transformed their abilities

235WH
over the lifetime of the Arnish development. My officials will do everything that they can to assist the yard. The company and yard are well regarded and the management has respect throughout the industry. We will do what we can to help.
The hon. Member for Moray asked about the Clair field and a number of hon. Members referred to the need to look at development west of Shetland. The field is very difficult geologically. It operates in difficult weather conditions and is the only field awaiting development there. A large number of licences are involved. BP Amoco is leading attempts to align the various interests but, as to timing, we must take into account the serious environmental impact on the area west of Shetland. The earliest possible approval and contract award would be mid-2001. Regrettably, I cannot suggest anything earlier.
I listened carefully to the points that have been made. Hon. Members know that I am available to them at any time to discuss the difficulties that the industry is experiencing. I do not want to hear us talk about the decline of the UK oil and gas industry: we are talking about managing change from the UK continental shelf in a way that secures an oil export industry that is for the benefit of all of us.

European Legislation (Parliamentary Scrutiny)
11 am
Mr. Peter Atkinson: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that I have the right protocol, because, like many hon. Members, I am somewhat of a novice in that regard. None the less, it is a great pleasure to appear before you for the first time in this new Chamber.
I also thank the Minister for coming here today and for getting off his bus. I understand that he has been touring the country in it and that it is called Eunice—perhaps it should be called EU nice. I suspect that he will have discovered the European Union's deep unpopularity as he travelled in his bus outside the world of Westminster and Whitehall. He shakes his head, but he might not have visited the parts of the country that I and my hon. Friends inhabit. In any case, I welcome the Minister, who is off his bus and, no doubt, off to Helsinki. I hope that he will not sign up to some of the changes that have been forecast for the new intergovernmental conference agenda.
I hope that the Government will not sign up for more qualified majority voting and that they do not move into areas such as the European defence structure. In particular, I hope that they will not deal with the revision of the treaties, about which we have read in today's papers, because that would give the European Union some competence over our tax affairs. The Government want to limit the IGC agenda to matters that are called the leftovers from Amsterdam. However, my fear, and that of many of my colleagues, is that the Minister will not succeed and that the European Union will manage to advance integration and federalism at the next IGC.
One issue that will be missing from the IGC agenda next year will be the power of national Parliaments and their ability to scrutinise the European Union's affairs. That is a great pity, and the Government should seek to strengthen Parliament's role in scrutinising European legislation.
The European Union reminds me of one of the old London Routemaster buses which still run past this building. They were designed in the mid-1950s, at about the same time that Europe was born, to replace trolleybuses in the city. London Transport has a wonderful desire to keep them for ever and over the years it has re-engineered them in one form or another, keeping the same old pre-war design, which is totally unsuitable for the modern London traveller. The European Union is doing exactly the same.
Mr. Michael Jack: As a user of the type of bus that my hon. Friend described, I have just one question. Does he agree that the ability to hop on and off while the bus is on the move matches the flexibility that our party seeks in its dealings with Europe?
Mr. Atkinson: That is an ingenious way of taking the Routemaster further into the question of Europe. The problem is that, although my right hon. Friend might be able to hop on and off, it is quite difficult to do so if one has a child, a pushchair or some shopping, or if one is somewhat infirm.

237WH
Europe is doing exactly what I have described: it is repeating the mistakes that it made in the past. On the important issue of enlargement, the machine that Europe is seeking to build simply will not work.
The new democracies of eastern Europe, which we shall, I hope, welcome into the European Union, are relatively fragile. The countries in that area have not long had proper democracy. Their political parties have still not properly bedded down or coalesced. There is a danger that they will lose their enthusiasm for their new democracy if the European Union forces too much acquis communautaire on them. That is the great danger in the proposals for the intergovernmental conference.
The problems were well identified in the report by the three wise men—Mr. Dehaene, Mr. von Weizsäcker and Lord Simon. That paper is worth reading, if only because it identifies the problems very well. It does not, of course, identify any of the correct solutions. The authors stress that the European Union should find ways of connecting or reconnecting to the people of Europe. That is important for the way in which we scrutinise the affairs of Europe.
The present system is wholly inadequate to deal with the volume of rules, regulations and decisions that come out of Europe. I speak as someone who had some experience in the previous Parliament of serving on the Select Committee on European Legislation. It has now been renamed the Select Committee on European Scrutiny, although it works in much the same way. I attended a meeting—you may have been to such a meeting yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker—at which we completed our agenda in four minutes. We had about 60 or 70 items to consider, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) will recall. We whizzed through the matters without any sensible debate. That is not to criticise those who work in the Department. Some of our most excellent staff work is done by those who have joined the European scrutiny process and who examine European legislation. Previously, those involved were largely retired civil servants who had rejoined us and who thought of nothing better than getting back at their masters. They had the knowledge to do so and they provided an excellent service.
Mr. William Cash (Stone): I have been on the Scrutiny Committee since 1985 and have seen quite a wide range of activity on it. The people on the Committee—I mean no disrespect to them personally—appear to have been hand-picked to encourage the process of integration. In the previous Parliament, the views of a significant number of people were well known to be favourable to the direction in which the establishment wanted to go. That is a great pity. We need to be sure that people in the Scrutiny Committee, as in the Public Accounts Committee, are intent on asking serious questions all the way down the line.
Mr. Atkinson: I echo my hon. Friend's comments. That is correct. I got some instructive figures from the Library about the number of pieces of paper that emanate from Europe. For instance, in 1996, 39 directives, 2,341 regulations and 2,806 decisions came from the Commission. Among the papers from the Council, which are more important, were 58 directives, 247 regulations and 179 decisions. It is totally impossible for our existing scrutiny system to deal with
238WH
those. The Scrutiny Committee considers about 1,000 documents a year, which sometimes go round in circles, perhaps two or three times. It reports on about 475 documents and recommends debate on about 60. It recommends that 12 of those debates should be held on the Floor of the House. I have not discovered exactly how many of those recommendations are carried out. My suspicion is that far fewer than 12 of those debates take place on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Anthony Steen: I have had the honour and privilege of being on the Select Committee on European Legislation. I forget how long it has been, but it has been a long time. Is my hon. Friend aware that the Committee is supposed to approve directives, rules and regulations that add up to a couple of hundred sheets of paper most weeks? Does he agree that there must be a serious question mark in our minds as to whether it can have any value at all when it simply rubber-stamps hundreds and thousands of documents, which it is quite incapable of reading and studying and on which it is quite incapable of making any judgments? Even if it disagrees with the subjects of the rules and regulations, it has no powers. All that it can do is write a letter to the Minister to ask for more information or that the matter be debated in a Standing Committee. Does the Committee have any value at all? Is it just a front and a pretence?
Mr. Atkinson: My hon. Friend reinforces the point more eloquently than I am making it. I agree entirely, but I do not want to imply any criticism of members of staff, because we rely on them to make decisions on our behalf.
Mr. Donald Anderson: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman because I must shortly leave on an urgent constituency matter. However, I want to interject one matter from the viewpoint of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. Following recommendations made by the Modernisation Committee in 1998, the Scrutiny Committee no longer only pursues bits of paper, as he suggests: it is entitled to examine related matters. That raises the question of the parliamentary scrutiny of European affairs as a whole. For example, the Foreign Affairs Committee, on which I serve, has in its remit the intergovernmental conference. The Scrutiny Committee went ahead without consulting us. There is a clear need to clarify the roles of different Select Committees, even if we do not go down the road of having a full European Committee.
Mr. Atkinson: No one knows scrutiny byways better than the hon. Gentleman. He put his finger on precisely the point that I was trying to make. There is so much material to debate that we cannot concentrate on the key issues. We do not separate the wheat from the chaff, and there is too much to deal with properly.
The gold-plating of regulations is an additional problem that occurs after we have dealt with them. Legislation may be nodded through the Scrutiny Committee; it may go through a brief debate in a European Standing Committee; but it may be thoroughly gold-plated when it eventually comes into force. The directive on abattoirs is an example. It originally took up two sides of A4, but the final version

239WH
produced by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was a book. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) knows all about that.
Mr. Christopher Gill:: I want to talk not about the abattoirs directive specifically, but about directives in general. Would it not be a good idea for Members of Parliament to see the original directive and compare it directly with what is translated into legislation in this country? Both documents should be made available at the same time so that a useful comparison may be made and Members of Parliament can see the score, determining to what extent the directive has been gold-plated by our own Departments.
Mr. Atkinson: I agree absolutely. There is still too much material from Europe for us to scrutinise it properly.
Things can be done. For example, the Danes have a system that may be applicable to ours: Ministers are called before their scrutiny committee and must face questions. In essence—and this is the heart of our policy—we should be doing far less in Europe. That is one of the central differences between the Opposition and the Government. We believe that the only way in which we can scrutinise Europe properly and citizens can have confidence in their national Parliaments is for Europe to do far less.
The national Parliament—which voters elect and kick out—is one of the great safety valves of democracy. Kicking out the Government is one of the ordinary citizen's greatest democratic weapons. Without doubt, my backside is still smarting after 1997; that, however, is the nature of the democratic safety valve. If more and more decisions are apparently taken by an unaccountable Commission or institution in Europe, the public will experience genuine frustration at not being able to influence decisions.
One of the worst things for a Member of Parliament is having to say, "I'm awfully sorry, but I can't do anything about this because it's a European matter." In that context, it is depressing to face a farmer suffering genuine financial problems. Even if the Government wanted to help, they cannot because of the European structure. I urge the Minister and the Foreign Secretary—when he goes to Helsinki—to press the case for a wider, shallower Europe, which does less, but does it better.
Mr. Steen: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way: he will be doing so again to many of my hon. Friends, who have valid points to make.
Two matters concern me. Is my hon. Friend aware that the Scrutiny Committee sits in private? The public and press are not given an opportunity to learn about some of the directives, rules and regulations that it considers. For example, there was a draft directive aiming to change the technical specifications on farm tractor passenger seats to take account of the wide and varied work now undertaken by farm tractor passengers. Should the public not hear about those absurd rules and regulations?
Mr. Atkinson: That is exactly the trouble with Europe's image. For the majority of people—as the
240WH
Minister will discover when he is driving around in Eunice—the image of Europe involves tractor seats, square bananas and carrot jam. Of course, that is quite wrong and damages Europe's reputation.
Several things must be done, apart from Europe doing less and doing it better. Europe needs some proper institutions and should look across the Atlantic for ideas about that. For a start, Europe needs an equivalent of the National Audit Office; the European Parliament could create something strong along those lines. Also urgent is reform of the European Court of Justice, which polices the single market and is of enormous importance to this country's role as a free trading country, but is ultimately a cumbersome and almost hobbled institution. The fact that French defiance in relation to the importation of British beef may take the court up to two years to deal with makes nonsense of the whole procedure. Substantial reform of the court is required, and that, again, may reduce the burden of material emanating from Europe.
The most important thing to set up is an independent competition authority, as outlined in a speech last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), who is shadow spokesman on foreign affairs. We need a competition guardian to snuff out regulations such as those on tractor seats, thus stopping them coming to national Parliaments.
Mr. Steen rose—
Mr. Atkinson: Several of my hon. Friends wish to speak, so I would be grateful if my hon. Friend keeps his intervention short.
Mr. Steen: Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to worry about more than the lack of transparency in the Scrutiny Committee? I mentioned tractor seats, but the Committee has just approved, by the Chairman's casting vote, a £5 million grant enabling the 11 official EU languages to be learned by all member states. As a result, Lëtzebuergesch, the language of Luxembourg, can be taught in Ireland—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. It is improper to raise in this debate proceedings of Select Committees that have not been reported to the House.
Mr. Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The item that I mentioned was considered, voted on and approved by the Scrutiny Committee, so it is now part of that Committee's legal arrangements. Surely it is not a secret matter and may be referred to. There is nothing wrong in mentioning in Westminster Hall an item that has already passed through a Select Committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Regardless of whether a vote has taken place in Committee, the matter has not been reported to the House, so it is not relevant to raise it in this Chamber. In any event, we do not want overly lengthy interventions.
Mr. Atkinson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I believe that the lack of efficient scrutiny damages the reputation of national Parliaments. If the reputations of national Parliaments are damaged, the reputations of

241WH
the institutions of Europe are also damaged, by proxy. A proper system of scrutiny is vital. The avalanche or blizzard of legislation that comes to Parliament cannot be properly scrutinised. We have to turn off the tap. It can be turned off by having a wider and more flexible system in Europe.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: A number of hon. Members have sought to catch my eye. The winding-up speeches, which will start with the representative of the Liberal Democrat party, will be about 12 o'clock, followed by speeches from the main Opposition and then the Government.
11.20 am
Mr. Michael Jack: May I first congratulate you on your appointment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and express my delight at seeing you in the Chair for our proceedings this morning?
I come to the debate as a former Fisheries Minister who had a lot of dealings with European business involving both the Council and the United Kingdom Government, and now as a humble member of European Standing Committee C, which is the tail-end Charlie of scrutiny procedures before Ministers go to Council to agree various matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) is right to draw our attention to the volume of European paper. Anyone who goes to the Vote Office daily can pick up a yellow piece of paper which lists sometimes hundreds of documents on which we might wish to comment. It is difficult enough for us to keep up with the volume of UK legislation, never mind trying to keep up, understand, comment on and react to the volume of European legislation.
If we look at such documents, we are struck by one area in which our current parliamentary scrutiny procedures do not act. Our present system is centred on legislation that is making its way through the institutions of Europe—usually the Council or the European Parliament. When the Government of the day produce a White Paper or a Green Paper, we can comment and shape the Government's views before final legislation becomes cast in concrete. Any legislature always finds it easier to change its mind before it has come to firm and final conclusions. Our parliamentary scrutiny procedure does not cater for dealing with draft material. Given the volume of stuff coming from Europe, one way of heading off some of the material at the pass would be for us to become involved at an earlier stage. That raises the fundamental question of how to keep track of all the material.
I have been impressed by a publication which the European Commission makes available to Members of Parliament and the public, called "The Week in Europe". Two sides of A4 are produced, summarising some of the key events that are taking place in Europe. As a result of the changes introduced by the Modernisation Committee, the House of Commons has established an office in the European Parliament to try to develop links and liaison with Europe to keep an eye on what is going on. Over time, we shall develop an expertise in keeping better track of European business. In view of our electronic communication—the parliamentary intranet—we should start to develop the
242WH
equivalent of the weekly bulletin that we have in the UK Parliament. In one document, we can keep track of what is happening in this Parliament. Sensible editorial control would help to keep us better posted about what is going on from the inception of a consultative document through to the passage of legislation in the European Parliament. However much we may desire to comment on everything, we cannot do it. We need more help to be able to comment on the issues that matter to our constituents. To do that, we need to keep better track on what is going on.
Even within the Scrutiny Committee, there is difficulty in keeping up with the volume of legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham made that point. One of the new developments, which I welcome, is post-Council scrutiny. A Minister reports back on what has happened. I caught sight of a contribution made on 10 December 1998 by a former Treasury Minister, now the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce. In the negotiations on the European budget, a measure that would have cost the UK £500 million had been successfully fought off. One of the tasks of scrutiny is to help parliamentarians and the wider public to become better acquainted with the workings of the European institutions. I am sure that other hon. Members found it as frustrating as I did, during the general election campaign, trying to show that national Parliaments had at least some ability to temper the activities of the Commission and the European Parliament. The extent to which that can be done should be the subject of another debate at another time. To help in the process of educating people on how Europe's institutions work, the more we know about what is happening, the better.
I shall now make some observations about the way in which European Standing Committee C operates to highlight some of the difficulties that right hon. and hon. Members who are not Ministers or members of the Select Committee on European Scrutiny, have in dealing with these matters, some of which are extremely sensitive, and which arouse deep passions in our constituents.
In the end of vehicle life directive, for example, there was a point of detail that could have affected the future prospects of the TVR car company, which manufactures sports cars and is adjacent to Fylde. As a result of probing that directive, two meetings were arranged between the Department of Trade and Industry and the company to develop further some of the points of detail that Ministers were going on to discuss. That cameo illustrates one of the problems. We lift the scrutiny reserve in the House when we have dealt with a particular matter, but it is often only the beginning of a very long process. Sometimes the House returns to the matter, but sometimes it does not. We must become more disciplined about reviewing how Ministers are getting on as a directive or regulation progresses.
We poor members of European Standing Committee C are usually given about 10 days' notice about business, if we are lucky. The Selection Committee informs us that we shall be dealing with that particular business 10 days hence. As a result of a huge amount of work by the parliamentary Clerk and the DTI, a vast file of papers appears. We then have a limited amount of time to wade through it and call for other information from the Library to try to get up to speed on the detail.

243WH
Every Department needs to make a major improvement in its explanatory memorandums. Too often—I also plead guilty—Ministers who receive a draft explanatory memorandum from their Departments give it an occasional look, but it is usually only a cursory glance. It does not contain the detail that is required to enable Members of Parliament to have the equivalent of notes on clauses, so that we can really understand what the directive means. Many directives and documents from Europe are written in a language that I describe as Euro-speak, which is a formulation of words designed sometimes to be flexible and fuzzy at the edges to accommodate 15 different points of view. It is difficult for Members of Parliament to understand the difference that should be attached to the recitals at the beginning of a directive or a regulation, as opposed to the body of the text. To know what it really means—in our language, rather than the language in which it is written—requires a better quality of explanatory memorandum and, whenever possible, a better overview.
The best that we have is the Scrutiny Committee's report, but that report is the distillation of the work of a group of people working under pressure of time. They are able to pose various further questions to be asked of Ministers; but, as we heard, they do not have the power to ask for documents to be revised or to comment in more detail. Explanatory memorandums should be improved to help us better understand and cope with the technicalities of European legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham mentioned gold-plating. That takes us into a wider area, which is further investigation on how Parliament handles statutory instruments. We have an objective legislative system; by and large, Europe operates a purposive system. We need to give serious consideration to that difference in our analysis of how we implement European legislation. We should avoid overdoing it.
The House has little opportunity to scrutinise the implementation of European legislation. At the risk of imposing yet another burden on ourselves, once a piece of legislation has been agreed in Europe and before we implement it, we might consider giving guidance to officials before they cast it in concrete.
Time will not permit me to go into more detail about what happens in the European Parliament. However, just as I asked for a weekly bulletin on what is happening in Europe, so I ask for guidance about proceedings in the European Parliament. We need to be better informed about our links with it. It is time that we had a directory of the members of the European Parliament, with their telephone and fax numbers. We should be told how to keep in touch with them and how to obtain information from parliamentary officials. We also need to know how to obtain more information and data from within Europe other than through the internet.
The more transparency, the more knowledge and the more contacts that we legislators can develop, the better we shall be able to improve our scrutiny of what is going on in Europe. The House must continue to take the matter seriously, but Members need more help and better information. I hope that my suggestions find favour with both the Scrutiny Committee and the Minister.
11.33 am
Mr. Owen Paterson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) on securing this debate. It is a most important subject.
This is my first speech in this Chamber, but I must point out that we would all have fitted into the familiar surroundings of Committee Room 14. That would have saved the British taxpayer £800,000. However, the move is in some ways symbolic, because in recent years we have seen a complete change in the way in which legislation is imposed on our afflicted citizenry.
Many people believe that all law is made by their Members of Parliament. They are sent to London from the counties; indeed, apart from the first two Parliaments, which were held in Shropshire itself, people have been sent from Shropshire since the 1240s. They came with good ideas for legislation, which was initiated in Parliament. In close collaboration with interested parties, they worked through legislation line by line, scrutinising it so that, when it was finally handed on to civil servants, it was workable and had the approval of those affected by it and those who had to pay for it.
Another huge merit of our traditional system of making law is that, if the legislators get it wrong, we have ways of amending or repealing it. Our system for dealing with European legislation is an extraordinary parody of the Westminster original. Legislation is cobbled together in secret by civil servants, it is rubber-stamped by exhausted peripatetic Ministers in a secretive Council and then sent here for a charade of a scrutiny process. The House is not involved in the initiation of that legislation. I wholeheartedly concur with my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), who pointed out that we are reactive and ought to be involved in the making of European legislation at a much earlier stage.
On paper, we have many safeguards. A resolution of the House is always printed in the minutes of the Scrutiny Committee. It clearly states:
"No Minister of the Crown should give agreement in the Council or in the European Council to any proposal for European Community legislation or for a common strategy, joint action or common position under Title V or a common position, framework decision, decision or convention under Title VI of the treaty on European Union—
(a) which is still subject to scrutiny … or … which is awaiting consideration by the House".
One might think that to be a clear safeguard but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham pointed out, we run immediately into a time problem. Protocol 3 of the treaty of Amsterdam states:
"A six-week period shall elapse between a legislative proposal or a proposal for a measure to be adopted under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union being made available in all languages to the European Parliament".
Protocol 1 states:
"All Commission consultation documents (green and white papers and communications) shall be promptly forwarded to national parliaments of the Member States."
That puts appalling pressure on the staff in London who receive those documents.
About 900 new European documents a year are deposited in Parliament—that is 2,750 documents since the previous Parliament was dissolved. On average, the

245WH
Scrutiny Committee judges about 450 of those to be of legal or political importance, and makes a substantive report on them. In recent years, about 40 documents a year only have been recommended for debate, with a feeble 10 on average being debated on the Floor of the House. So far, in this Parliament, 83 documents have been debated, of which 15 have been taken on the Floor of the House.
Shortly after I was elected, I had the honour of being made a member of European Standing Committee A, but it has not yet met. It has not discussed any European documents since 16 June 1999. After the recess, I had the honour of being asked to serve on the Scrutiny Committee. I would have much preferred this debate to have happened a few months hence, when I would have had a little more experience of what goes on. However, my initial reactions have some value.
It is obvious that a huge responsibility and burden are placed on the Scrutiny Committee staff, because six weeks is an extraordinarily short time. It has only 16 full-time staff and one full-time Clerk. One Clerk is shared with the Deregulation Committee, and four Clerk advisers and two legal advisers are shared with that Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Of the eight secretarial staff, two are shared with the Deregulation Committee.
My initial reaction to serving on the Scrutiny Committee was awe at the sheer volume of paperwork. It is clear that the staff are enormously stretched by that volume of work, and they are forced to make a hasty precis or summary of the documents that pass through the Committee.
The procedure sounds simple. The Council secretariat in Brussels sends a document to UKREP, the United Kingdom representation in the European Union. UKREP sends that document to the Foreign Office, which forwards it to the relevant Department, which then deposits it in Parliament. Documents should in theory be deposited within two days of receipt in London and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde said, the appropriate Department should provide Parliament with an explanatory memorandum within 10 days thereafter.
The staff of the Scrutiny Committee immediately hit a problem. Should they pass on documents and memorandums as they stand? Documents are often faulty or unsatisfactory. As my right hon. Friend said, the memorandums are not always correct. The result is immediate haggling and delay. However, that process is relevant only for draft directives. Now that we have co-decision, many directives are amended at some length and in some detail by the European Parliament. As a result, the six-week delay allowed by the protocol of the treaty of Amsterdam can be easily eaten up. Regulations go straight through, because they are not amendable.
Already the effectiveness of the Scrutiny Committee is gravely limited. It is reactive only and reacts to only a limited proportion of the documents that it has to consider. Sitting on the Commitee is a strange experience. We meet every Wednesday and consider what is, in effect, a summary or a precis of the original documents that the staff have drafted in haste under tremendous pressure. They do a remarkable job in the circumstances.
246WH
Receiving the papers is a problem. Sometimes I have received them minutes before the sitting starts. Although the Clerks have taken trouble to remedy that problem, the best that I can hope for is to be sent a slug of documents, probably half an inch thick, by Monday evening, probably with a follow-up on Tuesday and, sometimes, another on Wednesday, because the staff are under terrible pressure to ensure that the discussion takes place within the six-week time frame. That pressure is also felt in the Committee.
The Chairman, the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), is admirable in his effectiveness in getting the business through. However, without divulging too many secrets, last week I passed a comment to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) and, in that moment, missed a couple of papers on which I wanted to comment. We are under pressure not to interrupt so that the documents are approved.
Last week, a document, which is now in the public domain—I do not think that I am breaching protocol—mentioned making the temporary ban on bovine somatotropin permanent. I represent the largest milk field in western Europe, so surely I should be involved in anything that affects my dairy farmers or makes them less competitive. BST has been used in Canada and America. I received the document only on Tuesday. I should have liked to have the time to contact the National Farmers Union and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals.
By chance, the next day I received a copy of an RSPCA document that made a good case against the use of BST and showed that it is not used in other countries. I have since contacted the NFU to find out its opinion. All that action was a complete waste of time; the horse had bolted. We had a three or four-minute discussion on BST, the document was agreed to, and I had lost my chance to have an input. The point is that we are reacting to proposals; we are not initiating them, nor are we applying our knowledge and having an input, as Members of Parliament have done through the centuries.
Mr. Steen: Does my hon. Friend agree that, even if we object, it does no good?
Mr. Paterson: That is right. We are involved in a charade of reactive scrutiny. At best, we may get Ministers to return to the Council, if there is still time, to put their point of view, but they are also under pressure, because of the great drive to ensure that the Council passes the legislation.
Mr. James Paice: Is not the problem the fact that Ministers are not obliged to return to the Council even if they have the time to do so and whatever the Scrutiny Committee says? Ministers are members of the Government, who have their own policy, and whatever the view of the Scrutiny Committee—whether or not it is dominated by members of the governing party—Minsters will follow the Government's agreed policy.
Mr. Paterson: That is true in many cases. Of course, the attitude of some of the members of the Committee does not help. At one of the first meetings that I

247WH
attended, a Government Member referred to an intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone and said that it was not our business to make life difficult for Ministers when they negotiate on behalf of the United Kingdom in the Council, as though our role was to shut up and whiz the document through.
All parties are in favour of enlargement. We have a strategic and moral obligation to enlarge the European Union. Last week a report on the status of every applicant country was produced, but we received only a brief summary stating that the report existed. If any of us had had time, we could have picked up a copy of it from the Vote Office. After all, there is no point in going to the Vote Office to ask for a lengthy document that has already been agreed to and is a matter of only academic interest. The problem is worse than that because Departments are not performing as requested. They are not adhering to the 10-day limit; they are not sending documents to the staff in time, exactly as my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde said.
Annexe G of the Modernisation Committee's report on the scrutiny of European business, published on 9 June 1998, says:
"11 November, DfEE asks for three items to be taken urgently at the next day's meeting, because they will be considered at the Special Employment Council the next week. This has been known for some considerable time, but nothing has been said to the Committee."
That trick is intended to get measures through the Committee. Documents are held back in the Ministry, then released to the Committee just inside the six-week deadline.
Annexe G continues:
"17 November, Tessa Jowell writes about advertising of tobacco products, on which the Committee is due to take evidence on 19 November."
Her letter is addressed on the envelope to the Chairman by name, and is sent second class. It arrives on 20 November, the day after the evidence session. The annexe continues:
"26 November, Dawn Primarolo takes debate in European Standing Committee B on harmful tax competition; appears unaware of any difference between the Select Committee and the Standing Committee, quoting EMs that have been referred to 'the committee'… and assuring the Standing Committee that it will have a full opportunity to scrutinise future EMs.
28 November, John Battle's letter of 1 September on renewable sources of energy is faxed at our request. The original was addressed to the Chairman and never received. No Clerk's copy received. Existence of letter only discovered afer a subsequent letter referred to it."
Not only do we have an unhappy system of scrutiny, which is under terrible pressure, but the Government are not delivering documents to the relevant people on time as they are required to do under their own standards.
I shall refer to three measures that have dramatically damaged businesses and people in this country, the first of which barely touched Parliament—the introduction of the working time directive. The directive came into force on 1 October 1998. The then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, now Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, laid the regulations before Parliament on 30 July, but the House went into recess on 31 July. The House of Commons did not debate the
248WH
regulations until 27 October and the House of Lords did not do so until 4 November. That shows total contempt for Parliament.
The working time regulations could be described as the most expensive legislative measure ever imposed on the British citizenry. The Government estimate that the regulations will cost £1.9 billion in the first year and £2.3 billion a year after November 1999. It is assumed that the enforcement of working time regulations could increase the work load of industrial tribunals and the number of tribunals could rise from 3,000 to 6,000 a year.
The measure has caused total consternation in business groups, to which the Government are supposedly so friendly. The Construction Federation believes that the measure would increase labour costs by 2 to 3 per cent. The Federation of Small Businesses argued that the measure would require burdensome record keeping. The Institute of Directors undertook a survey and found that only 3 per cent. said that the directive would help their business. Overall, the IOD said that the working time directive would harm British companies' competitiveness and ability to create jobs.
The Government's favourite business man, Lord Haskins, described the measure as "a dog's dinner", asserting that the Government had ignored the warning that the directive could result in a plethora of law suits. The problem is worse than that because the interpretation and implementation of the directives are entirely in the hands of civil servants. No mechanism for amendment or repeal exists.
The Federation of Small Businesses stated in its annual report:
"the major worry was that the final regulations were only published on 30th July 1999, just two months before they became law, which left many business owners unaware of the full provisions … Employers' understanding of the regulations was further affected due to the Department of Trade and Industry's original guide containing serious errors. The guide included the wrong formula for working out compliance with the 48-hour week and an arithmetical error in an example of night work calculation."
Ruth Lea, the head of the IOD's policy unit said that the measures
"impose costly new obligations and to make matters worse … business has only had two months to comply with the new regulations, some of which are far from clear."
That could not have happened under our traditional system, in which such slack drafting and faults in the original legislation would have been ironed out in our exhaustive system of Second and Third Readings and in Committee.
The working time directive shows how Parliament can be effectively excluded from serious participation in a measure that will have huge consequences for millions of people. The Pollution Prevention and Control Bill shows that, despite a Bill having been considered in both Houses of Parliament, all the effective discussion had taken place when drafting the directive, which reflects what my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde said. Parliament proved incapable of amending the Bill in any worthwhile way, because Ministers always fell back on the argument that the amendment in question was incompatible with the directive—directive 96/61, which gives enormous powers to the Environment Agency to

249WH
introduce virtually any regulation that it wants and to change the nature of certain substantial industries. In the other place, Lord Peyton said:
"I do not believe that I have ever seen a Bill which shows more manifestly a deep and profound contempt for Parliament."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 February 1999; Vol. 597, c. 471.]
Back in the real world, I received a fax yesterday from a substantial poultry producer on the Welsh border. It was originally thought that the poultry industry would not be covered by the environmental legislation. However, the effect on him is catastrophic. He said:
"The expected cost to our business at current rates will be approximately £100,000 registration fee and £40,000 annually thereafter."
He also said:
"Nobody can tell me what is involved and what impact this will have on my business bearing in mind we are meeting all current environmental legislation."
He is worried about the
"Cost of registration and ongoing fees being completely out of line with current agricultural cost."
I have received similar comments from the National Pig Association, which points out that integrated pollution controls were not conceived for agricultural industries, the pig and poultry industries being arbitrarily specified at the last minute. The National Farmers Union makes an even more telling comment in a memo to me on the integrated pollution prevention and control directive. It refers to
"the difficulty of interpreting European environmental directives"—
which brings us back to the issue of gold-plating—
"which are phrased in very broad and imprecise terms with no statement of how they are intended to actually operate. This contrasts with UK legislation whch tends to be much more precise and detailed, and is backed by formal government guidance as to the intention of how the details should operate."
The memo ends by stating:
"A significant problem with European environmental legislation is that where unintended or unanticipated effects arise, changes can only be implemented where member states are unanimous. This means that for practical purposes, most mistakes or unintended consequences cannot be remedied. The Commission's zealous attitude towards compliance with the letter of the law means that the financial consequences of mistakes or unintended consequences from European environmental legislation tend to fully impact on the affected sectors. In combination with UK legislation requiring the costs of regulation to be fully recovered from industry, this means that in the agricultural sector farmers bear the full financial consequences of deficiencies in the drafting of European environmental legislation."
Two critical points should be made. First, there is no means of repeal or amendment; and, secondly, hon. Members have no say in the implementation of such hugely costly and vindictive measures for our constituents.
Even more bizarrely, the new system allows laws that all three parties oppose to be imposed on this country. As topical examples, I would cite droit de suite and the withholding tax, on which the Scrutiny Commitee has touched. There is no demand for the former in the art world—I should declare an interest, as my wife works for Sotheby's—and it could cost the art world £68 million in revenues. The auction trade will disappear to New York, because works of art are easily
250WH
transported. The latter could have a catastrophic effect on the City of London and could change the nature of the south of England. Bizarrely, the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party all oppose it. As I said at the beginning, we are reacting to legislation initiated in another place, and we have no role in the initiation procedure.
The Scrutiny Committee's report was taken up by the Modernisation Commiittee. Improvements have been made, the terms of reference have been expanded, and Ministers are now required to report before and after Council meetings, although we have had the pleasure of seeing only one Minister, who sits before us.
Select Committees should have a much stronger role to enable them to call Ministers before and after Council meetings. The big democratic hole is that Council meetings are held in secret. It was a pity that the proposal for five Standing Committees was reduced to three, but, having sat on one, I realise that they do not change anything. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde said, hon. Members can listen to a long debate, go to the Library and mug up after 10 days, but after the vote. The Minister returns to the Council and nothing is changed. It is shameful that the Government's business managers rejected the Scrutiny Committee's recommendation that measures proposed to be debated on the Floor of the House should be, and that a special motion should be necessary to enable them to be debated in Committee.
The real place for reform is Brussels, at the time of initiation. It is entirely positive that we have now established a parliamentary office in Brussels and that Members of Parliament should be involved at the very earliest stage, when legislation is being drafted. Once legislation has gone to the Council, it is almost invariably too late. MPs should work very closely with that new office—which is independent of UKREP—on the development of legislation from the beginning.
If a measure presented to the House were subject to a free vote, and 100 Members opposed it, that should constitute a veto, and the Minister should not be allowed to propose the measure in the Council. I cannot conceive of a stronger weapon than for the Minister to go to Brussels next week to discuss the withholding tax and say that 100 Members of the oldest continuously running Parliament in western civilization had voted in a free vote against it. That would concur with the Modernisation Committee's summary:
"We agree with the Government that any review of the Scrutiny system should strengthen the role of Parliament, improve democratic oversight, and increase transparency and Parliamentary awareness."
That should be debated at the IGC and built into the next treaty.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I fear that the next speaker will be the last before the winding-up speeches, unless those who are winding up for the Liberal Democrats or for the official Opposition are prepared to donate some of their time.
11.57 am
Mr. William Cash: After 15 years on the Scrutiny Committee, this is the first opportunity that I have had to speak in such a debate, and I have three

251WH
minutes, if I am lucky. Having said that, I am sure that hon. Members who have not yet spoken will be good enough to take account of the fact that I have accumulated a certain amount of experience and anxiety, as well as judgment, on the scrutiny of European legislation and its impact on our constituents.
The fundamental question is who governs us and how. The scrutiny of legislation is the result of the system that has evolved since we entered the European Community in 1972 and is at the heart of the future conduct of our parliamentary system. I am sure that we shall need another opportunity to consider the matter.
I speak as one who took a fairly active part in resisting encroachments on our national sovereignty under the previous Government, and who regards the matter as one of national interest rather than exclusively of party politics. I am woefully aware of the resistance on the part of Governments of all shapes, sizes and varieties to any attempt to scrutinise effectively and amend legislation that emanates from the system that has evolved since 1972 for the United Kingdom. I had to cross-examine the Leader of the House of the previous Parliament on resistance to holding important debates on the Floor of the House, and got absolutely nowhere. The same applies to this Government and the current Leader of the House.
There is a serious resistance to holding proper debates on European legislation, because the Government want to manipulate it. We wanted to debate fisheries in the previous Parliament, but we were refused. There was no doubt whatever in my mind that the delivery of the papers in relation to fisheries and matters concerned with monetary union was orchestrated so that the minimum amount of time would be available, and so that decisions would be taken in the Council of Ministers at a time that would preclude our being able to organise debates on the Floor of the House. The issue relates to the manner in which the Leader of the House organises business in conjunction with the Whips.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) mentioned the free vote, an issue that I raised in a previous debate. If we are to be governed in a democratic system in which the people of this country have confidence, it seems absolutely fundamental that they should not have laws imposed on them under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 without those laws being properly scrutinised after the Council of Ministers has considered them. There should also be a verifiable pre-Council system to give the people of this country confidence that, if enough Members of Parliament resist the Council's proposals, there will be an opportunity at the avant-projet stage to consider them on the Floor of the House, in the national interest and without regard to the whipping system.
I am being blunt about that. In the words of Lord Hailsham, we are faced with an elective dictatorship, and it is made much worse by the introduction of the European aspect. We have an elective dictatorship not only in terms of legislation that comes through the British Cabinet, in the name of the electorate and those elected in general elections who represent and are
252WH
accountable to them, but in terms of the majority voting of other countries, which denies us any real means to put up some resistance or serious diversion of the proposals.
If we argue, as we did in Amsterdam on the declaration on national Parliaments, that those Parliaments have an important role to play, it is axiomatic that muscles should be provided to enable them to have a free vote. If that were laid down by Standing Orders, as it should be, the Whips would be in breach of parliamentary procedures and privilege if they put pressure on hon. Members to vote in a specific way.
That may seem radical, although perhaps only to the Whips Office. I suggest that the same rules should apply as normally apply to Select Committees. We are dealing with a cascade of legislation over which we have increasingly less control. If 100 or 150 Members of Parliament tabled a motion, a free vote should be allowed under Standing Orders. We would then have a proper and effective means of demonstrating that the veto must be used in such circumstances.
I propose a fundamental and radical solution. It is essential for us to remember that what was relevant in 1972 is not relevant now. We have had a vast engagement in European government since the Maastricht treaty, which was why I opposed it so vigorously. Now we have the Amsterdam treaty and a new IGC to come.
I do not buy the argument that we are not in European government yet. We are. We have to stand up for our constituents in the national Parliament, and we should devise procedures that will be effective in dealing with European government. We must not merely end up with a talking shop.
12.4 pm
Mr. David Heath: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) on securing what is an apposite debate, coming shortly before the Helsinki meeting. It is also an appropriate time to reconsider the seventh report of the Scrutiny Committee, which has changed some of our procedures. Many of us think that it has not gone far enough.
I did not feel, however, that the hon. Gentleman developed the theme of the effect of scrutiny to any great extent. I am indebted to the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who addressed the issue of how we effectively or otherwise scrutinise European business. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) was not entirely generous to his colleagues in his use of time, but he amply demonstrated the difficulties that he has experienced in keeping pace with European scrutiny.
What do we want in a system for Parliament to do its job effectively? We need to be able to scrutinise the vast quantity of material that emerges from the European Union—I agree with the hon. Member for Hexham that there is far too much of it. We must deal with the legislation effectively before it becomes part of British law.
As the right hon. Member for Fylde mentioned, we should also consider effectively the pre-legislation material, such as the draft directives. We need to see what is coming down the track. If we do not do so at that

253WH

stage, as a Parliament we have no means of influencing decisions taken or positions adopted on behalf of this country by the Government. We must also consider the foreign policy aspects and the diplomatic interface that we have with our European partners.
Effective scrutiny and information are required so that all hon. Members—not merely those involved in the relevant Committees—have access to information that they need to do their jobs on behalf of their constituents and to be aware of events. We must have intelligence as to what happens elsewhere. We need to know not only what is proposed by Ministers in this Parliament, but what other Parliaments say about legislation and what is likely to appear before us in future. Too often, we react to proposals far too late, rather than being proactive in taking positions of our own or influencing decisions at an early stage.
We need to know what Her Majesty's Government's intentions are in negotiating on our behalf. We must be able to judge their performance in meeting their intentions as stated before a Council meeting.
The mechanism to scrutinise foreign policy effectively is provided through the Foreign Affairs Committee, of which I was pleased to be a member for some time. Its position should be clarified, vis-a-vis other Committees. The consideration of the presidency's intentions and the proceedings of the European Council should clearly be matters for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its Committee.
The new Scrutiny Committees are rightly constituted to consider the details of legislation but are far too general in scope. They are built on the architectural notion of Europe's three pillars, which I dislike and which is not what the Modernisation Committee first recommended. It suggested that the Scrutiny Committees be closely focused on specific subject matters. If that were so, they would do their job much more effectively. They are overwhelmed by a mass of material on which they cannot be expert. Can there be appropriate scrutiny of, for instance, the detailed agricultural measures proposed by the European Union in a Committee that has so many other responsibilities?
There is a danger of ghettoising European issues in establishing Scrutiny Committees to do the job. Many hon. Members do not have the privilege of serving on them, so they become something that merely involves someone else. That is not a satisfactory way in which to proceed. We need a much clearer mechanism than that to ensure that matters are discussed fully on the Floor of the House. When certain matters are of concern to a wide range of hon. Members, it should be for Parliament, not for Ministers, to decide whether they are debated by the House. There should be a better mechanism by which such decisions are taken.
One of the main problems concerning information is filtering the quantity of material so that we have in a digest form that which is relevant to our business as Members of Parliament. I agree with the right hon. Member for Fylde: something along the lines of the regular publication "The Week in Europe" would be of enormous help to us. The parliamentary office in Brussels must be one of the best kept secrets in the House. It is almost as though it had been considered to be exempt material under the Freedom of Information Bill. Few hon. Members know of the existence of that
254WH
new office, and even fewer know how to access it. I know that it exists, but I do not have the slightest idea how to access information from it, or to relay information to it. It needs to be publicised much better than it has been and there must be a more transparent mechanism for getting in touch with it.
It is absolutely essential that, before Ministers attend Councils of Ministers, they give an account to Parliament about what they are to discuss and report back after those discussions have taken place. We must have the option of interrogation. I am no longer a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, but I remember when that Committee interrogated the Foreign Secretary. Such action has not become commonplace by the Scrutiny Committees. Our proceedings in Westminster Hall give us more scope in how to work out ways in which to present such matters to Parliament and will allow for a wider position to be taken.
If the subsidiarity protocols are to mean anything, the House must occasionally be able to affirm the principle of subsidiarity and say that a matter is one on which it wants to make a decision. If we do not have the mechanisms for property scrutiny, Parliament cannot do that and we will be less well served as a result.
12.12 pm
Mr. Archie Norman: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) on securing this debate and other right hon. and hon. Friends for their powerful contributions to it, some of which I shall refer to in my remarks. Important issues have been raised that affect all hon. Members because they concern the effectiveness of the House and our role in it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said, it is a question of who governs us and how. It is also important to recognise that that issue is becoming more important as the volume of regulation and directives from the European Union increases.
In Amsterdam, the Government surrendered our veto in 16 areas and it is evident that they propose in the next treaty to surrender our veto in a further 19. As a result, as Mr. Prodi, the President of the Commission, said, qualified majority voting will become the norm. It was interesting that, in last week's European debate, the Foreign Secretary said that majority voting was already the rule in the European Union.
Given that many proposed directives are being cooked up in the Commission, the volume of regulations and directives from Brussels will increase, not diminish, in the next two years to a new high, so how we scrutinise, get ahead of, examine and discuss those new regulations and laws more openly with people throughout the country is fundamental. Let us remember that there is a substantial democratic deficit in that regard.
The Minister will no doubt have experienced on his bus trips the widespread disillusionment that is felt in the business community about the whole conduct of regulation from Brussels. Regulatory issues for small and large businesses, as I know from my experience, pose a bigger problem than any other matter that concerns the future of the European Union. A poll published in the Financial Times last week showed that 51 per cent. of the population would like to withdraw from the European Union—an opinion that we should

255WH
take extremely seriously. A complete failure of the democratic process to scrutinise and examine European legislation is part of the reason for that disillusionment.
How Governments of both parties have implemented European legislation leaves much to be desired. My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) referred graphically to examples when this House failed the country because of its inability to examine in detail regulations and directives as they are proposed. Our standard of implementation is poor. We have a global reputation for gold-plating, which is nothing to be proud of; it has affected small businesses, jobs and individuals. The problem is not confined to Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) made an extremely insightful and thoughtful speech and I agree with much of what he said.
It is also true that Ministers have previously expressed concern about the matter. I wish to cite one example. Six months ago, in his Jean Monnet lecture, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry gave a commitment and stated specifically:
"I want to see all new European regulation independently appraised for its impact on small businesses and certified as being small business friendly. I think this would make a real difference to small businesses here and in the whole of Europe."
Most of us—both Government and Opposition Members—would endorse this view. Given the fact that six months have now elapsed and that we have heard precious little since then, I hope that the Minister will tell us what progress has been made towards the establishment of that independent appraisal process.
Although our parliamentary process is often held up as a model of modern western democracy, in the area of European legislation, which now accounts for a large proportion of total new regulation in Britain, the record is poor and is arguably worse than in some other member states. For example, Denmark and Sweden have adopted the approach of ensuring that they are more proactive and that their Parliaments can get ahead of the regulation as opposed to reacting to it after it has been passed.
Serious questions have been raised in the debate by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), as well as by my hon. Friends the Members for North Shropshire and for Stone about the workings of the Scrutiny Committee and Standing Committees and I hope that the Minister will deal with them specifically in his response. It is hard to avoid the impression that the whole process adds up to regulation by stealth and is tantamount to contempt for parliamentary practice. We have heard about the failure to debate important issues on the Floor of the House and to provide papers in advance of discussion and adequate briefings. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire said, the process is close to a charade and degenerates to a farce.
I trust that the Minister will address such matters seriously and that he will depart from the prepared text that is in front of him. Important questions have been asked, and to refresh his memory I shall summarise some of them. What steps will he take to strengthen the
256WH
role and effectiveness of the House of Commons in the context of enlargement and the forthcoming increase in European regulations? Given the institutional changes in Europe, now is a good time to deal with that. What assurances can he give us that the inadequacies of the scrutiny process will be dealt with? How will he address the need for a better mechanism for getting issues on to the Floor of the House? What is being done to implement the commitment of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to hold a business-friendly audit of EU regulation?
Will the Minister deal with the serious proposals raised by my hon. Friends the Members for North Shropshire and for Stone for pre-discussion and proper scrutiny of our negotiating position prior to meetings of the Council of Ministers and provide us with a better opportunity to hold Ministers to account for their conduct at the Council of Ministers? What will lie do to encourage more openness in the conduct of the Council of Ministers and in the publication of voting records, agendas and so forth? Will he demonstrate a greater appetite to address seriously such issues than he has been able to do in the past few weeks? We appreciate that he has been on a bus trip around Europe and we much enjoyed the ribald remarks that he made in previous debates about that, about European issues and about my business career, but the time has come for him to deal specifically with the issues that we have raised. They are fundamental and I hope that he will respond to them.
12.20 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): As this is my first appearance in this new Chamber, I welcome you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the Chair and congratulate you on your appointment.
The debate has been good, and I do not usually attract the amount of support that is present today when I make winding-up speeches. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) on his good fortune in securing the debate. As with all European debates, the Eurostars—or perhaps I should call them the anti-Eurostars—are present, including the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). For him, Europe and the world are not enough, and he often comes to debates such as this one to remind us of his experience. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body) is also present. I am sorry that he was unable to participate in the debate, as I had looked forward to hearing his remarks. We also heard a contribution from another noted participant in debates such as this, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), who has unfortunately had to leave.
I shall come to other hon. Members' comments in a moment. I should restate at the outset the Government's position on Europe and the scrutiny of European legislation. I think that we all accept that Britain's position in Europe is hugely important and that decisions made at EU level have an impact on us all. That is why parliamentary scrutiny of EU legislation is so important, and why I welcome this debate. Parliament must be promptly and fully informed about European legislation and about the Government's approach to the imminent negotiations—I shall speak about Helsinki at the end of my remarks. That is why the Government conducted an overhaul of our domestic

257WH
scrutiny processes. We want European decision making to be brought closer to the people whom it affects, and transparency and democratic oversight of new legislation are vital to the process.
The United Kingdom is acknowledged to have one of the most highly developed systems for scrutiny of EU business. That is why I was disappointed to hear so much criticism from members of the Scrutiny Committee. The hon. Member for Stone may find this surprising, but I pay tribute to people such as him for their work on the Committee. When I was in Brussels recently, members of the Commission were disappointed that he was not part of the team that went to meet them, because they had heard so much about him. I do not know whether his criticism of Europe extends to a refusal to visit it, but Commission members were disappointed not to meet him. All hon. Members who serve on the Scrutiny Committee play a valuable and important part in the scrutiny process.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Vaz: No. I am left with seven minutes, and, although I am happy to respond to hon. Members' concerns, I want to respond to at least some of the points that have already been made.
As hon. Members will know, arrangements for parliamentary oversight of European legislation have been in place since 1973. The Government built on those arrangements in our White Paper of November 1998, which was endorsed by the House on 17 November 1998. The new scrutiny arrangements, which have now been in place for almost a year, allow the House to consider new European legislation arising across the three pillars of EU activity. The commitment made by Ministers not to agree legislation that is still under scrutiny has been extended to the second and third pillars.
We have also introduced a new system of pre and post-Council scrutiny, which is enabling the Scrutiny Committee to keep abreast of developments in the Council of Ministers. The hon. Member for Stone will remember that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was able to speak to the Committee last week, before the Helsinki summit. We had a six-hour debate on the very issues that are to be discussed in Helsinki. No hon. Member can say that he or she is suffering from a lack of scrutiny of European legislation. I have spent the past two weeks heavily engaged in these matters, as have other hon. Members. The initiative undertaken by the House to establish a national parliamentary office in Brussels will also enhance Westminster's awareness of EU issues. The Government welcome the strengthening of the role of the United Kingdom Parliament in the European Union.
The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), a distinguished former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, made several points. As a recently appointed Minister for Europe, I share some of the concerns he expressed, having had to get to grips with everything that is happening there. I found, however, that I was extremely well served by the civil servants at UKREP. During the past eight weeks, we have been served by an effective machine made up of the best civil servants
258WH
dealing with European legislation of any country in the European Union. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman does not share my view. I know that civil servants served him well and that he was able to do an effective job. I am glad to see that he joins me in paying tribute to them, as they provide an effective means of ensuring not only that Ministers are informed but that we receive and pass on documents released through Brussels mechanisms as quickly as possible. The right hon. Gentleman also asked about MEPs. I, too, would like to make better use of Members of the European Parliament. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that they regularly come to Westminster when their advice is sought and to give evidence to Select Committees.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) has had an unfortunate first six weeks as a member of the Committee. I hope that things can only get better for him. My civil servants make every effort that is humanly possible to ensure that Clerks receive information about European legislation as quickly as possible. I shall look into the hon. Gentleman's points about mislaid letters. As a Member of Parliament, I believe that if hon. Members are considering important legislation, relevant letters and documents should not be lost. We shall examine the system to see how it can be improved, but I do not think that it can be. The hon. Gentleman has to read the papers in question, so he knows that we have to deal with thousands of documents every year. It is very regrettable if one or two go missing, but we shall look into the reasons and try to ensure that it does not happen again.
We shall do our best, as the Clerk of the Committee tries his or her best, to ensure that improvements are made. I have discussed the possibility of telephoning Clerks to say that documents are on their way, but we could be in permanent conversation as there are so many such documents. We shall consider presentational aspects and reflect on comments about making the language of the documents even more effective.
Points were also made about procedure and about the way in which draft directives are deposited. As only two minutes remain, I shall write to all the hon. Members who expressed concerns—I am sorry to place a greater burden on those assisting me—but to whom I have not had the opportunity to reply because of the fruitful discussion that we have had.
I am looking forward to going to Helsinki and to attending tomorrow's historic European Council meeting. Hon. Members are right to say enlargement will affect the way in which the Commission is run. The Government are at the forefront of ensuring that the Commission is run as efficiently and as accountably as possible. We will ensure that such transparency is at the forefront of our campaign to improve Commission institutions.
It is sad that the message sent out by Opposition spokesmen to Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia is so negative. Last night, I met European ambassadors from central and eastern European countries. They think that the Conservative party does not want them in Europe, because of the language that it uses. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) should carefully consider his comments and those of other Opposition Members. The message that they are sending out to the rest of Europe is negative, and I hope that they will retract some of their remarks.

Grammar Schools (Lincolnshire)
12.30 pm
Sir Richard Body: I am grateful for this opportunity to express a concern that is felt by many thousands of people in Lincolnshire and shared by many people in other counties that still have the grammar school system. I also want to apologise to the Minister for School Standards for having caused her some inconvenience the other evening. As so often, on such occasions, the fault rests with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, where I was waiting for a summons to come to the House, but it was not delivered.
I do not know whether the Minister is new Labour or old Labour, but it may not matter much because, whichever she is, one suspects that there is a natural antipathy to the independent sector—a feeling that those who can afford to give their children a private education should not do so. If that is the case, surely the answer is to raise the standards of the state sector so high that parents no longer need to send their children to independent schools and spend tens of thousands of pounds in so doing. That is exactly the position in Lincolnshire.
Lincolnshire is one of our largest counties. Its population includes many thousands of parents who could afford to send their children to be educated privately in one of our famous schools. However, one of the county's distinctive features is that it has no independent schools at secondary level, with the possible exception of Stamford, which is tucked away in the south-west corner of the county and attracts most of its pupils from ouside the county. Therefore, within the county itself, tens of thousands of parents who could afford to send their children to independent schools do not do so because they know that the standards in Lincolnshire are so high that it is unnecessary. Surely, that is the paradigm at which the Government should aim—a state sector so good that parents do not need to use the private sector and sacrifice much of their income to do so.
In Lincolnshire there are many grammar schools, which are open to pupils from whatever background and contain the widest possible social mix. In my constituency, there are many pupils whose parents are out of work and receiving state benefits. Sitting beside those children in the classrooms are children from affluent families. I would have thought that the Minister would approve of that desirable social mix.
Skegness grammar school was the first to apply for, and to receive, grant-maintained status. Having done so, it began to admit boarders. It now has 69 boarders, many of whom come from areas where the comprehensive system operates and is failing pupils. Parents feel that their children would be disadvantaged were they to send them to those schools, so they make the journey to Skegness, where they have found a school of the highest standards. Furthermore—I ask the Minister to bear this in mind—it is not only parents in the United Kingdom who send children to Skegness grammar school. Remarkably, there is now a waiting list of parents from outside the United Kingdom who want to send their children to the school. They come from as far afield as the far east—Hong Kong, for example. The school already has some pupils from the far east and
260WH
from Germany. I do not know whether the Minister can think of any comprehensive school that attracts pupils from abroad because their parents believe that its standards are so outstandingly high that they wish to send their children across the seas to be educated there, but parents are sending their children to Skegness grammar school from abroad.
I have had the honour to represent the Skegness area for only the past two years. It is a smallish town of about 14,000 people. It is a holiday resort, the air is bracing and it is an excellent place in many ways, but it is not a town that would be instantly known to many people abroad. Despite that, parents are willing to make the journey from Germany and other countries to take advantage of the high-quality education offered there. I put it to the Minister that that is a remarkable fact. Skegness grammar school must be one of the only state sector schools that attracts pupils from outside the country, and has a waiting list of such pupils. Its headmaster has to turn people away and say, "I am sorry, but I cannot take any more pupils from abroad."
In case the Minister suggests that there is any form of elitism there, I emphasise that there is a very good social mix at Skegness grammar school, to which I have already alluded. Children whose parents are on social security are educated alongside children whose parents are extremely well off.
There are two other grammar schools, or the equivalent, in my constituency: Boston grammar school and Boston high school, both of which have extremely high standards. For many years, Miss Webb was the headmistress of Boston high school, and she attracted staff from the private sector who wanted to teach in her school. I am glad to say that the present headmaster is maintaining that high standard and is attracting staff from other countries to teach there. That also is remarkable.
The staff at those three schools—I suspect that the same applies to other grammar schools in the county—are apprehensive about the future. They have come to Lincolnshire to teach in those schools because they offer an intellectual challenge, and the staff appreciate the ambience—to use a somewhat overused word—to be found there. There might be an emphasis on academic work in those schools, but that encourages staff to apply for jobs there, and they would be reluctant to apply if the schools were part of the comprehensive system. Indeed, many of those staff have come from the comprehensive system, albeit the more academic streams of that system. I say to the Minister—I hope that she will bear this in mind—that many of those staff are worried about what the future holds and wonder whether they would be wise to start looking for posts in the private sector. We all know that morale among teaching staff is not high in the state sector at the moment. They believe that there is bureaucracy and that they have too little control over the decisions that are taken in their schools. That is not the case in the private sector, where staff morale is high. Too many teachers in Lincolnshire's grammar schools will look for new posts if they believe that the decision has been taken to merge their schools with secondary moderns. That would be a tragedy. The high standard in Lincolnshire's schools is due to high-quality staff. The danger is that if that quality is lowered, the schools will suffer.

261WH
The Minister could mention the ballot to allow the public to decide, but she knows, as I do—I shall not rehearse the arguments—that that will be loaded against the grammar schools. She might be interested to know that Lincolnshire county council has not always been Conservative. For four years, until two years ago, we had a Labour-Liberal coalition that was a little ambivalent about grammar schools, but it is mute now because it would be politically unpopular to raise the subject.
We have debated the issue in Lincolnshire. The debate began when Shirley Williams, as Secretary of State for Education, threatened the closure of our grammar schools. We fought and won a great battle, and I can detect no substantial feeling in the country against grammar schools, which are seen as a wonderful opportunity for boys and girls—however poor and disadvantaged they may be—to receive a first-class education that is as good as any in the private sector. Many have gone on to Oxford and Cambridge and, from there, to distinguished careers in the professions and elsewhere.
It would be a total tragedy to lose the remarkable blend of excellence without elitism. Elitism plays no part in education in Lincolnshire. I hope that the Minister will have kind words for our education system and assure both parents and staff that it will not be threatened. The issue has been debated over the years. Even the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party are quiet on the subject. We want to retain grammar schools without the threat of their closure. If the Minister is in doubt, she should visit the schools in Lincolnshire, which would impress her greatly.
12.44 pm
Mr. John Bercow: I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body). Grammar schools are beacons of excellence in our education system. It is high time that their opponents learned the fundamental lesson that we shall never improve the rest of our schools by destroying some of the best of our schools.
The simple truth is that the ballot procedure is weighted against the grammar schools. I know that the Minister has strong views on this matter, but it would be unconscionable, under a Government who spout the mantra of support for the many, not the few, if we were, as we approach the next millennium, to replace selection according to ability to achieve with selection according to ability to pay. That would be a disgrace and a scandal, and the Conservative party would have nothing to do with it. We shall fight as the only national political party unequivocally committed to the retention of the outstanding grammar schools, some of which are in the county of Lincolnshire and one of which is in the constituency so admirably represented by my hon. Friend.
12.45 pm
The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your appointment to chair these trial Adjournment debates. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body) on securing the debate and thank him for his apology for failing to turn up the last time that we discussed a similar matter.
262WH
I accept the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman's words and what he says about the quality of education in the schools in his constituency. I join him in congratulating all nursery, primary and secondary school teachers in Boston and Skegness, and throughout Lincolnshire, on their work. It was interesting that we heard little about the schools in Boston and Skegness that are not grammar schools. We know, by definition of the system, that where there are grammar schools, there are secondary modern schools, which I think are called high schools in Boston and Skegness. I also want to record, as the hon. Gentleman did not, that in the non-grammar schools in his constituency there are strong teacher commitment, good teacher skills and a lot of student progress. We should appreciate all that teachers do in his constituency.
The Government have no antipathy to the independent sector. We have made more efforts to forge links and join partnerships with the independent sector than the Conservatives did. The sector has welcomed the independent-state school partnership funding that we have made available. However, I agree that it would be intolerable if parents believed that the only way to get a good education was to go to the independent sector. I defend a parent's right to buy an education for their child. Our responsibility is to ensure that parents are not forced to make that choice because there are no good schools elsewhere.
Where I differ from the hon. Gentleman is that I do not believe that the only way to assure parents that they need not buy education is to offer them a selective school system. Throughout the country, non-selective local authority comprehensive schools are getting good results even though they teach children across the ability range. The hon. Gentleman asked whether parents who live abroad are queueing up to send their children to comprehensive schools. Funnily enough, on a radio interview about primary performance tables this morning, which I did not know about before 7 am, I was asked what I thought about a small maintained nonselective school in Oxfordshire which parents from America were queueing up to send their children to because of its good literacy and numeracy results.
Let us not fall into the trap of thinking that the only good schools are those in the selective system. If we take the view that the only way to get high standards is to have grammar schools, we must admit that we cannot meet the challenge of raising standards for every child. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who seems to be the Opposition spokesman on grammar schools, is vociferous on this issue. He pledged that his Government, if there ever is one, would be committed to keeping grammar schools. That is the Conservatives' problem. This Government are committed to raising standards in 24,000 schools, not to keeping good standards in only 164 schools. That is the challenge. I accept that there are good standards in grammar schools, but the crusade for our school service is greater than that; it is about how we meet the needs of the country so that we have a work force, a population and a learning community in which standards rise for everyone.
There is a debate about whether the best way to raise standards and achieve excellence for everyone is to have

263WH
selective education, but that is the wrong question. We have successfully announced and published performance tables for literacy and numeracy at primary school level. They show that, with good teaching and good strategies, and working from best practice with properly funded schools, training and support for teachers and, above all, clear, high expectations of everyone in the education service, we can raise standards in every school. Today's literacy and numeracy results show that, whether in urban or rural areas, poor or affluent areas, areas where they thought they could not do it or areas where they have always been sure that they could, with the right mixture of good teaching and proper leadership we can raise standards across the board. We must achieve that for the whole system.
I mention that because it proves that our task is do-able. I am not content to leave this country's future—or its children's future—to the risk of whether children can get into a grammar school. If the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness had said that his constituency had a system of grammar schools and secondary modern schools all of which raised standards for all children, we might have had a different debate.
Mr. Bercow rose—
Ms Morris: I will give way shortly, because I promised, but I remind the hon. Member for Buckingham that in his note he said that he would not make a speech—and he has had the opportunity to do so.
If the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness had made the argument that I described, the debate might have been different. However, clearly that our challenge is not to defend the future admission arrangements of 164 schools, but to ensure that we raise standards in 24,000 schools. We must do that. Grammar schools were set up when this country needed only a few children to achieve the highest levels, and they delivered that, but the debate has moved on and the task now is to construct a system that raises standards for everyone.
I want to make one more point; then I shall give way to the hon. Member for Buckingham. I assure the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness that he should not feel downhearted. I appreciate that his experience as a Member of Parliament representing an area with selective education; on the whole, that is not my experience, though there are a small number of selective schools in my constituency. My teaching experience took place in an authority that was highly comprehensive. Across a range of local authorities and schools, the highest-achieving 24 per cent. in comprehensive schools achieve at the same level as those in grammar schools—the figure is about 24 per cent. in most local authorities. Therefore the bright children who are educated in local education authorities with no selection achieve at the level of those who are taught in selective schools. The evidence shows that children who achieve at high levels can do so whether they go to a selective or comprehensive school.
Mr. Bercow rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. I feel compelled to point out that this is not a general debate. It is a 30-minute Adjournment debate which, under the conventions of the House, is an opportunity for individual hon. Members to speak directly with and gain responses from Ministers; it should not be an opportunity for Front-Bench Opposition spokesmen to intervene. On this occasion, as the Minister has allowed it, it may happen, but it is extraordinary and it will not create a precedent.
Mr. Bercow: I am grateful for that guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall take note of it. I am also grateful to the Minister for her generosity in giving way. Will she accept that she cannot get away with painting the Conservative party as the supporter of only grammar schools? I myself attended a comprehensive school and I accept the importance of supporting good schools of whatever structure. The Minister said that it was standards, not structure, that mattered.
I think that it is clear that the Minister is hostile to selection, but will she now answer a question that she has previously always ducked? If she had a vote in a grammar school ballot, would she answer the ballot question yes or no?
Ms Morris: The hon. Gentleman has put on the record his views about what the Conservative party defends. I am happy for people to read the record and compare his intervention with what he said earlier.
I turn to the current arrangements for grammar school ballots. We have set up a mechanism whereby local people can decide what a school's future admission arrangements should be. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness rightly said that this has always been an issue. As far back as I can remember, the presence or absence of selective admission arrangements has been a political and an educational issue that has never gone away. It was an issue for Mrs. Thatcher when she was Secretary of State for Education—that is why she changed the admission arrangements in more grammar schools than anyone else—it was an issue for the Labour party when it was last in government and it is an issue now.
Given that the issue will not go away, there are three ways of deciding whether to change admission arrangments. We can decide on it as a Government; we can let the local authority decide; or we can give the power to decide to parents. We have said that we shall give that power to parents. It is not an option to decree that there should be no more debate on the future admission arrangements of grammar schools; that will just not happen. I shall explain why I think that we have done the right thing, and I shall also answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Buckingham.
We have made our decision because, as a Government who are committed to education in a way that no previous Government have been committed to it, we shall succeed or fail by what we do for the school system, not what we do about the admission arrangements in 164 schools. If we take our eye off the ball to join that hugely contentious debate, we risk wasting our resources, energy and time. I am glad that I have spent

265WH
the past year supporting schools in their introduction of the literacy and numeracy strategies, which the hon. Member for Buckingham would not make schools maintain. I am also glad that I will—if it is what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wants me to do—spend the next year raising standards through "Excellence in Cities", and education action zones rather than arguing about grammar school ballots, which is what would have happened. We have taken the pragmatic view that our time is better spent on other matters.
One can argue that we should not have given parents the right to determine admission arrangements, but one cannot say that we should not have the debate and there should be no mechanism for changing those arrangements. The issue is contentious, but we cannot deny parents who want to change admission arrangements the right to do so. We must give someone somewhere the authority and the mechanism to allow that change to be made if that is what people want.
Nothing is set in stone. Politics must always allow for a mechanism for change. I am happy to defend our decision to put the potential for change in the hands of parents. It would be silly if, having spent considerable legislative time on that and having been determined not to get personally embroiled in the argument about selective schools, I fell into the trap of the hon. Member for Buckingham by answering his question directly. He knows—because we say it—that the Government do not want more selection and we do not think that more selection is the key to raising standards across the board. We are, however, happy to do our best with the school system that we have to raise standards for every child. I am not a parent, so I will not answer the hon. Gentleman's question—although it is difficult not to, because I keep being asked it.
I shall finish by paraphrasing what the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness said, because I strongly agree with him. Reflecting on the good schools in his constituency, he said that they were good because they had good teachers. He is dead right. Those schools are good because they have good teachers, not because of their admission arrangements. If a school has to rely on its admission arrangements to achieve good results, I would question its quality of teaching, learning and management as well as its focus and curriculum. I pay tribute to the schools about which the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness talked and I am confident that if their teachers were to teach in schools without selective admission arrangements, their skills and professionalism would serve any child well. I leave the future of the admission arrangements of the schools in the hon. Gentleman's consituency exactly where they should be: in the hands of the parents whose children will be most affected.

Fireworks
1 pm
Mr. Barry Gardiner: Older and wiser parliamentary heads advise me that the crafty Member begins his Adjournment debate by praising the Minister for all that the Department has achieved. The effect of such a eulogy is doubly beneficial: it sets the Minister off feeling well disposed towards that hon. Member and therefore less likely to savage his arguments and, more importantly, it makes any self-respecting Minister self-conscious about repeating what one has said about her Department's achievements. Such repetition normally comprises at least one third of the speech that civil servants have prepared and so the eulogy liberates a good five minutes in which the Minister will feel obliged to answer the Member's questions.
That is the theory; we must see how it works in practice. I begin with fulsome praise for the Government's Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997, set out in SI 2294. All fireworks sold to the general public must comply with the regulations, which stipulate that all fireworks on sale to the public must comply with British standard 7114 and that the minimum age for purchasing fireworks is 18—previously, it was 16. Sixteen-year-olds can now buy only party poppers, caps and cracker snaps. Perhaps most significantly, the regulations have banned the public supply of aerial shells, aerial maroons, shells-in-mortar, maroons-in-mortar, bangers, mini-rockets and fireworks of erratic flight, such as helicopters, squibs and jumping jacks. In addition, some large and powerful fireworks have been banned from sale except to exempted professional pyrotechnic display organisers.
The regulations were passed speedily by the new Labour Government and are most welcome additional controls on what was becoming a fireworks free-for-all. I have only praise for the Minister and her Department in that respect and I do not doubt that, in her speech, she will tell us that, following the introduction of the regulations, the number of serious injuries requiring treatment at hospital casualty departments fell from 1,233 in 1996 to just 908 in 1997—a drop of more than 26 per cent.—with a further drop of 10 per cent. in the following year. Or rather, I do not doubt that she would have told us that had I not already done so.
I suggest a more helpful line for the Minister to take. Instead of repeating the list of regulations, she could tell us about their enforcement, an obligation placed on local authority trading standards officers. Suppliers who breach the regulations can be prosecuted in a magistrates court and fined up to £5,000, imprisoned for up to six months, or both fined and imprisoned. Will the Minister advise us not of the regulations but of how well and how thoroughly they are being enforced? Will she tell us how many prosecutions have been initiated against suppliers of fireworks in each of the past three years? How many of those prosecutions have led to a conviction and how many convictions have led to the imposition of either the maximum fine or a custodial sentence?
When I requested such information from my local trading standards office—the office for Brent and Harrow—I discovered that in 1998–99, in an area with a population of more than 500,000, there were only eight

267WH
prosecutions, all for sales to minors. The largest fine was for £500, there were two fines for just £100, and there was one conditional discharge. During the previous year, there were only three prosecutions. Hon. Members should remember that the figures were for an area of 500,000 people. Of the three prosecutions, two were for sales to minors with fines of £250 and one for selling on the streets with a fine of £300.
The local trading standards officer was keen to note that shops needed no licence—they simply had to pay £11.70 to register as vendors of fireworks. He said that that fee did not even cover the administration cost and that, what is worse, there was no power to refuse or to evoke someone's registration. Overall, he continued, the office's role was reactive rather than proactive because it was understaffed.
The simple point is that the best regulations in the world are only as good as the enforcement officers. Enforcement is at best patchy, and at worst inadequate, to put it politely. The supply of fireworks is a commercial enterprise in which the rewards are so great that the risk of a £5,000 fine may be deemed an acceptable business cost. Does the Minister consider present levels of enforcement to be acceptable? If not, what will her Department do about them?

Enforcement problems are compounded because the United Kingdom has no register of firework delivery. Unlike many of our European counterparts, the United Kingdom allows hundreds of tonnes of explosives to be delivered to a shop or warehouse with no obligation to notify the local authority or even the fire brigade. How are local trading standards officers supposed to do their job—to check compliance with British standard 7114 and to check that no prohibited fireworks are being sold—when they do not even know where the fireworks are?
At a fireworks industry conference in September, one trading standards officer from Essex reported that four tonnes of fireworks had been delivered to a private householder. When contacted, the firework company that had made the delivery retorted that, as far as they were concerned, the purchaser could have had 20 tonnes had he so wanted. Sadly, the law would allow that. Private individuals may take delivery of vast quantities of explosives and store them for up to 14 days, without having to notify a competent authority and without an official record being required.
Does the Minister not consider protection of the public to require the establishment of a fireworks register? Trading standards officers and fire brigades throughout the country could then track the whereabouts of large volumes of fireworks in the community.
I return to the case of the Essex householder. What qualifications did he have to prove and what training did he have to show to persuade the firework company that he was competent to handle safely four tonnes of fireworks? The answer is none. Were the Minister to find herself living next door to such a gentleman, would she not expect him to have had training and some qualification before he was given custody of four tonnes of explosives?
268WH
I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy), for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy) and for Lincoln (Gillian Merron), who have actively campaigned on the issue. The private Member's Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton proposed such a national training scheme for those operating fireworks displays. Sadly and disgracefully, her Bill was talked out by two Conservative Members, despite receiving all-party support and Government assistance. Given that the Government supported such a scheme under that Bill, why do they not implement one? Will the Minister consider establishing powers whereby local authorities could regulate public fireworks displays to ensure safety?
I turn now to the most pressing and depressing part of the matter. I am not the only constituency MP to receive an annual flood of complaints from residents about disturbance from fireworks. My local authority, Brent council, informs me that its environment department received more than 400 complaints last year. Constituents cannot understand why the law does not empower someone—they do not care whether that is the council or the police—to stop the constant nightly bombardment that they experience.
One of my constituents described the situation in this way:
"Dear Mr. Gardiner, as I write this letter at 11 pm, it sounds like World War III has been going on outside since 5.30 pm and that it will go on to midnight.
It started last Thursday 15 October and how long it goes on for I don't know. My neighbour tells me all through November."
The lady continues:
"Neither I nor my four cats have ever experienced anthing like this. I had a severe migraine over the weekend and my cats are terrified and distressed."
This year, I lodged an appeal in my local newspaper, the Wembley Observer urging residents to be more considerate of their neighbours and to finish their firework parties by 11 pm, to give some respite to the elderly, to babies, to pets and to ordinary people who just want to go to sleep in their own homes so that they can get up for their job of work the next morning without feeling that they have spent the night as film extras in the movie "Saving Private Ryan". I believe that my appeal had some success, but unfortunately the bombardments continued.
I am aware that the regulation-making powers under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 do not allow the Minister to restrict the periods during which fireworks can be legally sold or let off, but that is precisely why further legislation is needed. The public simply do not accept that legislation can go into immense detail about noisy machinery, amplified music and even, under the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993, specify that a car with a faulty vehicle alarm can be towed away and impounded, yet nothing can be done to relieve the nightly misery for thousands of residents throughout the country from firework parties that produce enormous noise, cause huge distress and disrupt people's lives.
The Minister will, no doubt, have been advised that noise from fireworks could be deemed a statutory nuisance under part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Sadly, the reality is as described to me by my local director of environmental health. I quote from his letter:

269WH
"While the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is particularly effective at dealing with noise from loud amplified music, noisy machinery or plant and intruder alarms, it is not effective or appropriate to deal with noise from fireworks."
In those remarks, the director of environmental health was supported by the Metropolitan police service, which wrote to me as follows:
"Thank you for your letter dated 20 October in which you bring to my attention the inconvenience caused to your constituents by noisy fireworks. Unfortunately, police have very limited powers to deal with such incidents, especially when they occur on private premises. The local authority Noise Abatement Section of the Environmental Health Department also has very specific and limited powers which do not enable them to deal effectively with these problems."
I urge the Minister to put in place an effective means of dealing with these problems.
This year, the fireworks industry has rejected the Department of Trade and Industry's call for a ban on firework sales until three days before the new year celebrations for the millennium. What that means is that in 23 days' time one family in this country will face the next millennium with a family member, possibly a child, having been injured, maimed or perhaps killed by the use of an unsafe firework, or by the use of fireworks at a display that was unsafely operated. The Department of Trade and Industry calculates that the cost of each injury to the national health service is £6,000, but the cost to the family involved will be considerably more.
1.14 pm
The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) on his success in securing the debate on an important subject that is of concern to many members of the public, especially parents, at this time of the year. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the courtesies with which he began his speech and for his praise for the officials in my Department who are responsible for considerably strengthening the regulations on the subject. My hon. Friend successfully did as he intended and pre-empted many of my briefing notes, prepared by the same helpful officials for the debate. I congratulate him on his research before opening the debate.
I reinforce the point that my hon. Friend acknowledged that we have taken steps to strengthen the regulation of fireworks. There is no doubt that the new regulations that we introduced in 1997, which came into effect on 1 January 1998, have significantly reduced the number of firework injuries—certainly those that were treated in hospital accident and emergency departments. We can measure that by the reports from hospitals in the four-week period around the 5 November firework season last year. We do not yet have the figures for this year's season. They will be available early next year and will be published in the usual way at the time. I hope that the figures for this year will continue to show a fall in the number of accidents resulting from inappropriate or dangerous use of fireworks.
It is important, too, to remember that every year, millions of people safely buy and enjoy fireworks for their own entertainment in their back gardens and those of their friends, or as part of public displays. I am glad that several authorities, including my local authority,
270WH
Leicester city council, have put on highly successful public displays of fireworks, to encourage more families and members of the public to enjoy firework displays without running the risks often associated with the private use of fireworks in people's back gardens. However, I do not think that the Government should prevent the safe and thoroughly enjoyable use of fireworks in people's private property and at public displays.
The difficulties, which my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North described extremely vividly, arise from people who are either careless or positively dangerous in misusing fireworks intended for their own enjoyment, which tragically injure, maim or occasionally kill one of their own family members.
The other problems to which my hon. Friend referred, and from which his constituent suffered so seriously, arise from thoughtless youngsters, hooligans and vandals using fireworks of various kinds to make other people's lives a misery. That is a real problem, but it is only a small part of the overall picture of the use of fireworks.
There are people—my hon. Friend made it clear that he was not one of them—who are really calling on us to ban the sale and purchase of fireworks for private use. I do not believe that that is a sensible way forward, and I am glad that my hon. Friend shares that opinion. As he said, my Department undertook a review of firework sales in 1996 and rejected the option of a total ban, not least because of fears that a total ban on the sale of fireworks for private use might lead to the development of a black market for fireworks and also to the possibility of people obtaining the ingredients and making their own devices. Neither of those situations would impove public safety; indeed, both would severely jeopardise it and would not be acceptable.
We decided instead to act in the way that my hon. Friend accurately described through the introduction and implementation of the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations in 1997. My hon. Friend referred to the registration of shops selling fireworks. The Health and Safety Executive is reviewing the Explosives Act 1875, which dates back more than 100 years, to see whether we need to strengthen the powers to refuse or to revoke registration to a retailer selling fireworks.
An important issue arises there. A voluntary code of practice with the fireworks industry deals with the period during which fireworks may be sold. Under the code, the fireworks industry has agreed that they should be sold only for three weeks before 5 November and for a couple of days thereafter. The industry reinforces that message to retailers at the beginning of every season. As my hon. Friend said, the agreement this year, with the millennium weekend coming up, was that fireworks would be displayed for sale only from 27 December. Like my hon. Friend, I am disappointed that some newsagents and other shops have continued to sell fireworks right through since the 5 November season in anticipation of the millennium weekend. Looking ahead to that weekend, preliminary indications that I have had are that, compared with the normal pre-new year period, sales are less than 20 per cent. higher than usual for the time of year. Most additional sales are accounted for by high-value firework purchases, obviously made by people who plan large public displays. These are in a different category from private purchasers.

271WH
The Government do not have powers under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 to control anything other than the intrinsic safety of the goods themselves and we use those powers. The period of sale of fireworks is an issue for the voluntary code of practice. We have discussed this problem with the British Pyrotechnics Association. I hope that it will take further action with its members to try to reduce the number of retail outlets that defy the code by trying to sell fireworks in the weeks before Christmas and before 27 December when, under the code, firework sales would be expected to begin again.
My hon. Friend also raised the controls on the storage of fireworks by private individuals. This, too, is a matter for the Health and Safety Executive under the Control of Explosives Regulations 1991. The regulations allow up to 5 kg of fireworks for private use to be kept on individual premises. The case that my hon. Friend mentioned clearly falls well outside the scope of the regulations. If he will let me have further details of the report that he has procured, I shall be happy to ensure that the matter is properly investigated.
The regulations also permit unlimited quantities of fireworks to be stored for up to 14 days. This may be the source of the problem to which my hon. Friend referred, although the regulations stipulate that fireworks must be kept in a safe and suitable place and all due precautions taken for public safety. A back garden shed or garage may not fit the regulation's requirements.
As I said, the Health and Safety Executive is reviewing existing explosives legislation and the review may result in changes to existing conditions for the keeping of fireworks for private use. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend is kept up to date as the review progresses.
My hon. Friend quoted from a letter from a constituent who had suffered badly around 5 November. All hon. Members know that trouble with noisy neighbours and local vandals—and worse, positively criminal neighbours—is one of the most intractable problems that we face in our advice surgeries. There will always be limits to the powers of the police and local authorities and to their resources for dealing with the problem.
The Fireworks Bill—a private Member's Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy)—would have introduced many sensible additions to the regulatory package now in place for the control of fireworks. The Government supported her Bill, and I greatly regret that two Conservative Members chose to talk it out. It would have given the necessary powers to provide for mandatory training of people who operate large public displays. It would have dealt with the times during which fireworks could be sold—now purely a matter for the industry's voluntary code of practice—and provided powers to limit the letting off of fireworks except at specified times. These problems cannot be tackled under

272WH
the current powers available to us, be they in the Fireworks Bill or the Consumer Protection Act 1987. It is a pity that that private Member's Bill failed. I hope that in a future private Members' ballot, any hon. Member who has an interest in this issue will succeed in reviving the Bill.
As my hon. Friend knows, the pressures on legislative time are enormous. When I became a Minister last year, I assumed that the biggest difficulty that the Government would face would be finding sufficient money to do all the things that we need to do. That is always a challenge, although one that is brilliantly discharged by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. The big difficulty is finding time. I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North the comfort that he seeks. There is no immediate or medium-term prospect of the Government introducing fireworks legislation. The legislative priorities to fulfil our manifesto commitments are such that, as he is aware, Bills with an even higher priority than one on this subject are already fighting for parliamentary time.
None the less, possibilities are available under secondary legislation. I have already mentioned the review being undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive. I can also reassure my hon. Friend that officials from various Departments and agencies work closely on this subject. My Department, the Health and Safety Executive, the Home Office and the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions work closely together, as we did when drawing up the 1987 regulations and will do again when we consider the recommendations that follow the Health and Safety Executive's review.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North questioned whether trading standards officers and the police were successful in enforcing the current regulations and statutory provisions, and suggested, no doubt on the basis of his constituency experience, that perhaps they were not. I do not have to hand figures for prosecutions and convictions, but I shall try to obtain those from the co-ordinating body for trading standards officers and send it to my hon. Friend. However, it must be a matter for local authorities, within their resources, which we are increasing every year, to determine local priorities. There are a large number of regulations—many people would say too many—and we have constantly to review regulatory burdens. With many regulations we look to trading standards officers for effective enforcement. Local authorities must decide on the most effective use of resources and determine priorities.
I can reassure my hon. Friend that we shall work closely with the industry and with local authorities to reinforce the message about safe use and enjoyment of fireworks. For the millennium weekend, we shall carry forward the "alcohol and fireworks do not mix" message that we successfully introduced for this year's 5 November weekend. I end by congratulating my hon. Friend on securing this important debate and on participating in the steps that we are taking to ensure that fireworks are enjoyed safely.

Housing Benefit
1.30 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: Outside our Chamber, carols are being played and the spirit of Christmas is in the air, but I am not going to be able to tell such a cheerful tale here.
I received this morning a policy research briefing from the National Housing Federation entitled "Housing benefit system in crisis". It certainly is in a crisis, which is entirely unacceptable. Many of the poorest and least advantaged people in Britain—though our debate deals with England—are suffering, while many local councils incompetently handle housing benefit and while the Government, despite promises and fine words, incompetently fail to make them do any better. In some parts of the country, the system is a shambles and in other parts it is a disgrace. In my borough of Southwark—I know that you live there too, Mr. Deputy Speaker—housing benefit administration is both a shambles and a disgrace.
I hope that this debate will encourage the Government to answer some questions. Instead of merely promises of reviews, monitoring, assessments and injunctions on local authorities to do better, we want action and answers, so that our constituents do not have to contend with such a consistently awful service. We are sick of people passing the buck; sick of councils engaging contractors who then are passed the blame; sick of contractors working on the basis of contracts that can never be produced; and sick of constituents being passed around from pillar to post, day after day, week after week, month after month.
I was in my constituency office this morning when I received a phone call from a lady who is entitled to £88 housing benefit a fortnight, but she has not been paid since 26 July and we are now in December. She has had to pay £58.50 to the council out of her pension while she waits for the arrears.
Every day, more people in north Southwark and Bermondsey complain about housing benefit—people such as an old lady of 81 living alone in west Walworth, with no immediate family, dependent on state pension and related benefits. She wrote to me in April this year. She moved to a new property, after which her housing benefit stopped, and she received demands for payments of £253.56. She has written to me seven times altogether, since first contacting me in April. In September, she wrote:
"I am out of my mind with worry … I hate being in debt."
In October, she wrote that the housing officer
"has received all the proof he needs yet he still insists I have to pay full rent of more than £63.00 per week plus council taxes. Just how does he expect me to do this out of my pension? He should try doing it. I am really suicidal, Mr. Hughes, over this lot. I have always paid my debts,—more so the rent".
On November 25, she wrote again:
"I cannot understand why I am having all this trouble, both from"
the neighbourhood housing office
"and now the council tax department. I had a letter threatening me unless I pay what they say I owe they will take action. I am worried sick, it is making me confused … How am I able to pay full rent, heating and water charges and council taxes out of my total income of £82.25?"
274WH
She has yet to hear about her renewal claim, and she is not assuaged by the answer that it is all the fault of the new verification process.
A private tenant—the previous lady was a council tenant—applied to renew his claim for housing benefit on 21 September this year. It was due to expire on 28 November, giving the authorities two months to deal with it. Due to continual errors, he has yet to receive confirmation of renewal by the beginning of December. His last payment was on 16 November.
For a final example, I take two constituents who are private landlords, a couple who own two neighbouring houses. They wrote to me when they were owed £8,000 from their two properties. It took 11 weeks to process one renewal claim because of inaccuracy and delay. They still await the other claim being processed.
That is just not acceptable. The figures that I am about to give will shock even some of the least shockable Members of Parliament. There are rules that set out what councils should do, according to which local authorities should seek to promote the well-being of the local community and help those that they can into employment. According to the framework rules for the administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit, councils should "operate an efficient system", provide an "efficient service", provide "best value" to taxpayers and claimants, provide an effective service in terms of quickly and accurately determining and paying genuine claims, provide a "customer-focused service" to communicate clearly and effectively with clients, provide advice and information, treat people with courtesy and respect their dignity and privacy. The experience of my 81-year-old constituent is hardly an example of that.
The rules are clear. There are also regulations, the most important of which are that determinations should be made within 14 days of supplying the relevant information and the first payment should be made 14 days after receipt of the claim. There are other dates and timetables, but those are the two crucial dates.
I interject that a further problem arises from the existence of different systems for applying for housing benefit and for council tax benefit and income support. People may not provide the right information the first time and may be confused as to what information they should supply. We should consider establishing a common form of application so that those who are entitled to income support as well as housing benefit and would normally have to go to the Department of Social Security as well as the council office could have their claims examined at the same time. It would be better to streamline procedures as much as possible.
Let me deal with Southwark first and then widen the context. Southwark has a Labour council hanging on by its fingertips. Control is through the casting vote of the mayor, as in Islington, which we hope will cease to be Labour-controlled this month with Southwark falling not long afterwards. My party is currently in opposition in both boroughs. In 1996–97, Southwark's system was run in-house by the internal contractors and 97 per cent. of claims were processed within two weeks. Charter marks and awards were conferred. What happened the following year is a reflection of the result of the pressure put on councils by the previous and the present Government to do less themselves and contract out

275WH
more. As soon as the contract went out, payment within 14 days went down to 60 per cent., and last year it was down to 22.4 per cent.
I raised that matter across the Floor of the Chamber last year with the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle). She answered:
"I am aware of the problems being experienced in Southwark. My officials have received a detailed report"—
and I would be grateful if it were published—
"which confirms that there are delays. An action plan has been drawn up to clear the arrears of work that have been implemented. I have asked to receive reports from the authority so that progress on the action plan can be monitored"—
and I would grateful if they could be published too.
"Southwark and the private contractors are … working together … I am told that the arrears of work have been reduced considerably and that the authority expects to make further progress on the workload until the situation returns to normal in November."—[Official Report, 19 October 1998; Vol. 317, c. 948.]
My colleagues on the council—including Councillors Derek Partridge and Nick Stanton and our housing spokesman, Councillor Niko Baar— have pursued this matter persistently in other committees, as the council records show. We forced an additional meeting of Southwark council last November with requisitioned business in order to deal with those matters and there are perpetual promises of further reports and further investigation.
I would like to tell hon. Members the result of the "return to normal". The council decided that it could set a target for this year of 102 per cent. of its rent due to be collected—that means some of the arrears plus 100 per cent. of this year's rent. So far, according to the report presented to last night's meeting of Southwark housing committee, it has collected 93.63 per cent. The rent collected in Southwark is about £150 million a year. Rent arrears were targeted to be under £20 million, but are already running at £26 million. The target percentage for the assessment of new claims within 14 days is 100 per cent., yet only 5.4 per cent. of new claims are being assessed within 14 days.
Last night, the majority group on the council tabled a motion asking for a further report to be brought to the council in March 2000 saying what would be done and how performance targets would be met. My Liberal Democrat colleagues tabled an amendment that was accepted, saying that if the targets were not met by 31 January, appropriate action should be taken in liquidated damages against CSL, the contractors, and a report should be submitted to the committee in March 2000 on the possibility of terminating the contract. Had it not been for my colleagues, we would simply have been given the same complacent answer that we have received for over a year. If returning to normal means that 5 per cent. of the claims are processed in time, Southwark residents do not think much of normality.
In a letter in October concerning a specific inquiry about the private sector tenants and their landlords who were owed £8,000, the chief executive of Southwark wrote:
"I can confirm that Southwark Legal Services will not commence possession proceedings until a document known as `HP pre-court pro forma' has been obtained. This document confirms that the tenant named is not awaiting the outcome of any application for Housing Benefit."
276WH
The figures he then gave me showed that 6,600 claims were outstanding on 1 October compared with 3,500 in June. A paper before last night's meeting of the housing committee confirmed that at Lambeth county court, 35.3 per cent. of the 168 cases listed by Southwark for possession between 13 and 27 October this year were adjourned specifically because the housing benefit had not been processed. The judge said that the court was appalled by the large number of cases being adjourned, particularly those adjourned more than once for the same reason. The court told the council that, if the position was not remedied quickly, it would consider simply dismissing any case brought back to it that had originally been adjourned because of housing benefit and in which the issues had still not been resolved.
Every sum not collected and every instalment of rent not paid because the housing benefit is not paid means that repairs and maintenance are not carried out. Not only are my 81-year-old constituent and thousands like her identically nearly driven to suicide, but much less maintenance and for fewer repairs are done. Southwark refuses to show its contract with CSL even to members of the council who have a right to know. I ask the Minister to direct the council or to take other powers to ensure that the contract, even if not its financial terms, is published so that the reason why Southwark will not take action against CSL to terminate the contract can be out in the open for all to see.
The contract was apparently so badly drafted that anything that could be defined in court as outside the responsibility of the council would allow CSL not to be liable. Therefore the verification procedure introduced this April, which is a checking procedure to avoid housing benefit fraud, might prevent CSL from being liable. Blame just gets passed to and fro. CSL remains in place. In contrast to the in-house contractors who did the job excellently, we now have an outside firm which is doing appallingly in Southwark and elsewhere in the country, yet no one is willing to take action. A report is brought back regularly to the council, yet the council does not respond. That happens not just in Southwark, but elsewhere. Yesterday, the Freedom of Information Bill received its Second Reading. Freedom of information should mean that contracts like this are not secret but are out in the open. If we can have more openness in local government for these matters, we might have a more satisfactory conclusion.
In its letter of 6 December, the National Housing Federation says that, according to the survey that it has just completed, the average claim time for its housing association properties around the country is 7.3 weeks. The league table for local authorities around the country shows that Southwark is bad, but it is not the only one in that position. Lambeth, which is next door, is worse. That is another Labour-controlled council. It has the poorest performance indicators in inner London, and over the last financial year it processed only 29 per cent. of claims within 14 days. Colleagues in Lambeth have told me about an 85-year-old woman living in sheltered accommodation and in remission from cancer whose renewal form was lost and who was therefore sent a £500 demand for arrears.
The league table for last year shows that Lambeth processes 29 per cent. of applications within 14 days, Islington processes 49 per cent. and Southwark 60 per cent. The national average is 84 per cent. Other councils

277WH
in the west country which also have CSL as their service provider have criticised its performance. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) drew attention to the practice in Taunton Deane council. Kingston upon Thames has returned its housing benefit administration to its in-house team and has terminated its contract with CSL. If more people terminated their contracts with CSL and took it to court for liquidated damages, we might get somewhere.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): In preparing for the debate, I looked at the question that the hon. Gentleman is addressing. Kingston has not terminated the contract but has given the contractor notice of its dissatisfaction. In fact, just one Labour council has terminated its contract with this supplier.
Mr. Hughes: I stand corrected. My information was that it had. I was aware that it was considering it and I was told that it had. The Minister's information may be more up to date.
Newham, because of the backlog, now answers only emergency phone calls. In Norwich last year, 58 per cent. of housing benefit overpayments were misclassified as fraud. The picture is clear. Although I obviously have a constituency interest, which is where the issue began, my inquiries reveal that similar problems around the country are not uncommon. Another test is the number of complaints to the ombudsman. Last year, for this one element of council activity, there were 74 complaints in Brent, 43 in Islington, 53 in Wandsworth, 123 in Southwark and 296 in Lambeth.
I saw the report of the speech given by the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Wallasey, to a conference in Bournemouth in October where she said that local authorities were vital to the success of welfare reform and that they should take more responsibility for improving customer service, reducing errors and cutting fraud in benefit claims. She said:
"Some local authorities provide a very high quality service. But the picture is inconsistent. In far too many cases people claiming benefits receive a slow and inefficient service."

We know that, but who will do anything about it is now the question.
There are a couple of ways forward. First, the Government must address the question, which they have not yet addressed, of the supply and price of rented accommodation. I served on the Committee debating the Bill that became the Housing Act back in 1988. The Conservative party was in power and it was clear that we would eventually reach a stage where property prices would rise but housing benefit would not keep pace. That has now come to pass. Chancellors do not write cheques to fill the gap when a private landlord raises the price. We need to answer that question.
Secondly, the Government must do something about the national housing benefit system. There were promises of a great reform, but I read in Sunday's newspapers that there will now be no great reform. The Government have decided that they cannot now do anything and that it is all too complicated and difficult, so the issue will be put on the back burner. I hope that that is not the case. I therefore have the following list of further questions.
278WH
First, will the Minister please ensure that his officials contact the local authorities that I named—in particular, Southwark—to ensure that the contracts are published and that all the information comes out into the open? Will he publish all the correspondence between Southwark and the Department since last October, when I raised the matter in Parliament. We shall then be able to see exactly who said what to whom and who did or did not do anything.
Secondly, will the Government please back off from insisting—this would be odd from a Labour Government, but new Labour Governments never surprise me in this respect—that everything that is efficient must be done outside the public sector and that everything that is inefficient is inefficient because of the public sector? When Southwark ran these matters itself, it did so very well; when these matters were contracted out, they were handled badly. There is a moral there somewhere, which might be that we should sometimes let councils get on with the job themselves and not force them always to contract out. I am aware of the change from compulsory competitive tendering to best value. That is progress, which I welcome. None the less, can we please take the pressure off and allow local authorities to make the choices that they think are best, rather than forcing them to contract everything out into the private sector because of a dogmatic view in central Government?
Thirdly, will Ministers ask Southwark council to apologise to Southwark residents?
Fourthly, will Ministers review the procedures and the timetable, not to make them longer, but to ensure that determinations and payments are made on time? Will Ministers ensure that the timetable works and the penalties are stronger?
Fifthly, will Ministers examine the remedies for delay? If our trains are late nowadays, we can get damages. If I do not pay my tax on time, I must pay a penalty every day that goes by. Why does no increasing penalty have to be paid if a case is not processed in 14 days? At the moment, if the 14-day deadline is missed, it gets put on one side and no one takes much notice.
Next, will Ministers please re-evaluate the verification process? Of course we want to eliminate housing benefit fraud. However, if we introduce provisions that suddenly put the whole national system into crisis, something is wrong with the planning and practice of the implementation.
Lastly, will Ministers please note that I shall respond to inquiries in a simple way from now on, as other colleagues probably will? I shall suggest that people with a complaint seek payment from the ombudsman of the fullest possible remedies—£100 if they get a notice seeking possession, £250 if the case goes to court and £50 if they get a warning letter. The cost to the public purse will increase more and more because of an incompetent system.
Sometimes people ask why some of us are anti-Labour. Some of us are anti-Labour because our experience of Labour local and central Government and that of many of our constituents is so appalling. This is a disgrace and must not be allowed to continue. I hope that any remedy takes effect sooner than the promised

279WH
remedy of a year ago. Since that promise, things have got worse, not better. I shall return to the issue until we get adequate answers.
1.54 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Simon Hughes) knows the procedures of the House well, and it is unfortunate that I am left with six minutes in which to answer 24 minutes of charges. Obviously, I cannot do as much justice to the hon. Gentleman's serious questions as I would have done if he had left longer for my reply.
In an attempt to be helpful, I should say that I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman raised such an important issue. At the start of his speech, he described some extremely worrying individual cases and raised issues with which all of us in the House would want to deal. He made some trenchant criticisms of everyone, including his local authority, the Government and contractors. In fact, he said that he was sick of the council, the Government and the contractors. However, with great respect to him, making charges against others and spotting the errors is the easy part. The Government want to find the solution, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman does, too.
The hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that it would have been a good idea to return the Southwark housing benefit system to the previous contractor. I do not think that he is suggesting that it would be a good idea to return it to an in-house bid, although he raised the possibility later in his speech.
We need to address ourselves to what the Government are doing and to examine the extent to which our programme to tighten up and to squeeze fraud out of the housing benefit system will solve the problems that the hon. Gentleman raised. We must work in partnership with local authorities on housing benefit to achieve our aim of a modern and effective welfare state that is secure against fraud and abuse. Of course, housing benefit must be fitted within the Government's wider policy objectives and our wider housing policy of providing a decent, affordable home for everyone. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that.
We are already putting in place policies to increase the administrative efficiency of housing benefit, to combat
280WH
fraud and to improve work incentives for people who are out of work and who therefore claim housing benefit. We shall introduce further proposals as part of our housing Green Paper, which will be published in due course.
In the couple of minutes that I have left, I want to talk about some of the things that we are doing. We have introduced remote access terminals or RATs—that is the only acronym that I quite like—in local authorities to give them controlled but direct access to information that is held on Department of Social Security computer systems. Some 400 local authorities, including the London boroughs of Southwark and Lambeth, have the terminals. If they make adequate use of those that they have and want additional ones, those will be made available. We are considering providing more information than we currently provide through those terminals.
We are taking action to cut down on the paper chase. Millions of bits of paper flow between housing benefit administrations and the Benefits Agency. The large volume of paper transactions contributes to delay and errors. We have carried out tests, which show that we can achieve significant improvements in housing benefit clearance times by transferring information electronically. We are currently piloting the scheme in 20 local authorities and intend to roll it out in the new year for local authorities as a whole.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned best value. From April next year, we are introducing a duty on councils to obtain best value. That is a key part of our drive to modernise local government in ways that allow local authorities to measure their achievements. Best value will replace the discredited system of compulsory competitive tendering.
The hon. Gentleman asks me to take specific actions, including requiring the local authority to publish certain documents. That is a matter for the local authority, although the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have sent the benefit fraud inspectorate to inspect Southwark. I shall ensure that the inspectorate gets the Hansard report of this debate so that all the hon. Gentleman's representations to me will be made to the inspectorate. If he wants to make further representations to it, he is perfectly at liberty to write to me—
lt being Two o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the sitting, without Question put.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  War Pensions Agency
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the outcome of the recent quinquennial Prior Options Review of the War Pensions Agency. [102323]

  Mr. Bayley
  A Prior Options Review of the administration of the war pensions scheme was recently undertaken to examine whether further improvements in customer service and value for money could be made.

  Part of that review involved an evaluation of the performance of the War Pensions Agency since its creation in April 1994. The Evaluation Report has been published today and copies have been placed in the Library. The Report recognises that, after a difficult start because of very high workloads, the management focus provided by agency status helped bring about steadily improving standards of performance over the last five years.

  We have now considered the Review Team's recommendations. These take account of a number of detailed submissions from national and local user representative organisations. I am grateful to all those who participated in the review.

  The review has recognised that over the past five years the War Pensions Agency has dedicated itself to serving a very special group of people, those who have suffered injury or bereavement in defence of their country. The main conclusions of the review, which I support, are that the War Pensions Agency should remain a Next Steps Agency within the Civil Service responsible, as now, for administering the existing war pensions scheme.

  The review recognises the significant improvements in customer service and efficiency which the Agency has achieved since its inception in 1994. These reflect great efforts by the Chief Executive and his staff. The review's recommendations are designed to build on this work and will be supported by the Agency's programme of change which is aimed at improving its decision-making and appeals processes. This will be done through extended use of information technology and closer working with other government departments and voluntary sector bodies.

  We will shortly publish a reviewed Framework Document confirming the Agency's responsibilities for the next five years.

  Carers (Financial Support)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to raise the level of earnings disregard for the calculation of invalid care allowance. [101352]
  532W
  Mr. Bayley
  [holding answer 6 December 1999]The National Carers strategy committed the Government to keeping financial support for carers under review, which we are doing.

  Income Support
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what levels of take-up of Income Support for pensioners are assumed in current forecasts of expenditure. [99942]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 2 December 1999]Estimates of take-up levels are difficult to forecast. Our current estimates are derived from the Family Resource Survey and show that for 1997–98 between 71 per cent. and 85 per cent. of pensioners by expenditure claimed the Income Support to which they are entitled. Current caseload forecasts assume that an additional 43,000 pensioners will take up their entitlement during the forecasting period. This estimate will need to be reviewed in the light of our plans for a national programme to increase pensioner take-up.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  EU Charter of Human Rights
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the President of the Council who will be Parliament's representative on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights drafting body. [102231]

  Mrs. Beckett
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and Lord Bowness will be the Westminster delegates on the Charter drafting body. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) and Baroness Howells of St. Davids will be the alternates.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Gamma Hydroxy Butyrate
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ban gamma hydroxy butyrate; and if he will make a statement. [101518]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Gamma hydroxy butyrate (GHB) is not controlled under the international drug Conventions nor under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 but its importation, manufacture, sale and supply fall within the scope of the medicines legislation. The Medicines Control Agency (MCA) investigates reports of the unlawful manufacture, advertising and sale of GHB in the United Kingdom.

  The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), which advises the Government on drug misuse issues, has considered the misuse of GHB on three occasions—in 1994, 1996 and in May 1998. It found that GHB could cause acute health problems particularly if taken with alcohol or other drugs. The Council concluded that GHB misuse was not widespread and did not present a sufficient social problem—the criterion for controlling substances under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971—to be brought under the 1971 Act's control.
  533W
  However, as the drug could lead to acute health problems for some misusers—particularly if taken with alcohol—the Council recommended that a number of other measures should be taken. These were that the MCA should be asked to increase enforcement action against illicit manufacturers and suppliers of GHB; publishers should be asked not to carry advertisements for the drug and attempts should be made to reduce such advertising by the MCA and the Advertising Standards Authority; more targeted health education material should be made available about the adverse effects of GHB; and GHB misuse should continue to be monitored. The MCA and the Department of Health have taken action on the above recommendations; and the Home Office is continuing to monitor the position.

  We understand that the World Health Organisation (WHO) is currently reviewing GHB; and the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) is considering its misuse within the European Union. If the WHO or the EMCDDA recommend controls on the drug, ACMD would be asked to look at GHB again.

  Child Pornography Prosecutions
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many successful prosecutions there were for the possession of child pornography in the last three years for which figures are available. [101653]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Available information, taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database, is given in the table.

  Number of defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts and percentage found guilty at all courts for child pornography offences, England and Wales, 1996–98:

  Take, make, distribute, show, possess with intent to distribute or show, or publish any advertisement conveying the distribution of indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children1

  Total found guilty

  Year

  Total proceeded against2

  Number

  Percentage

  1996

  80

  69

  86

  1997

  111

  103

  93

  1998

  116

  82

  71

  1 Protection of Children Act 1978 sections 1 and 6 as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, section 84.

  2 = 100 per cent

  Possession of an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child1

  Total found guilty

  Year

  Total proceeded against2

  Number

  Percentage

  1996

  125

  79

  63

  1997

  124

  81

  65

  1998

  167

  105

  63

  1 Criminal Justice Act 1988 section 160 as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 sections 84(4) and 86(1).

  2 = 100 per cent

  Police (Discipline Hearings)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department at whose discretion it is for an 534W
  officer facing a discipline hearing to be represented by both a Police Federation lawyer or representative and by a person from the Black Police Association. [101599]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  An officer may be represented by another officer chosen by him, or he may opt to be legally represented in cases where it is judged that the punishments of reduction in rank, requirement to resign or dismissal should be available. The Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985, which cover incidents occurring before 1 April 1999, provide that in such cases the legal representative may be assisted at the hearing by a member of a police force. The Police (Conduct) Regulations 1999, for incidents after 1 April 1999, provide that in addition to having his case conducted by a legal representative the officer may be accompanied at the hearing by a member of the police force.

  Anti-social Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many anti-social behaviour orders have been applied for and granted within the Easington District Council area. [101423]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I am informed that Easington District Council has made no applications for anti-social behaviour orders to date, but I am pleased to hear that they have recently established a committee to consider their use.

  Gaming
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last reviewed the working of legislation on gaming; what plans he has for further reviews; and if he will make a statement. [101427]

  Mr. Straw
  Much of the law on gambling is more than 30 years old. Social attitudes have changed markedly in these three decades and the law is fast being overtaken by technological developments.

  The Gaming Board for Great Britain and the Deregulation Committees of the House of Commons and the House of Lords have recommended reform.

  There is therefore a good case for a wide-ranging review to design a new structure of regulation for the gambling industry and to test public perception.

  This will not be a simple task. The main controls are laid down in three major Acts of Parliament—the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, the Gaming Act 1968 and the Lotteries and Amusement Act 1976, together with associated secondary legislation. Reform will raise important issues. The social and economic impact of any change will have to be carefully assessed.

  I intend to set up an independent review body next year, bringing together a wide range of relevant expertise. It will be asked to report to me within 12 months on proposals for reform.

  The Government will not be asking the review body to consider changes to the National Lottery, although the review will clearly need to address the impact on the Lottery of changes proposed for the regulation of gambling generally.

  We will announce the full terms of reference shortly.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Prison Service
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Quinquennial Review of the Northern Ireland Prison Service will be launched; and if he will make a statement. [102155]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Northern Ireland Prison Service will have completed five years of operation as an executive agency on 31 March 2000 and, therefore, is subject, like other agencies, to a Quinquennial Review. I am announcing the review today and intend that it should be brought to completion by July 2000.

  The review will be directed by a Steering Group under the Chairmanship of the Prison Service Fraser Figure and inclusive of an independent element.

  The Steering Group will be supported by a Project Team led by a member of the Senior Civil Service from outside the Northern Ireland Prison Service. The leader of the Project Team will report to the Steering Group on a regular basis.

  The review process will provide extensive opportunities for consultation with internal and external stakeholders and will follow the procedures recommended in the Guidance on the review of Agencies and Non-Departmental Public Bodies published by the Cabinet Office.

  Robert Hamill
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in the inquiry by the Independent Commission for Police Complaints into the circumstances of the death of Robert Hamill; when he expects the Commission to complete its investigation; and if he will make a statement. [101855]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Independent Commission for Police Complaints (ICPC) have advised that on 16 January 1998 they issued a Statement expressing their view that the criminal investigation into a complaint, that police had witnessed the attack on the late Robert Hamill but had failed to intervene as promptly as possible, had been conducted to its satisfaction. This investigation was conducted under the close supervision of the ICPC by a senior CID officer of the RUC who had no connection with the Portadown district. The Northern Ireland Director of Public Prosecutions subsequently directed no criminal prosecution against any police officer involved. The ICPC is currently supervising the police investigation into the disciplinary issues relating to the complaint made and this process is at an advanced stage.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he will take to increase the ability of museums and galleries to make acquisitions. [101851]
  536W
  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 7 December 1999]There are already several methods by which the Government enable museums and galleries to make acquisitions. Acceptance in Lieu and Private Treaty Sale schemes continue to provide owners with an incentive to offer outstanding works of art to the nation in lieu of inheritance tax. Through the Museums and Galleries Commission, the Department provides funds for the PRISM Fund (71 grants worth £292,567 in 1998–99) and the V&A Purchase Grant Fund (227 grants worth £1 million) thus assisting regional museums to acquire objects for their collections. In addition, the Heritage Lottery Fund has doubled its acquisition budget from £5 million to £10 million. It has recently supported the acquisition of Botticelli's The Virgin adoring the Christ child (£7.69 million) and has helped regional museums and galleries to acquire objects which will significantly enhance their collections, provide educational benefits, and encourage local support and interest. Under this Government, grant-in-aid to the national museums and galleries has been increased: it is for Trustees to decide their spending priorities.

  School Sports
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures he has taken to promote participation in cricket in schools within the last year. [101350]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 6 December 1999]We have been working in partnership with the England and Wales Cricket Board's Development Department and Sport England to promote participation in cricket at schools and clubs for all young people. Cricket is supported by Sport England's Active Schools initiatives, which include the Youth Sports Trust, TOP sports, the Activemark and Sportsmark award schemes, and Coaching for Teachers. In addition, Sport England provides support to governing bodies' junior development initiatives, including Kwik Cricket in primary schools. Kwik Cricket has helped boost the number of primary school pupils playing the game and, working with initiatives for older school children, has helped the number of young people playing cricket in schools and clubs, according to ECB figures, grow to 2.4 million last year. To continue to take this forward, the ECB are in consultation to help design a game specifically for secondary schools, "Intercricket", which will be launched next year. I have attended a number of cricket matches aimed at widening the support for cricket in schools.

  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to increase involvement in(a) rugby, (b) football, (c) cricket and (d) hockey in schools. [101429]

  Kate Hoey
  Sport in schools provides the foundation for our sporting future, and contributes to the education and health of young people. All four of these sports are already supported by Sport England's Active Schools initiatives, which includes the Youth Sports Trust TOP sports, the Activemark and Sportsmark award schemes, and Coaching for Teachers. The first School Sports Co-ordinators will be appointed in September 2000, and will provide a real boost for coaching and competition in a wide range of sports, including team games. In addition, Sport England provides support to governing bodies'
  537W
  junior development initiatives, including Rugby Football Union Development Officers and Kwik Cricket in primary schools.

  WTO (Seattle)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which Ministers and officials from his Department were represented at the World Trade Organisation meeting in Seattle. [101679]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  None. However, in preparing the European Union's negotiating position for the WTO Ministerial Conference, my Department was fully involved, at both Government and Community level, to ensure that the UK's audiovisual interests were taken into account.

  Carn Brea Leisure Centre
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement regarding the proposed closure of Carn Brea Leisure Centre in Cornwall. [100230]

  Kate Hoey
  I want to ensure that all communities have access to quality sports facilities and the opportunities to participate in sporting activities. The Government place great importance on community sports facilities such as Carn Brea, and I am therefore very concerned about its proposed closure.

  The Government also place great importance on the teaching of young people to swim, and swimming remains a statutory element of the primary National Curriculum. It is vital, therefore, that the local council do everything it can to keep the facilities at Carn Brea open to the many thousands that benefit from their use.

  The Chairman of Sport England and I have both written to the Chairman of Kerrier District Council making clear our concerns and urging the Council to maintain Carn Brea.

  Departmental Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many research contracts have been let by his Department since May 1997; what is the value of each contract; and in each case whether the contract included(a) a departmental veto over publication of the research results, (b) departmental control over the date of publication of the research results and (c) a requirement that the final research results incorporate departmental amendments. [100147]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 6 December 1999]There have been 20 Contracts let between 1 May 1997 and 30 November 1999 which contain an element of research. Details are given in the table.

  Research contracts

  Value1 (£)

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  1

  30,500

  yes

  yes

  yes

  2

  69,500

  yes

  yes

  no

  3

  320,000

  yes

  no

  no

  4

  17,800

  yes

  no

  no

  5

  1,375

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  6

  20,000

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  7

  2,100

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  8

  78,300

  yes

  yes

  no

  538W

  Research contracts

  Value1 (£)

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  9

  27,500

  yes

  yes

  no

  10

  270,000

  yes

  yes

  yes

  11

  19,000

  yes

  no

  no

  12

  15,560

  yes

  yes

  yes

  13

  21,000

  no

  yes

  no

  14

  9,400

  yes

  yes

  no

  15

  9,800

  yes

  yes

  yes

  16

  33,095

  yes

  yes

  yes

  17

  12,000

  yes

  no

  yes

  18

  204,250

  yes

  yes

  no

  19

  133,000

  yes

  yes

  yes

  20

  21,900

  yes

  yes

  yes

  1 Value has been interpreted to mean the price of the contract

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Roger Sylvester
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Solicitor-General when the Crown Prosecution Service will make a decision on prosecutions in respect of the death of Mr. Roger Sylvester; and if he will make a statement. [101407]

  The Solicitor-General
  The investigation report of the Essex Police is being carefully considered by the Crown Prosecution Service in accordance with the tests set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. The CPS has met with the investigating officers from Essex Police and with the Police Complaints Authority to discuss the case. The CPS has requested the police to undertake additional inquiries and a further meeting with the police is arranged for later this month. The advice of Treasury Counsel will be sought. In the meantime, the CPS has kept in touch with the family's solicitors. A decision on whether or not any criminal charges should be brought will be taken as soon as possible after the evidence has been fully reviewed.

  Lenient Sentences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many sentences have been referred to the Court of Appeal as unduly lenient and which have resulted in an increase in the sentences. [101604]

  The Solicitor-General
  In 1998, the Law Officers referred the sentences imposed on 95 offenders to the Court of Appeal for their sentences to be reviewed under the provisions of section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Of the References that have been heard, sentences have been increased in respect of 68 offenders. Ten References were withdraw. Three References are yet to be heard.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Echelon System
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to answer parliamentary questions on the Echelon system; and if he will make a statement. [100839]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  As my hon. Friend is aware, it is long-standing practice not to respond to speculation on alleged intelligence operations.

  Joint Environmental Markets Unit
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to implement his Department's pledge to support the DETR/DTI Joint Environmental Markets Unit on behalf of UK exporters. [101645]

  Mr. Hain
  The Foreign Office is providing direct support to the work of the Joint Environmental Markets (JEMU) through the training on global environment issues now offered to all staff across the Foreign Office. Support is also available through the FCO environmental programmes to enable posts to work with local governments and NGOs in promoting good environmental practice.

  Exporters from all sectors also benefit from the establishment of the joint FCO/DTI British Trade International. They include those promoting UK environmental products and services as part of their company portfolio. British Trade International maintains a close liaison with sector specific bodies such as JEMU. Ministerial support for the sector was most recently evident in the JEMU trade mission to the Czech Republic from 18–19 October, led by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), and supported by British Trade International.

  "The World is not Enough"
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what location fee was paid to(a) the British Embassy in Istanbul and (b) MI6 by the producers of the film, "The World is not Enough". [101648]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  No filming of "The World is not Enough" took place on either the premises of the British Consulate-General in Istanbul or the headquarters of the Secret Intelligence Service. The question of a location fee did not therefore arise.

  Nuclear Reactors (Decommissioning)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the decommissioning of Soviet-designed nuclear reactors in the countries of eastern Europe as part of the negotiations relating to those countries' applications for membership of the European Union. [101890]

  Mr. Hain
  We strongly support G7 and EU efforts to improve nuclear safety in Central and Eastern Europe. The EU accession process provides an important opportunity to achieve early closure of reactors which cannot be upgraded to international safety standards. At the (EU) Vienna European Council in December 1998 the EU agreed to use the accession process as a lever to encourage nuclear safety and, in particular, the early closure of the oldest Soviet design reactors which safety experts assess cannot be upgraded to international standards. We fully support the Commission's efforts to persuade the applicant countries concerned—Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia—to put in place credible closure plans for the relevant reactors.
  540W
  We welcome the recent announcements by the Bulgarian, Lithuanian, and Slovak authorities and the commitments they contain on closure timetables for the non-upgradable reactors at respectively, the Kozloduy, Ignalina and Bohunice nuclear power plants.

  We strongly support invitations for these three countries (as well as Latvia, Malta, and Romania) to open accession negotiations. We expect the Helsinki European Council on 10–11 December to decide to extend invitations to all six. Once negotiations begin, progress on nuclear safety objectives will continue to be part of the accession process as it is now.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many of the(a) Kosovo Albanians and (b) Serbs reported murdered between KFOR's deployment on 12 June and mid-October are believed to be murdered by (i) Kosovo Albanians, (ii) Kosovo Serbs and (iii) others. [101415]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 7 December 1999]There are no statistics available giving the ethnic background of the persons responsible for the reported murders of Kosovo Albanians and Serbs since KFOR's deployment on 12 June.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action KFOR is taking in Kosovo to prevent ethnic cleansing of Serbs and the destruction of their monasteries. [99857]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 7 December 1999]Protection of the Kosovo Serbs and other minorities is a top priority for KFOR and UNMIK. KFOR devotes around half of its resources at present to maintaining a presence in minority areas. In the UK-led sector, there are KFOR soldiers present in every Serb town or village, as well as soldiers deployed to protect individual homes and farms. KFOR conducts patrols and escorts individuals to school and to work.

  Protection of patrimonial sites (monasteries, cathedrals and Orthodox churches) is also a priority. In the British sector alone almost 300 troops are on permanent guard of 35 churches and other patrimonial sites.

  Afghanistan
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the imposition of UN sanctions in relation to Afghanistan. [102230]

  Mr. Hain
  On 15 October, the United Nations Security Council adopted resolution 1267 which demanded that the Taliban turn over Usama Bin Laden, indicted in the US for the 1998 bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, to appropriate authorities in order for him to be brought to justice and decided that, unless that demand was met by 14 November, UN member states would impose a flight ban and freeze on funds in relation to the Taliban.

  The demand has not been met. The measures came into force on 14 November. A UN Sanctions Committee will be established to designate the aircraft and funds or other financial resources to which the measures will apply. Humanitarian exemptions are provided for, in respect of

  541W
  both measures. The Sanctions Committee is tasked to decide on the granting of a further exemption in respect of the payment by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) to the aeronautical authority of Afghanistan on behalf of international airlines for air traffic control services.

  Orders in Council under the United Nations Act 1946 came into force on 26 November to implement the measures in the UK, Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories.

  EU member states have agreed to implement the Security Council resolution collectively. On 15 November, the Council of the European Union adopted a Common Position (1999/727/CFSP) concerning restrictive measures against the Taliban.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  GM Crops
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will put measures in place to ensure that honey produced around the farm-scale trials for genetically modified crops will not contain genetically modified pollen. [99535]

  Mr. Mullin
  The crops in the farm-scale evaluations are being grown in the open and will be visited by bees from nearby hives. Traces of GM pollen may therefore occur in honey from such hives, although in any event honey only contains very small amounts of pollen. The Government, as advised by ACRE and the ACNFP, do not consider the presence in honey of pollen from GM crops to pose a risk to health. Therefore no special measures are being put in place to prevent bees from visiting crops.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the compensatory payments to which GM consent holders and national list maintainers may be entitled upon revocation of their consents and licences after the farm-scale evaluations. [100001]

  Mr. Mullin
  No estimate has been made of whether compensatory payments would be payable to GM consent holders on revocation of a consent. There are no genetically modified plant varieties on the UK National List at present, therefore the question is not relevant to national list maintainers.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the advice he has received from the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment in response to applications for marketing consent under EU Directive 90/220 for(a) Plant Genetics Systems oil seed rape C/BE/96/01, (b) LF Trifolium A/S, Monsanto Europe, SA Danisco Seed fodder beet C/DK/97/01 and (c) Hoechst Schering, AgrEvo GmbH oilseed rape C/DE/96/5; and when the final decision will be made by the EU. [100000]

  Mr. Mullin
  The advice of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) for these applications, and on all applications to release GMOs, is 542W
  contained in the statutory public register held in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  A decision on whether or not to approve these products is scheduled to be taken at the next meeting of the Regulatory Committee for Directive 90/220/EEC to be held on 9 March 2000.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effect the horizontal spread of antibiotic resistant marker genes from GM crops will have on the treatment of life-threatening infectious diseases. [100165]

  Mr. Mullin
  Although there is little evidence that antibiotic resistant marker genes can escape from crop plants under field conditions; the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE), and the Advisory Committee for Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP), always consider the likely consequences of the horizontal spread of antibiotic resistant marker genes from genetically modified (GM) crops, were it to be possible. If horizontal gene transfer from a particular GM plant is judged to be harmful to human health or the environment, then the release would not be allowed.

  The Committees consider that the use of antibiotic resistance markers should be discouraged and that their use will become unnecessary as genetic modification techniques are developed further. Their use should therefore be phased out.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the specific restrictions placed on the cultivation of GM crops. [99916]

  Mr. Mullin
  No GM crops may be released in England without specific approval from the Secretary of State for the Environment, acting jointly with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, or from the devolved Administrations for releases in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

  Each consent lists the specific limitations and conditions applying to the release. This information is available on the statutory public register held in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will explain the difference between GM farm-scale evaluations and other GM field-scale plantings. [99904]

  Mr. Mullin
  The farm-scale evaluations of GM crops are part of a programme designed primarily to assess the effect of the management of particular GM herbicide tolerant crops, together with the relevant herbicide, on the abundance and diversity of farmland wildlife compared with conventionally managed equivalent non-GM crops.

  The evaluations are funded by Government, with the industry group SCIMAC providing and managing the crops. Proposals by SCIMAC for any other large areas or field-scale plantings of these GM crops, would be outside the farm-scale evaluation programme and will be decided by the Scientific Steering Committee, taking into account the relevance of the proposals to biodiversity. This

  543W
  arrangement is part of the agreement between the Government and SCIMAC, announced in November 1999.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the locations in the UK where Class C Consent for GM crop planting has been given. [100226]

  Mr. Mullin
  A Part C consent for cultivation of a GM crop, issued under EU Directive 90/220, permits growing anywhere within the geographical region specified in the consent. The regulatory authorities do not have to be notified of the locations where the crop is grown.

  At present three types of GM maize have Part C consents which include the UK within their scope for cultivation. However, under the recently announced voluntary agreement with SCIMAC, these crops will only be grown in accordance with the terms of that agreement.

  Suicides (London Underground)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many suicides have taken place on the London Underground in each of the last 10 years. [100624]

  Mr. Hill
  Safety of passengers and staff on its network is the responsibility of London Underground Ltd. (LUL), which has explained that it is not possible to distinguish between fatalities on London Underground due to accidents and those where a person may have taken their own life. LUL has, however, provided in the table information on the number of fatalities arising from a person striking a train on the London Underground.

  Year

  Number of fatalities

  1991

  40

  1992

  31

  1993

  45

  1994

  39

  1995

  18

  1996

  32

  1997

  28

  1998

  25

  1999 (to date)

  22

  Notes:

  Statistics are not available for 1989, 1990, and for period between 1 January 1995 and 6 April 1995

  A406 (Tree Compensation)
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the London Borough of Enfield will receive compensation for the loss of a cedar tree in Pymmes Park as part of the compulsory purchase relating to the A406; what steps he will take to ensure that the Highways Agency pays compensation; and if he will make a statement. [100821]

  Mr. Hill
  Compensation negotiations between the District Valuer, acting for the Highway's Agency and the London Borough of Enfield are continuing. The Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Peter Nutt, will write to my hon. Friend with further details.
  544W
  Letter from Richard Thorndike to Mr. Andrew Love, dated 8 December 1999:
  The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Keith Hill, has asked me to write in response to your recent written Parliament Question about compensation being claimed by the London Borough of Enfield for the loss of a mature cedar tree in Pymmes Park, as a result of works to improve the A406 North Circular Road. I am replying in the absence of Peter Nutt, the Chief Executive.
  Although the tree was located very close to the highway construction area, it was intended to carry out the road works without disturbing it. Once construction started, however, because of the tree's extensive root system, it was found that it would be seriously affected. Ways of saving the tree including moving it, at an estimated cost of £100,000 were considered but none were found to be practicable. The Agency concluded that the only option was for it to be cut down. Meetings between the Agency, the District Valuer and the Council to discuss the provision of replacement trees, wider landscape proposals for Pymmes Park and compensation matters have taken place and are set to continue. The final settlement of any compensation due will depend on the outcome of these negotiations. In the event that agreement on compensation cannot be reached the Lands Tribunal is available to make an independent determination.
  As part of the overall arrangements to offset disturbance, the Agency has provided exchange land at the former Willoughby Gas Works, as replacement for public open space land taken from Pymmes Park for the A406 works.

  Leasehold Properties (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the number of properties in the Greater London area that are leasehold. [101042]

  Mr. Mullin
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) on 10 November 1999,Official Report, column 610W. The estimates provided were for households rather than properties, since estimates on the latter basis are not available. It is probable that the figure for properties in London would be only slightly smaller than for households.

  Departmental Research
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the titles of(a) research studies, (b) audits and (c) surveys (i) in progress and (ii) commissioned for completion in the next 12 months, stating in each case when the results are due to be published. [100888]

  Mr. Mullin
  Information about research commissioned by the Department is made widely available. It includes overview material on the DETR website and details of individual programmes and projects—again on the website and through hard copy reports, Compendia and Newsletters. Details of each project are not held centrally but a list of the Department's research projects will be prepared and placed in the Library of the House within two weeks. Other bodies sponsored by the Department, including the Highways Agency, Maritime and Coastguard Agency, English Nature, the Countryside Agency and the Environment Agency, also fund their own research programmes and publish separate information on these.

  Student Housing
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with the DfEE about student housing provision for university students. [101053]

  Mr. Mullin
  This is a matter primarily for liaison between local authorities and the universities and other higher education institutions. The DfEE, through the Higher Education Funding Councils, does not make financial provision to the universities for student residential accommodation. It is also a matter for individual students to choose the type of accommodation they wish to occupy.

  My Department will continue to discuss with the DfEE whether halls of residence and other university owned, managed or leased accommodation should be exempt from our proposed licensing system for houses in multiple occupation.

  We are also considering carefully Recommendation 33 of Policy Action Team 7's report on Unpopular Housing: that my Department should discuss with DfEE and the Department of Health an agreed approach to the use of existing stock to meet demand for student housing and housing for medical staff before new developments take place in areas of low demand.

  HMOs
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from which local authorities about extending licensing of houses of multiple occupation. [101052]

  Mr. Mullin
  Manchester City Council, Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council, and a number of other authorities, mainly in the north-east and north-west of England, have made a variety of proposals for extending licensing, or the power to licence, to other private rented sector housing. The Local Government Association have also suggested that future legislation should be framed to enable licensing to be extended.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to extend licensing of houses of multiple occupation. [101051]

  Mr. Mullin
  We are committed to the introduction of mandatory licensing of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs). While we recognise that there are problems of poor physical and management standards elsewhere in the private rented sector, and are considering whether further measures would be appropriate to deal with these, we have no plans to extend mandatory licensing beyond the HMO sub-sector.

  Crossrail
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the report recently published by the Corporation of London on Crossrail; and if he will make a statement. [101291]
  546W
  Mr. Hill
  Crossrail will be a matter for the new Mayor to consider in formulating an integrated transport strategy for London. Ministers will be happy to discuss the project with any new Mayor who wants to broker a viable deal to build it.

  I welcome the addition to the Crossrail debate provided by the results of the Corporation of London's review of the project, and their proposals on how it might be taken forward.

  Additionally, the scheme and the Corporation's report will be among the many items to be considered by Sir Alastair Morton and the shadow Strategic Rail Authority as part of their detailed study of capacity issues on the lines running out from the west of London.

  Tropical Timber
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many purchases of tropical timber have been made by the Environment Agency since 1998; what were the timber species; and for what purpose they were specified. [101292]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Environment Agency uses timber for two main purposes, civil engineering and furniture. The Agency does not purchase any furniture containing tropical hardwood. Civil engineering works are predominately for flood defence projects. As the majority of these are contracted out, the Agency cannot readily provide figures on individual purchases of timber or other materials. Tender documentation seeks to ensure that works meet the highest environmental standards. For example, clauses are incorporated to ensure that new timber from all sources is provided from a managed renewable source. Also, the specification for groynes and piles states that"the timber used, including tropical hardwoods, shall he obtained from sustainably managed forests and plantations."

  Further details on the Agency's procurement policies are available on the Environment Agency website.

  Waste Strategy
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received regarding the Government's draft waste strategy for England and Wales, "A Way with Waste". [101317]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government published for consultation their draft waste strategy for England and Wales, "A Way With Waste", on 30 June 1999. We have received over 500 substantive submissions from a wide range of interested parties, and over 20,000 postcards urging higher recycling targets from members of the public. These views will also be taken into consideration as we develop the final strategy.

  The final version of our sustainable waste management strategy—which we will publish early next year—will be a long-term strategy for handling the waste generated by businesses, service providers and households. The Government are committed to introducing and promoting

  547W
  sustainable waste management across the UK. This means using materials and resources efficiently, to cut down on the amount of waste we produce, and where waste is produced, dealing with it in a way that actively contributes to the economic, social and environmental goals of sustainable development.

  Burscough Curves Railway Line
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with Railtrack and the train operating companies on re-opening the Burscough Curves railway line between Southport and Preston. [101160]

  Mr. Hill
  None. However, the sSRA is engaged in discussions with Railtrack on service improvements to be delivered during its next charging period, 2001 to 2006. Re-opening Burscough Curve has been raised for consideration by Merseytravel. The sSRA will be sending to Railtrack shortly details of improvements it wishes them to cost in their next Network Management Statement.

  Homelessness
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to commission research on the provision of temporary accommodation for and the resettlement support needs of young pregnant women and single parents. [101187]

  Mr. Mullin
  DETR has no plans to commission such research, but the research programme for the coming year has not been finalised yet.

  The Teenage Pregnancy Unit in the Department of Health, which has been set up in light of the Social Exclusion Unit's report "Teenage Pregnancy", is in the early stages of drafting its research strategy and cannot say whether it will include anything on support for teenage mothers.

  Following publication of the SEU's report, the Housing Corporation has invited bids from Registered Social Landlords to develop around 15 pilots to test alternative approaches to the provision of supported accommodation for 16–18 year old lone parents. Research, in the form of evaluation of both the pilots and existing projects providing supervised accommodation, will be initiated once the pilots are established.

  Footpaths
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many adjudications on the closure or diversion of footpaths he was called upon to make for each relevant authority in the last year for which figures are available; and in how many of these cases the local authority's view was overturned. [101152]

  Mr. Mullin
  The number of decisions made by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and 548W
  the Regions on the closure and diversion of footpaths for each relevant authority between the periods 1 November 1998 and 31 October 1999 are as follows:

  Order making authority

  Number of closures/diversions

  Number of orders not confirmed1

  Ashford Borough Council

  3

  0

  Babergh District Council

  2

  0

  Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  1

  0

  Bath and North East Somerset Council

  1

  0

  Bedfordshire County Council

  5

  0

  Bolsover District Council

  1

  0

  Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council

  1

  1

  Broxbourne Borough Council

  2

  2

  Buckingham County Council

  1

  0

  Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council

  1

  0

  Cambridgeshire County Council

  3

  0

  Cherwell District Council

  1

  0

  Chichester District Council

  1

  0

  Cornwall County Council

  4

  2

  Cumbria County Council

  2

  0

  Darlington County Council

  6

  0

  Derbyshire County Council

  1

  0

  Devon County Council

  4

  2

  Durham County Council

  2

  0

  East Cambridgeshire District Council

  1

  0

  East Northants District Council

  1

  0

  East Riding of Yorkshire Council

  1

  0

  Epping Forest District Council

  1

  1

  Gloucestershire County Council

  1

  1

  Hampshire County Council

  1

  0

  Harborough District Council

  1

  0

  High Peak Borough Council

  1

  1

  Kent County Council

  6

  0

  Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council

  1

  0

  Lake District Special Planning Board

  4

  0

  Leeds City Council

  2

  2

  Lincoln City Council

  2

  2

  London Borough of Bromley

  1

  1

  London Borough of Hillingham

  1

  0

  London Borough of Newham

  2

  1

  Manchester City Council

  1

  0

  Mendip District Council

  1

  1

  Mid-Bedfordshire District Council

  2

  1

  Mid-Suffolk District Council

  1

  0

  North East Derbyshire District Council

  3

  2

  North Norfolk District Council

  1

  1

  North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council

  4

  0

  North Yorkshire County Council

  8

  1

  Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council

  2

  1

  Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council

  2

  1

  Oxfordshire County Council

  1

  0

  Pendle Borough Council

  1

  0

  Plymouth City Council

  1

  0

  Portsmouth District Council

  1

  1

  Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council

  1

  0

  Reigate and Banstead Borough Council

  1

  0

  Rossendale Borough Council

  1

  0

  Rotherham Borough Council

  l

  0

  Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

  l

  0

  Runnymede Borough Council

  l

  0

  Sedgemoor District Council

  l

  0

  Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council

  l

  0

  Shropshire County Council

  3

  1

  Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council

  2

  1

  South Bedfordshire District Council

  3

  3

  South Cambridgeshire District Council

  1

  0

  South Gloucestershire Council

  1

  0

  South Kesteven District Council

  2

  1

  South Norfolk District Council

  2

  1

  South Northants District Council

  3

  0

  South Somerset District Council

  2

  0

  St. Edmundsbury Borough Council

  2

  0

  Staffordshire Moorlands District Council

  1

  1

  Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

  1

  1

  Stroud District Council

  1

  0

  Surrey County Council

  4

  1

  Swale Borough Council

  1

  0

  Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council

  1

  0

  Taunton Deane Borough Council

  2

  0

  The Wrekin District Council

  1

  0

  549W

  Order making authority

  Number of closures/diversions

  Number of orders not confirmed1

  Tonbridge and Mailing District Council

  1

  0

  Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

  1

  0

  Wakefield Metropolitan District Council

  1

  1

  Warwick District Council

  1

  0

  Warwickshire County Council

  5

  0

  Watford Borough Council

  1

  0

  Wealden District Council

  1

  1

  West Dorset District Council

  2

  2

  West Wiltshire District Council

  1

  0

  Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council

  1

  0

  Wiltshire County Council

  2

  1

  Worcester City Council

  1

  0

  Worcestershire County Council

  2

  0

  Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority

  1

  0

  Total

  160

  40

  1 Includes orders which where substantially modified before confirmation

  Local Government
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the smallest district council area which will be covered by the proposed cabinet structure for local government. [101284]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Local Government Bill, which was read a Second time in the other place on 6 December, includes provision for all district councils, including Watford Borough Council which has the smallest area among such councils, to adopt new constitutions including a separate executive.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his proposed timetable is for the introduction of cabinet government into district councils. [101286]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Subject to Parliament enacting the Local Government Bill, all councils will be required to put forward proposals for new constitutions, including their proposed timetable for implementation. As our White Paper "Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People" (Cm 4014) made clear, should there be any cases where progress is not being made, it will be open to the Secretary of State to use his reserve power to intervene.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what exemptions he proposes from the planned cabinet government structure for district councils; and whether the criteria for exemption will include(a) size of district, (b) population and (c) number of councils. [101285]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Local Government Bill provides that all district councils shall have a duty to bring forward proposals to move to one of the new forms of constitution involving a separate executive.

  Mr. Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what advice he has given local authorities which wish to introduce new local government structures before the Local Government Bill is enacted. [101978]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  In March, we published the paper "Local leadership, local choice" (Cm 4298), which set out proposals for more efficient, transparent and 550W
  accountable constitutions for councils and which included a checklist of steps that councils could take before legislation. The paper made clear that any new structure a council adopted should be what its local people wanted and therefore the council must consult its local community widely on all available options before making any change.

  Central Trains
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many occasions the Health and Safety Executive has investigated the Central Trains service between Shrewsbury and Birmingham; and if he will make a statement. [101161]

  Mr. Hill
  The Health and Safety Executive's Railway Inspectorate (HMRI) carries out routine inspection of the activities carried out by Central Trains. This includes the services between Shrewsbury and Birmingham, but HMRI has no record of specific inspections of these services.

  Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take steps to ensure that areas of outstanding natural beauty receive central support for their management and conservation. [101208]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government have provided the Countryside Agency with an additional £2.5 million this year to be spent on the management and conservation of designated Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs). That more than doubles the amount previously available. We expect to announce shortly a number of further measures to assist in the conservation and management of AONBs.

  Landscape Policy Guidance
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with the Landscape Institute concerning the possible introduction of landscape policy guidance notes; and if he will make a statement. [101209]

  Mr. Mullin
  Ministers and officials have various contacts with the Landscape Institute. My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for housing, planning and construction attended the Landscape Institute awards on 18 November and on 25 November DETR officials met representatives of the Landscape Institute to discuss a number of points of common interest. I am not aware of any discussions concerning the possible introduction of landscape policy guidance notes, although the Institute has advised its intention to update its Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment.

  Railtrack (Trespass)
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what recent guidance he has given to Railtrack regarding trespass on railway lines; [101325]
  551W
  (2) what his policy is on the action Railtrack should take following a trespass on Railtrack property that caused severe disruption to passenger trains. [101326]

  Mr. Hill
  As an infrastructure controller, Railtrack is required under the Railway Safety (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 1997 to take reasonably practicable steps to prevent unauthorised access to its infrastructure. Breaches of this duty are enforced by the Health and Safety Executive's Railway Inspectorate.

  The Health and Safety Commission's Railway Industry Advisory Committee (RIAC), of which Railtrack is a member, has been active in promoting industry-wide action against trespass and vandalism. In December last year RIAC produced a booklet "Prevention of Trespass and Vandalism on Railways—A Good Practice Guide" (a copy of which is in the House Library).

  The action to be taken following severe disruption to train services following acts of trespass is an operational matter for Railtrack and the train operating companies. However, it is expected that their aim would be to restore normal services as quickly as possible.

  Secure Station Status
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the stations which have been awarded Secure Station status. [101496]

  Mr. Hill
  As at 2 December, there were 28 stations accredited under the Secure Stations Scheme. They are as follows:

  Train operator

  Station

  Chiltern Railways

  Marylebone rail

  Connex Rail

  Belvedere

  Hither Green

  Eurostar (UK)

  Ashford International

  Waterloo International

  LTS Rail

  Basildon

  Fenchurch Street

  London Underground Ltd.

  Marylebone LUL

  Midland Mainline

  Derby

  Leicester

  Market Harborough

  Railtrack plc

  Charing Cross rail

  Glasgow Central High Level

  Kings Cross rail

  Manchester Piccadilly

  Victoria rail

  Silverlink Trains

  Kew Gardens

  South West Trains

  Kingston

  Richmond

  Thameslink Rail

  City Thameslink

  Haydons Road

  Morden South

  South Merton

  St. Helier

  Sutton Common

  Wimbledon Chase

  Wales and West

  Gloucester

  Weston-super-Mare

  552W
  A number of other stations are working towards accreditation.

  Concessionary Fares
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received about the concessionary fares scheme in Merseyside; and if he will make a statement. [101693]

  Mr. Hill
  I have not received any representations about the concessionary fares scheme on Merseyside.

  Council Tenants (Freehold)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the freehold system as it applies to council tenants purchasing their council flat. [101603]

  Mr. Mullin
  When council tenants buy their flat, they buy a long lease, not the freehold. Leaseholders have the right to purchase the freehold of their block in certain cases. However, the right can only be exercised by a majority of residents. As most council blocks are occupied mainly by secure tenants, rather than leaseholders, many cannot meet this requirement.

  The Government last year announced proposals to reform the leasehold system and to introduce commonhold. Commonhold will allow flats to be owned absolutely, but there will be rules to regulate the relations between flat owners to enable proper management of the block as a whole. Leasehold reform will, among other things, make it easier for leaseholders to buy a share of the freehold of their block. However, the right will still require a majority to exercise it.

  The Government have taken a number of steps to help those who have bought a council flat, including allowing—and in some cases requiring—landlords to reduce high charges, and giving council and other leaseholders an easier way to challenge unreasonable charges.

  Water Companies (Maintenance Services)
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy on water companies contracting out their network maintenance services. [101432]

  Mr. Mullin
  Water undertakers are required to carry out their duties consistent with Sections 37 and 38 of the Water Industry Act 1991. Sewerage undertakers have similar responsibilities under Sections 94 and 95 of the Act. It is for the relevant companies to consider how best to meet these obligations.

  The Director General of Water Services publishes an annual "Report on levels of service for the water industry in England and Wales", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what response
  553W
  he has made to the Court of Appeal decision to allow judicial review of the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999. [101642]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Secretary of State has appointed Counsel to defend the Government's position at the Court of Appeal hearing on 8 and 9 December. We believe that the Order is within the scope and purpose of the enabling power under section 31 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and that the Secretary of State did not act unreasonably in deciding to make the Order.

  Housing Corporation
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many occasions the Housing Corporation has approved a contractual purchase sale on terms better than the statutory terms. [101451]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Housing Corporation is required under section 9 of the Housing Act 1996 to approve all disposals of properties by Registered Social Landlords. Where the disposals are to tenants of the properties it is the Housing Corporation's policy not to allow disposals on terms better than the statutory terms.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance Ministers have given to the Housing Corporation relating to approval of contractual purchase sales on terms better than the statutory terms. [101450]

  Mr. Mullin
  My Department has not issued guidance to the Housing Corporation relating to the approval of contractual purchase sales, known as "voluntary sales", on terms better than the statutory terms. The Corporation's consent is required under section 9 of the Housing Act 1996 to disposals and I understand that it is the policy of the Corporation not to grant consents in the case of voluntary sales to tenants on terms which exceed those under the Right to Buy scheme.

  Renewal Area Status
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will assess the benefits of introducing renewal area status for self-contained groups of fewer than 300 dwellings. [101413]

  Mr. Mullin
  My Department is currently considering a number of issues relating to policy on private sector housing renewal, which includes policy on renewal areas. The housing Green Paper, which will be published shortly, will provide an opportunity for us to set out our thinking on these and other housing issues.

  Open Countryside (Mapping)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the mapping of open countryside in England and Wales to be completed; and if the exercise is being carried out in stages according to the nature of the terrain. [101483]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Countryside Agency and Countryside Council for Wales will be responsible for producing maps showing land to which the new statutory right of access will apply. They are currently undertaking preliminary 554W
  work, the results of which will help determine the best approach to mapping, and enable a timetable to be established for the production of consultation maps.

  Audits
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will undertake a comparison between the audit process for small parish councils and those for(a) charities and (b) businesses of similar financial size. [101488]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  As recognised by statute, the audit processes for local authorities, including parish councils, are not comparable with those of the private sector or charitable bodies, reflecting that authorities largely obtain their funds through taxation.

  Parking
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if it is his policy to exempt parking places at(a) police premises and (b) prisons from workplace parking charges. [101837]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 7 December 1999]The Transport Bill currently before Parliament allows the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to require workplace parking levy schemes to include exemptions for particular types of premises. Local authorities will also be able to include their own exemptions. Our consultation paper "Breaking the Logjam" sought views on a range of possible exemptions. A detailed response to the consultation exercise will be published in due course.

  Factortane
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library the Skeletons of Argument for the Crown in Rv. Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and Regions ex parte Factortane (a) in the Court of Appeal and (b) in the House of Lords. [101137]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  A skeleton argument is drafted by Counsel in the course of litigation for the assistance of the court, or as appropriate in the House of Lords. In the present case the Government have no objection to placing copies of these skeleton arguments in the Library and this has now been done.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received in the last six months on the performance of the Meat Hygiene Service. [99291]

  Ms Quin
  In the last six months, my Department has received several hundred representations from Members of Parliament, Members of the European Parliament, industry organisations, individual meat plant operators, farmers, consumers and others about the performance of the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS), and in particular the
  555W
  extent of veterinary supervision in meat plants, and about proposals to increase MHS inspection charges. Representations have also been made about the need to use fully qualified veterinarians by the MHS.

  The Government have listened to these concerns about the future of the slaughtering sector. Following fresh advice obtained from the European Commission, published on 13 October, low throughput slaughterhouses will not be required to have full-time supervision by a vet during post-mortem inspection. The MHS is now reviewing its levels of inspections in individual low throughput premises. Moreover, as the Minister announced on 1 December, the MHS hygiene inspection charges for the whole of 1999–2000 are being held at the levels set for 1998–99. The Government have also given a commitment that the rates of MHS hygiene inspection charges in 2000–01 should not rise by more than the rate of inflation above the levels charged in 1999–2000.

  Land Prices
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the freehold sale price by English region of grade 1 agricultural land for the most recent year for which figures are available. [100579]

  Ms Quin
  The average prices of freehold sales of agricultural properties are shown in the following table.

  Average price of Grade 1 agricultural land sold in 1998, by English region

  Government Office region

  £000 per hectare

  North East

  1—

  North West

  8.1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  8.5

  East Midlands

  6.0

  West Midlands

  1—

  Eastern

  7.0

  South East

  7.3

  South West

  7.1

  England

  6.9

  1 Denotes insufficient sales to give an average price

  The average prices in most cases are based on a very low number of actual sales and hence are not a reliable indicator of regional differences. As details are reported up to three years after the sale date, these estimates are provisional.

  Farming (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the total value to Leicestershire farmers of all CAP payments for(a) the last year for which figures are available and (b) 2000–01. [101061]

  Ms Quin
  The following schedule shows approved payments to Leicestershire farmers for both the 1998 calendar year and the 1998–99 financial year. Farmers in Leicestershire will also have benefited from CAP schemes supporting market prices which do not involve payments made directly to them.
  556W
  Regarding estimates for 2000–01, with so many variables it is not possible to provide estimates with any degree of accuracy at this time.

  CAP Payments in Leicestershire

  £

  Scheme

  Calendar Year 1998

  Financial Year 1998–99

  Sheep Annual Premium Scheme

  2,489,961

  2,406,632

  Suckler Cow Premium Scheme

  2,454,053

  2,210,637

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance

  —

  —

  Beef Special Premium Scheme

  4,352,833

  4,331,827

  Arable Areas Payments Scheme

  28,210,375

  28,013,534

  Environmentally Sensitive Area

  —

  —

  Organic Aid Scheme

  11,350

  14,158

  Farm Woodland Scheme

  34,407

  34,407

  Farm Woodland Premium Scheme

  110,469

  117,145

  Nitrate Sensitive Areas

  —

  —

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme

  364,188

  402,471

  Note:

  The figures are based on the addresses to which payments have been made which in the majority of cases will be the address where the relevant farming activities have taken place. However, when a single farm business operates on land in various locations, the payment is made to their main holding rather than, in all cases, the holding where the cropping or livestock maintenance may necessarily have taken place. This means that an element of the payments shown will relate to farming activities in other parts of the UK but the payments will have been made to the main holding address in Leicestershire. Conversely, the figures attached will not include payments for farming activities in Leicestershire in cases where the main holding is located in another part of the UK.

  All schemes have individual 'scheme years' and these, invariably, respect neither calendar nor financial year boundaries. The figures quoted give totals of all payments made under the schemes, which will cover a mixture of scheme years. For example, in the case of BSPS, they will be made up from the balance payments for the 1997 scheme year, paid in April 1998 and the Advance payments for the 1998 scheme year, paid in November 1998.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total amount of agri-environment or general agricultural support expended, in the most recent period for which figures are available, on SSSI land in England; and if he will break down the figure in different types of expenditures. [101290]

  Mr. Morley
  In 1998–99 total payments in respect of SSSI land under the Environmentally Sensitive Areas scheme amounted to £6.4 million. Figures are not available in the form requested for the other agri-environment schemes or for general agricultural support.

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk will receive a reply to her letter of 25 November on arable area payments. [101859]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I assume the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk is referring to her letter of 25 October to which I replied on 3 December.

DEFENCE

  Project Aquatrine
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the status of Project Aquatrine. [102324]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Project Aquatrine will provide, for the first time, strategic management of water and sewerage services across more than 3,000 Ministry of Defence sites in Great Britain. The Department aims to achieve this through a Public Private Partnership (PPP) and has today launched a market consultation paper to explore private sector interest in the project. The PPP will lead to greater value for money, investment in the defence infrastructure and enable responsibility for the provision of water and sewerage services to rest with those best able to deal with it while meeting the Department's on-going environmental responsibilities.

  The market consultation follows successful pathfinder projects at Tidworth and Lyneham; the outcome will inform the decision on the next phase of the project.

  The current plan is to advertise Project Aquatrine in the Official Journal of the European Communities in early 2000, leading to the selection of a partner to begin providing services in late 2003. The project has a potential value of £1 billion over 25 years.

  RAF Helicopters
  Mr. Martin Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the incidents of uncommanded flying control movements in helicopters reported by RAF pilots, broken down by helicopter type since 1994. [101652]

  Mr. Spellar
  Uncommanded movements are defined as unusual movement of flying controls or rotors that are not caused by pilot inputs. These include those unusual movements found during pre-flight checks.

  The table lists the incidents of uncommanded flying control movements in helicopters reported by RAF pilots, broken down by helicopter type since 1994.

  Uncommanded flying control movements

  Year

  Occurrences

  Chinook

  1994

  6

  1995

  5

  1996

  6

  1997

  5

  1998

  7

  1999

  6

  Total

  35

  Gazelle

  1994

  1

  1995

  1

  Total

  2

  Griffin

  1997

  2

  1998

  3

  1999

  1

  Total

  6

  558W

  Uncommanded flying control movements

  Year

  Occurrences

  Puma

  1994

  8

  1995

  9

  1996

  3

  1997

  2

  1998

  4

  1999

  6

  Total

  32

  Sea King

  1994

  8

  1995

  10

  1996

  6

  1997

  5

  1998

  3

  1999

  3

  Total

  35

  Wessex

  1994

  17

  1995

  10

  1996

  15

  1997

  5

  1998

  6

  1999

  3

  Total

  56

  Helicopter Total

  166

  Falklands
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the number of land mines in the Falkland Islands. [101822]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) on 30 November 1999,Official Report, column 159W.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role he proposes following the 22 UK/French Summit for Anglo-French co-ordination in relation to the UK commitment to the defence of the Falkland Islands. [R] [101420]

  Mr. Hoon
  None. The security of the Falkland Islands is the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government alone.

  Land Mines
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department is taking to ensure that foreign military forces stationed in the United Kingdom do not store land mines in the United Kingdom. [98594]

  Mr. Spellar
  The UK is fully committed to the Ottawa Convention which prohibits the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of anti-personnel mines (APMs). The last of the UK's operational stocks of APMs were destroyed on 19 October 1999—three years ahead of the timeframe laid down in the Convention. Allies who have forces stationed in the UK are well aware of the Ottawa Convention's obligations which include the prohibition of
  559W
  the stockpiling of APMs on UK territory. The only APMs stored in the UK are the small amount (some 4,000) that the UK's armed forces hold for training and testing in de-mining techniques, as permitted under Article 3 of the Ottawa Convention.

  Royal Army Medical Corps
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the recruitment campaign for the Royal Army Medical Corps; and if he will make a statement. [100722]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Royal Army Medical Corps undertakes recruiting on a continuous basis, utilising a wide variety of media and the Army Recruiting network. Recruitment into training is good, but it is more difficult to attract already qualified medical personnel. The tri-Service campaign in February and March 1999 aimed at the direct recruitment of qualified personnel has resulted, to date, in one doctor and four nurses entering the Army, with a further six nurses in the recruitment process. Additionally, a major recruiting campaign for the Territorial Army Medical Services was launched in September 1999. It is too early to predict the success of this campaign but early responses seem promising.

  AWE Aldermaston
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the longest amount of overtime worked by any MOD police officer at AWE Aldermaston in any period of(a) two weeks, (b) one month and (c) six months, since November 1998. [100684]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 30 November 1999]The largest number of overtime hours worked by a MOD Police officer at AWE Aldermaston during a one-month period since November 1998 was 120 hours and a six-month period was 532 hours. The MDP do not routinely record overtime worked in two-week periods and this information could only be provided by manually searching through all the individual police pay records at AWE Aldermaston, incurring disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from the Defence Police Federation in respect of overtime worked by officers at AWE Aldermaston. [100687]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 30 November 1999]I understand that concerns have been expressed by the local Defence Police Federation at AWE Aldermaston about the levels of overtime worked at that location.

  Deceased Aircrew
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the occasions since 1993 in which deceased aircrew have been found guilty of gross negligence in accidents involving military aircraft which were not fitted with cockpit voice recorders or flight data recorders. [101497]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information requested is as follows:

  Date

  Aircraft type

  Service

  Location

  2 June 1994

  Chinook HC2

  RAF

  Mull of Kintyre, Scotland

  Non-core Service Privatisation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many non-core services have been privatised by his Department in(a) 1999 and (b) each of the previous three years. [101661]

  Mr. Spellar
  Individual budget areas and agencies routinely contract out services to the private sector where this offers best value for money. No central records of such arrangements are kept. Relevant figures for activities contracted out under the former Competing for Quality (CFQ) initiative and for contracts concluded under the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) are:

  PFI

  CFQ

  1995–96

  2

  8

  1996–97

  8

  16

  1997–98

  6

  5

  1998–99

  9

  5

  HMS Glasgow
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the current crew levels are of HMS Glasgow. [101298]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 6 December 1999]On 1 December 1999 HMS Glasgow had a crew level of 23 Officers and 224 ratings.

  Navy Vessels
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which naval vessels have been withdrawn in advance of planned exercises during 1999. [101613]

  Mr. Spellar
  HMS Invincible, HMS Northumberland, HMS Ledbury, HMS Gloucester, HMS Newcastle, HMS Cattistock, HMS Montrose, HMS Monmouth, HMS Fearless, HMS Ocean, HMS Sandown, HMS Edinburgh, HMS Westminster, HMS Grafton have been withdrawn from planned exercises this year.

  Devolved Assemblies (Defence Briefings)
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what charging arrangements are in place in respect of the budgets of the Scottish Executive and National Assembly for Wales, to pay for the time of Ministry of Defence officials preparing briefing for members of the(a) Scottish Executive and (b) National Assembly for Wales when replying to debates. [101150]

  Mr. Hoon
  Members of the Scottish Executive and the National Assembly of Wales are entitled to ask for and receive any information which would be relevant to the running of their business. The same principles apply to information that the Ministry of Defence might require from the devolved Administrations. As this relationship includes an exchange of information both ways, there are no charging arrangements in place in respect of the budgets of the Scottish Executive and the National Assembly of Wales to pay for the time of Ministry of Defence officials preparing this briefing.
  561W
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what security level members of the Scottish Executive are briefed on defence matters when answering debates on defence issues in the Scottish Parliament. [101149]

  Mr. Hoon
  Members of the Scottish Executive are provided with all information that is necessary and appropriate to enable them to meet their responsibilities to the Scottish Parliament. As Scottish Ministers are Ministers of the Crown and members of the Scottish Executive remain Civil Servants, no additional security restrictions apply.

  Service Pensions
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the current rate is of service pension that would be paid to an Army major who retired at the age of(a) 55 after 34 years reckonable service on 1 April 1977, (b) 53 after 32 years reckonable service on 1 April 1975 and (c) 55 after 34 years reckonable service on 1 April 1997. [101151]

  Mr. Spellar
  (a) The current rate of service pension that would be paid to an Army major who retired at the age of 55 after 34 years reckonable service on 1 April 1977 is £12,776.18.

  (b) The current rate of service pension that would be paid to an Army major who retired at the age of 53 after 32 years reckonable service on 1 April 1975 is £16,131.20.

  (c) The current rate of service pension that would be paid to an Army major who retired at the age of 55 after 34 years reckonable service on 1 April 1997 is £19,233.

HEALTH

  HIV/AIDS
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what Government funding is available for HIV and AIDS research; and how this is distributed between the NHS regions. [99388]

  Yvette Cooper
  Estimated total Government funding for HIV/AIDS research in 1999–2000 will be £16 million, of which £10 million will be spent by the Medical Research Council. The rest of the funding will be split between the Public Health Laboratory Service, the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research, the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, other research councils and Government Departments. Funding is not allocated across National Health Service regions, but is awarded to the research centre best able to undertake high quality work.

  Project details of work directly funded by the Department or supported through the NHS research and development levy can be found on the National Research Register. This is available in the Library and most medical libraries on CD-Rom, and on the internet: http://www.doh.gov.uk/nrr.htm.

  NICE
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the compliance of current arrangements for appeals against recommendations of the 562W
  National Institute for Clinical Excellence with the requirements of Article 2, paragraph 2 of the EC Council Directive of 21 December 1988. [99880]

  Mr. Denham
  Article 2 of the EC Council Directive of 21 December 1988 (the "Transparency Directive") refers to arrangements for the approval of the price of medicinal products. That has no relevance to the work of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which has no role in relation to pricing issues.

  Departmental Estate
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the value of land and property including properties under construction(a) in Scotland, (b) in England and (c) in total for his core Department, including leasehold and freehold properties, and the regional offices. [99737]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]The value of the National Health Service estate in England, including properties under construction, is approximately £23 billion. The valuation of freehold land and property in England occupied by the Department, including its regional offices, is being developed as part of the implementation of resource accounting. This information is currently being audited. The first set of resource accounts will be published in respect of 1999–2000.

  Issues relating to Scotland are a matter for my right hon. Friend the First Minister for Scotland.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the value of land and property in(a) Scotland, (b) England and (c) total held by non-NHS bodies within his responsibility. [99735]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]The total value of the National Health Service estate in England is approximately £23 billion. In addition, an amount of £75 million is directly attributable to non NHS bodies.

  Issues relating to Scotland are a matter for my right hon. Friend the First Minister for Scotland.

  Health Authority Mergers
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health authority mergers have occurred since May 1997. [100779]

  Mr. Denham
  Nationally there has only been one health authority merger since May 1997 when North West Anglia, East Norfolk and Cambridge and Huntingdon Health Authorities merged to become Norfolk and Cambridge Health Authorities on 1 April 1999.

  Hospital and Community NHS Trust Mergers
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the hospital and community NHS trust mergers that have occurred since May 1997. [100778]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Shropshire Health Authority
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many emergency admissions(a) to the Royal

  563W
  Shrewsbury Hospital and (b) in total for Shropshire Health Authority there were in each year from 1992 to date; and if he will make a statement. [100723]

  Ms Stuart
  The table shows the number of emergency admissions(a) to the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital National Health Service Trust and (b) to NHS trusts within Shropshire Health Authority for the financial years 1992–93 to 1997–98.

  Ordinary admissions and day cases combined: number of emergency admissions shown by selected health authority and hospital provider, NHS hospitals, England

  Shropshire HA

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospital NHS Trust1

  1992–93

  23,262

  12,143

  1993–94

  29,705

  15,192

  1994–95

  29,882

  15,088

  1995–96

  33,210

  17,448

  1996–97

  33,860

  17,005

  1997–982

  34,794

  17,261

  1 Figures for 1992–93 and 1993–94 are for the Royal Shrewsbury Acute Unit and Shrewsbury Acute Hospital Unit respectively

  2 Figures for 1997–98 are provisional, no adjustments have yet been made for shortfalls in data (ie the date is ungrossed)

  Source:

  Department of Health, Hospital Episode Statistics (HES)

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the full patient satisfaction survey results for(a) Shropshire Health Authority and (b) all the NHS trusts in Shropshire; and if he will make a statement. [100594]

  Ms Stuart
  The report of the first part of the national surveys programme—on general practitioner services—was placed in the Library in October ("National Surveys of NHS Patients: General Practice 1998"). A breakdown of the data to health authority level can be found on the internet at: http://doh.gov.uk/public/nhssurvey.htm.

  The second part of the programme—on coronary heart disease—will include data at National Health Service trust level and will be published in 2000.

  NHS Beds (Winter)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those NHS trusts that are planning to cope with winter bed pressures by contracting with the private medical sector. [100574]

  Ms Stuart
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Diabetic Care
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when pen needles for use by diabetics will be available on prescription. [100918]

  Ms Stuart
  We have consulted on proposals which would include allowing insulin pen needles to be prescribed by general practitioners on the National Health Service. We have received representations from most of the organisations consulted. We are considering them and are seeking clarification on certain points before we make our final decisions.
  564W
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for the development of diabetic care on the NHS. [101368]

  Mr. Denham
  My noble Friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, is announcing today the membership of the Expert Reference Group which will advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on the development of the National Service Framework for diabetes. The Group met for the first time today. It is co-chaired by Professor Mike Pringle, Chair of the Council of the Royal College of General Practitioners, and Mr. Peter Houghton, Regional Director of the Eastern Regional Office of the National Health Service Executive.

  Membership of the Expert Reference Group is as follows:
  Professor George Alberti, President of the Royal College of Physicians
  Mr. Zac Arif, Chief Executive of Teddington Memorial Hospital
  Ms Debbie Bamford, Chief Executive of Woking Primary Care Group
  Dr. Peter Betts, Paediatrician from Southampton General Infirmary
  Mr. Ian Donnachie, Chief Executive of Bradford Health Authority
  Dr. Azhar Farooqui, General Practitioner and Primary Care Group Clinical Governance Lead, Leicester
  Dr. Owain Gibby, Diabetologist, Royal Gwent Hospital
  Dr. Trisha Greenhalgh, General Practitioner, London
  Ms Geeta Patel, a user of diabetes services and mother of triplets, Wolverhampton
  Dr. Veena Soni Raleigh, Epidemiologist and Researcher, National Institute of Epidemiology
  Mr. John Rostill, Chief Executive, Walsall Hospitals NHS Trust
  Mr. Paul Streets, Chief Executive, British Diabetic Association
  Ms Sheridan Waldron, Dietitian, Leicester
  Ms Rosemary Walker, Diabetes Specialist Nurse, Suffolk and Chair, Royal College of Nursing Diabetes Nursing Forum
  Professor Rhys Williams, Professor of Epidemiology and Public Health, Nuffield Institute for Health, Leeds
  Dr. Bob Young, Diabetologist, Hope Hospital, Salford.
  Another user of diabetes services will be brought on to the Group early in the New Year.

  The scope of the diabetes National Service Framework covers prevention, ascertainment, identification, management and complications of Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes and the management of diabetes in pregnancy.

  The diabetes National Service Framework will be published in 2001. It will set national quality standards and service models for diabetes, and presents an opportunity to define practical, implementable and sustainable standards for the delivery of care, focused on the needs of people with diabetes. It will help us to reduce

  565W
  unacceptable variations in care, while improving the overall quality of services. The diabetes National Service Framework will pay particular heed to the needs of those who are disproportionately affected by diabetes, such as people from ethnic minority communities.

  General Medical Council
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to increase awareness among the public of the General Medical Council's responsibility for doctors working in private practice. [101339]

  Ms Stuart
  The Medical Act 1983 provides for the regulation by the General Medical Council of the medical profession in the United Kingdom irrespective of whether practice is undertaken in the National Health Service or privately.

  The General Medical Council has made it clear in its publication "A Problem With Your Doctor?" that its powers cover doctors
  "in all branches of medicine, including hospital and general practice, whether in the NHS or in private practice".

  Crohn's Disease
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the availability of Infliximab for prescription on the NHS for the treatment of Crohn's disease. [101322]

  Mr. Denham
  A European licence was granted on 13 August 1999 for Remicade, whose active constituent is infliximab, for certain indications. These are: for the treatment of severe, active Crohn's disease in patients who have not responded despite a full and adequate course of therapy with a corticosteroid and/or an immunosuppressant; and for the treatment of fistulising Crohn's disease in patients who have not responded despite a full and adequate course of therapy with conventional treatment.

  Departmental Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many research contracts have been let by his Department since May 1997; what is the value of each contract; and in each case whether the contract included(a) a departmental veto over publication of the research results, (b) departmental control over the date of publication of the research results and (c) a requirement that the final research results incorporate departmental amendments. [100150]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 6 December 1999]Information about individual research contracts could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Details of medical and related research funded or supported by the Department can be found in the National Research Register. This is available in the Library and in most medical libraries on CD Rom, and on the internet: http://www.doh.gov.uk/nrr.htm.

  Copies of model contracts for the Department's Policy Research Programme and the National Health Service research and development programme are in the Library.

  The Department actively encourage publication of research it has funded.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Weights and Measures Act 1985
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will make a statement on the reasons for the proposed removal of the statutory qualification from the Weights and Measures Act 1985; [100450]

  (2) what consultations his Department has held with (a) business and (b) consumers' groups in respect of the proposed removal of the statutory qualification from the Weights and Measures Act 1985; [100451]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the impact on (a) consumers and (b) business of the proposed removal of the statutory qualification from the Weights and Measures Act 1985; [100452]

  (4) what plans he has to replace the statutory qualification in the Weights and Measures Act 1985. [100449]

  Mr. Byers
  As part of the Government's new consumer strategy as set out in the recent White Paper "Modern Markets: Confident Consumers", we have been consulting on the basis of the document "Fair Trade: a consultation document on modernising the law on the sale of goods sold by quantity" on proposals to update and simplify weights and measures law. This includes how the law is enforced.

  The consultation document proposed removal of the requirement in the Act for weights and measures inspectors to have a special certificate from the Department of Trade and Industry. Instead, either a general requirement would be placed on local authorities to ensure that those carrying out enforcement functions under the Act had appropriate training, skills and knowledge, paying regard to guidance on training and qualifications in a Code of Practice; or, alternatively I would have power to approve particular qualifications for particular purposes. These proposals have been brought forward as part of a broader examination of consumer protection enforcement (as described in the White Paper), in the light of the range of duties and responsibilities for enforcement in this area.

  Both the White Paper and the consultation document referred to were widely distributed to both business and consumer organisations, as well as to enforcement authorities. We have received a number of replies, which are currently being considered. Further consultation is envisage before any final decisions are made.

  Ice-cream Industry
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will make a statement on the arrangements for notification and publication of the Government's response to interested parties on the Competition Commission's inquiry into the ice-cream industry; [100408]

  (2) when his Department will publish its response to the Competition Commission's report into the ice-cream industry; [100409]
  567W
  (3) what plans he has to shorten the consideration period for departmental responses to Competition Commission reports; [100410]

  (4) how many representations his Department has received on the Competition Commission's inquiry into the ice-cream industry. [100407]

  Mr. Byers
  The Competition Commission report on impulse ice cream will be published as soon as practicable. The Department's normal administrative target for publication of monopoly reports is within 10 weeks of receipt of the report.

  The Department has received a number of representations in connection with the Competition Commission's investigation of the impulse ice cream market. Those received before the report was delivered to me were forwarded to the Competition Commission. Those received after the report was delivered to me will be taken into account by me at the appropriate time as part of my consideration of the report.

  Copies of the report will be laid before Parliament at the same time as it is published. Immediately after publication, interested parties who have requested it will be sent a copy of the Press Notice announcing my decision.

  Petrol Prices
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received regarding petrol prices charged to customers by car hire companies. [101134]

  Mr. Byers
  I have received no such representations.

  British Gas
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to ensure that British Gas LP Gas is accountable to the Gas Consumer Council. [101164]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Gas Act 1986 defines gas by reference to substances which are in a gaseous state and does not deal with liquid petroleum gas (LPG) unless it is in a gaseous state when ownership is transferred to the consumer. As a body set up under the Gas Act 1986, the Gas Consumers' Council therefore has no functions in respect of companies' LPG activities. The Government have no plans for change in this respect.

  As consumers have done in the past, problems concerning the pricing and supply of LPG, should continue to be referred to their local Trading Standards Department. The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) is responsible for consumer protection and competition issues covering the LPG industry including issues of pricing, supply and delivery and has powers under the Fair Trading Act 1973 to investigate anti-competitive behaviour such as collusive or predatory pricing. Consumers will continue to be able to bring this to the attention of the Director General of Fair Trading.

  Dental Whiteners
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is taking to stop the practice of hairdressers administering dental whiteners illegally. [101190]
  568W
  Mr. Byers
  We are not aware of this practice of hairdressers supplying dental whiteners. However, if a hairdresser supplies to consumers dental whitening products which are contrary to the Cosmetics Regulations, then this act of supply would be prohibited under those Regulations regardless of the use the whiteners may be put to.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action the Government are taking to secure a revocation of the EU Directive on dental whiteners; and if he will make a statement. [101192]

  Mr. Byers
  There is no EU Directive on dental whiteners. These are controlled under the Cosmetics Directive. A review of the provisions of the Cosmetics Directive as they apply to tooth whiteners is currently under way.

  Business Competitiveness (EU)
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with other members of the European Union on improving the competitiveness of business. [101198]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department's EU priorities, and in particular the central objective of improving the working of the single market, are aimed at improving the competitiveness of EU industry. DTI ministerial colleagues and I have regular discussions with our EU opposite numbers on a wide range of issues in both bilateral meetings and at EU Council meetings in Brussels.

  The process of encouraging the EU to concentrate on competitiveness issues was reinforced at EU level at the Cardiff European Council under the UK Presidency last year which laid down a process to encourage and monitor economic reform and competitiveness in Europe.

  In March next year, the Portuguese Presidency will be holding a special European Council on economic reform, employment and social cohesion. The UK has made a substantial input to this discussion, with the knowledge-driven economy, enterprise and social inclusion as our main proposals for achieving the objective of making Europe the most advanced knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010. My colleagues and I have spoken to a large number of our counterparts in other member states on these themes.

  Vehicle Restraint Systems
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to introduce new regulations for the automotive industry relating to the handling and disposal of redundant secondary restraint systems on vehicles. [101498]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has published guidance on the handling, storage, transport and disposal of vehicle air-bags and seat-belt pre-tensioners (ISBN 07176 15987). In addition the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders recommends that such items should not be re-used after removal from vehicles, a recommendation endorsed by the HSE. Although the Government currently have no plans to introduce legislation banning re-use we will keep this under close review.

  Energy Prices
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the average decrease per household in the price of(a) electricity and (b) gas since privatisation expressed in (i) cash and (ii) percentage terms. [101499]

  Mrs. Liddell
  (a) Average annual domestic electricity bills are estimated to have fallen by £59 in real terms (at 1999 prices) between 1990 and 1999, representing a fall of 18 per cent.

  (b) Average annual domestic gas bills are estimated to have fallen by £138 in real terms (at 1999 prices) between 1986 and 1999, representing a fall of 31 per cent.

  More detailed figures relating to average annual domestic electricity and gas bills are presented in the tables.

  Average domestic annual standard electricity bill1

  19902 (£)

  19933 (£)

  Change (£)

  Percentage change

  Real terms4

  324

  265

  59 decrease

  18 decrease

  Cash terms

  245

  265

  19 increase

  8 increase

  1 Average UK domestic electricity bill (including VAT) for customers on Standard Credit terms consuming 3,300 kWh. The majority of customers are on these payment terms. Other payment methods currently available are direct debit, and pre-payment.

  2 Privatisation of the electricity supply industry for the domestic market took place in 1990.

  3 1999 figures are provisional estimates.

  4 Real 1999 terms calculated using the GDP (market prices) deflator. The 1999 deflator is estimated based on data for the first three quarters.

  Average domestic annual standard gas bill1

  19862 (£)

  19933 (£)

  Change (£)

  Percentage change

  Real terms4

  443

  305

  138 decrease

  31 decrease

  Cash terms

  261

  305

  56 increase

  17 increase

  1 Average GB domestic gas bill (including VAT) for customers on Standard Credit terms consuming 18,000 kWh. The majority of customers are on these payment terms. Other payment methods currently available are direct debit, and pre-payment.

  2 Privatisation of the gas supply industry for the domestic market took place in 1986.

  3 1999 figures are provisional estimates.

  4 Real 1999 terms calculated using the GDP (market prices) deflator. The 1999 deflator is estimated based on data for the first three quarters.

  Fuel Prices
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what impact the change in the price of fuel since privatisation has had(a) on the retail prices index and (b) on the amount of money paid in state benefits. [101500]

  Mrs. Liddell
  (a) The retail prices index (RPI) produced by the Office for National Statistics consists of a variety of components, each covering different products, including fuels. These components are aggregated using weights, which change each year, to produce the overall
  570W
  RPI. Over the period from 1987 to 1998 the fuel and light component of the all items RPI has increased more slowly than the all items RPI. The available information is presented in the table:

  All items RPI January 1987=1001

  Fuel and light component January 1987=1001

  Weight given to fuel and light component in the all items RPI parts per 1000

  1987

  101.9

  99.1

  61

  1988

  106.9

  101.6

  55

  1989

  115.2

  107.3

  54

  1990

  126.1

  115.9

  50

  1991

  133.5

  125.1

  46

  1992

  138.5

  127.8

  47

  1993

  140.7

  126.2

  46

  1994

  144.1

  131.7

  45

  1995

  149.1

  134.5

  45

  1996

  152.7

  134.8

  43

  1997

  157.5

  130.6

  41

  1998

  162.9

  125.0

  36

  1 Annual average

  Note:

  Figures for years prior to 1987 are based on January 1974=100

  (b) Most social security benefits are uprated in April each year normally by reference to the retail prices index for the year up to the preceding September. The Rossi index, excluding changes in housing costs, is used in the case of most income-related benefits. Increases in fuel costs will have contributed to those inflation indices and will therefore have played a part in determining changes in benefit levels, but no benefit payments relate directly to the price of fuel.

  Coal Concessions
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement concerning origins of future supplies of concessionary coal to retired mineworkers. [101425]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Concessionary coal includes a variety of manufactured smokeless fuels, housecoal, and anthracite. Under the current contracts most fuel has been UK sourced. Supplies beyond March 2000 are the subject of a competitive tender, which I am still assessing. I hope that the UK suppliers will continue to make their products available to the distributors appointed by the Department, and that the products they offer are competitive in terms of both prices and quality.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria he will adopt to award the contract for the supply and distribution of concessionary coal to former British coal miners. [101216]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 6 December 1999]As notified in the Official Journal of the European Communities, the award criteria for contracts for the supply and distribution of concessionary fuel are the economically most advantageous bids in terms of price, security of supply and quality maintenance standards.

  Utilities (Operating Profits)
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the operating profit to-date of each(a) regional water authority, (b) regional electricity authority and (c) regional gas authority. [101430]
  571W
  Mrs. Liddell
  The water industry falls within the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. Figures for the electricity industry are published in the annual report of the Office of Electricity Regulation which is available in the Library of the House. Figures for the gas industry are published in the Annual Report and Accounts of British Gas, subsequently Centrica and BGplc.

  Parcelforce
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what policy changes he is planning as a result of the reported half-year loss by Parcelforce. [101731]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The half-year loss reported by Parcelforce is a matter of commercial and financial policy for Parcelforce management. It represents a 6 per cent. reduction in loss compared to the equivalent period to September 1998. Further improved operational efficiency from measures, such as the new express and international hubs at Coventry coming on-stream, are expected to make a positive contribution to the financial position of Parcelforce.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures he is implementing to ensure the half-year loss by Parcelforce does not constitute a hidden subsidy; and if he will make a statement on his assessment of the effect this loss will have on competitors. [101805]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Parcelforce operates in a competitive area and is continuing to improve its competitiveness and profitability, as shown by its improved financial performance. The Post Office is required to take steps to make sure there is no undue cross-subsidy between Royal Mail monopoly services and Parcelforce. These include the separation of accounts and, in accordance with normal practice, a requirement that the in-year funding requirement to Parcelforce from Post Office Group is charged at a commercial rate.

  In future the new, independent regulator, the Postal Services Commission, will ensure that any cross-subsidy from the monopoly areas to competitive activities is the minimum required, in its opinion, to ensure the continued provision of services required by the Universal Service Obligation at a uniform public tariff (which includes the standard parcels service). The Postal Services Commission will also ensure fair competition.

  Airbus Project
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the effect of the United Kingdom's participation in the military company's airbus A400M project on employment in the UK. [101656]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Future Transport Aircraft (FTA) competition is being run by the Ministry of Defence. The A400M, along with Boeing's C-17 and Lockheed Martin's C130J, is a contender in the competition. The Department of Trade and Industry is involved in the consideration of the industrial implications of this procurement. Our assessment looks at the possible impacts of each bid on the UK's industrial and technological capabilities. The impact on UK employment levels is one aspect of this.
  572W
  The FTA competition is still at the competitive bidding stage and it would be inappropriate to publish information provided to both MOD and DTI by companies as part of this process.

  Departmental Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many research contracts have been let by his Department since May 1997; what is the value of each contract; and in each case whether the contract included(a) a departmental veto over publication of the research results, (b) departmental control over the date of publication of the research results and (c) a requirement that the final research results incorporate departmental amendments. [100157]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 6 December 1999]This information would be available only at disproportionate cost.

  Developing Countries
  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list by country(a) the amount recovered by the Export Credits Guarantee Department and (b) the amount repaid under aid loans, for each of the countries defined by the World Bank as developing countries, in each of the last two financial years. [101414]

  Mr. Caborn
  From the information available, Table shows the value of debts recovered by the Exports Credits Guarantee Department and Table 2 shows the amount repaid under aid loans. Both Annexes refer to countries defined by the World Bank as developing nations and include amounts from the last two financial years.

  Table 1: Amounts recovered by ECGD, by financial year

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Highly Indebted Poor countries

  Angola

  —

  —

  Burkina Faso

  0.068

  0.08

  Burundi

  —

  —

  Cameroon

  1.834

  2.915

  Central African Republic

  —

  —

  Congo

  0.22

  —

  Congo (Dr)

  0.9

  —

  Cote d'Ivoire

  0.72

  3.845

  Ethiopia

  0.44

  0.563

  Ghana

  3.848

  1.518

  Guinea

  0.168

  0.154

  Guinea Bissau

  0.128

  —

  Guyana

  5.079

  3.498

  Haiti

  0.425

  —

  Honduras

  —

  —

  Liberia

  —

  —

  Madagascar

  0.373

  0.446

  Malawi

  0.613

  0.842

  Mali

  0.275

  0.263

  Mauritania

  0.609

  0.322

  Mozambique

  0.963

  —

  Myanmar

  —

  —

  Nicaragua

  0.103

  0.039

  Niger

  0.048

  0.103

  Nigeria

  1.704

  8.195

  Rwanda

  —

  —

  Sao Tome

  —

  —

  Sierra Leone

  —

  —

  Somalia

  —

  —

  Sudan

  —

  —

  Tanzania

  3.992

  9.731

  573W

  Table 1: Amounts recovered by ECGD, by financial year

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Uganda

  0.773

  —

  Vietnam

  0.772

  0.85

  Yemen Rep

  4.574

  3.49

  Zambia

  1.84

  2.01

  Moderately Indebted Low Income countries

  Bangladesh

  —

  —

  Benin

  0.187

  0.216

  Cambodia

  —

  —

  Chad

  —

  —

  Comoras

  —

  —

  Gambia

  0.101

  —

  India

  0.709

  0.466

  Kenya

  9.219

  11.589

  Lao PDR

  —

  —

  Pakistan

  0.114

  —

  Senegal

  0.059

  0.02

  Togo

  0.517

  0.161

  Zimbabwe

  0.025

  0.273

  Severely Indebted Middle Income countries

  Argentina

  23.035

  21.099

  Bolivia

  1.175

  1.065

  Brazil

  144.246

  107.702

  Bulgaria

  1.647

  4.427

  Cuba

  —

  —

  Ecuador

  1.997

  —

  Gabon

  14.804

  1.561

  Indonesia

  0.498

  1.639

  Iraq

  0.084

  0.05

  Jamaica

  0.685

  0.723

  Jordan

  24.174

  17.194

  Peru

  9.172

  9.619

  Syrian Arab Republic

  6.226

  0.266

  Moderately Indebted Middle Income countries

  Algeria

  10.889

  14.559

  Chile

  —

  —

  Colombia

  —

  —

  Georgia

  —

  —

  Hungary

  —

  —

  Macedonia

  0.645

  0.805

  Malaysia

  —

  —

  Mexico

  41.479

  45.45

  Morocco

  17.949

  10.373

  Panama

  —

  —

  Philippines

  10.49

  5.103

  St. Vincent

  —

  —

  Thailand

  —

  —

  Tunisia

  —

  —

  Turkey

  —

  —

  Uruguay

  —

  —

  Venezuela

  6.198

  0.177

  Severely Indebted Low Income countries

  —

  —

  Afghanistan

  —

  —

  Burundi

  —

  —

  Laos

  —

  —

  Table 2: Amounts repaid under aid loans

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Afghanistan

  —

  —

  Antigua and Barbuda1

  —

  —

  Bangladesh

  —

  —

  Barbados

  19,350.00

  19,360.00

  Belize

  —

  —

  Botswana

  —

  —

  Brazil

  382,536.14

  254,466.07

  Cameroon

  —

  —

  Caymen Islands2

  62,760.00

  64,560.00

  574W

  Table 2: Amounts repaid under aid loans

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Columbia

  218,342.91

  51,774.45

  Costa Rica

  554,572.96

  373,437.30

  Cyprus

  20,400.00

  20,400.00

  Dominica

  270,500.00

  —

  Ecuador

  338,500.00

  366,833.91

  Egypt

  —

  —

  Ethiopia

  —

  —

  Gambia

  —

  —

  Ghana

  —

  —

  Grenada

  375,200.00

  —

  Guyana

  —

  —

  Honduras

  —

  —

  India

  13,499,527.55

  7,747,819.00

  Indonesia

  —

  —

  Ivory Coast

  —

  —

  Jamaica

  3,862,234.10

  —

  Jordan

  —

  —

  Laos

  —

  —

  Malawi

  —

  —

  Malaysia

  516,200.00

  516,200.00

  Mauritius

  404,009.15

  191,850.00

  Mozambique3

  —

  —

  Nicaragua

  —

  —

  Nigeria

  —

  —

  Pakistan

  —

  —

  Paraguay

  234,600.00

  234,600.00

  Peru

  —

  —

  Philippines

  738,019.54

  561,166.36

  Senegal

  —

  —

  Seychelles

  —

  —

  Sierra Leone

  —

  —

  Solomon Islands4

  —

  —

  Sri Lanka

  —

  —

  St. Kitts

  —

  —

  St. Lucia

  —

  —

  St. Vincent

  —

  263,200.00

  Sudan

  —

  —

  Swaziland

  831,801.48

  381,270.90

  Tonga

  65,600.00

  —

  Tunisia

  26,660.72

  —

  Turkey

  3,368,301.54

  3,368,301.54

  TCI

  82,563.97

  —

  Zambia

  —

  —

  W. Somoa

  —

  —

  Zimbabwe

  1,458,640.00

  1,229,420.00

  Total Bilateral

  27,330,320.06

  15,644,679.53

  1 1991

  2 1975/1

  3 1976

  4 1981

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people have phoned the minimum wage hotline. [101481]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Since the introduction of the National Minimum Wage (NMW) on 1 April 1999 the helpline run by the Inland Revenue on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry has received some 95,000 calls. In addition, the NMW helpline arranged through the Central Office of Information took 50,000 inquiries in January to March 1999. The total number of calls received by NMW helplines is therefore over 145,000.

  Oil Fabrication (Scotland)
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of oil fabrication in the Highlands and Islands. [101436]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 6 December 1999]I am concerned at the situation faced by Barmac and the other UK offshore oil fabrication yards.

  The difficulties facing the UK offshore oil fabrication industry were discussed fully at last week's Oil and Gas Industry Task Force, which I chair. As a result plans are already under way for DTI to co-ordinate and support a powerful group comprising Government, Scottish Executive and all of the relevant Departments and agencies throughout the UK. This group will meet as soon as possible to clarify how they can together best help the industry adapt to the changed demand for their products and solutions.

  Car Mileage (Customer Protection)
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the adequacy of existing legislation for protecting customers against being sold cars for which the mileage has been altered. [100812]

  Dr. Howells
  Selling a car with a false mileage reading is an offence under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. The key is to ensure that the enforcement authorities and buyers have access to reliable information on the history of a vehicle and my Department has been working with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) on ways to improve this.

  As a result the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency are currently considering proposals to make available more information on mileage by introducing a mandatory requirement for mileage to be recorded on vehicle registration and licensing forms. In addition, the computerisation of the MOT testing system by DETR will provide another central source of mileage information on vehicles more than three years old. For newer cars, the Government support the car retail industry's scheme for centrally recording data collected when vehicles are services.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Debt
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the recent moves in the US Congress to grant $110 million to fund bilateral debt forgiveness. [100355]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the response by the US Government to Her Majesty's Government's initiatives on the current debt crisis. [100371]

  Clare Short
  The US Congress decision to provide resources for US export credit debt relief is welcome, as are its agreement to the IMF's financing of its debt relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC)576W
  initiative. However, the agreement on revaluing gold covered only the first tranche. The American pledge to cancel 100 per cent. of its bilateral debts for qualifying HIPCs will only be implemented after these countries have received their HIPC relief. It was therefore very disappointing that the US contribution for the HIPC Trust Fund was not agreed. This means that a substantial financing gap has opened up and this has stalled progress on implementing the revised HIPC initiative. I welcome the US Administration's commitment to pursue a US contribution to the Trust Fund next year.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department is taking to reduce the debt burden of the poorest countries. [100367]

  Clare Short
  My Department has been working closely with the Treasury on the problem of unpayable debt. Our Government have played a leading role in seeking a permanent solution to the debt problems of the poorest countries. We successfully pressed for a comprehensive Review of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative last year. Proposals for revising the HIPC framework were agreed in September 1999 at the Annual Meetings of the World Bank and the IMF. The HIPC initiative will now provide twice as much debt relief, and it will be provided more quickly and to more countries. There is also a much stronger link to poverty, to ensure that the poor benefit from the debt relief provided.

  My Department has cancelled nearly all the aid debts of the poorest countries, worth around £1.2 billion since 1978, and we provide all our aid on grant terms, so as not to add to the burden of debt. We announced in 1997 that we are willing to cancel the aid debts of the remaining poor Commonwealth countries who are committed to poverty reduction and the international development targets, who are pursuing sound economic policies, who are committed to transparent and accountable government, and who are bearing down on corruption.

  My Department also supports capacity building in debt management so that countries can better understand their debt position, negotiate their debt relief and formulate future borrowing strategies.

  EU Aid Policies
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to ensure that EU aid policies concentrate more on poverty eradication and development. [100356]

  Clare Short
  EC development assistance is ineffective and insufficiently focused on poverty. We are working to ensure the EC's development effort embraces international poverty eradication targets. We published a strategy at the end of last year with 18 detailed proposals for reform.

  Angola
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the situation in Angola; and if she will make a statement. [100357]
  577W
  Clare Short
  The situation in Angola is grim. Some 3.7 million people are affected by the war. Many are facing serious malnutrition. The continuing insecurity remains a major obstacle to aid reaching some in greatest need. A lasting peace is the only answer. We have committed about £7.5 million in humanitarian assistance this year.

  Population Programmes
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on funding of population programmes. [100358]

  Clare Short
  We are spending £80 million through our own programmes on reproductive health care. This is a doubling of our programmes since 1994. We also spend £5.4 million through NGO's. Over the past 30 years we have moved from 9 per cent. to nearly 60 per cent. of couples having access to modern contraception. The International Community is committed to reaching 100 per cent. by 2015.

  World Development Report
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the World Bank's world development report 1999–2000, "Entering the 21st Century"; and if she will make a statement. [100359]

  Clare Short
  This year's World Development Report deals with two great trends—globalisation and localisation. I welcome its message that we need new rules and institutional responses. The poor benefit from rule-based systems: otherwise they can be trampled on and bullied by the most powerful. The WTO for example provides an opportunity to developing countries to achieve a fairer trading system. And international agreement is needed to tackle global environmental problems.

  The 1999 Report covers many issues. I am particularly looking forward to next year's Report on Poverty. I have every hope it will be pathbreaking.

  Zambia (AIDS)
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to help Zambia to find a solution to its AIDS epidemic. [100360]

  Clare Short
  AIDS is one of the four priority areas for our new Country Strategy in Zambia. We are already working in key areas of AIDS prevention, control and treatment.

  World Trade Organisation
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the World Trade Organisation talks in Seattle in so far as they affect Britain's relations with developing countries. [100361]

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what role her Department is playing in determining Government policy in respect of the World Trade Organisation. [100362]
  578W
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the WTO Seattle meeting, and its potential impact on poverty reduction, self-sufficiency and sustainability in the developing world. [100363]

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the impact of the WTO Round in Seattle on the economies of developing countries. [100372]

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the effect of the WTO Seattle Round on developing nations. [100374]

  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friends and the hon. Members to the answer I gave this afternoon to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham).

  Balkans
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to maintain and expand assistance for the development and reconstruction of civil society and political structures in(a) Kosovo, (b) Macedonia and (c) Montenegro. [100364]

  Clare Short
  As part of our strategy to move from emergency and humanitarian support in Kosovo to longer-term assistance, we plan to assist with elections planned for next year (including arrangements for civil registration), promote the protection of civil and political rights and encourage the development of local civil society.

  In Macedonia, we are planning to strengthen the capacity of government and civil society to design and deliver effective social policies. We are currently supporting citizen's advice and information services.

  In Montenegro, we are exploring ways to build the capacity of civil society.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if, when she last met her colleagues from other member states of the European Union, they discussed matters relating to the funding of aid projects in Kosovo and Serbia. [100375]

  Clare Short
  I have not discussed the funding of aid projects in Kosovo and Serbia with EU colleagues recently. However, there are regular meetings at official level.

  Most recently the second donors' conference for Kosovo held in Brussels on 17 November pledged over $1 billion towards a programme of reconstruction and recovery. On Serbia, our position and that of the European Union is that, as long as Milosevic remains in power, we are only prepared to provide humanitarian assistance.

  Volunteers
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the contribution of post-school overseas volunteers to developing countries. [100365]
  579W
  Clare Short
  My Department does not support schemes or organisations which fund school leavers to do volunteer work in developing countries, where the principal aim is the self development of the volunteer rather than developmental impact.

  Over the last 20 years the main volunteer sending agencies have themselves phased out sending school leavers overseas, instead focusing on experienced and professional people who can have an impact on sustainable development. However, Voluntary Service Overseas (VSO) have recently introduced a new programme "Millennium World Youth" in partnership with The Prince's Trust. This is a new approach to volunteering for younger people, focusing on helping develop and challenge youth approaches to issues such as racism.

  My Department does support the Overseas Training Programme, run by VSO. This initiative aims to send young people overseas, who are close to obtaining a professional qualification, have a particular expertise to offer, and can have a role to play in development. This scheme is due to be reviewed next year.

  Windward Islands
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to help the people of the Windward islands. [100366]

  Clare Short
  Our office in the Caribbean is currently finalising a three year strategy paper for the Windward Islands which will take forward and focus our development assistance in areas where we can best help to reduce poverty. The strategy anticipates total DFID funding of £3m per year for the four islands in support of further work in education, the environment, economic reform, social policy, particularly focusing on poverty reduction strategies and public sector reform.

  Zimbabwe
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the future of the aid programme to Zimbabwe. [100368]

  Clare Short
  The Government of Zimbabwe's policies are not focused on reducing poverty and this seriously limits our ability to work in Zimbabwe.

  This means we are working to low case scenario set out in a Country Strategy Paper, published in April 1999. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Women (Economic Empowerment)
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department is taking to provide greater economic empowerment of women in the developing world. [100369]

  Clare Short
  Women bear the brunt of poverty, but they also hold the key to its eradication. We are strongly committed to getting more girls through school, and working for improved opportunities for women.

  We are supporting numerous projects and programmes which are seeking to make credit available to poor women, to provide them with non-financial support to starting and building small and medium enterprises,
  580W
  and removing obstacles to women's access to land and other assets. Our work in support of women has been the subject of a recent inquiry by the International Development Committee of this House, and it has just published an informative report on the work we are doing in this area.

  Kenya
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial support the Government are giving to Kenya. [100370]

  Clare Short
  UK bilateral development assistance to Kenya for 1999–2000 is expected to be £24 million.

  Mongolia
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plan she has to visit projects funded by her Department in Mongolia. [100373]

  Clare Short
  I have no plans to visit Mongolia.

  AIDS Vaccine
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the work of her Department to support the development of an AIDS vaccine for use in the developing world. [100376]

  Clare Short
  We are providing £14 million over the next five years to the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) to help develop an AIDS vaccine which is safe, effective and affordable for developing countries. This is additional to our earlier grant of £200,000 made in 1998, and supplements our existing work with the UK Medical Research Council and the European Commission.

  Malaria
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with the World Health Organisation regarding the increased incidence of malaria; and if she will make a statement. [100377]

  Clare Short
  My Department has regular and frequent discussions with the World Health Organisation. Most recently, we have completed arrangements for making available £48 million over the next four years to the Roll Back Malaria initiative. £7 million of this allocation has already been provided for work this year.

  Belize
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the development benefit to Belize of its investment in the hydro-electric power project in 1994–95. [101744]

  Clare Short
  None. Responsibility for assessing the development value of its investments rests with CDC's board.

  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if the Commonwealth Development Corporation's investment in the Belize hydro-electric project in 1994–95 meets the criteria for
  581W
  investment currently in operation; and what value for money assessment her Department has made of the project. [101738]

  Clare Short
  The investment in Belize Electricity Company was made according to conventional project financing criteria, fully meeting CDC's criteria at the time. These took into account the internal rate of return, the continuing capacity of the business to service the debt, and an analysis of key risk factors. CDC is now moving away from senior debt into equity investment.

  Responsibility for assessing the value for money of individual investments rests with CDC's board. DFID's interest is not at project level but in the performance of CDC in meeting overall agreed targets.

  My Department has not carried out a value for money assessment of the project.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what was the average(a) interest charge per year levied by the Commonwealth Development Corporation and (b) bank rate per year over the period 1990 to 1997. [101742]

  Clare Short
  Since 1993 CDC's policy has been to fix its interest rate with reference to a base rate kept in line with the London Inter-Bank Offer Rate (LIBOR), plus a margin ranging from 1 per cent. to 5 per cent. reflecting the credit quality of the borrower and incorporating as assessment of market and project risk.

  In the period concerned the rate of interest that CDC was charging on its long-term senior debt was in line with that charged by other development finance institutions such as the International Finance Corporation (IFC), and was not subsidised.

  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what was the average value of investments made by the Commonwealth Development Corporation in each of the years 1990 to 1997. [101740]

  Clare Short
  The value of CDC's average individual investments in each of the years 1990 to 1997 was as follows:

  £ million

  1991

  3.6

  1992

  3.7

  1993

  3.9

  1994

  3.8

  1995

  3.8

  1996

  4.0

  1997

  4.0

  The figures for 1990 are not immediately available.

  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what are the benefits to recipients, other than favourable treatment for interest rates, of loans provided by the Commonwealth Development Corporation which cannot be provided by commercial borrowing. [101745]
  582W
  Clare Short
  In many markets where CDC operates, long-term loans are not available to businesses for reasons of perceived credit risk. CDC loans therefore enable businesses to access long-term senior debt which may not otherwise be available to them.

  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what was the largest investment made by the Commonwealth Development Corporation in the years 1990 to 1997. [101741]

  Clare Short
  The largest investment made by CDC between 1990–97 was £38.3 million in the Housing Development and Finance Company in India.

  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development in which hydro-electric projects the Commonwealth Development Corporation invested from 1990 to 1997. [101743]

  Clare Short
  Between 1990 and 1997 CDC made investments in three hydro-electric projects. These were: the Hidroelectrica Planatar SA in Costa Rica, the Kapichira Hydro Electric Scheme in Malawi and the Belize Electricity Company Ltd.

  Montenegro
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is her estimate of the amount of financial assistance required from the international community to stabilise the economy of Montenegro. [101462]

  Clare Short
  We have not made such estimates. The response of the international community to Montenegro's needs will be made in the light of the policies pursued by the Montenegrin Government and on the basis of discussion with them. We are closely following developments.

SCOTLAND

  Lynebank Hospital
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date his Department announced(a) the closure of Lynebank Hospital and (b) the sell-off of the site; and if he will make a statement. [99244]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 23 November 1999]I understand that no ministerial announcement has been made. The health service in Scotland is now a devolved matter for the Scottish Executive.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 8 December. [101416]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I will have further such meetings later today.

TREASURY

  Savings Target
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his targets are in respect of the level of the savings ratio in the United Kingdom. [101830]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government are aiming to spread the saving habit more widely and provide the right economic conditions to promote long-term saving.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the reduction of pesticides use is an aim of his proposal for a pesticides tax; and if he will make a statement. [101817]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer the right hon. Member to paragraphs 6.106 to 6.108 inclusive of the Pre-Budget Report (Cm 4479), published on 9 November.

  Individual Savings Accounts
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new regular savers have been attracted by the ISA scheme. [101815]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) on 11 November 1999,Official Report, column 764W.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of savers who hold both a maxi-ISA and a mini-ISA. [101827]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on 27 October 1999,Official Report, column 898W.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate in respect of South Lancashire Council area(a) the numbers of income support and jobseeker's allowance claimants going onto the working families tax credits scheme because of the greater financial incentives involved and (b) the number of people in work who will now be entitled to working families tax credits as a result of more generous conditions of entitlement. [101487]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Reliable estimates for the numbers in receipt of the Working Families Tax Credit in South Lanarkshire are not yet available.

  Employment
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the increase in the number employed in Shrewsbury and Atcham since 1 May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [101714]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.
  584W
  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Paul Marsden, dated 7 December 1999:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to respond to your recent parliamentary question on the number of people employed in Shrewsbury and Atcham. I am replying in Dr Holt's absence.
  The most robust estimates at local authority level relate to jobs rather than numbers employed. These figures are available on an annual basis at September each year. In September 1997, the Annual Employment Survey (AES) shows that there were 39,000 employee jobs in the Shrewsbury and Atcham local authority district. This compares with 38,300 for September 1996. Information for September 1998 from the AES will be available in the next few months.
  Direct estimates of the numbers of people who are in employment and living in Shrewsbury and Atcham can be derived from the Labour Force Survey (LFS). Figures from this source cover employees, self-employed, unpaid family workers, and those on government employment training programmes, but are subject to larger sampling errors at local authority district level. For 1997–98, our best estimate on this basis is 47,000 which is the same as 1996–97.

  European Court of Justice
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects a decision from the European Court of Justice on the VAT treatment of road tolls and road pricing; who initiated the proceedings in the court; and for what reasons. [101704]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 7 December 1999]The Advocate General will deliver his written opinion to the European Court of Justice on 27 January 2000. If the Court follows its normal timetable the decision should be given three to six months later. Proceedings were initiated against the United Kingdom and five other member states by the European Commission. The dispute is over the interpretation of VAT legislation.

  VAT
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the revenue raised by VAT in the(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98 tax years; and what assessment he has made of the effect of simplifying the application of VAT between different retail sectors. [101905]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Revenue raised by VAT in 1996–97 was, £46,657 million. In 1997–98 it was, £50,865 million.

  There are no simplifications for which an assessment by retail sector has been performed.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  New Deal (Heywood and Middleton)
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many lone parents aged(a) under 18, (b) 18–34, (c)34–50, and (d) over 50 years have joined the New Deal since 1998 (i) nationally and (ii) in the constituency of Heywood and Middleton. [100294]

  Ms Jowell
  The following table shows, by age, the number of lone parents attending an initial New Deal for Lone Parents (NDLP) interview in the period since the full national roll-out of the NDLP programme, that is from 26 October 1998 to the end of August 1999.
  585W

  Age of lone parent

  Great Britain

  Heywood and Middleton

  Under 18

  580

  1

  18–24

  17,200

  52

  25–34

  38,120

  94

  35–19

  27,650

  51

  50+

  1,200

  2

  Departmental Estate
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what his estimate is of the value of land and property(a) in Scotland, (b) in the United Kingdom, (c) overseas and (d) in total held by (i) Ofsted, (ii) the Equal Opportunities Commission, (iii) the Funding Agency for Schools, (iv) the FEFC, (v) HEFCE, (vi) Investors in People UK Ltd, (vii) the National Council for Education Technology Ltd, (viii) Remploy Ltd, (ix) the Student Loans Company, (x) the Teacher Training Agency, (xi) the Construction Industry Training Board, (xii) the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board and (xiii) the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority; and what is the value of other assets held by each of these bodies. [99842]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 26 November 1999]The information relating to the value of land, property and other asses is drawn from the latest set of accounts for each of the following organisations.

  £

  Land and property

  Other assets

  Ofsted

  (a) Scotland

  0

  0

  (b) United Kingdom

  560,282

  0

  (c) Overseas

  0

  0

  Total

  560,282

  0

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  (a) Scotland

  0

  0

  (b) United Kingdom

  0

  460,000

  (c) Overseas

  0

  0

  Total

  0

  460,000

  Funding Agency for Schools

  (a) Scotland

  0

  0

  (b) United Kingdom

  0

  1,151,000

  (c) Overseas

  0

  0

  Total

  0

  1,151,000

  FEFC

  (a) Scotland

  0

  0

  (b) United Kingdom

  1,276,000

  28,500,000

  (c) Overseas

  0

  0

  Total

  1,276,000

  28,500,000

  HEFCE

  (a) Scotland

  0

  0

  (b) United Kingdom

  0

  50,610,000

  (c) Overseas

  0

  0

  Total

  0

  50,610,000

  Investors in People UK Ltd.

  (a) Scotland

  0

  0

  (b) United Kingdom

  0

  957,000

  (c) Overseas

  0

  0

  Total

  0

  957,000

  586W

  £

  Land and property

  Other assets

  National Council for Education Technology (NCET) Ltd.

  (a) Scotland

  0

  0

  (b) United Kingdom

  204,000

  1,832,000

  (c) Overseas

  0

  0

  Total

  204,000

  1,832,000

  Remploy

  (a) Scotland

  1,714,000

  1,061,000

  (b) United Kingdom

  24,388,000

  22,341,000

  (c) Overseas

  0

  0

  Total

  26,102,000

  23,402,000

  Students Loan Company

  (a) Scotland

  1,015,000

  2,213,000

  (b) United Kingdom

  0

  0

  (c) Overseas

  0

  0

  Total

  1,015,000

  2,213,000

  Teacher Training Agency

  (a) Scotland

  0

  0

  (b) United Kingdom

  240,000

  3,188,000

  (c) Overseas

  0

  0

  Total

  240,000

  3,188,000

  Construction Industry Training Board

  (a) Scotland

  0

  0

  (b) United Kingdom

  4,681,000

  28,517,000

  (c) Overseas

  0

  0

  Total

  4,681,000

  28,517,000

  Engineering Construction Industry Training Board

  (a) Scotland

  0

  0

  (b) United Kingdom

  555,000

  7,509,000

  (c) Overseas

  0

  0

  Total

  555,000

  17,509,000

  Qualifications and Curriculum Authority

  (a) Scotland

  0

  0

  (b) United Kingdom

  2,440,000

  5,577,000

  (c) Overseas

  0

  0

  Total

  2,440,000

  5,577,000

  1 Excludes £7,763,000 investments

  Child Care
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many extra child care places for(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire he estimates will be created under the expenditure announced in the Chancellor's Pre-Budget Report; and if he will make a statement. [101140]

  Mr. Wicks
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced that expenditure to assist further education students with child care costs will increase from £5 million this year to £21 million in 2000–01. These amounts add to the approximately £4 million a year which is already provided by the Further Education Funding Council. This increase includes the additional funding referred to by the Chancellor in his Pre-Budget Report. It is expected that in 2001–02 we will assist about 37,000 students. The funding will be made a ring-fenced element within the Further Education Access Fund and will be allocated to colleges through a formula which takes account of student numbers and widening participation factors. Colleges will be told of their allocation by March 2000.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which local education authorities currently include a special educational needs factor in their LMS formula based on a local SEN audit; and what are the comparative value of funds allocated for pupils through such a factor according to the stage in the code of practice they have reached, for each LEA for which information is available. [101835]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what process was used to allocate the contract for consultancy work on teachers' performance-related pay; and what criteria were used to select the successful contractor. [101396]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 6 December 1999]In May, Hay McBer was awarded a contract to carry out research into the characteristics of effective teachers. Hay was uniquely placed to carry out this work because of its research and development associated with the Leadership Programme for Serving Headteachers.

  SSA (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what additional standard spending assessment for Leicestershire would be required if it was funded at the average for English counties for(a) primary and (b) secondary pupils based on the provisional standard spending assessment for 2000–01. [101444]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The SSA primary education sub-block would need to increase by £6,629,130 and the secondary education sub-block by £6,403,760 in order for Leicestershire to be funded at the English counties' average.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the estimated standard spending assessment funding is for(a) primary and (b) secondary pupils for Leicestershire local education authority based on the provisional education standard spending assessment for 2000–01. [101443]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  In Leicestershire for 2000–01 the provisional standard spending assessment for the primary education sub-block is £99.99 million, and for the secondary education sub-block is £103.63 million.

  SSA Formula
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he last met the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to discuss the current standard spending assessment funding formula. [101445]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meets Cabinet colleagues regularly to discuss a range of issues including the standard spending assessment funding formula.

  Educational SSA
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the average standard spending assessment funding is per(a) primary pupil and (b) secondary pupil for English counties based on the provisional educational standard spending assessment for 2000–01. [101441]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The provisional average standard spending assessment is £2,348 per primary pupil and £3,024 per secondary pupil for English counties for 2000–01.

  SEN Tribunal
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the 1998–99 annual report from the President of the SEN tribunal will be published. [101954]

  Jacqui Smith
  The report was published yesterday and copies have been placed in the Library.

  I would like to thank all those working with the Tribunal—the President, the members and the secretariat staff for their hard work and commitment over the past year. I am delighted that the Tribunal has maintained its targets for dealing with appeals while also handling an increased volume of such appeals.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people had their jobseeker's allowance stopped after an interview with job centre staff in each month of(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999. [101469]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 7 December 1999]Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 8 December 1999:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply to your question about how many jobseekers have had their Jobseeker's Allowance stopped following interviews with Jobcentre staff. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  You will recall that I replied to you, along very similar lines, in my letter of 11 March. In that reply I said that the Employment Service conducts many different types of interviews with jobseekers, starting at the new claims stage and developing as unemployment lengthens. The new jobseeker's interview is important in establishing whether jobseekers meet the labour market conditions for receiving Jobseeker's Allowance and it is normally at this stage that a Jobseeker's Agreement is drawn up and jobseekers are made aware of their responsibilities in order to receive Jobseeker's Allowance. Thereafter, entitlement to the Allowance is reviewed at fortnightly interviews. We also use these opportunities to offer jobseekers further advice and help in their search for work. Jobseekers are also asked to attend a Restart interview at regular six monthly intervals at which they are offered further advice and information about employment and training opportunities. Beyond this, interviews may take place for a variety of other reasons.

  589W
  Questions about a jobseeker's entitlement to Jobseeker's Allowance could arise at any of the interviews referred to above. In these instances there may be a reference to a Sector Decision Maker (formerly an Adjudication Officer) for a decision on benefit entitlement.
  Statistics on the number and types of decisions given by Employment Service Decision Makers on labour market questions are recorded in a quarterly summary—the 'Analysis of Sector Decision Making' (formerly known as the 'Analysis of Adjudication Officers' Decisions'), a copy of which is held in the Library. As questions about a person's entitlement can arise during different types of interviews, it would be misleading to compare the total figures of disallowances with the total numbers of Employment Service interviews in any given period. Jobseeker's Allowance claims can be disallowed on labour market grounds or other grounds. However, some broad indication of volumes can be given by comparing the total number of Jobseeker's Allowance new claims with the number of awards of "nil benefits". This means simply the number of Jobseeker's Allowance new claims that, following assessment by the Benefits Agency who are responsible for Jobseeker's Allowance payment, result in no payment award. This could be for a wide variety of reasons ranging from inadequate contributions to failure to meet the labour market conditions for receipt of the Allowance.
  Since Jobseeker's Allowance was introduced in October 1996, the number of claims processed and the number of nil awards by operational year has been:

  Claims processed

  Nil awards

  7 October 1996 to 31 March 1997

  1,280,960

  164,460

  1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998

  2,966,185

  470,047

  1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999

  2,833,977

  508,828

  1 April 1999 to 31 October 1999

  1,640,806

  292,697

  These figures are based primarily on information held by the Jobseeker's Allowance Payments System. The figures for the period ending 31 March 1997 include a small number of claims held on the Income Support Computer System because they linked back to an earlier Income Support claim.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Nursery Places
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he expects(a) the Government's target of free nursery places for 66 per cent. of three-year-olds to be met in every local education authority by 2002 and (b) levels of free provision to be higher than 66 per cent. in some areas by that date; and if he will make a statement. [101521]

  Ms Hodge
  The Government have set a target of providing a free education place for 66 per cent. of all three-year-olds nationally by 2002. We will achieve this as a result of investing £390 million over the three years 1999–2000 to 2001–02, in all local education authority areas. The funding will, however, priorities the areas with the greatest social needs

  Many authorities have already invested their own resources to provide early education places for three-year-olds. The funding we are making available builds upon that and will extend provision across all authorities.

  Classroom Assistants
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what advice he has issued to(a) primary schools and (b) local education authorities on
  590W
  (i) the employment of classroom assistants, (ii) extending their role within the classroom and (iii) providing incentives for classroom assistants to develop their knowledge and expertise in the fields of numeracy, literacy and record-keeping. [101705]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  A Supplement to the Standards Fund 2000–01 was issued on 27 October 1999. It advised Chief Education Officers of new arrangements to increase numbers of teaching assistants and to improve their training and career development. £130 million is being made available in 2000–01, enabling schools to recruit and train up to 15,000 additional full-time equivalent teaching assistants. LEAs must consult schools over relative local needs in deciding where assistants should be deployed.

  The Department is developing a national framework of training and qualifications in partnership with the Local Government National Training Organisation and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. It is also producing guidance on the effective deployment of teaching assistants by heads and teachers. Both of these documents will be published next year following consultation with schools, local authorities and national bodies.

  Local Education Authority Statistics
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list by local education authority the number and percentage of pupils eligible for free school meals in(a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998 and (d) 1999. [101520]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information available has been placed in the Library.

CABINET OFFICE

  Magistrates
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans she has to transfer responsibility for the appointment of magistrates from the Duchy of Lancaster to the Lord Chancellor. [101484]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Decisions on proposals to transfer responsibilities between Departments are for the Prime Minister.

  Civil Service (Ethnic Minorities)
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress the Government have made in increasing the representation of ethnic minorities in the Civil Service. [101449]

  Mr. Stringer
  The "Modernising government" White Paper sets a target of doubling the proportion of people drawn from ethnic minority backgrounds in the Senior Civil Service to 3.2 per cent. in 2004–05. We will report on the progress we have made against these targets next year.

  The proportion of ethnic minority staff in the Civil Service, as a whole, has increased from 4.2 per cent. in 1989 to 5.7 per cent. in 1998. This compares with 5.4 per cent. in the economically active population.

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

The Lord Bishop of St Albans
Christopher William, Lord Bishop of St Albans—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of London and the Lord Bishop of Derby.

Nuclear Disarmament
2.36 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putneyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the decision of the United States Senate not to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and the Geneva conference's decision to spend a year discussing procedure, increase the possibility of nuclear war early in the coming millennium.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, we have made no secret of our disappointment at the US Senate's vote against ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty or of our frustration at the lack of progress in the conference on disarmament. Nevertheless, we continue to believe, as do our NATO allies, that the circumstances in which we might have to contemplate any use of nuclear weapons are extremely remote.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the case that a nuclear confrontation need not be contemplated; it can happen by accident or by chance? Is it not therefore true that the danger of such a war occurring is increased? If it were not so, all the efforts which were expended on those treaties which were intended to decrease the danger of nuclear war would have been wasted. Surely the failure must be taken to mean that that danger is increased.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can understand the anxiety that the noble Lord shares with us in relation to this matter. However, I assure noble Lords that the Government are fully committed to progress on nuclear disarmament. The lack of progress internationally in recent years has been frustrating for us all, but is not for lack of effort on our part to advance the agenda. The UK sets an example for all in the measures set out in the Strategic Defence Review last year, and we shall continue to encourage others to emulate our stance.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, did the Minister notice that she did not actually answer the Question on the Order Paper? It could be answered, "Yes", "No", or "Maybe". The Minister gave us none of those answers, but a little homily.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I regret that the noble Lord takes the view that it was a homily. I tried to give your Lordships a helpful and frank response.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House what assurances the British Government have received, either directly or via the United States Government, about the security of the nuclear weapons systems and the political control systems in the former Soviet Union with regard to the coming millennium?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, if the noble Lord refers to the millennium bug, I can certainly assure him that all the information we have indicates that those matters will not be affected adversely in relation to that issue and that they are quite safe.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, while the decision of the United States not to agree to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is, of course, to be regretted, does the Minister believe that it would make any difference to the possibility of either Pakistan or India, both of which now have nuclear weapons, launching them against each other?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, that would not be directly affected by the United States' decision, but of course one looks to our partners to take a lead. The lead given by ourselves and others is important. We are working closely with India and Pakistan in order to encourage them to ratify in due course. There are hopeful noises, particularly in relation to India, that they may be minded to do that.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the American debate is currently much more directed towards China and North Korea and that European security risks being compromised by the American preoccupation with security in east Asia? From our perspective, maintaining the confidence of the Russian Government in nuclear disarmament and persuading them to continue disarming matters most. I hope that Her Majesty's Government are making that clear to the Americans.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, all our partners are aware of our anxiety about that issue. We have made our position clear to them all. We are certainly comforted that the American Administration have said that they are committed to ratification and

1273
that they see the matter as one of importance. We can take some comfort—little, I admit—from that assurance.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, following the question of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will the Minister agree that she still has not answered the Question on the Order Paper? It is a straight Question which requires and could be given an unequivocal Answer. Is the Minister aware that my own answer would be, unequivocally, "No"? Does she agree with that?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have no reason to believe that the possibility of nuclear war is being enhanced.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, to what extent is the Minister concerned that the failure at the Conference on Disarmament to agree a work programme to enable substantive negotiations to take place on internationally-agreed actions such as the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty risks undermining the very credibility of the Conference on Disarmament as a whole? What specific action do the Government intend to take at the conference's 2000 session to prevent a repeat of the deadlock which has hampered the conference this year?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are doing all we can to overcome the current deadlock in Geneva. We have shown flexibility ourselves in the search for an agreement on a way forward. We hope that others will do likewise, so that work may begin without further delay on the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. The reality is that the Conference on Disarmament operates, as noble Lords will know, by consensus. Neither we nor any other country may simply put normal procedures aside and impose a solution. If the present deadlock persists, there may well be increasing support for reform of the working practices of the Conference on Disarmament. We shall consider that possibility energetically.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, if the Government are enthusiastic about nuclear disarmament, will my noble friend tell us why, when a motion opposing nuclear war was carried overwhelmingly in the United Nations General Assembly recently, our Government were among the small minority opposing that resolution on two occasions?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have answered that question on a number of occasions and my answer remains the same. Britain will continue to do all those things which advance our own interest. HMG took the view that it was not in our interest, bearing in mind all the circumstances, to agree to the resolution. That remains the position to date; it has not changed since the last time I answered that question.

Gulf Veterans: Medical Assessment Programme
2.48 p.m.
The Countess of Marasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the scope of medical examination and follow-up undertaken for members of HM Armed Forces who were at any time located in or passed through areas contaminated by depleted uranium during and after Operation Granby.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, the Ministry of Defence's Medical Assessment Programme is the referral centre for Gulf veterans concerned about their health. Patients attending the Medical Assessment Programme are given a full medical interview and examination and a range of laboratory tests, including urinalysis, haematological, biochemical and serological tests, an ultrasound scan of the abdomen and electrocardiography.
The Medical Assessment Programme may recommend also additional investigations or a referral to another consultant; for example, a patient may be tested for the presence of uranium if there was evidence of possible exposure or if the examining physician felt that there were symptoms to suggest uranium-linked illness. In addition, the Ministry of Defence has offered to arrange independent testing for depleted uranium for those veterans who have had samples tested in Canada.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that there is a widely held belief among the several thousand Gulf veterans who have been involved in passing through areas where depleted uranium was used during the Gulf war that neither the Minister nor the Medical Assessment Programme understands the problem? Is he also aware that there is a widely held belief that by looking only at the 30 people who have had their urine tested in Canada, the MoD is determined either to discredit the Canadian research or to minimise the problem? Is he aware too that the Gulf veterans now believe that the refusal of the Medical Assessment Programme and the MoD to extend this proposal to all the Gulf veterans who were involved is based only on crass ignorance, gross incompetence or calculated deception?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I believe that the key issue in this matter is the total load of uranium in the body. The proportion of uranium present as a result of contact with depleted uranium is not relevant to the health aspect. Any patient who attends the MAP may be tested for uranium if there is evidence of possible exposure and if the MAP doctor assesses that that is clinically appropriate.
The noble Countess referred to Canadian testing. The MoD's line on that was viewed as in some way discrediting the evidence. I hope that that is not the case. We need to see the results of testing by

1275
Dr Durakovic and Dr Sharma before we can reach any conclusion. They have not shown us their results, which is why we are arranging for all those who have been tested to be retested independently of the MoD. Only then shall we know the results and be able to act accordingly. There is no scientific consensus on the issue; for example, Dr Sharma has told us that he does not believe that depleted uranium is responsible for the ill health of Gulf veterans.
Lord Rea: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—I am sure that he is—that there are persistent anecdotal reports of high or raised levels of cancer, particularly leukaemia, among the women and children of southern Iraq? Will Her Majesty's Government use their influence to have a proper, expert epidemiological study carried out in southern Iraq by, for example, the World Health Organisation or UNICEF to ascertain what is the truth; and, if there is found to be an increase, whether possibly depleted uranium is responsible?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, the Ministry of Defence is of course aware of the suggestions, particularly those in the press, that the use of depleted uranium-based ammunition during the Gulf conflict has caused an increase in ill health in southern Iraq, including deformities, careers and birth defects. However, we have not seen any peer-reviewed epidemiological research data on that population to support those claims. The Government will, of course, consider carefully any medical or scientific data which may emerge concerning the incidence of ill health in Iraq. With regard to the suggestion of my noble friend, I believe that the MoD will welcome any assessment in this respect for its consideration.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether there is any increase in birth defects in children born to servicemen who have been in the area of the depleted uranium, as compared with the number of birth defects in the rest of the population?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I d o not have that information. I shall ascertain whether it is available; if it is, I shall be happy to write to the noble Lord.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, can my noble friend say how many patients have been seen at the MoD assessment centre? Can he give a robust assurance to the House that the matter is being looked at openly and properly and that there is no attempt by the MoD to discredit other people's opinions or, indeed, to skew the research against the proper interests of those people affected in this matter?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, the number of patients who have passed through the Medical Assessment Programme (to which I referred before as MAP) is 2,906. That was to the end of November 1999. Currently there are 28 patients waiting to attend the programme. A test load is being carried out and, although that may seem a high number, one must take
1276
into account that some 53,000 troops were deployed in the area at that time. I make it quite clear to my noble friend and to the House today that the MoD is sympathetic to Gulf veterans; it will continue with the tests; it will continue to help wherever it possibly can; and it is completely open-minded on the issue. The big problem it faces at the moment is that the evidence available to it is vague and not sufficiently scientifically based for further action to be taken in this area.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, will the Minister say whether any problems are caused by the inhalation of dust from depleted uranium shells?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I believe that any problems caused by the inhalation of dust may come from the area indicated by the noble Earl.

Non-departmental Public Bodies
2.57 p.m.
Lord Islwynasked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in reducing the number of quangos.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, in 1997–98 there was a net reduction of 55 non-departmental public bodies over the previous year. Public Bodies 1999, which is due to be published on 16th December, is likely to show a further decrease in numbers.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the turmoil caused in Gwent in south-east Wales by the proposal of the Arts Council for Wales to close Gwent Theatre which over 23 years has provided such an excellent theatre-in-education service? All local authorities and Members of Parliament in the area are opposed to the proposal and the opposition is also buttressed by a public petition of over 8,000 signatures. Even the staff of the Arts Council is now threatening a vote of no confidence in the board. As that body receives £15 million of public money, is there not now a need for a full inquiry into the matter? Meanwhile, should not the chief executive, M.S.J. Weston, and the chairman resign?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am aware of that because my noble friend told me so on the telephone yesterday, for which I am genuinely grateful. However, responsibility for sponsoring the Arts Council for Wales transferred to the National Assembly on 1st July. As my right honourable friend the Leader of the House has already said in connection with Scottish affairs, the Government do not believe that it is appropriate to reply on matters which are not the responsibility of UK Ministers. The responsibilities assumed by the Assembly on 1st July are defined by Part II and Schedules 2 to 4 to the Government of Wales Act, along with the National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order

1277
1999. However, there was an adjournment debate on this issue in the other place on 1st December 1999. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary in another place undertook that he would pass on the concerns expressed in that adjournment debate to the relevant Minister in the National Assembly for Wales and to the chairman of the Arts Council. I undertake to do the same in relation to the matters raised by my noble friend today.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, in view of the fact that the Minister cannot answer for the devolved bodies, will he tell us whether or not the publication in December will include any quangos in Scotland, Wales and possibly Northern Ireland? We now have many task forces. Are they listed under quangos? If not, will he define what a quango is currently known as?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, not a "quangaroo", as my noble and learned friend the Deputy Leader of the House suggests. I believe that the publication in December will refer to quangos in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Perhaps I may confirm that in writing or correct myself if I am wrong. Task forces are a separate kind of body. They are set up to help ensure that decisions are soundly based and representative of a wide range of views. They are not intended to have the permanence of non-departmental public bodies, which is the phrase used to refer to quangos.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that included among the quangos to which he has referred, there is an unknown number, running into some hundreds, of task forces to which have been delegated by the Ministers concerned executive and advisory powers of some significance, without any reference to Parliament? Does the noble and learned Lord think it is now time that we should publish particulars of those task forces, the terms under which they are engaged and the personnel involved in order that there can be perfect transparency in the parliamentary terms to which we have become accustomed and to which we look forward in the future?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, to some extent that touches on the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. The Government have set up about 40 task forces and 250 short-term working groups which do not have a standing remit. That is perhaps the essential difference between those bodies and a non-departmental public body. It is open to noble Lords to ask any questions they wish of the Government. Indeed, I know that my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington has asked many questions in relation to task forces which we have endeavoured to answer.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, what proportion of the quangos in existence when the Government came into power still exist? Were the figures which the noble and learned Lord gave directed to the whole of the United
1278
Kingdom, or England and Wales together, or England and Wales separately? Does the Minister not agree that the Government fought the last election on the basis that one of the justifications for the Welsh Assembly, an elected body, was that it would enable them to get rid of many unnecessary quangos in Wales? That has not happened; they are persisting with them.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there will be a percentage reduction of 1.5 per cent in 1998–99. The reduction in expenditure is from £24.1 million to £23.3 million. There are some quangos we cannot get rid of but we are doing what we said would do—making sure that there are no unnecessary quangos.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that there is no such word as "quango" in Welsh? Let us do away with it.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not believe that the word "quango" exists in the English language, let alone the Welsh language. That is why "quangaroo" or non-departmental public body may be more appropriate.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, will the Minister tell us how many more quangos will be created as a result of the passage of the 28 Bills envisaged in the Queen's Speech? If he cannot give the answer off the top of his head or from his brief today, will he agree to write to me?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am quite sure that there will be a net reduction in the number of non-departmental public bodies year on year.

The Euro: Impact of Political Decisions
3.4 p.m.
The Earl of Northeskasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they support the president of the European Central Bank in his concern about the impact of political decisions on the value of the euro.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on developments in foreign exchange markets.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, notwithstanding that reply, in the context of the German Government giving £80 million-worth of state aid to the failing construction giant Holzmann, do the Government support the view of Willem Duisenberg that:
"It does not enhance the image that we want to have of being an increasingly market-driven economy across the Euro area".
or do they support Chancellor Schröder's position of bailing Holzmann out for what can only be perceived as domestic political reasons?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I noticed that the noble Earl carefully avoided the fact that Mr Duisenberg did not refer specifically to Holzmann or to any other German policy. Any disagreement between Mr Duisenberg and the German Government is a matter for them.
Lord Taverne: My Lords—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, since we are not members—
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, there is plenty of time for this Question. Perhaps we should hear from the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, and then from my noble friend Lord Stoddart.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, will the Minister agree with three propositions: first, that forecasting the course of a currency in the short term is a black art rather than a rational activity; secondly, that most of the worries about the euro are misplaced since it is not having any inflationary effect inside the eurozone and is helping its exporters; thirdly, that those who have most to worry about in relation to the low value of the euro are British exporters who find themselves excluded from the eurozone?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the short answer is yes, yes and yes. On the noble Lord's second question, there seems to be a general misunderstanding, notably in the public prints, that if there is a low level of exchange rate that that is somehow a tragedy for the euro and that that is a measure of the lack of success for the euro. The same people seem to be able to say, without any sense of self-contradiction, that the high level of the pound is a tragedy for us.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, since we are not members of the eurozone, would it not be invidious for this Government, indeed, this House, to comment on the dealings of Mr Duisenberg in relation to countries that are within the eurozone? Should we not instead rejoice in the fact that we are not part of the eurozone; that the pound is doing so well; that our economy is thriving; and that unemployment is falling? That is in complete contradistinction to what is happening in countries in the eurozone itself.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend's first question and I agree with the conclusion of his first question, although not the premise on which it is based. It is certainly not because we are not in the euro or indeed in Europe that the Chancellor has been so successful in economic policy.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the concern is not about the exchange rate at any particular given time? It will go up; it will go down. People are concerned about the unexpected volatility of the euro and the doubts that that must raise as to its long-term stability as a reserve currency?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I find myself agreeing with nearly every question that I am asked. Of course, the noble Lord is right. It is the stability, rather than the exchange rate at a particular time or short-term variations, which is important. But over the past year, experience has shown that we have not maintained a general stability of exchange rates and our economic performance has been a reflection of that.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, does the Minister agree that my noble friend Lord Northesk makes a fundamental point about politics and the euro? The Government have put forward five economic tests to determine whether we should join the euro. Do we not need a sixth test; a political test which could assess Britain's convergence with the political philosophies of prospective partners in a single currency? How does the Minister think such a test would assess the statement of the German Chancellor that Britain should not place national interest above necessary European solidarity?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the five economic tests announced by the Chancellor in October 1997 are what they were announced to be; that is, economic tests. Clearly, both political and, as we have always said, constitutional questions arise as a result. When we are satisfied that the economic tests have been achieved, political questions will arise. That is why we have always said that before a decision is finally taken we will seek the opinion of Parliament and the people through a referendum. The point raised by the noble Lord will be a matter for debate at that time.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that some of the comments would have been made whether the euro goes up or down? It would be common sense not to get too excited about a particular level at a particular time. Has my noble friend noticed that a sophisticated financial market—that is, Hong Kong—is buying euros at present? Does he think that has any consequence?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not want to speculate on what gamblers are doing in Hong Kong any more than I want to speculate on foreign exchange markets as a whole. There is a point in what my noble friend says, in that a number of people are buying particular currencies as a hedge against possible difficulties at the time of the millennium. I do not know whether that applies also to Hong Kong.

Chechnya
3.11 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as there is to be a Private Notice Question, it may be helpful if I remind your Lordships of the procedure. The Companion states:
"Private notice questions are taken immediately after starred questions, and should not be made the occasion for immediate debate. Proceedings on private notice questions follow the rules for starred questions … In particular, supplementary questions should be short and confined to not more than two points. Comment should be avoided".
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, namely: what action are Her Majesty's Government taking to ensure the safety of Chechen civilians in view of the threatened Russian bombardment of Grozny on Saturday 11th December.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have left the Russian Government in no doubt that we deplore the threat to Grozny. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary raised our concerns with the Russian Foreign Minister this afternoon. My honourable friend the Minister of State, Mr Vas, summoned the Russian Ambassador yesterday to ask him to convey to Moscow the alarm and dismay of Britain and its partners at recent events. If Russia proceeds with its threat to Grozny, we expect the Helsinki European Council to consider the future of European Union assistance to Russia.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, there are many thousands of men, women and children who may be too sick, too old or simply too terrified to leave Grozny. The Minister will be aware that in the case of Kosovo, the Foreign Secretary said:
"Not to have acted, when we knew the atrocities that were being committed, would have been to make ourselves complicit in their repression".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/3/99; col. 538.]
In the context of the Government's ethical dimension to foreign policy, and using the Foreign Secretary's own criteria, what specific clear-cut assurance can the Government give that they will not be complicit in the repression of innocent Chechen civilians on Saturday?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I have no hesitation in giving the noble Lord the assurance that he seeks. Her Majesty's Government are working energetically in relation to this issue. We take the same stance in response to the Chechen position as we take in relation to any humanitarian difficulty.
The Russian military action in Chechnya is leading to a humanitarian crisis on an appalling scale. The ultimatum to "quit or die", given to the citizens of Grozny, is, indeed, horrifying. However, we have taken some comfort. We have seen very recent reports from Moscow that the ultimatum may not have been issued by the Russian Government but by a Russian commander acting on his own initiative. It is clear that the Russian authorities responded with vigour to the
1282
concern expressed by ourselves and our partners. There is now a clear distancing between the statement contained in the leaflet and the professed Russian policy. We hope that the leaflets were part of a psychological warfare campaign and not a firm declaration of military intent.
We continue to seek urgent clarification. The strength of the reaction of the Russian leadership shows that it is determined to keep full control of its policy in Chechnya. Our complaints are having some effect and are being responded to.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, in view of the recent reports that Mr Rusheilo, the Interior Minister, stated that no deadline was intended, and the statement by the local commander, General Kazantsev, that civilians are not intended to be targeted, can the Minister say whether she believes there to be conflicting commands from the Russian Government? Can she validate the statement that the corridor is still open? Finally, can she say whether there is a possibility that the UNHCR could arrange the evacuation of civilians by negotiating a stand-off for several days in the light of the Russian assurances that refugees are to be protected?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are seeking urgent clarification on many of the issues raised by the noble Baroness. The leaflet contained a horrifying threat which we have taken seriously and responded to robustly. I refer to both the conversation between Mr Vaz and the ambassador and that which my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary had with his counterpart in Russia.
Clarification is obviously needed. However, we are stating clearly to the Russians that the stance taken in the leaflet was wholly unacceptable and deplorable; and that at the very least, these matters will be urgently addressed in Helsinki and, obviously, in conversations before then.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for facilitating the taking in your Lordships' House of this Private Notice Question today. Secondly, is the Minister aware that the Russian Embassy has known for some weeks of the visit to London by a Chechen terrorist leader who was received in Whitehall at the highest level? Chatting with terrorists may be a common pastime, but in the present crisis, will it not weaken the hand of Her Majesty's Government in doing all they can to protect innocent people from Russian barbarism?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, perhaps I may say straight away that I am not clear as to which Chechen terrorist the noble Lord referred. We are making it clear to our partners and, indeed, to the Russians, that we will vigorously pursue with them a proper response to the Chechen position. The Russians said at Istanbul that they accept that a political resolution of this issue is the only real way forward. They have now started to engage with the

1283
OSCE. There will soon be a visit by the chairman. These issues cause us great concern and worry. However, perhaps I may respectfully suggest that this is a time when we need to have a cool eye and a steady hand on the tiller in order to chart a safe route through these choppy and troubled waters.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does the Minister wish to reconsider her answer in which she stated that we take the same stance on all these issues? Surely, we do not. Does she not agree that our stance on Kosovo, East Timor and Iraq was military intervention? Is not the blunt fact of the matter that we will not take the same stance in this regard because Russia is far too big? Perhaps I may make one suggestion. If it is to be a war of words, why do we not say that we will remove Russia from the Council of Europe immediately if it does not stop its actions in Chechnya?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, perhaps I can clarify straight away what I meant by the "same stance". The noble Lord will know well that in relation to each of the issues he mentioned, we used every diplomatic and other means to pressurise change before looking at the military option. A military option is an option of last resort. It would be extremely dangerous for us to make opportunistic comments at this stage which would endanger our security. I say straight away that all options will be considered at Helsinki. We and our partners take this threat extremely seriously and our response will be robust and focused so that Russia is left in no doubt whatever that we find its actions unacceptable.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I want to follow up the question in relation to the measures which will be robustly pursued. Does the Minister agree that the Russian economy is sustained to some extent by the assistance received from the International Monetary Fund and other aid agencies? Is it within her armoury of a "robust response" to use that power to exercise some influence over the terrible events in Chechnya?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, noble Lords will know that the criteria used in relation to the IMF loan are economic ones. But it is right to say that the IMF management decided not to recommend disbursement of the next £400 million as Russia has not made sufficient progress against the economic conditions of its programme. We shall look together at Helsinki at aid issues. Those discussions will be extremely well focused and much depends on how Russia behaves in the interim.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, while I accept wholeheartedly the concern for the suffering of Chechnyan civilians and Russia's attempts to terrify them, is the Minister aware of a recent United States State Department report that Bin Laden and associated groups are active in Chechnya? They intend to continue their fighting in Russia, and extend to Georgia and Azerbaijan. There is therefore a serious
1284
threat to Russian security. When the immediate crisis for the civilians is over, will the Government give an assurance that this broader threat to Russia will be dealt with sensitively and that this complex problem is dealt with in a way that takes all these factors into account?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right to raise the issue of the internal security of the Russian Federation. We understand the challenges that Russia faces at this time. But we say that this response, which threatens civilians, is not an appropriate way to deal with complex, internal difficulties which must be resolved on a political, and not a military, basis. A military basis will not suffice.

Business of the House: Debate this Day
3.23 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sure noble Lords will recall the guidance of my noble friend the Chief Whip regarding the way in which a Private Notice Question should be addressed, and the time allowed for it. It is probably time to move on. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Jenkins of Hillhead set down for today shall be limited to five hours.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Bill [H.L.]
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment of 30th November be discharged and that the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Universities
3.24 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillheadrose to call attention to the state of British universities; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I have spoken only once in your Lordships' House during the past two years, I feel I can almost claim the privilege of a maiden speaker. During those two years the composition of the House has changed greatly, both inside and out. One or two noble Lords may recollect that as Leader of the Liberal Democrats I spoke quite often. But when I ceased to hold that position I thought it right, for a time at least, to allow my noble

1285
friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank to get on with it; and, if I may say so, he has got on with it very well indeed.
I also declare the interest that I have been Chancellor of Oxford since I succeeded the Earl of Stockton nearly 13 years ago. Oxford is therefore inevitably the university I know best. I regret to say it is now 61 years since I first went there as an undergraduate. Before coming to this House I was also a member, in a geographical sense, of two universities, now become three, in the City of Glasgow, and I do not intend this debate to be an exclusive Oxford, or even Oxbridge, benefit day.
This country is lucky enough to possess two old universities which have maintained their position in the world league much better than have the ancient foundations on the continent of Europe. Some feel that as resources are squeezed here and rise across the Atlantic, the medium-term prospect of any British university holding such membership may be in danger. I must not exaggerate. We do not see an immediate abyss at our feet. Our membership of this league is not put in doubt by any other member. Indeed, one of the happiest recent occasions at Oxford was about a year ago when we gave honorary degrees to the presidents of Harvard and Yale, both of whom—probably for the first time in history—were Oxonians. And, as their wives were both Oxonians too, we were able on that occasion to bridge the sex divide as well as the Atlantic Ocean.
The transatlantic gap in resources is constantly growing. There may come a time when the elastic snaps and anybody at university, whether Cambridge, Oxford or anywhere else, will find it difficult to compete with the six or eight foremost American universities. That would be both a severe self-inflicted wound for Britain and a damaging blow to the intellectual balance of the whole western world. It would not be healthy if no cisatlantic university could hold a candle to the great schools of New England, Pennsylvania, Chicago and California.
That implies no Oxbridge-centric view of the British university scene I have long felt that the two-peak English pattern, with everywhere else on the lower slopes—that was certainly the case in the years between the two wars and to some extent up to the 1960s and even the 1970s—was less desirable than the American one, where there were great peaks, certainly, but also more variety of excellence. To a considerable extent the British pattern has moved in that direction.
No one will contest the claims of Imperial and LSE, in their particular fields, to be major, international institutions. Then there are the post-Robbins universities, some of which—Warwick, York and Bath, strikingly so—have made remarkable breakthroughs in the past 30 years. There are also the top performers in what used to be called the "red brick" category, most eminently Nottingham and Bristol. I hasten to say that my examples are illustrative rather than exclusive; but the specific is always more interesting than the general.
1286
Some of those research-intensive universities have come together in the Russell group, which I am sorry to say is not named after my noble friend Lord Russell, richly though he deserves it. They first came together in that architecturally exuberant Bloomsbury building—nearly as exuberant as my noble friend—the Russell Hotel. These universities are a powerful phalanx and are crucial to the country's academic performance.
Seven years ago, the previous government decided to confer the title of university upon approximately 50 former polytechnics. If this Government had done it, it would have been denounced, possibly rightly, from the Opposition Benches as the ultimate in gesture politics: the elevation of style over substance. I am not sure whether it was right or wrong. At any rate, it has been done and cannot be undone. But what was certainly wrong was any thought that handing out titles and new degree-giving ceremonies was a compensation for the shrinking resources per student which went alongside the change.
In my view, what would be even more damaging would be to think that, having pushed the number of universities up to over 100, you must then allow them to advance only in one equal and even line, without spearheads and without concentration of resources on areas where major frontiers of knowledge breakthroughs are possible. Such a battle strategy would be a certain recipe for military disaster; it would also, I believe, be a recipe for academic failure. Within quite a short time the elastic would snap and Britain would then have no serious candidate for the world league. I make no apology for expressing these discriminatory sentiments. Universities are about excellence; about encouraging individual creativity; and about respect for learning; and a determination to advance human knowledge.
What are the issues that most disturb those with a close knowledge of transatlantic comparisons? First, there is the sheer discrepancy of resources—a discrepancy which is growing greater almost every day. Harvard, which is, admittedly, top of the tree, but with four or five powerful and elevated branches just below, has accumulated endowments that amounted to 13 billion dollars in 1998; probably now, with the state of the US stock market, at least 15 billion dollars. In addition, in a typical year, it receives accretions of another 1 billion dollars.
Harvard is not a huge university, though its graduate schools are much bigger than our graduate body in Oxford or in Cambridge. But its undergraduate body at 6,500 is barely 60 per cent of ours at Oxford. This makes the sometimes envied wealth of a few Oxbridge colleges look puny. Even the funds of the great (Cambridge) Trinity pale into relative insignificance.
That wealth has several effects. First, it enables Harvard, and others, to pursue a policy of blind admissions, based purely on intellectual merit, with high fees of course, but with the university able to ensure from its own resources that no one is excluded by inability to pay.

1287
Secondly, it results, though not out of line in this respect with many other American schools, in an entirely different level of academic salaries from any prevailing here. If it were merely a matter of competing greed, we could just shrug rather cynical shoulders about it, rather as we may do when the most extravagant City bonuses are announced. But it is far from that. The real value of the always modest British academic salaries has been appallingly squeezed in the past 20 or 30 years by as much as 30 per cent in relation to professional salaries generally.
My evidence about the problem of return or, if you like, re-entry comes primarily from three eminent historians who have come back—two from Princeton and one from Colombia—to leading positions in this country. Because they wanted to return they accepted up to a 65 per cent cut in salary; that is not a cut to 65 per cent, but by 65 per cent. But they accepted this because they wanted to return. In my view, that is what gives their evidence a particular validity. They are not disgruntled expatriates, tax exiles in Florida or Belize who put their material interests above commitment to this country. Of course, they had spent substantial periods of time in America, but that in itself is wholly desirable. Cross-fertilisation is part, of the essence of academe. However, it must be two-way and not one-way. My fear is that we could be on the edge of a one-way avalanche of some of the brightest and the best.
That threat arises from more than salaries. Those who came back were, of course, wholly prepared for a plunge in salaries. What they were not prepared for was the vast increase in bureaucratic interference during their absences, resulting in a major diversion of their energies and efforts from their core duty of teaching and research.
The best academics at US universities are made "Professor of the University", which makes them totally unencumbered and able to get on with their writing and teaching. Here, promotion and esteem too often lead to appointments where filling in forms and questionnaires is a grave diversion from creative research and writing. This stems partly from the teaching quality audit and partly from the research assessment exercise. No doubt they both perform some useful functions, but hardly enough to justify the time consumed, The research assessment exercise elevates quantity of published papers over quality and produces the somewhat ludicrous effect that, as the end of each quinquennium draws near, university presses and editors of learned journals are inundated with hastily put together exercises.
The words of one of my three witnesses remain engraved on my mind. He wrote, "It took me the best part of 15 years to do the research and writing of my biography of the Count-Duke of Olivares"—the great Spanish 17th-century statesman—"Had I been working on it in this country, I am afraid [this concentration] would have made me a grave liability to any university". As Sir John Elliott's work as an Hispanic historian has now attracted almost every relevant European prize, those words of his should be taken into account.
1288
It is possible that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, may complain that I am too concerned with stratospheric characters and not enough with the run-of-the-mill routine teaching. I do not know whether she will in fact say that, but, if she does, I shall reject it head on. As I have said, universities are about excellence, and quality stems from the top. In the 1920s and 1930s Cambridge was the foremost university in the scientific world on the frontiers of knowledge, although Oxford fully maintained its position as the nursery of leading figures in most aspects of the national life and has since grafted on to itself a great new scientific capacity, particularly in biomedicine.
However, I prefer to put this argument at one remove, as it were, in relation to Cambridge. How much would Cambridge have achieved—how far would it have gone in achieving its outstanding pre-war position—without the star quality of J.J. Thomson, Rutherford, Keynes, Hardy, Dirac, and a handful of others? Universities depend very much for their international reputations on a few individuals of pre-eminent quality. If they are snuffed out, or induced permanently to cross the Atlantic, a sad mediocrity will follow.
How much would that matter to the nation? Clearly it would matter a great deal to the universities concerned, but it is the duty of this House to see these matters in a broader context. I think that it would be a grave blow to Britain's remaining world assets. Universities, and the nations which encompass them, are historically disposed to rise and fall together.
How are we to get the resources to stem this tide towards American monopoly? We in Oxford certainly do our best with private benefactions and, by the standards of this side of the Atlantic, we have done well. But there is a limit to the amount of juice you can squeeze out of that lemon. We also do well in terms of research contracts, with the result that, as the Prime Minister pointed out in his Romanes lecture at Oxford last week, less than a third of our total income now comes from HEFCE. He added,
"We look to you, and to our other leading universities, not only as the guardians of traditions of humane learning, on which your reputations depend; but also as one of our key global industries of the future, able to give the United Kingdom a decisive competitive advantage … That means government giving you the support only we can provide; but it [also] means universities generating the maximum entrepreneurial drive on a national and international plane".
Entrepreneurial drive requires freedom within which to exercise it. Some voices are increasingly raised in favour of our cutting free from the state sector and becoming private universities, private at any rate to the extent that are the best United States institutions. I recognise that we could be forced in that direction, although I hope not. It would be a hazardous move with our much more limited British culture of private generosity, and I also believe that we should continue to play our full part as a national asset in the national education system. We could, of course, easily fill a large proportion of our places with high fee-paying overseas students. But that would not be exactly fulfilling our role. A foreign leavening is desirable in any good university, but it should be a

1289
leavening and not a near take-over. The role of our leading universities should be as spearheads of this country's educational system and not as international finishing schools.
But if we are to maintain our standards and our competitive position, we must get extra resources from somewhere. The sums involved are not huge. One informed estimate that I have seen suggests that another £100 million annually spread over perhaps 50,000 students in the top institutions, not just Oxbridge, could do the job. That may or may not be so. The figure cannot be totally accurately estimated. But at any rate that gives the order of magnitude with which we have to deal. Much the most desirable solution would be for the Government to provide that limited degree of extra resources. The sum of £100 million must be seen in relation to an HEFCE budget of approximately £4 billion a year and in relation to a total sum spent on higher education of £13 billion a year. I believe that would be a good national investment and it would be my preferred solution. But if that cannot be the case, the arrow points inevitably to differential fees.
While this may not be the wish of the DfEE and, I must make clear, is not the policy of the Liberal Democrat Party, it is my duty in this debate to point out realities and real choices as I see them. They are in the logic of the Prime Minister's remarks about the need for entrepreneurial drive on top of the support which government can provide. However, you cannot be entrepreneurial with one hand strapped behind your back. And, of course, the Government cannot fall back on a principled objection to fees. Rightly or wrongly—I have a certain sympathy always with the constraints of financial discipline—they have driven a large tank through that line of defence. In those circumstances I cannot see why they should try to erect a new and much less defensible line against differential fees. Such a line would only begin to make sense on the basis that all our 104 universities were teaching and researching at an equal level of quality. Such a view, as I endeavoured previously to show, is quite incompatible in the medium term with the maintenance of centres of excellence which can challenge the American monopoly.
Such a proceeding must not infringe the principle that inability to afford the fees does not exclude any of high intellectual merit. That would be the wish of every vice-chancellor whose university would be involved, and the Harvard experience shows that it can be achieved. The differential would not be vast; it would be for individual vice-chancellors to judge; and of course it should not be confined to Oxbridge but should be left to the wider group that I mentioned earlier of vice-chancellors and university councils and senates to judge. That is the essence of the entrepreneurial freedom of which the head of the Government spoke.
If the DfEE does not like it, I ask it please to provide more money for research-intensive universities. I would welcome that. But it cannot have it all ways: no extra public funding; no ability to raise charges. The result of that, gradually but inevitably, would be no
1290
first-class British universities. That outcome I shall resist to the uttermost because I would regard it as a tragedy worse than differential fees. I beg to move for Papers.
3.47 p.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, in his wide-ranging speech and to be able to thank him on behalf of the House for making it possible for us to have what I am sure will be a valuable and wide-ranging debate.
When I look at the list of those who have put their names down to participate in the debate I rather wonder at my temerity in speaking. We shall have the benefit of a tremendous range of expertise and experience during the course of the afternoon and evening. I certainly cannot claim anything like that degree of intimate knowledge, let alone academic appointment, which so many of the participants in the debate have experienced.
I at once acknowledge the special authority of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, speaking as he does as the chancellor of the co-equal first university of our country. He also speaks with great authority because, as we all know, he has access to the highest counsels of the land. I have no doubt that his words will be given that extra special weight which we all give to the words of those who enjoy access at the highest level. I claim no such authority. I cannot say quite that I am the man in the street; I am rather the visitor in the fellows' garden, if I can put it that way. However, I am a consumer of higher education and I am married into an academic family which, as my old and noble friend Lord Annan constantly reminds us, is a famous one in our land.
Having said that, I have two points that I wish to put to the House and, above all, to the Minister who will reply to the debate. The first is my concern at the major changes that were introduced almost as soon as we formed our Government. It may be that I am not sufficiently adjusted to the modern world, but I am unhappy about the introduction of fees for university education.
I am even more unhappy about the abolition of grants for students. Perhaps I am biased by the fact that I represented in the other place for more than 30 years a very impoverished community. I should say that it was impoverished only in the financial sense; it was full of the vitality and vigour of a mixed and fascinating population.
The average accumulation of debt that students now beginning a university course can expect to incur is something of the order of £15,000 or more by the end of the course. If they meet—as many do—their partners at that university, the partner will no doubt also bring into the association a further debt of equal magnitude. That is not a good send off towards battling one's way in the world, even in the 21st century. I do not like it.
Obviously debt has a relative impact depending on the family one comes from. I do not think I would have had a higher education but for the provisions made for

1291
returning warriors after the Second World War, where everything was paid for by the state. It was not very generous, but it saw me and many others through.
When I think of my constituents without a university tradition—people earning not high incomes by any means—it must be a barrier that their children will be faced with an almost certain debt of £15,000. My first request of my noble friend who is to reply is, please keep the closest watch on the student intake from the deprived areas—the inner-city areas, as they tend to be—of our country. I hope I am wrong about this, but if the Government find that there is a trailing off or diminution in the intake from those areas, please let us have a serious rethink about the whole policy of abolishing grants. That is all I want to say on that subject.
My next point concerns academic pay. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has already touched on that. It is terribly important. We are very fortunate that there is a substantial number of people in our country who do not consider financial rewards or the magnitude of the pay packet as the great deciding factor in how they choose to work and pass their lives. On the contrary. Thank heaven that tradition is still there; that people still relish the task, the job, the fascination and the interest of academic life and of leaching and the association that they have with people in a similar and often pleasing environment. Thank heaven that is there.
But all that is not there in a number of our universities. When one considers that the load on the average teacher has increased by about 100 per cent in terms of teacher/student ratios in the past 20 years and that, as we all now accept, a gap of something like 30 per cent has emerged over those years between increases in the salaries of comparators and academics, it really is a very serious matter. While people are not wholly motivated by rewards, we cannot allow a gap of that size to emerge without it having a serious effect on people's career choices.
This is already being reflected in a kind of brain drain. Rewards are much better in American universities, as are the university facilities and research facilities. Many of our best people are tempted there. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, told us, the number who come back in spite of massive reductions is quite remarkable. That is very creditable, but we cannot rely on it.
When one thinks also of the competing job availability in the City and of the financial services endlessly expanding, all of which offer rewards hugely in excess of those available in academia, we really have to do something about it now.
When I was last involved in a similar debate—I think it was in June—it concerned the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, to establish a kind of review body for academic salaries. The body would consider what the rewards should be and, hopefully, it would then be up to the Government finally to accept them. None the less it would be a very strong influence on the Government's decisions. At that time, my noble friend Lady Blackstone, who is to reply today, conceded that
1292
a very serious gap had emerged and she told us—I hope that she can go a good deal further than this today—that it was, first of all, a matter for the employers. I think it is a hit more than that. Secondly, she told us that there was a question of affordability. There always is. Thirdly, and the strongest point she made, she said that she would not want to pre-empt the Bett Report—I think that refers to Sir Michael Bett of the Treasury—which was just about to be published. I understand that very well.
We now have the Bett Report. That has been very supportive of the arguments and claims put forward by those who feel that the gap between academic and comparator jobs is insupportably large and should be diminished immediately. As I recall, its first recommendation was that there should be a 9 per cent increase in real terms for academic salaries. Within that there should be some much larger increases in the starter lecturer scale—the bottom of the scale should be very much higher than it is now—and for similar research posts. I should like to hear my noble friend say today that that at least has been accepted: that the Government, in making their forward budget provisions for the next three years, have written in the funding of the extra payment to help to begin to close the gap for research and academic employees.
I have kept my eye closely on the clock and I shall bring my remarks to a close. I get the feeling from my noble friend that the door is ajar. Let us see if we can kick it half-way open later tonight.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords. I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for giving us another opportunity in this House to debate higher education and our universities. Indeed, the best debate in Parliament since the election has taken place in this Chamber. That is not surprising when one looks at the strength, breadth and reach of experience of the Members who will speak after I have sat down.
I should say to the noble Baroness that these debates have not been initiated in government time. The Government give the impression of not being very much interested in higher education or the universities. The noble Baroness is frowning and shaking her head in disagreement—I am not surprised at that—but I asked the research department in the Library if it could point me to one major speech made by our Prime Minister on universities. It could not find one. I then asked if it could find a major speech by David Blunkett in the last two and a half years on universities, and it could not. In forlorn hope, I asked if the Deputy Prime Minister had made a speech on universities in the past two and a half years. No Cabinet Minister has made a speech about university policy in the past two and a half years. The only policies initiated have been a vindictive attack upon Oxford and Cambridge over college fees and the rather botched-up fees proposals, which ended up in the bullying of this House.
I believe—as does the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins— that we in the university area are facing a very serious crisis. At the heart of that crisis is a lack of resources

1293
and cash. Two weeks ago, the noble Baroness announced a huge increase in university funding. When I read the press release I considered with amazement the spin doctors now working in my old department. The Minister announced an increase of £295 million, which represents an increase of 11 per cent over four years. However, the analysts got to the figures and revealed that they did not represent an increase but rather a real-terms cut. With great respect to the noble Baroness, universities are to have an extra £295 million in 2002, taking the total budget to £5.7 billion. That represents a 1 per cent real-terms cut in funding per student as compared with 2000–01. The settlement for that year will represent a 1 per cent cut on this year.
What the Government are doing is encouraging the expansion of higher education—which I fully support. I welcome the fact that more young people at university are from families which in the past would never have thought it possible. Indeed, the targets I set in my final year in 1989 for university participation by the year 2000 were exceeded in 1996. However, while the Government are encouraging expansion, they are providing less cash per student, and that is putting an enormous strain upon the system. In this argument, I believe that the Treasury has won.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, spoke of the differentials between salaries in this country and those in other countries. A great deal of anecdotal evidence is available. I know of a teacher at a northern university who, in the past month, has moved to a German university—not one of the great state universities, but a small, provincial institution—at double his UK salary. He cannot even speak German very well, but they wanted him and he was prepared to go. Last week I learnt of two more academics from Oxford who intend to leave. The brain drain has begun and it will accelerate. I know perfectly well that university teachers are not solely concerned with money and dominated by cash returns. One has only to read the delightful book on dons by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, which would make very good Christmas reading if I may so recommend it to noble Lords and try to boost its sales. However, they are not indifferent to material rewards. The market beckons and they are leaving. Soon, more will join them.
What can we do about it? I have come to the reluctant conclusion that no government, including any future Conservative government, will ever give universities the resources they really need. In my time I tried very hard and achieved reasonable settlements, but I would have liked to have done much better. Some of my successors in fact cut funding, which I thought a mistake. However, I do not believe that in any government there is a sufficient degree of emphasis and priority to fund higher education in the way it should be supported. The noble Lord mentioned the figure of £100 million. I have to say to him that £100 million would disappear very quickly, given the needs of the universities. The noble Lord made a plea for the great élite universities of our country. That cry has fallen on deaf ears. This Government have taken
1294
money away from Oxford and Cambridge. I make that point to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and to the then leader of his party who was trying to get into the Cabinet at the very time the Government were reducing funding to our two best universities.
If we accept that no government are going to provide the necessary level of support, where can universities look for funding? In 1986–87 when I introduced the concept of per capita funding for students, so that students would go to university and take with them a certain amount of money—whether they were arts, science or medical students—I believe that that marked the beginning of a process whereby universities would gather their funding from four principal sources: per capita funding that came with the students; endowments, although I agree that endowments here are small-scale by comparison with those of the great American universities; access funds, which we introduced in order to give colleges and universities money to help students from poorer families who could not afford the loans, much less the fees; and a form of fees. I have not mentioned research funding because that is a separate issue and should form part of a separate debate.
I was unable to introduce fees, but I did introduce student loans. Since you cannot have too much of a good thing I left it to the Labour Government to introduce the concept of fees, and they are now a reality. I agree entirely with the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, that we should now introduce differential fees and allow the universities to charge such fees.
Of course, universities already do this as regards overseas students. One of the features of British universities is that we attract more overseas students to our universities than do either French or German education institutions. Overseas students bring great cultural enrichment to our universities. Furthermore, when one examines the statistics for postgraduates over the past five years—1994–1999—it is clear that the number of English postgraduate students has remained steady at about 63,000 per year. However, in that period the number of postgraduates coming to British universities from Europe has risen by 9,000 to 15,000, and from overseas, from 17,000 to 23,000. The figures for undergraduates show that over the past five years, British undergraduate students from British homes have only increased by 5,000. However, undergraduates coming from overseas have increased by 25,000. So the universities are well versed in the advantages of differential fees. If the noble Lord, Lord Desai, were in his place, he would almost certainly intervene to point out that at the London School of Economics, one-third of the students now come from overseas and pay the full tuition fees, ranging from £7,000 to £10,000 per year.
I believe that we must face up to this situation, although I know that it is a difficult step for the Government. They will argue that, by introducing differential fees, it makes it easier for rich dullards to go to university but what happens to talented students from poor homes? There are two ways to approach this. First, the access funds that we introduced should

1295
be increased. Access funds were specifically directed towards the less well-off. Secondly, the Prime Minister should give the lead in ensuring that everything possible is done to encourage the increased endowment of our universities, possibly by more advantageous tax differentials, to try to close the huge gap with Harvard, Princeton and Yale. Again, that would provide a source of income to the universities so that they could better help those students who cannot afford the full fees.
What I have set out here is likely to happen. The pressures are building up. It is quite possible that one or two of the Oxford or Cambridge colleges will become truly independent, private institutions. Unless safety valves are put in place, I believe that that will occur. However, the arguments in my speech and those in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, do not concern only Oxford and Cambridge. Some years ago, differential fees were thought to be a cranky, right-wing notion. However, many Members of this House will have heard these same arguments from other universities such as Southampton, Nottingham, Durham and Exeter. Those institutions have come to realise that no government will provide the necessary resources.
When the noble Baroness responds to the debate, I am sure that she will reject this idea as being totally and utterly unacceptable. Or at least, I imagine that will be the case. If she does not, I look forward to her speech. However, before the noble Baroness damns it, I hope that she will not damn it too completely because she may have to eat her words. That is because if, three years ago, the noble Baroness had been asked whether a Labour government would introduce fees in our universities, I can imagine her splenetic rhetoric as she attacked the idea. Indeed, perhaps the noble Baroness can indicate to the House any speech she made before the general election saying that the Labour Party was going to introduce fees in the way that it has. I do not believe that those speeches are readily available.
For that reason, I hope that the noble Baroness will not reject this proposal completely out of hand. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said, our universities are one of the prize assets of our country. Furthermore, we are living in a brain economy, where brain power actually creates wealth. I hope the Government realise that there is a crisis in our universities and that it has to be addressed.
4.9 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Derby: My Lords, as a new Member of this House, I approach this debate from the experience of a new university—the University of Derby, which is only 10 years old, having graduated from colleges of higher education without the intermediate stage of being a polytechnic. That move to becoming a university changed Derby's agenda. It increased the expectations of both government and the community. They relate now to a university as a place for the whole person, not as simply a provider of courses for the acquisition of qualifications.
1296
We subscribe to the Royal Society of Arts' definition of "capability" (and thereby employability) as some 40 per cent specialist knowledge—be it in textile design, engineering, computer science or modern languages. Alongside that 40 per cent specialist knowledge, education should deliver some 60 per cent made up of a generic bundle including the ability to learn continuously and adapt; being self-motivated, self-aware, self-critical; developing empathy, team working, enterprise, a sense of purpose, and so on. For such important qualities to flourish, what is required is a community of learning, not simply a brochure of courses or a collection of classrooms and laboratories occupied by disconnected individuals. For that reason, in a time of expansion coupled with financial stringency over its first decade, Derby University has drawn the wider community into an enterprising achievement by building student halls for all those who want them.
For education to be expressed in this rounded way, the spiritual needs of students must be addressed. The Church of England in England alone has more than 150 chaplains in higher education and, if extended to Britain at large and our partners from the mainstream Churches, the number rises to some 600. In Derby our chaplaincy works as an ecumenical team, which is fairly typical. As a new university set in the multi-racial, multi-faith East Midlands, itself a region set in multi-faith Britain, Derby has pioneered inter-faith research and teaching. We are currently running an appeal to develop a multi-faith centre providing world faiths with spaces not only for research and teaching but also for worship, counsel and social activities. This is an expression of the conviction that there will be no world peace until there is peace among the world's religions. That conviction is another instance of how education well done, holistically benefits the world, its nations, its communities, groups, families and individuals in that kind of order, and not simply its individuals, nor solely because it increases employability.
In the context of globalisation and our increasing focus on economic aspects, we would be wise not to ignore this wider value of higher education and to promote it strongly. Here is a university which is also proactive in economic regeneration. Derby and Derbyshire are proud of their university. The university is an up-front player among the public, commercial and voluntary bodies energising the Derby City Partnership. It is the instigator of projects to enhance economic opportunities including employment in the High Peak, working with public and commercial partners focused on Buxton. The university's regional performance in business in the East Midlands has been recognised by the Higher Education Funding Council for England. Gone are the days when universities could be considered as relatively unproductive consumers of public funds; they demonstrably have the potential to be central to economic competitiveness. True though that is, higher education contributes not only to the material wealth of a region but also to its culture and values.

1297
In all this we believe that our aims are congruent with the Government's declared policies, notably a commitment to lifelong learning and access open to students from a broader range of social backgrounds. Our chancellor, Sir Christopher Ball, speaks of creating in society a culture of aspiration. That is being fostered by the development of seamless links with local further education institutions, by taking courses to outposts accessible not only geographically but also psychologically to those unfamiliar with the notion of lifelong learning.
The tables published last Friday show Derby to be one of the highest performing universities in terms of access for the lowest social groups. That includes a high proportion of mature students. Courses are also being offered in Urdu and Hindi languages.
If we accept the conclusion drawn by HEFCE that young people from wealthy areas are 10 times more likely to enter higher education than those from poorer areas, we welcome the Government's commitment to widening penetration among families where there could be first-generation graduates. But we find present student funding still leaves major obstacles to penetration among those social groups which are most excluded. Now that students emerge typically with debts and student loans in the range of £10,000 to £15,000, higher social groups are more likely to take that in their stride than those with waged backgrounds, like manual skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled workers. Not only are they understandably inhibited by a massive debt culture but they are also likely to count the cost in terms of lost earnings over, say, three years at, say, £40,000 to £50,000. That applies particularly to mature students who might otherwise step back from earning for a while to improve their own skills and thereby their value to both employers and the community.
As the Government constantly review their policies to defeat social exclusion, here is an area for further attention. Education is unchallenged as one of the keys to inclusion. Adjustments are urged to strengthen penetration among non-professional families and to enhance support for those universities which show a commitment to lifelong learning and broader access.
4.17 p.m
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, the honour falls to me from these Benches to congratulate, in the name of the whole House, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby on his maiden speech. It was an important speech by any standards. He is a most distinguished Member of your Lordships' House who has been Clerk of the Closet to Her Majesty the Queen since 1996. He has held high office in the Church all over the United Kingdom, a career of extraordinary achievement, where he even finds time, among his many recreations, for bee-keeping. We hope that he will play a prominent part in your Lordships' House and that we shall hear a great deal more from him on this and many other subjects.
1298
Before I address your Lordships' House in this very important debate, I should like to declare an interest as chairman of the Council of King's College, London. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for introducing this debate.
I am sure that your Lordships are aware of the great changes that British higher education has experienced in recent years. This has strengthened the university sector. We at King's have found that this strength derives from a network of new partnerships with the private sector, between disciplines, with higher education, with government, with industry, with other public sector organisations and with our local community.
Perhaps I may take the case of King's College, London to demonstrate the changes that some universities have experienced. In recent years, we have seen major transformations of the college's size, estate and research. Fifteen years ago the college had 3,500 students. Today, following the mergers with the Institute of Psychiatry, and the United Medical and Dental Schools of Guy's and St Thomas's Hospitals, the college has 16,500 students. It is now the largest institution for medical education in Europe, as well as being one of the leading universities in this country for teaching and research in law, humanities, education and the sciences.
This very impressive growth in student numbers needs to be accompanied by a concurrent development of facilities, especially when university buildings, although distinguished and magnificent, may have been designed with 19th century teaching methods in mind. At King's, we are in the midst of a £300 million redevelopment programme, the scale of which is extraordinary in either the private or public sector. Furthermore, this massive investment has not been at the taxpayer's expense; King's has responded to the new world order of higher education by securing a substantial part of this money from non-governmental sources.
Growth is not an end in itself, however. There are many benefits that come with expansion, but principally, growth has allowed a holistic interdisciplinary approach to research that breaks down the barriers between disciplines and departments.
A fine example of this would be the new Wolfson Centre for Age-Related Diseases, to be established at the Guy's campus of King's College, London. This remarkable centre for research into the health problems of our ageing population—the first of its kind in this country—will bring together distinguished scientists from a variety of fields. Partnerships with four NHS trusts ensure that biomedical sciences are grounded in the realities of medical practice at a local level. The community at large stands to benefit immensely from such research and, what is more, the £6 million cost of the project has been obtained from private sources.
This country's record of groundbreaking research is the envy of the world. Research funding has always come from a variety of sources. The Government

1299
should be made aware that any proposals to channel research moneys entirely through research councils would be destabilising and would inevitably result in a weaker research base. A strong research base is often derived through partnership. King's works in partnership with government, providing more research for government departments than any other university. The college also works in partnership with industry to provide new products and services. A good example of this might be the Mobile Virtual Centre of Excellence, which has been created through a partnership with four other universities and 25 industrial groups, to provide multimedia communications on the move. This poses many complex technological challenges which only a consortia bringing a wide range of skills could expect to solve.
Like many other universities, King's is a research-led teaching organisation, but one where the interests of students are paramount. Widening access to students from a variety of backgrounds is an exciting challenge across the university sector, but it is not enough to target potential students at the age of 18 to encourage them to attend university; they must be encouraged from an earlier age. At King's, for instance, we recently held a weekend workshop for 150 schoolchildren from around the UK, who debated issues of medical ethics, on equal terms, with scientists and clinicians of international standing. At another level, we have plans to offer a fast-track system, bypassing A-levels, for bright children from under-performing schools who would make fine doctors, but whose education is unlikely to provide them with the necessary qualifications to obtain entry to medical schools.
The lay members of my council are increasingly vociferous about t what they see as unnecessary bureaucratic methods for achieving desirable ends. As an example, strong concerns have been expressed about the establishment of a centralised procurement system. Such moves towards centralisation can only be to the detriment of efficiency and initiative at a local level.
The fantastic possibilities of information technology may help to widen access and to increase steps towards an increasingly global university community. Britain must invest in this area to ensure that it remains a world leader.
One hundred and seventy years ago, a British Prime Minister, the Duke of Wellington, fought a duel over King's College. While not expecting such a passionate display from the present Prime Minister or Government, it is to be hoped that a similar commitment is applied to maintaining the distinguished position of Britain's leading universities on the world stage.
Universities are the intellectual powerhouse of society. As we enter a new millennium, the ivory tower is crumbling, to be replaced by a highly developed network of partnerships which not only strengthen higher education, but strengthen the service that universities provide to society.
4.25 p.m.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I acid my thanks to those of others to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for enabling us to have this debate. I must declare an interest as the chief executive of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, but I want to address my remarks to the rich diversity of the university sector. I certainly want to say something about funding. I also want to celebrate the achievements of the whole of this richly diverse sector. I was delighted to hear the remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby. I thank him for an excellent and thought-provoking speech.
Looking back 10 years, we were held back by outmoded student funding arrangements, arrangements which reflected the university system as it had been in the mid-1960s, when only a small proportion of people attended university. That system was compounded by an ongoing deterioration in public funding. In his excellent review, the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, pointed out that in the period between 1989 and 1995, funding was cut by 28 per cent in real terms. Worse, this meant that numbers entering universities were static, preventing the widening of opportunity and of prospects of many of our young people.
I do not think that any account of the present state of our universities can ignore the strides that the sector has taken to implement the core Dearing recommendations. These emphasised the need to revitalise the sector, not just in terms of a new funding settlement, but by action taken by institutions themselves to enable them to face future challenges, especially lifelong learning, globalisation and the explosion in communications and information technology.
I shall give two examples. Over the past two years, the sector has established the Institute for Learning and Teaching, which aims to secure the professionalism of teaching staff. Universities, with other partners, have set up the Quality Assurance Agency, in order to make more transparent the high quality and diversity of the system.
Performance indicators were published for the first time last Friday. I said in the debate in this House on the gracious Speech that I was confident that the indicators would prove that our institutions remain world class. They did, indeed, bear that out. Our efficiency rates—that is, the time it takes students to acquire a qualification—are first class, at 85 per cent on average. Our progression rates are second only to Japan, at 82 per cent. But I am not complacent about this; nor is the sector. It means that one in five do not complete their course, and we want them to succeed too.
But those least likely to succeed tend to come from poorer backgrounds, and to have had less success, for whatever reasons, at school; and they are more likely to be mature students. These students need our particular support and encouragement, and universities are looking closely at these figures as benchmarks to improve performance. They recognise that that must be done.

1301
All of these developments—on teaching and learning, on quality, and on accountability—have been driven by the sector and are indicative of the progress made since the Dearing inquiry took place. But we are now emphatically in the post-Dearing era. Universities today are at the leading edge of some crucial national challenges, which have emerged fully only in the past two years. Universities have realised their potential as engines of wealth creation much faster than even Dearing anticipated. The Government have recognised, through their competitiveness White Paper, the various technology transfer initiatives and, we hope, in the forthcoming science and innovation White Paper, that universities will have a role as creators of national economic prosperity as well as consumers of public funds.
Last week, the Prime Minister set out his views on the contribution of universities to UK development in the next millennium. He went so far as to say that,
"In the knowledge economy, entrepreneurial universities will be as important as entrepreneurial businesses, the one fostering the other".
He described universities as,
"one of our key global industries of the future".
We face another challenge: the global opportunities presented by computer and IT developments. The United Kingdom's higher education needs to step up its global engagement, not least in the face of competition from Australia, the United States and elsewhere. The imperatives of the knowledge-driven economy demand it. The opportunities afforded by English as a global language demand it.
Perhaps I may give just one example. A recent advertisement in the Guardian, a British newspaper, featured an MBA offered by the University of Chicago in Barcelona, and marketed in London, Madrid, Brussels and Frankfurt. That demonstrates that the conceptual and physical borders that may once have restricted academia are dissolving with the emergence of new technologies. The United Kingdom's universities must be able to take advantage of that.
I want to end as I began, by considering funding. I hope that I have indicated that our universities are successful institutions. They represent a successful sector which is outward-looking, identifying and responding to challenges of the moment both at home and internationally, and thinking long term about rising to future challenges.
All that has been achieved by dedicated, often inspirational, staff, who have also delivered the massive expansion of the sector. It is vital that their dedication and sheer productivity is recognised and rewarded. Other noble Lords have emphasised that point. The Government have introduced some bold changes to the funding system, and the CVCP supports the principle of tuition fees as providing a vital income stream. Reassuringly, students clearly believe that the investment that they are making is worth while, as applications are buoyant. Yet the issue of the level of public funding remains.
1302
Funding for year three of the current Comprehensive Spending Review has just been announced. The headline figure, as the noble Lord, Lord Baker, said, was an increase in funding of £295 million for 2001–02. That is a large sum, but translated into the amount of funding to teach each student it represents once again a cut—of 1 per cent. That must be seen in the context of the well documented cuts of 35 per cent in funding per student over the past decade.
The critical question is: can universities continue to sustain such further cuts without more damage? Will the all-important goal of expanding student numbers and creating a more socially inclusive higher education sector be put in jeopardy? Is there is a risk that the investment in schools and colleges aimed at raising standards and attainment levels will not be matched by opportunities at higher levels of study? Will students be taught on obsolete equipment, and how will that affect the global performance of our universities in the fierce competition for international students? Will recruitment and retention of the highest quality staff be jeopardised because there are no funds to deliver the necessary modernisation of pay structures? Will the rich diversity of UK higher education be constrained, with the added risk of dull uniformity? In a world where nations live by their wits, will the UK be able to compete effectively?
This is not intended as a catalogue of woes, but a realistic assessment of the kinds of areas that might be at risk if the funding base of our universities is not strong. I am reminded of the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing:
"the needs of the short term must not be allowed to damage the long-term prospects".
The Government have given hope to the universities after a decade of cuts. The universities are delivering modernisation in return for investment. They now look to the Government to boost further their investment in higher education over the next review period. If they do, universities, too, can play a full part in the UK's global success in the 21st century.
4.34 p.m.
Baroness Prashar: My Lords, it is a great honour to be a Member of this House and to be addressing it for the first time. Before discussing the topic of this debate, perhaps I may take the liberty of making some personal remarks. I want to begin by expressing my thanks to many Members of the House for their support and friendship, and everyone who works here for their help, courtesy and warm welcome. Their generosity of spirit has been remarkable.
I never expected, when I came to this country some 35 years ago, to become a Member of this House. I wonder what my parents, had they been alive, would have made of their daughter being in this Chamber with the title Baroness Prashar, of Runnymede. By the same token, I wonder what the residents of the borough of Runnymede make of it.
During the passage of time, we have become a multi-racial and multi-cultural society. It was the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, who, in 1966, defined

1303
a multi-racial society and integration not as a flattening process of assimilation but as equal opportunity accompanied by cultural diversity in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance—a definition which even today is relevant and has stood the test of time. It was the noble Lord who also introduced parole in 1967 as a way of "keeping out of prison those who need not be there".
I have been lucky to have had the privilege of working in both those areas, and today I find myself making my maiden speech in a debate initiated by the noble Lord, although I speak from a very different perspective. Currently, I chair the Parole Board and for some years I was director of the Runnymede Trust. The trust was founded by people of vision, with a deep commitment to social justice and human rights. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the late Jim Rose, one of the founders, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, among others, for creating the impetus for change. It is the wisdom and work of such enlightened individuals and the resilience of those who came to this country in the 1960s and 1970s which have enabled us to make the progress we have made and defy the prophecies of doom and gloom. But there is much more to be done. There are, as we all know, severe problems of entrenched prejudice and discrimination. Those require urgent action. We need much stronger legislation and an effective public education programme. I know I am not allowed to be controversial but I shall say that I am disappointed that we have not been promised much stronger anti-discrimination legislation.
I now turn to the subject of the debate. In my work I have witnessed at first hand the disadvantage that results from lack of effective access to education. Nowhere is that more evident than in our prisons. Lack of education, illiteracy and consequent lack of self-esteem and confidence are all contributory factors to crime. It is estimated that 70 per cent of those in prison are unemployable due to a lack of basic education and skills. Prisons are a poignant reminder of social exclusion.
This debate on the state of our universities gives me an opportunity to discuss widening participation in higher education from a broader perspective. In recent years, we have moved from an élite to a mass system of higher education. Commendable efforts have been made by some universities, particularly our new universities, to widen participation. I speak as a governor of De Montfort University, which is located in Leicester with campuses in Bedford, Milton Keynes and Lincoln. Despite recent progress in encouraging the participation of under-represented groups, inequalities persist. These need to be tackled. We need to redouble the efforts made by schools, colleges and universities in collaboration with one another to develop access schemes. These efforts need to be supported and encouraged by government.
Some very imaginative schemes have been developed. This must be King's College's day. Last week I saw a scheme developed by that college which greatly impressed me. The scheme is aimed at widening social and ethnic participation in medicine. It will last
1304
for six rather than the usual five years and include support for students. Schoolchildren from Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham will be selected for their potential as early as year nine and offered curriculum enrichment programmes by the medical school to raise their aspirations. They will be supported by medical students and specially trained tutors.
Schemes like these are very necessary corrective measures but they are not enough, for we all know that factors which influence participation and success are family background and academic achievement during compulsory education. Under-achievement at that stage has for many years bedevilled the education system. A turn-round in that situation will make a big difference. To achieve it we need to tackle the negative attitudes and cultural barriers to learning among those who have not traditionally participated in learning.
Lack of motivation derives from the absence of a learning culture or belief acquired from family and peers that "learning is not for me." There needs to be a major shift in attitudes to learning. Tackling lack of educational culture among the very young, particularly in deprived communities, is an essential preventive measure. We need a two-pronged strategy: first, to deal with those groups who are the hardest to recruit into the system; secondly, to invest in strategies designed to change the negative attitude and cultural factors which inhibit learning.
Long-term change takes time and perseverance, but it can be done. Here I want to share with noble Lords the approach of the National Literacy Trust of which I am a deputy chairman. The work of the trust is aimed at long-term change. Emphasis is on individual learners and factors that inhibit learning. It seeks to strengthen the work of schools and give assistance to parents by working with those who support schools and parents. The trust believes that success lies in a systematic partnership with many partners coming together to form a virtuous network.
In Newcastle-upon-Tyne the trust worked with the local authority and community to set up an initiative aimed at raising literacy standards across the city and introduced a learning culture. It involves all parts of the community—libraries, businesses, clubs, art organisations, health authorities, the Probation Service and individuals—in the building of partnerships with the local authority taking the lead. This process is time-consuming and there are no quick fixes. But it is effective. The second scheme established by the trust, entitled Reading is Fundamental, involves the distribution of free books to children at fun events to motivate and encourage reading. Children choose their own books and keep them. The trust works in socially deprived areas. For many children these are the only books they own. It is a simple scheme but it is designed to break the cycle of deprivation.
Early intervention and change in attitudes are just as necessary as initiatives to recruit students from a broader constituency if we are to achieve and sustain wider participation in education. Last week, the publication of the performance indicators for higher education showed that in some universities one

1305
student in three left without a qualification. Figures also showed a close correlation between students' social background and their ability to complete a degree. Various interpretations and explanations were advanced and different conclusions were drawn. I suggest that drop-out rates among the newer universities are high because those institutions were the first to make an effort to recruit students from a broader constituency. The drop-out rate is high, not because students cannot cope or have lower intellectual ability, but because they face greater difficulties in working to support themselves. The pressures on them are great.
So far some universities have done a remarkable job in increasing the number of students from lower socio-economic groups. However, to ensure better retention rates degree courses need to be more flexible and university students from families who have no tradition of higher education require more help. This raises the question not only of the future funding of universities but investment in initiatives that are designed to bring about a long-term change to encourage those from disadvantaged backgrounds into universities.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. It came as no surprise to many of us that she should become a Member of this House. Many of us who have had professional dealings and known her over the years are aware that she is one of the many examples of the great contributions which those East African Asians who were forced to move to Britain in the 1960s have made to the life of this country in every single dimension. She has a great many areas of expertise, related to social questions, racial equality, refugees, prisons and parole, education and the arts from which to contribute to the debates in this House. We look forward to hearing more from her on many of those subjects.
I must declare an interest as a university teacher. In doing so, I am very happy that many people who are contributing to this debate are not university teachers. During the Second Reading of the Armed Forces Discipline Bill last week, I was almost the only speaker who did not come from a military background. At the time I thought that this might well be a debate in which, one after another, university teachers would rise to their feet and say, "Woe, woe, it's all dreadful", as the military did in relation to Armed Forces discipline. I am happy that here there are many who stand outside the self-interest which I and other professors represent.
British universities have gone through very rapid changes in the past 15 years. We have seen a vast increase in numbers, in the shift from the old élite system to the mass system, on which the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, remarked. There has been a huge expansion in university institutions, as my noble friend Lord Jenkins said in his opening, with the end of the binary distinction. We have seen a sharp increase in
1306
government control and centralisation. It was always a great puzzle to me that a Conservative government should pursue socialist planning over the higher education system. The impact of the communications revolution has meant that we have all begun to teach and communicate with our students differently, and to invest in an entirely new set of libraries, laboratories and so on.
We expect that over the next 10 to 15 years there will be continuing rapid change. As the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, remarked, we are now operating very clearly in a global market, and the question of how British universities feature in it is very important to all of us. We expect, and fear, more intense government expectations and demands. There are government plans to increase numbers further, from 30 per cent to 50 per cent of 18 year-olds. Importantly, there is a generational shift in university staff. As those of my generation who were recruited in the first great expansion in the 1960s come up to retirement, they have to be replaced by a new younger generation.
The consensus within the universities among all those to whom I have spoken, both in the Russell group and the new universities, is that the current balance of both funding and structures is not stable and will not last very long. Government interference has become more and more detailed. We face a further squeeze in funding, which is often disguised as efficiency savings. It seems as if there is a certain DfEE approach both to schools and higher education institutions in which inspections, tests, league tables, competitions and policies are used to give the appearance of new policies without the reality of the necessary funding.
The underlying questions are: what are British universities for and what objectives should they pursue? I hope that we can all accept that they have to pursue multiple purposes and objectives. They are national institutions serving national needs, but now they are also global institutions providing a British contribution to the emergence of a global civil society. Higher education in this country is an important invisible export. My institution, the London School of Economics, was awarded the Queen's Award for Export Achievement some years ago in recognition of the extent to which we were beginning to fund ourselves by attracting people from abroad.
We also expect universities to pursue research of a quality which contributes to Britain's future economy. The Department of Trade and Industry is clear that universities help to provide the new industries which Britain needs. I am happy to say that Salt's Mill in Saltaire now has two electronic companies working within it, both of which were founded by professors from Leeds and Bradford universities. That is the way in which new industries emerge in this country. The announcement by the DTI of the partnership between MIT and Cambridge is a good example of that.
On the opposite side, the DfEE talks about education and training within a national context: the investment in human capital that is the key to future prosperity. I am not entirely sure that this amounts to

1307
joined-up government, with two departments sometimes pushing in different directions, and the dead hand of the Treasury lying over all.
The Government are concerned to push universities on access. I do not think that they always give enough attention to privately funded current university initiatives. I have learnt a little of Peter Lampl and the Sutton Trust's efforts with regard to summer schools in Cambridge and Oxford. The London School of Economics is now running a series of Saturday schools for people from inner London boroughs. Both are privately funded. I was told this morning by a pro-vice-chancellor of another university that he had just received a collection of papers on the "Millennium Summer Schools" as part of the Excellence in Cities initiative. He had been given a short period to return the competitive proposals. On discussing the questions with the local education authorities involved, he discovered they did not think that the programme was yet fully enough focused.
The best answer to access lies in the schools: in greater investment in state schools at the primary and secondary level. My children have attended a comprehensive school in south London. I am conscious that many of the black and Asian children in that school would have benefited from better resources for teaching, and more encouragement, which is not being provided. The first call on extra funding for education should not be universities, but those schools.
On recruitment, I believe strongly that we need to care about the next generation, with good starting salaries for people we wish to attract. When law firms offer people straight from university starting salaries of £25,000 and banks often offer £30,000, it is difficult to persuade someone who has done a PhD for a further three or four years that he should accept a salary of £16,000 to £18,000 to start working in a university. I am conscious from ESRC figures that the number of British students entering research degrees has decreased in each of the past three years. There is a potential recruitment crisis.
So we face real choices. We want a diverse higher education system, not the uniform system which the last higher education Act attempted to impose. We want to see Hochschule, technical universities, not every university being treated the same. We want to see universities which can hold their head high globally as well as within a national context. We want either expansion with additional funding, or no expansion. We want to follow—I am a committed European in most other respects—the American model of global excellence; not the French or German model of expansion without additional funding, with 500 to 1,000 people in each lecture hall, with more than half the students who start failing to finish.
We need more public funds, or a relaxation of controls or fees. That is a hard choice; but a government who are prepared to privatise the air traffic control system should not blanch at the idea of moving towards a public/private partnership in the higher education field.
1308
There are hard choices. But the Government cannot refuse to choose, for that would be an abnegation of responsibility: an acceptance that Britain's universities will drift slowly away from excellence into mediocrity.
4.54 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for introducing the debate. We take with a pinch of salt, I am sure, his reference to his almost maiden speech. If it inaugurates a new era of interventions by the noble Lord in this House then we should all welcome them and would be the gainers.
It is a privilege, too, to speak in a debate with two such outstanding maiden speeches. It would be inappropriate for one right reverend Prelate to praise another. No doubt it would erode the humility we are rightly expected to have. However, I can praise without qualification the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. Few people can be more qualified to deal with questions of inclusivism with which she dealt so ably today. We look forward to more contributions from her.
The debate is timely because at a time when universities are undergoing enormous change it is important to ask some fundamental questions about the purpose and nature of higher education arid the values it seeks to cultivate. Some questions were posed by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I agreed with so much of what he said, but some of his remarks posed questions in my mind.
I believe there is danger of a subtle change in higher education away from the holistic concepts described by a number of people in the debate towards a concept of education in the light of the national economy and consumerism. The move towards "bettering" individuals for work and consequently asking them to pay for it serves only to reinforce my disquiet. Of course we want to prepare the next generation for occupations which can make a significant contribution to the common good. But if financial considerations filter through the system, as if they were the only ones that mattered, then we must question them. The idea of students as consumers, and universities as producers, must be challenged.
In that context, I was encouraged to see the purposes of higher education set out in the national committee of inquiry. It stresses a number of the ingredients referred to already by your Lordships, including the sustaining of a knowledge-based economy at local and regional levels as well a s at a national level. But it is the subtleties of language which ring some alarm bells. When I hear a Minister introducing the Government's White Paper on competitiveness with the words,
"Knowledge and its profitable exploitation by business is the key to competitiveness",
and hear talk of the universities' role in driving the economy, and of translating ideas into wealth and marketable opportunities, I wonder whether we are in danger of getting our priorities wrong and are undermining the ideals of a university given to the

1309
purpose of developing whole mature people who are able to live and take a lead in the complex set of demands which make up modern society.
There is a danger that instead of opening up people to new possibilities, new horizons, and wider perspectives, higher education is closing people down, making them self-concerned and defensive. Is it overly cynical to see higher education's current enthusiasm for commercial partnerships as a threat to academic freedom and many other values that used to be held dear in academic circles?
A university education must not be seen as narrowly utilitarian, as training people simply for jobs. It makes a world of a difference whether we are providing for students desperate for a job, or students freely deciding how to spend their lives.
Of course we want to see our universities developing partnerships within wider society and not viewed as parasites upon it. But these partnerships need to he broadly based and the flow of knowledge needs to be two-way. An example of how multi-faceted partnerships can take place within a region has recently been developed in the north-east. There, six universities, including the distinguished University of Durham, have combined to secure funding to encourage more people from the region to enter higher education. I humbly stress to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, that it is a question of partnerships between universities and institutions of higher education, rather than competition between them, that will help us to progress the whole.
The new universities—at least, those in my experience; Greenwich and Sunderland in particular—display a good deal of excellence and should not be discounted as such. I say that with the highest respect and as a very humble graduate of the university over which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, presides. Indeed, with other Members of this House, I am involved in an appeal for one of the best colleges in that university. But, together, that group of universities in the north-east aims to raise the aspirations and expectations of young people and adults from a wide range of backgrounds where families have no experience of college or university.
As the initiative is developed, it will draw the universities into partnerships, not only with the business world, but also with schools, social services departments and the whole of the voluntary sector. Thus, while maintaining academic integrity, the universities will be demonstrating an ideal for education which addresses the whole person and a widening involvement in society as a whole.
Inevitably, in our modern world, where new demands and initiatives are being made and where personal debt and institutional financial constraints loom large, growing stress is a major feature of university life. Levels of stress are undoubtedly increasing, first, among students because of the necessity in many cases to take part-time jobs and uncertain futures and, secondly, among staff because of an increased workload and short-term contracts.
1310
Clearly, standards of research and teaching cannot be maintained in the context of mental stress and the consequent instability that that causes.
I want to close with an affirmation of the contribution of the Churches to the three areas of university life on which I have touched; namely, the ideal of education in its broadest sense, the developing of partnerships with other sectors, and the factor of stress. The Church of England contributes a great deal to higher education through its institutions, through its chaplains and through the work of such bodies as the Church's Commission on Overseas Students. It has a wide academic involvement through its members, its foundations and its colleges. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby referred to our commitment to chaplains. They contribute in a variety of ways towards the health and community life of universities through their involvement in welfare, counselling, special events and pastoral work at all levels of college and university life.
Through these commitments the Churches seek to keep the vision of universities both high and broad. They seek to help to build bridges between universities and the community at large so that any semblance of élitist culs-de-sac may be transformed into a two-way highway of the pursuit of knowledge and the analysis of all human experience for the good of mankind.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, said, the days of the ivory tower are surely gone. But we need to ensure that the soul of education is not sold to the dogmas of economic pragmatism.
5.4 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I join my noble friend Lady Rawlings in welcoming the maiden speech of the bee-keeping right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby. It was lovely to hear him today. I also join the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, on her wonderful maiden speech. I am sure that had her parents been here, they would have been most proud of her.
I follow the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, in wondering at my temerity in joining in the debate: in my case, because I did not go to university. At my school, from quite an early age, the teachers identified and focused on those girls who were bright enough to go to university. They nurtured them and looked after them and sat them in different places in class. We knew that they were different; we that knew they were special; and we knew that really they were nothing to do with us. For the rest of us in my Anglican convent, the choices were the religious life—the highest, of course—marriage and motherhood, or training for nursing or teaching. Luckily, my father would have none of it and I was whisked away to a technical college which was full of exciting engineers and marine biologists. That worked well for me because I came from a fishing family. Indeed, I spent most of my life as a fish trader.
It is interesting that the university of which I am now a governor was the technical college I attended. I have been privileged to be a governor of Plymouth

1311
University for three years. I am also a governor of the convent which I attended and I am thrilled to see how things have changed; how we have moved from the teacher being the sage on the stage to the guide at the side. I am delighted to see how automatic it is for our girls to expect access to every form of further learning. It is wonderful.
I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has brought about the debate because it enables me to take part. To me, "the state of British universities" looks very exciting, changing and expanding. But, as I have learnt during the past three years and as we heard from noble Lords on all sides, there are serious concerns. I want to pose three questions and seek reassurances from the Minister. First, I must apologise to your Lordships and to the Minister because I shall be unable to be present later to hear her reply. I shall, of course, read it with great interest tomorrow.
First, can the Minister confirm that the Government intend to continue to seek efficiency gains from the universities of 1 per cent per annum? If so, can she explain how that is consistent with the Government's agenda to increase participation in higher education from under-represented groups; to increase the vocational element of undergraduate programmes; to improve pastoral care and career guidance; and to improve further the quality of teaching, all of which will require additional, or at the very least no decrease, in funding?
Secondly, given the importance which the Government place on the exploitation of university research, on links with industry and the need to encourage gifted researchers in whichever university to undertake high quality research, does the Minister believe that the policy of research selectivity, which now concentrates 80 per cent of the funds in 20 or fewer universities, has reached its limit without the risk of irreparable damage to the overall research base of this country?
Thirdly and finally, the recent Bett report on terms and conditions for staff in higher education reflected significant problems in inequalities of opportunities and pay within HE and difficulties in staff recruitment and retention in some subjects. Pay in higher education for academic staff is inevitably influenced by pay in related parts of the public sector—in particular, that of teachers, doctors and nurses. As a consequence, in the past two years, as I have no doubt the Minister is aware, pay awards in universities have significantly outstripped growth in income yet, according to the Bett report, they still do not address the well-researched problems. Does the Minister share my concerns and, if so, are the Government considering how they might assist?
I am proud of the university of which I am governor. I am proud of what universities in the United Kingdom have achieved for students, society and the economy. I want to see universities flourish and serve the nation, but I am increasingly concerned that we are in great danger of damaging those future prospects by failing to invest sufficiently in the present.
5.10 p.m.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for introducing the debate. It seems to me not only a necessary debate, but a timely one. This is, after all, the first year in which British undergraduates are entering university with no grant. It is perhaps an inevitable development, but we do not begin to know its effects. We continually see questions raised, particularly in The Times Higher Education Supplement, about the possible effects of those changes, to some of which the noble Lord, Lord Shore, drew attention.
It is early days and I want first to ask the noble Baroness the Minister whether the Government really are monitoring the sorts of changes taking place. We have all heard that questions are being asked as to whether students from certain backgrounds will dare to apply for higher education and that they may be deterred by the prospect of debt. So they may, or on the other hand they may not, and that is why monitoring is important. We need to know whether students are actually deterred, what lies behind any lowering of completion rates and which social groups are most adversely affected by the changed arrangements.
In particular, we need to be able to distinguish between those students who withdraw from their courses for a period of time, perhaps in order to earn some money to continue studying, and those who abandon their courses. We need to know why that is happening. We particularly need to be sure that those who are ostensibly full-time students are really full-time students, as opposed to those registered for courses and stumbling through them, but who are taking so much time off for employment that they are compromising their academic performance and even, perhaps, jeopardising their degrees. I am glad to note that the Government have already agreed to monitor changes in applications. I hope that they will monitor the effects of student employment on academic performance with equal vigilance.
I should declare a number of interests: I have been a university teacher for much of my life, much of it in this country under the well-known system of terms and conditions; I taught for many years at the University of Essex; and I am at present head of a Cambridge college. From all those perspectives, I do not believe that we can sit still while the information about the impact of new arrangements is gathered. We need to act now, soon and within the current framework of student funding, to do something to improve the situation of poorer students. On that point I, too, must congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, on a wonderful maiden speech which drew attention to the realities for so many students.
One of the most helpful things for any poorer student is a bursary, which enables him or her to borrow less, to worry less, and to work more. It limits the temptation to take on too much employment while on course. I believe that there is a great willingness in this country, both in industry and on the part of numerous charitable bodies, to help poorer students in

1313
those ways. There are also many individuals whose own studies, like mine, were generously supported out of public funds in earlier years, who would wish to do what they can to help today's students. The engineering industry has shown the way to all of us by providing many bursaries—often generous bursaries in excess of £1,000 a year—to many engineering students. That is a model to which we might look more widely.
However, providing those bursaries is not merely a matter of smoothing the path of such students by making life easier and more congenial for them; it is also educationally fundamental. Students who know that their debt is running up like a taxi meter will be tempted to take on too much employment, including term-time employment and they will forego educationally valuable vacation placements which do not attract pay, or not much pay. I must declare an interest as chairman of the Nuffield Foundation, which at present makes available some 600 bursaries per year to enable science students to take up laboratory placements in industry and in university laboratories during the summer. Our bursary holders receive about £120 per week for a maximum of 10 weeks. It is a wonderful experience for them.
However, noble Lords will note that that is below the national minimum wage. The bursary is not much. We hope that it is enough to support them during the placement, but we know that it cannot build funds towards year-long maintenance. We do not want to see poorer students foregoing such opportunities. They are educationally valuable opportunities for the students. Students in various areas have to take on many other unpaid placements. Nor do we want the experience of voluntary work to become the prerogative of the better-off student.
I believe that there is now a serious new obstacle in the way of mobilising bursary funds for poorer students. I shall engage in some miniature discussion in the hope that the noble Baroness the Minister may be able to take action on that front at least. I should be happy to hear from her that the problem to which I am about to point is illusory and that it lies only in my reading of the Education (Student Support) Regulations 1999 which came into force in May. However, I fear that the problem is real. Schedule 3 of the regulations states that in calculating a student's income for means testing, only the first £1,000 of any,
"scholarship, studentship, exhibition, bursary, award, grant, allowance or benefit however described in connection with the student's attendance on the course",
is to be disregarded. As soon as a bursary exceeds £1,000 poorer students will lose their tuition contribution exemption pound for pound; when the tuition contribution has been paid, the maximal loan entitlement will be reduced pound for pound.
While the reduction in maximum loan represents a fair adjustment to the good fortune of securing a bursary, as well as a reduced current outlay of public funds, I believe that the claw-back of the tuition payment exemption for poorer students is simply a new poverty trap. We know that the Government are
1314
committed to the elimination of poverty traps. If the system is operated in such a way, students from better-off homes in receipt of bursaries will face only a lowered loan entitlement, but poorer students will face liability for tuition payment as well as a reduced loan ceiling.
Thus the very students for whom bursary support is most vital will gain least by receiving it; the very sources that could help support poorer students and make a reality of the commitment to access industry— charities and private individuals—will be deterred from doing so by the fact that after the first £1,000 the Treasury, rather than the student, will benefit. I cannot believe that that was the Government's intention, and I hope that the Minister will reassure the House on that point.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I should first like to thank briefly, but sincerely, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for the opportunity of this debate. In addition, I most sincerely and warmly, albeit again briefly, congratulate the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, on their maiden speeches. I am sure and, indeed, I hope, that we shall hear much more from them in the future.
The interest I bring to this debate is a life of 45 years spent in research and teaching in two universities. I emphasise teaching and research. Scholarship and the modern habit of buying years of teaching by money raised from sponsors is a mixed blessing. Teaching and research are at their best when they go together. That is a fabric of university life in many places of learning which we are now struggling to maintain.
I have never sought to join, nor was I qualified for, august bodies such as that composed of vice-chancellors of universities whose committee has vacated more trenches at the last moment than any general in our Armed Forces, although at times before that last moment they have done a noble job.
One wonders about past policies when one looks at them from the coal face of academia, which I apprehend I share with some of your Lordships. I accept that money is not the answer to all problems, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that the situation is not all awful or dreadful. The crisis in higher education in Britain arises from a failure by the Treasury, above all, to have confidence in universities and to provide for the massive expansion of students since the 1960s. I have always been unstinting in my advocacy that universities must be accountable. However, that does not justify the creeping financial and other control from the centre since the 1970s. Even the luckiest universities—and I have had the luck to teach in two of them—at this time need a vote of confidence. On coming into higher education, the new institutions should not have imposed upon them a condition that they should be poor. The historian may come to see that lack of confidence in financial provision—a reaction of confused forces of conservatism—as the price of expansion.

1315
Yet public funds fall every year. I know that at the London School of Economics we are luckier than some, perhaps many, but in 1978–79 the direct funds allocated to the school were 64 per cent of its income. In l 988–89 that had fallen to 42 per cent, and in 1998–99 the index of public funding has fallen to 26 per cent. How does the Treasury expect any university—either ours or any other—to maintain its teaching, research and competition at home and abroad for scholars in the top flight in this position? At Oxbridge, dons spend a disproportionate amount of time begging globally in the rich penthouses of their alumni. Other less fortunate universities have to bear the weight of teaching, research and administration. Universities as a whole have suffered.
Following the Bett and Dearing reports, the case hardly has to be proved that university salaries are rather low. They threaten to bring recruitment in some faculties to a halt. The Association of University Teachers has offered a pay review to the Government, which they appear to have refused. The Dearing Committee described it as a system of chaos. On 11th June this year, the Minister for Education disclaimed responsibility when my noble friend Lord McCarthy made a powerful case for a Bill proposing a system of pay review. At col. 1728 of the Official Report, my noble friend appeared to be in a sudden rapture about the blessings of collective bargaining and discounted the Government's position. It was simply a matter of settlement between employers and unions. If you invite people to take industrial action, perhaps you should not be surprised if you get it.
But, of course, we all know that our powers in that realm are very small. One should look at the salary position and make a start at putting it right. Faced with the figures on salaries, the Minister on that occasion relied, somewhat desperately, on a suspect survey of male full-time staff only. Even so, she acknowledged that our salary position compares badly in real terms with the public sector as a whole.
The restraints arise from three policies of central government: to multiply the student numbers, strip the staff of tenure and keep their pay down and, lastly, introduce a new Poor Law on student fees. It would be said of course, "Ah, your HEFCE funding will fall now that you have those wonderful tuition fees from students", which we did not want. When the Government introduced fees for overseas students in the far-off days of 1979, some of us believed that that was a misguided but crucial turning point. On 7th November 1979, at col. 813, I put to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, the Minister for Education, who, I hope, has not lost her interest in the subject, that that would damage irreparably university education, not just for overseas students but for home students as well. That has proved to be so. The fee policy has been absurd.
After the war, or at any rate since 1961, any entrant to higher education was entitled to a grant which might just cover them during their time in higher education. Now, boys and girls from ordinary homes have to mortgage their lives beyond the £15,000 mentioned by my noble friend Lord Shore, perhaps to £20,000 or
1316
more, to buy a first degree. It is not a pleasant sight. It is an unjust policy which causes anxiety for those in families experimenting for the first time with university education. Parents are troubled by it. I am sure mine would have been; they were ambivalent about my advance to university—some say rightly, but never mind about that.
Often in a seminar a teacher becomes rather like a customer service representative. A client relationship springs up, which is in many ways a force that is very sure on the student side. After all, who is responsible for those packed classrooms and gigantic tuition fees? Not all students go on to glittering prizes in their jobs. One student said to me recently, "A lot of them say they won't pay the loans back. But we all know that, if and when we get a job, they will just deduct it from our salaries and that will be that." I was part of the "they" in his mind.
With regard to graduates, perhaps I may mention a recent experience. I have a one-and-a-half hour seminar with graduate students. Two or three years ago there were 11 in the class: three from European states, four from Britain and four from further overseas. I asked whether it would be possible to reschedule the seminar of one-and-a-half hours to the following week. We could not find a suitable time for all the members of the class to meet. The overseas students had grants or some kind of support, but the British students admitted afterwards that they had been forced to take full-time jobs to fund their graduate studies from which they could not obtain release except on the day and time already negotiated with their employers. That is not a satisfactory position.
Perhaps I may add two points briefly. It has again become fashionable to attack the admissions tutors of Oxbridge for not admitting more state school students and fewer public school boys and girls. In the 1960s we began an attempt to move in that direction. Some of our efforts were jejune, like that of the fellow of a neighbouring college who, with almost apostolic fervour, pursued the examination paper which he said would concentrate on intelligence without any class factor showing up. That was a project which crashed the following summer when he set the never-to-be-forgotten state schoolboy's favourite question "Question 4, Write a eulogy of wine".
The 6 per cent of young people who go to institutions of a private nature will continue to be products who jump over all the hurdles that admissions tutors provide, even secretly. I have heard some amusing instances recently where admissions tutors have admitted that there is a limit to what one can do about admissions tests; that is, the limit imposed by current schools which educate a separate class in education in this country. If the Government want to look for a long-term policy for higher education in this respect, it is there in the schools, from common entrance downwards. The Government should look to reform if they have the courage in their next manifesto.

1317
Finally, I refer to the aims of a great Secretary of State for Education who did not agree with me about whether public schools would disappear if we left them alone and increased state provision. Tony Crosland, as Secretary of State for Education, said:
"The more children we have in higher education, the more efficient our society will be, the more civilised our society will be, and the more democratic our society will be. For all those three reasons, any influence I have will be used in the direction of getting more money to education".—[Official Report Commons, 25/3/65; col. 779.]
Those words are very apt today. Were he buried in university grounds, he would be turning in his grave.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, I may well have graduated from that state of self-interest to which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, referred. It is now 12 years since I retired from my post as Professor of Nursing at the University of Manchester, so your Lordships may feel this afternoon that, in what I say, you are "walking with dinosaurs".
My experience of research assessment was in the days of the University Grants Committee and the small sub-group which dealt with pharmacy and nursing as we carried out some of the first research assessments of nursing. I worked also on the Council for National Academic Awards and some of its sub-committees. I learned to appreciate the methods of assessing institutions as well as courses.
I am interested to learn that the issues facing universities today have not changed much from some of the dominant issues in my day—the competing demands for performing well in research; offering good quality teaching; and the challenges of offering widening access to university education and the objectives of lifelong learning; and, of course, we have been hearing a great deal about the perilous state of funding support and salary remuneration in the university sector.
I wish to focus on a few of those issues. In a clinical discipline such as nursing, I believe that the competing demands of teaching, research and maintaining one's competence in clinical practice place very great demands on the individual. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Walton will deal far more competently than I with the demands that that places on the medical profession. But in my own profession, we have had to try to weave a way in order to combine teaching, research and clinical practice. As I say, that places very great demands on the individual. I do not know whether your Lordships can imagine practising even on a part-time basis as a ward sister so that one is clinically competent to teach students the art as well as the science of nursing. That places a demand on the individual to find time also for research and for careful preparation for teaching, as well as for the necessary student contact hours.
Therefore, it is good that the recent report from the UKCC, chaired by Sir Leonard Peach, has drawn attention to the need for service providers and higher
1318
education institutes to continue to develop effective and genuine partnerships to support students and for curriculum development. The report states:
"We invite the CVCP and the National Health Service Executive to add criteria for joint working and effective partnership so that existing principles of agreement for England can be extended".
I ask the Minister to what extent the Government are thinking of supporting those suggestions in the Peach report. I hope that in time this House will be able to devote some time to discussing that report and the whole question of nursing education.
I have heard from a Pro-Vice Chancellor and Dean of Nursing at the University of Manchester that a continuing difficulty for education funded by the National Health Service—that is, medicine, dentistry and nursing, but particularly nursing—occurs where there are fixed contracts which do not allow the universities to invest in buildings. If one has a short, fixed-term contract of seven to 10 years, the risk is too high to start investing in buildings. The NHS is unwilling to offer longer-term commitments, particularly for nursing and professions allied to medicine. So there are particular difficulties in developing new estate.
That is one problem of funding which I see; namely, the short-termism of much of the funding from the National Health Service and the question of how we can achieve some greater joined-up government between the National Health Service and the Department for Education and Employment.
There is also a problem with piecemeal funding and, in particular, the funding for sciences, where substantial resource for new building is required to keep abreast of international work. A great deal of our research is alpha-rated science and should be supported generously. I am informed that the University of Manchester may well lose out because of questions of scale in the most recent joint infrastructure fund bid.
In conjunction with the Central Manchester National Health Service Trust and the Christie National Health Service Trust, and with the assistance of the Wellcome Trust, the University of Manchester has developed a plan to create a biomedical and healthcare centre which will be of international quality. The MRI and the new children's hospital are to be funded by the National Health Service and by the private finance initiative. Wellcome has funded a clinical research facility. The bioscience incubator has been built and is in business. So patient care facilities, related research and facilities to commercialise research and develop spin-off companies are all in place in the inner-city area.
But the missing link is the resource to develop the university's biomedical building. The building is now 40 years old. It was a state of the art building when I first went to Manchester but it is now 40 years old and, as the elegant phrase puts it, time-expired in terms of research now being carried out. The science is rated alpha and has been rated for the joint infrastructure

1319
fund bid; yet I understand that it is possible that Manchester may well lose out in the bid because of scale.
I understand that four universities in the south-east have a larger scale of research than the University of Manchester. For that reason, the research is constantly being drawn down in the direction of the south-east and, increasingly, the regions will lose out.
It seems to me that in terms of the funding of university enterprises, whether by short-term funding or whatever, there is a need for us to examine the methods by which the enterprise of universities is funded as well as to look at the teaching and remuneration of teachers in the university sector.
5.38 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I, too, very much welcome this debate. I declare an interest as an academic. I suspect that having a time-limited debate with so many academics wanting to speak must be a Whip's nightmare.
I wish to reinforce many of the points that have already been made. Universities face a critical situation. They are being asked to do too much with too little. Universities in this country are now highly productive institutions. Productivity has increased remarkably in recent years. Universities are highly efficient. By international standards our efficiency rates, which compare the time the students should ideally take to complete a degree with the time they are expected to take, are second only to Japan. The universities have performed well in producing graduates. By the mid-1980s we already had graduation rates higher than other major European countries, including Germany and France.
The universities have performed well against a background of continual change. Some of the changes imposed on them may have served, certainly initially, to "ratchet up" the standards. However, we are now in a situation where many changes being imposed on universities are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
I fully accept that in the 1970s universities adopted an ostrich-like approach to change. There was a sense of complacency and invulnerability; a belief that demands for greater economy and efficiency would not impinge upon universities, either in terms of funding or how they went about their business. The cuts of 1981 constituted the cold wind of change for higher education. Since that time universities have been subject to further cuts and uncertainty as to government intentions.
In the 1980s initial responses to funding reductions were disparate and, certainly in some cases, rather slow. However, universities have responded by cutting spare capacity, making better use of resources, concentrating on their areas of strength and accommodating expansion within existing resources.
I fully accept that there may be a case for improvements in a number of areas; not least coping with the stress mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. There are a number of areas in
1320
which improvements can be made. However, the essential point is that universities have, on the whole, done what is expected of them and more. They have done that while resources have declined in real terms. As we have already heard, universities have coped with a rapid expansion in student numbers, while the unit of resource has declined. As my noble friend Lord Baker mentioned, the spending plans announced last month by the Secretary of State represent in real terms a cut in funding per student for the second year running.
Universities have done what is expected of them, in many cases despite and not because of changes imposed on them. Many of the changes have been problematic but it is the nature and scale of change which has created uncertainty and low morale. When I first entered university teaching, campuses normally had a few Trotskyist students espousing continual revolution. They seemed to disappear from campus just as their philosophy appeared to gain acceptance as the basis for education policy.
I shall touch briefly upon some of the changes and the questions they raise. We have had a massive expansion in student numbers. I fully accept, and always have, that such an expansion necessitates a change in the way we fund higher education. However, expansion raises important questions of principle as well as practice. How far can and should expansion be taken? In his letter to the Higher Education Funding Council, the Secretary of State said:
"Anyone who has the capacity to benefit from higher education should have the opportunity to do so".
That begs a number of questions. How do we determine the capacity to benefit? What are the consequences for universities of what is not just a major change in quantitative terms but in qualitative terms? The questions have not been discussed, at least not fully, in the way I think they deserve to be. They also need to be addressed in the context of the other changes.
As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, we have had an ending of the binary line. I know the arguments that led Ministers to accept the need for that, though I am not persuaded that such arguments were necessarily conclusive. Many colleagues take the view that this led to a blurring of what higher education is meant to deliver. Again, it has to be seen in the context of other changes. The former polytechnics, the so-called statutory universities, are now judged by standards applied throughout the university sector and so naturally seek to emulate the older or charter universities rather than necessarily playing to their particular strengths. Conversely, the quality control practices employed by the old polytechnics are now being applied across the university sector, in some cases getting in the way of rather than ensuring good teaching.
We have new and extensive methods of quality control in terms of both research and teaching. The methods employed are highly bureaucratic and have created a substantial burden on the institutions and the individuals who work within them. I can see the case for monitoring quality, but the means employed are questionable. They may be effective but are essentially

1321
inefficient. They are also building up a notable body of resentment on the part of academic staff, and undermining morale. Furthermore, the case for them may not be as great as it once was.
Arguably, the most effective form of quality control is already in place as a result of the changes in funding students. Because students now carry a large share of the burden in funding their own education, they and their parents now demand value for money. The most effective pressure for ensuring quality may thus come "bottom up" from students rather than "top down" from Government.
Most universities have implemented semesterisation and modularisation. I am familiar with both. I took one of my degrees at an Ivy League university in the States. However, neither has worked particularly well here. I see little evidence that they have delivered what they were designed to do. I see some evidence of them having a negative impact, not least on examination performance. In my experience students tend to achieve better results when they take examinations at the end of the year rather than when they take two sets of examinations spread over the year. In my view there is a strong case for moving back to a three-term system with year-long courses.
For reasons of time I shall not touch upon other changes. One could produce a long list. Indeed, at times it is difficult to keep pace with what is happening, even within the academic world. I believe I have said enough to illustrate the extent and range of changes.
As has been stressed, we are being expected to do things for which the resources are not provided. Not only are the institutional resources lacking, so too, are the incentives and rewards. As has been mentioned, the Bett Report suggested that academic salaries have, over the past 18 years, fallen behind salaries for other non-manual staff by 30 per cent. Academic pay is being massively outstripped by pay increases for other professionals.
There has been no reward for substantial increases in productivity. University employers pay proportionately less and less of their budgets on salaries. As has been mentioned, there is a problem especially for those entering academic life for the first time. That was recognised in the Bett Report. Salary is low and there is increasingly little incentive to enter academic life. That is storing up problems for the future. Bright students, knowing that salary prospects are so poor, are discouraged from staying on to take higher degrees. The implications for recruitment in future years are very serious indeed.
We thus have problems of morale and, as I believe we shall increasingly discover, of recruitment. We also have a problem because of what is increasingly asked of us and for which we have limited responsibility. Universities can only do so much to solve the problems of the rest of society.
I could give various illustrations but for reasons of time I shall settle on one. We are asked to do more to recruit students from disadvantaged backgrounds. My own university, the University of Hull, has long had a
1322
policy of encouraging students from non-traditional backgrounds. For as long as I can remember, certainly since I have been there, we have had a schools liaison programme in which I have been actively involved. We continue to develop links with schools, not least in our regional hinterland. The proportion of students we recruit from state schools is above the national average. Our drop-out rate is below the national average. That juxtaposition is important. That is pretty good going. However, like every other university, we can only do so much.
Universities cannot change fundamentally what happens in pre-university education. We are largely dependent upon what happens years before students ever appear on campus. As I have said, there are other illustrations one could make of the demands being made of us. However, I am conscious of time and shall conclude.
Universities do a good job with productivity having increased remarkably in recent years. As I have conceded, there is always scope for improvement. However, as many noble Lords have stressed, universities need the resources to do the job expected of them. I also emphasise that they need greater autonomy to get on with their work. Had Lord Beloff still been alive, he would have been here giving one clear message to Government: leave university teachers alone to do that which they do best; that is teach and research. That is a view I echo.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Patel: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for enabling us to have this debate. I also add my congratulations to those of others to the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lady Prashar on their maiden speeches. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me when I say that I had a special feeling when my noble friend was making her maiden speech for, with the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia—who is not in his place—there are now three of us who left East Africa many years ago to make this country our home.
I have no doubt that our universities and institutions of higher education face many difficulties. But despite that, we should be proud of what they contribute in education and research, and in making this country the success it is. It is not just the three universities in the golden triangle; I for one am grateful to my Alma Mater for my training and education. It is nearly as ancient as the universities of Oxford and Cambridge; I refer to St Andrews.
I am in no doubt that in relation to many of the challenges that universities face, they should and would find solutions themselves. But some issues require national solutions, and I should like to speak about some of those related to the recruitment and retention of career academics, the research infrastructure and the commercialisation of university research.
First, I should like to address the problems of the recruitment of young medical doctors for clinical academic medicine, particularly as it relates to their training. I declare my interest in that I am a professor

1323
of obstetrics and gynaecology and should like to see more of our brightest and ablest young doctors being recruited to academic medicine, despite the fact that I have spent most of my life being a service doctor looking after patients.
So what are the constraints? There is no clearly defined training programme for young doctors wishing to make a career in academic medicine. There is no career structure for young clinical academics. Dual responsibility to two masters—university and the NHS—and short-term university contracts are a further handicap. Academics keen on teaching and less interested in research are not valued as much. The current regulation of training of specialists in medicine is more geared towards service-based clinical training.
There are solutions, and both the Specialist Training Authority in medicine, of which I am chairman, and the Academy of Medical Sciences, of which I am a council member—particularly the latter—produced a paper with suggestions to address the problem. Those proposals, however, would require changes in the current rules and regulations to enable trainees in medicine to enter academic training programmes. The numbers required would not be large. Those changes, together with funding that already exists for young clinical scientist; from the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust and associated medical charities, would enable university clinical departments to attract young doctors and to re-establish clinical lectureships. I ask the Minister to convey that to her colleagues in the Department of Health, and I hope that they will be willing to discuss this with appropriate, professional organisations.
The next problem that I should like to address relates to the retention of high-calibre scientists. The United Kingdom is fortunate in having world-class, highly respected scientists. In my own university of Dundee, particularly in the field of genetics and cancer research, over 300 scientists are working in different aspects of cancer research, led by several of our country's top scientists. One such person—Professor David Lane who is renowned for his ground-breaking work on molecular genetics as it relates to cancer, and credited for discovering P53, the gene involved in colorectal cancer—recently wrote and spoke widely about the problems that scientists of his calibre face. It is not easy for them to obtain the funding required for major research and much time is spent writing grant requests and relying on local charities. It is not surprising that lucrative offers of high salaries and significant research funding from overseas, particularly the United States, become attractive.
Those are the scientists who are the future income generators of our country, as has been mentioned by many other noble Lords. We only need to look at the success of some of the biotech companies. Many of those scientists work in clinical academic departments and yet do not receive clinical academic salaries. The same applies to young lecturers and research workers, not only in medicine. but also in other fields, as mentioned in the Bett report. I hope that the Government will try to address those issues.
1324
I should like to speak briefly about research infrastructure and the commercialisation of university research. The Joint Infrastructure Fund, welcome though it is, has been heavily oversubscribed with applications greatly exceeding the resources available. As a result, many first-class projects remain unfunded. That demonstrates the desperate need to upgrade research facilities in universities if we are to remain a world leader in research; retain our leading research workers and make the contribution to national competitiveness and the knowledge economy sought by the Government. Faced with such evidence, will the Government provide additional funds to help to close this yawning gap in research infrastructure when the JIF scheme has run its course (the last bidding rounds will be in the year 2000)?
Many universities, including Dundee, are fully committed to commercialising their research findings for the benefit of the economy and to seeing their research applied in practice; for example, in licensing intellectual property; forming spin-out companies (such as Cyclacel and Cyrex); and developing start-up companies and research agreements with industry. Developing such initiatives can often require preliminary funding which is difficult for universities to provide. Also, there is a risk that the most outstanding research workers who produce all the innovative new knowledge on which commercialisation depends can get drawn into commercial ventures which absorb all their time. There have been some valuable initiatives to address that issue and I applaud them. But what is needed is a sustained "third leg" of funding, in addition to the hard-pressed funding for the core functions of teaching and research which facilitate the early stages of commercialisation. A partnership between universities and government is what is needed to achieve greater success.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, before I deliver my speech, I should like to convey my appreciation of the maiden speeches of the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, to whom I listened both with great interest and future anticipation.
First, I declare an interest in this debate as the Dean of the Business School at the University of Leeds. I want to make a few introductory remarks about some of the things going on in my university in order to make the point that the issues that many of us are raising in this debate are not a whinge; they are not simply a plea for more, without thought; they arise from universities that are doing enormously good work and getting on with the job. But that does not mean that they are not serious problems that need to be addressed.
In my university, which has some 26,000 students, external research awards were obtained during the past 12 months totalling some £66 million, an increase of 18 per cent on the previous year, and about £2.5 million was awarded for plant and microbial genomics to provide help for those making decisions about GM foods. Professor Alan Watson in our Department of Physics and Astronomy was awarded

1325
some £2 million to be joint leader with Professor Cronin of the University of Chicago on a 50 million dollar project to build a cosmic ray observatory in Argentina, the largest astronomical project in the world. Funding of £1.5 million was awarded to establish at the University of Leeds one of the six Biological Sciences Research Council research centres. This was won in partnership with Sheffield, Manchester and UMIST.
That partnership approach saw the establishment in 1997 of the White Rose consortium, bringing together the universities of Leeds, Sheffield and York. This consortium was recently awarded £4.5 million from the Government's University Challenge Fund. This will provide seedcorn for a capital fund to be run by White Rose Technology Limited, to back university innovation in its early stages, and to fuel the creation of spin-off companies and jobs in our region. The consortium was also recently awarded £3 million by the Office of Science and Technology to establish a new Centre for Enterprise, to stimulate enterprise in our universities and across the region.
The University of Leeds has been one of the most successful in Britain in achieving technology transfer. A new innovation centre is currently under construction at a cost of £4 million, in partnership with Shepherds Development Limited. The university actively supports third-arm activities and has recently established a new Institute for Corporate Learning to provide a one-stop link between industry and the large research, teaching and consultancy resources of the university. It has also recently secured funding of over £1 million to improve the ability of departments to "reach out" to industry. Moreover, an Institute of Lifelong Learning has been set up, building on the success of a large Department of Continuing Education.
A Yorkshire businessman, Roger Ogden, has provided a grant of £500,000 to fund a scheme to be run in collaboration with the university and three local education authorities. This will provide scholarships for 16-plus students in schools and colleges in the old mining areas of South Yorkshire to encourage them to stay on at school and move on to university at Leeds. The students will receive £500 a year to complete A-levels and £2,000 a year, each year, to enable them to go through university.
On the international front, the School of Education commenced work this year on a five-year £10 million project for the Government of Oman to upgrade the qualifications of 1,000 teachers of English. I could continue to outline a whole range of ventures in research, in teaching and in outreach, but the fact remains that major problems face Leeds and similar universities.
Universities are being very badly squeezed; indeed, our leading research-led universities have been especially badly squeezed. When I first went to university, 95 per cent of the population were being asked to support just 5 per cent who wanted to go to university. Today, 65 per cent of the population are being asked to support the 35 per cent who want to go
1326
to university. They will not; and the situation will not change. We may say that we want to have more and more state funding, but, in reality, a high proportion of that 65 per cent are the least able to fund those who will go on to earn the most in our society.
The issue of fees and of differential fees for our leading universities will not go away. There is no remedy around the corner whereby 65 per cent of the population will get universities and governments out of that jam. It is indeed a difficulty. We face real problems in staff recruitment and retention of high-quality, world-class researchers. Those people have all the options in the world before them. Why should we expect them to stay here for poor pay? Top professors earn no more than a Member of Parliament in the other place; indeed, they earn less than £50,000. Young people are expected to stay on for three more years to take a doctorate and not earn a penny until they are in their mid-20s. They are then expected to start earning incomes that they could have earned if they had left school at the age of 18 or 19, and certainly if they had left university at the age of 21.
Like other noble Lords who have spoken today with similar backgrounds to me professionally, I speak with passion because I care deeply about our leading research universities. I care about all universities, but we cannot speak on every issue and include every item and interest in our speeches. We need to address these issues. This is not a political point because successive governments have faced the problems and will do so in the future. However, unless we do something about the financial circumstances of our leading research-led universities, we shall critically damage not only the prospects of the country but also the intellectual opportunities of our very brightest people.
It is simply not the case that 35 per cent of our population are all capable of world-class research. We are not thinking about how we ensure that the next generation of researchers are cared for and brought through the system. It is almost impossible in some disciplines to recruit PhD students. Indeed, in some disciplines, almost no students are funding themselves to go through three further years. As I said earlier, the problems of staff pay, retention and recruitment, together with funding, will not go away. Just as the Government are able to think imaginatively and laterally in their modernisation programmes, I hope that they will also be able to think laterally about our universities.
I conclude by mentioning China. Out of its hundreds or thousands of universities, it has decided that only 10 universities in the country will be selected for major funding from now on. Two or three months ago the academics in those universities were given a pay rise from the equivalent of £2,000 a year to £10,000 a year, thus making them the élite in China. At the same time, fees are gradually being introduced into Chinese universities. We call ourselves a world-class power, but we are in great danger of letting down our future leaders in research.
6.7 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said, the problems facing our UK universities are currently of very great concern to all who are working to enhance this country's future intellectual capital and economic prosperity. Had time allowed, there is much that I would have wished to say, not least by drawing upon the report of the Hamlyn Foundation National Commission on Education, which I was privileged to chair. However, many of those points have already been raised in the debate. Hence I propose to concentrate on two issues; first, the UK science base; and, secondly, the plight of clinical academic medicine, to which my noble friend Lord Patel has already referred.
Some years ago I was privileged to chair a sub-committee inquiry of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology into international investment in UK science. We were much encouraged to learn that 40 per cent of all US overseas investment in science came to the UK and that 42 per cent of that from Japan also came here because of the perceived strength of our science base, largely in our universities.
While we have been less successful than some other countries in exploiting and developing the discoveries of basic science, I believe that that position is improving as the "D" of R&D achieves greater prominence. Sadly, however, there has been much evidence of decline in our science base since we reported. Many of us in medicine have wearied of saying that the percentage of cur gross national product spent on health is greatly less than that of many of our overseas competitors. Unfortunately, as Save British Science now shows, the position of general university funds provided for scientific research is equally dire. The UK universities receive from governmental sources approximately £30 per head of the population for scientific research compared with over £100 in Sweden and the Netherlands, £70 per head in Germany and £50 per head in France.
From 1984 to 1997 there was a progressive decline in government funding. In 1981 such investment in R&D was equivalent to £7.5 billion at today's prices. By 1997 it had been reduced by almost 20 per cent. Of course private sources, not least the Wellcome and many other trusts and industry, make a major contribution. Happily, within the past year, following the comprehensive spending review of 1998, there has been a welcome increase in science funding. Even so, by 2001 science funding in real terms will still be almost 17 per cent lower than in 1981. As many other noble Lords have said, the recent Bett Report has clearly shown that the remuneration of young university lecturers, and even of young professors, has fallen sharply, in stark contrast to the sometimes grotesque rewards received by some captains of industry.
Can it be right that a young lecturer, after an arduous undergraduate course, followed by at least three years of research leading to a Ph.D., should now be paid £15,500 per annum, while the minimum
1328
professorial salary still stands at £33,000 in the non-clinical disciplines? It is not surprising that all too many of our bright young graduates leave science, as did one of my grandchildren who, after achieving an honours degree in physics, is now working in the finance industry. Many posts in prestigious university departments of science are either vacant or difficult to fill. This is so in disciplines as varied as engineering, biological sciences, mathematics, information technology and, of course, medicine.
The Government will surely say, as they did in response to a question I tabled in your Lordships' House some time ago, that the issue of academic salaries is a matter for the universities and not for government. Nevertheless we are plainly in a crisis so far as concerns academic pay and recruitment. This must be rectified if Britain is to continue to hold its proud and long-established place in scholarship, and especially in science.
I am, of course, especially interested in medicine. Four years ago I chaired another Select Committee inquiry into research in the NHS. That report, published on 15th June 1995 and subsequently debated in your Lordships' House, drew attention to the parlous state of clinical academic medicine. No fewer than 57 clinical chairs in the UK were then vacant for lack of suitable applicants and the universities were facing serious difficulties in recruiting doctors into junior academic posts. The reasons were multiple and complex. While the Government accepted then, and do now, that there must be parity between salary scales for medical practitioners in the universities on the one hand and those in the NHS on the other, it became increasingly clear that the additional income achieved by many NHS consultants through private practice was not open to academics, who are expected to spend just over half their time in patient care and the remainder in teaching and research.
It was also clear that because of pressure upon health authorities to increase patient throughput and reduce waiting lists, many academics were being required by hospital managers to see more and more patients, to the detriment of their academic responsibilities. Clinical audit, governance, research assessment, continuing education and administrative responsibilities have also encroached upon research time. The bar upon distinction awards being awarded to clinical academic staff in general practice has exacerbated the recruitment problem in this specialty, one of great importance in student teaching. Even now, one in four chairs of surgery in this country remains unfilled. There are now not just 57 but 74 vacant clinical chairs across the specialties, half of which have been vacant for more than one year.
The concerns which we expressed led to the appointment of the Richards Committee, which made a number of important proposals, echoing the concerns expressed by the Select Committee, and suggested remedial measures. Sadly, few if any of these have been implemented, if only because of financial constraint. Now we envisage a welcome and substantial increase in medical student numbers along

1329
with the establishment of several consortia between existing schools and other universities to facilitate that expansion. I must, however, warn that unless the increasing problems of clinical academic medicine are reversed, recruitment of the staff required to teach these extra students and to maintain Britain's leading position in medical research cannot be implemented.
As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, changes in the training of NHS specialists resulting from the so-called Calman reforms have added further problems because of the difficulty encountered by some junior clinical academic staff in being able to take time out from their clinical training, say to read for a Ph.D., before returning to the clinical career ladder. The Department of Health has this year produced a memorandum for your Lordships' Science and Technology Committee making several recommendations in the hope of protecting and advancing the career prospects of doctors in clinical academic medicine. The Academy of Medical Sciences has established a working party under the chairmanship of Professor John Savill. That report is being finalised, but in draft it makes several invaluable proposals, not least the establishment of new clinical scientist posts which should help to reverse the decline in this area of crucial importance to the future practice of medicine and to the training of our future doctors. The BMA has today published an important report on medical student selection.
Our UK universities as centres of outstanding scholarship, of innovative and exciting scientific research, and with a proud record of training of scientists and doctors, have been for many years the envy of the world. That phrase is perhaps trite but that pre-eminence has been under serious threat in the past decade. Only now, through a number of innovations by government and others, do we see the potential for significant recovery. I urge that that process of recovery be accelerated, as unless some of the problems I have mentioned can be corrected rapidly, we can anticipate little other than continuing decline, with serious consequences for this country's intellectual and economic future and to the lasting detriment of the reputation of British academe across the world.
6.17 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, looking at where people are sitting in the Chamber I wonder whether the debate should be subtitled "Changing Places". Although many of us have changed our parts in the script, the play is quite wearily the same. The substance of this debate could have taken place any time in the past 11 years. The only thing which I can see has changed is the diminishing hope that it will ever lead to any meeting of minds.
As a serving university teacher, I must, of course, declare an interest in this debate. In that context, I listened with pleasure to the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, speaking as chairman of our college council,
1330
in which capacity she is proving a great success. The college deserved the praise she gave it, but listening to it I was slightly reminded of those maps which have been appearing in the press over the past two weeks which show the likely effect of global warming on the British coastline over the next few centuries. If one lives on top of the Chilterns, one may take pleasure if one's own place remains above the water while still seeking to call attention with some urgency to the rising level of the floodwater around one. That is the way I feel today.
I thank my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead for initiating this debate. I remember vividly that he opened the debate in which I made my maiden speech, on the Second Reading of what became the Education Reform Act 1988. My noble friend then expressed the fear that this country might not have any world-class university in the 1990s. There was a reaction of "shock, horror" around the House. My noble friend has expressed the same fears today. I hear no reaction of "shock, horror" at all, only a slight subliminal anxiety about whether my noble friend's horse may perhaps have already been stolen. I hope that it is not so. But in every year since 1988 things have got worse than they were before. People need hope. The expectation that that process of getting worse will continue as far as the eye can see is not a great encouragement.
Almost all of the damage has been directly government inflicted. I remember saying in the debates on the Further and Higher Education Bill in 1992 that the greatest threat to quality was the Secretary of State. That created again an atmosphere of "shock, horror". I was extremely surprised that it did so. I could have repeated that remark at any time since, quite irrespective of the identity of the Secretary of State of the time. With regard to Secretaries of State for Education, I have quoted previously the old song with the chorus that goes, verse after verse after verse,
"I married another far worse than the other, and I longed for the old one again".
I first used that in this Chamber at the expense of the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking; today, I use it to his comfort.
One of the clearest things about the whole process is that there has been not one bit of change as a result of the general election. I see the Minister shaking her head. I have checked this. I have consulted people in my college who have far more dealings with government than I ever do in my academic capacity. Every single one of them says the same: it is exactly the way it was. Indeed, it is a little bit worse because it has been going on longer.
The damage is done in three ways. First, and most seriously, I refer to the collapse in the level of student funding. Figures about rising university drop-out rates were published in all the papers last Friday. I do not

1331
know why anyone thought that that was news. I have been drawing the attention of the House to that fact ever since 1990. The noble Baroness complained about this, saying that high drop-out rates are,
"a potential waste of talent and an inefficient use of taxpayers' money'',
So I am tempted to recall the remark of Mill about the inability of the unanalytic mind to recognise its own handiwork. This is government work and these are government changes, which the noble Baroness has not reversed.
It goes back to the fact that the amount of money needed was grossly miscalculated in the 1990 changes, of which the most serious was the abolition of a student's right to social security. I was wrestling with the consequences of that as recently as yesterday afternoon. Those figures show that drop-out rates relate to social class. Of course they do. If one's sum of money is not adequate, one depends very heavily on a large amount of support from one's parents. Those who can get it do much better than those who cannot. Those who fare worst of all are those who are estranged from their parents; those whose situation is so desperate that one wonders whether they should be advised not to go to university at all. That is something that I mind very deeply.
It is not only the waste and cruelty which matters, but the decline in the level of academic work. Most of the people I teach are now doing paid work for something like 12 or 16 hours a week. I know that in other countries students do that amount of work, but they have a longer course—four years or, in some countries, even longer. We combine the intensive three-year course with a support system designed for a much longer course. The amount of work done per undergraduate since 1984 has approximately halved. Because examiners do not like blaming students for what they could not help, the tendency has been to mark them on the quality of their reasoning and not on the amount of their knowledge. I think that explains what has happened to results.
The second way damage is caused is by the reduction of the unit of resource—I shall not spend much time on it because it is generally recognised. I refer to the sense, which is quite common, that we have been set up to fail because we have been given more to do than can possibly be done with the resources. That is felt throughout the public services, and we are no exception.
Thirdly, damage is caused by the interference with academic judgment involved in performance indicators, funding formulae and all the rest. I am reminded of the emperor in "Amadeus" saying, "Too many notes, Mozart". Let us consider, for example, the teaching assessment. That has rewarded people for innovation in teaching methods. It leaves out the fact that innovation in teaching content is usually much more important than innovation in teaching methods. Introducing one is usually inimical to the other.
A conversation which took place recently has been brought to my attention. I have permission to repeat it solely on the condition that no attempt is made to
1332
attribute it. A head of department said that it was necessary to make a substantial shift of resources from undergraduate teaching to taught MAs because the funding formulae had been changed. A junior member of the department asked whether that was justified on academic grounds. The head of department said that the funding formulae were now so powerful that we could not afford to take any account of academic grounds. If I had been in his position, I fear that I would have had to say the same thing—which is why I am extremely glad that I am not.
Academics have regularly accepted low pay because of vocation; because they believe in what they are doing. If they are not allowed to do what they believe in, they may claim the pay they could have got outside. That would be a very expensive mistake.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, after hearing this debate there can be no doubt that universities are at the bottom of the pile. I know that the Government put schools first. It may well be that the noble Baroness will say that nursery schools are even more important than the universities. The universities are rather like a discarded mistress; they have been dumped by the Government because they did not produce in the Seventies and Eighties the spin-off in industry and industrial performance which many people thought they would.
The vast expansion that has taken place in the number of higher education colleges and universities was very much harmed by the mad act of destroying the binary line. That destroyed the distinction between what universities and other admirable institutions were trying to do. But of course it was a triumph for the Department of Education. Now, at last, it could put the whole of higher education under a quango—the HEFC—and that gave it the ability to downgrade the élite.
I see the last 20 years as a war between the bureaucracy and the universities in which the heavier guns were inevitably on the side of the bureaucracy. The universities have lost their economy and autonomy, and with it the trust that used to exist between the UGC and the vice-chancellors committee. Of course I accept that to give more 18 year-olds and more mature students the chance of a degree will have enormous repercussions—I have always been a champion of extending access to higher education—but the bureaucrats saw expansion as the long-desired chance to instruct universities how they were to behave, and justified this intrusion on the grounds of accountability.
The universities are now told how they must spend public money and on what they must spend it. Hence we hear of a measure to cover special educational needs and another to examine the relationship between graduate and commercial skills. The Government tried to placate the universities by setting up committees to examine their plight—the Dearing and the Bett Committees. I very much hope that the noble Baroness will be able to respond to the pleas made by

1333
other speakers in the debate as to what the Government response to the reports of those committees is going to be.
I realise that the noble Baroness will no doubt expect me to speak about Cambridge, and so I shall, but not perhaps the university in Cambridge upon which she was expecting me to speak. I wish to speak about the polytechnic university—the Anglia Polytechnic University. Historically, Cambridge District Council and the city authority were never generous to that institution in its former state. As a result, its baseline is very small, the buildings are run-down and there are no funds for refurbishment. Many students come from dreadful schools and take paid jobs for 20 hours a week in order to help them pay for their fees and loans. Most of those who drop out do so on sure financial grounds, in particular mature students, who sometimes also have family difficulties.
In the humanities, the best way to teach students is to require them to produce written work. But with a staff to student ratio of 1:25—and still more in one department, which had a staff to student ratio of 1:50—and with the modular system that makes students produce written work only at the end of the term, how can teachers take these students through their written work? No wonder the drop-out rate is so high.
But the overwhelming complaint in that university, as in many others throughout the kingdom, is about the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. In the good old days, a small team of inspectors from the CNAA would talk to students and then to staff at the Anglia Polytechnic University. They would then inspect some work, look at the resources and read the reports of the external examiners. It took little more than a few hours to prepare for their visit. The inspectors were well informed because they had experience of looking at examining institutions.
What is the substance of the system today? Each discipline has to compile statistics for the annual monitoring report on intake, the progression of students, average and mean marks for each module, not to speak of other material that it must contain. The only document relevant to the quality of the teaching is the external examiner's report. The preparation for the Quality Assurance Agency teaching quality assessment takes months, time that should be spent on scholarly work and teaching. A small team of mainly inexperienced assessors arrives—each assessor looks at three to four institutions. They have a base room filled with 50-plus boxes of material. In addition, they do a few spot checks on teaching and then they quiz the staff.
Exactly the same complaint would be made by the other university in Cambridge, because the detail that universities are expected to supply is gargantuan. For example, in a University of London college a single department filled 80 feet of shelf space with the material that it was expected to provide. The effect on morale in the universities has been disastrous. Perhaps I may also say that it has had a disastrous effect on morality. Universities now blithely distort tables,
1334
poach teachers from other universities if they can, so that their publications record looks more impressive, and they do not dare to admit that the increase in the number of students that they teach has resulted in lower standards. Of course, if they did that, they might well be marked down and penalised. Am I really to congratulate the Government on turning vice-chancellors into practised liars? All vice-chancellors are at times somewhat economical with the truth, but that is very different from what happens today, when, if they possibly can, they will falsify records.
The more the bureaucrats in the department are fed, the hungrier they become. Their latest insolent demand is to require universities to produce statistics of what jobs those who have recently graduated now hold. Universities will be punished by loss of grant if they do not provide adequate information. Which arrogant, power-drunk official engineered such a scheme? Does not he or she realise that when a recent graduate receives such a request—always supposing that, since graduating, he or she has not changed address several times over—that he or she will most likely drop the form into the wastepaper basket? Or will the noble Baroness say that this waste of time by university teachers is really vital if a grant is to be made available by the Treasury? If it is, why cannot the department itself chase the graduates? All the civil servants would have to do is to ask each university to send them a list of graduates and their last known address. Why put another back-breaking task and threaten penalties on those who are paid to teach and research?
I wonder if the noble Baroness will tell the House that she promises to end this wretched waste of time. Will she promise to get the department and the HEFC off the backs of the universities? Of course I accept that it is vital to differentiate between universities. Some of the newer universities need guidance and public assurance that they are not wasting taxpayers' money. But surely the old élite institutions do not need to be put through this purgatory so often, and a good department does not really need to be examined every seven years. On that note, I shall end.
6.37 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I declare an interest as Chancellor of the University of Bradford. Bradford is not part of the Russell group; nevertheless it produces research of world-class standard and is a leading university in many respects. Its motto is, "Making knowledge work." Since the university was established in 1966, that has been reflected in much of its work.
I believe that over the past 25 years our universities have proved themselves very robust and have absorbed enormous changes with remarkable resilience, as was indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. They have moved from an elitist system with a participation rate of under 10 per cent to become a mass system with a current participation rate of 33 per cent that is set to rise further. This has been done with surprisingly little damage to the system. Yes, according to last week's tables, the drop-out rate

1335
has increased on average from 10 per cent to 18 per cent and, yes, that is too high. But the situation must be looked at in perspective.
When A-levels were almost the sole qualification for university entrance, the drop-out rate at A-level was much greater. 'We must recall that at that time some 8 per cent of our school leavers left with no qualifications at all. Now entry to university is on a more diverse basis: A-levels, NVQs, access and pre-experience for mature students. Given this, the 18 per cent drop-out rate is perhaps not to be regarded as remarkable. The changes have been made without any serious drop in standards. Here I would take issue with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Annan. It is a fact, of course, that aspects of study may have changed. A wider range of knowledge and skills is now required of students. Students have to be computer literate and have to acquire entrepreneurial skills. There are different teaching methods and learning skills. But in the end the test is in the number of first-class achievers and in the added value for all students, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby said in his very thoughtful maiden speech.
The changes have also been made while the universities themselves are changing. Most, if not all, universities have links with industry locally, nationally and internationally. The present contribution made by the universities in the knowledge-based industries, including the cultural and creative industries, must be acknowledged. We must also recognise that universities themselves are an enormous industry bringing in considerable income through home and overseas contracts and overseas recruitment. All these achievements are on the plus side and have been made while the unit of resource, as indicated already, has declined by some 35 per cent over the past 20 years. That is the deficit side.
There are other aspects of the deficit side too. The Bett review on university salaries indicates that the so-called efficiency gains have been made at the expense of university salaries. The noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking. said that the universities face a serious crisis in funding. I should remind him that in 1996 the Dearing Committee was set up for exactly the purpose of looking at the financial crisis in our universities, trying to find away to steer us through it and picking up that very hot potato of student fees with which the noble Lord said he declined to deal.
So the financial situation is still very serious. It would have been even more serious had not the Government introduced student fees and had not the Government injected some funding for the infrastructure for widening access and for science which has been welcomed, certainly by my university and many others too. So, too, has the injection of funding from the DTI to strengthen links with industry, to encourage technical transfer and to strengthen the science base. But—and it is a very big "but"—the basic formula funding is still being squeezed.
I accept that there are many competing priorities across education. But, surely, higher education now needs to he given a higher priority, particularly in the
1336
Government's own priority areas. For example, cannot something be done to stop the decline in mature student recruitment? Among mature students are single parents who face the greatest financial difficulty especially in universities. In further education, the support facilities for single parents are much more generous. Cannot something be built into the funding formula to deal with that problem?
If higher education is to continue to export education and to bring in more overseas students, as the Prime Minister urged in his speech at the London School of Economics in June, and if universities are to play the part they and the Government wish them to play with the RDAs in regional regeneration, then further funding for the infrastructure is essential.
University pay is now so uncompetitive—it is down some 30 per cent—that institutions are finding it difficult to recruit key staff in a number of subjects with consequential effects on teaching and research. I made that point in the debate on the gracious Speech and many noble Lords have emphasised it today. Given the enormous contribution that our universities make to industry and the economy generally, as well as to the social and cultural life of our country, can my noble friend the Minister give some indication that from the next financial round in 2002 there will be some additional funding to implement the suggested new pay scales? Could this include the eradication of the discriminatory differential in women's pay, given the Government's commitment to equal pay?
The employers' association and the staff side in the universities are in agreement on much of the Bett Report. But as the report itself concludes, without additional government funding,
"meeting the costs of the needed reforms would raise serious doubts about the sector's capacity to sustain (let alone improve) the quality of teaching and research, and put plans for widening access to higher education seriously at risk".
That is something the Government surely cannot afford to risk.
6.46 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, it will come as no surprise that at this late stage of the debate I have absolutely nothing new to contribute. We have made, in my view, our great mistake which was to allow the universities and the polytechnics to collapse into one another. I have to say, without pride, that during that debate I said nothing whatsoever because, strongly as I felt against it, I felt also that that most depressing of responses would have come; namely, "She would say that, wouldn't she?" I kept quiet. I really do believe, as I think my noble friend Lord Annan believes, that it was a huge mistake which has had very bad consequences; but we cannot undo it.
Now we have somehow to ensure that we do not allow the élite universities to disintegrate as well. I use the word "élite" with pride. The best universities will always constitute an intellectual élite, in their undergraduates, their postgraduates, those who embark on research as well as those who teach. Not everybody will either wish to or be able to belong to this

1337
élite. That is, I think, a necessary truth. One of the most important things that has been aired in this admirable debate—I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for initiating it—is the standard of excellence in the best universities. I am referring not only to Oxford and Cambridge, but to Imperial College, York, Warwick and many others. That standard of excellence cannot survive unless those who work in the universities are paid a salary comparable with, as it used to be, the salaries paid in the Civil Service and with those paid to various other professionals. That point has been powerfully made by many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Woolmer of Leeds and Lord Shore of Stepney.
It is too much to expect that graduates, burdened with debt and with further debts ahead of them if they want to go into research or take a further degree so that they may enter the profession, should be willing to do so when they know that in that profession they can never hope to earn a proper professional salary. That point has been made by many previous speakers and, indeed, is made in the Bett report.
Perhaps I may return to élitism and make one important point. We seem to be completely hung up at the moment on the need to attract to our top universities undergraduates who come from comprehensive schools or working-class homes, or both. I do not think that comprehensive schools need worry us at all. Many comprehensive schools have undoubtedly become very much better. I do not think that it is a test of whether an applicant comes from an upper middle-class background or working-class background that he has been to a comprehensive school. After all, one has only to think of the numerous children of university professors, readers and lecturers who undoubtedly go to comprehensive schools. They will not constitute an underclass in any sense whatever.
I recognise the need to try to get more people from disadvantaged backgrounds to apply to university, but that is by no means a new aspiration. As long as I have been in any way connected with universities, that is what we have tried to do. When my husband was senior tutor at Magdalen College, Oxford, he spent many, many hours visiting schools trying to recruit people. Indeed, at that time Magdalen exercised positive discrimination in favour of people who had not been to independent schools. So this is not at all a new preoccupation, but it may have become a rather obsessive one.
I do not know how many of your Lordships saw the huge pull-out supplement in The Times Higher Education Supplement last Friday entitled "Order of Merit" or "Order of Excellence". In it universities were graded according to how many of their students satisfied the description of coming from a working-class background. The people who were most shamed were people from Oxford. But, like the noble Lord, Lord Annan, I am not referring to Oxford University, but to Brookes University, Oxford, which used to be the polytechnic. It had an intake from working-class homes of about 2 per cent. The next worst was the
1338
University of Bournemouth. Yet a great deal of anger has been expended against Oxford and Cambridge in particular for not admitting such undergraduates.
One should also remember that many working-class, inner-city, deprived young people do not want to go to university; and if they did, they would not, and sometimes do not, flourish. What is needed is an earlier start to a culture of being ready to learn. People should be encouraged at school not to think that learning is not worth going in for. It should be done at that level, not by running round helplessly trying to get people to come to university when they do not particularly want to. Many of them are being chased in vain.
That pull-out supplement from The Times Higher Education Supplement revealed an obsession. Of course we do not want the élite of the universities to be a closed élite; nor is there any danger of that happening. We have had in place the means of admitting undergraduates from whatever background. In passing, I should say that as the A-level examination is to be changed from next September, and as the standards reflected in that examination will undoubtedly change if they do not quite overtly decline, there will be such an enormous number of people with A grade at A-level that that will no longer be a useful way of selecting students. It might be timely to think of devising some kind of aptitude test, not unlike the tests that are already set by Cambridge for people who want to read Law, or by Oxford for people who want to read PPE—but universal and regular, as are the tests in America. That might very well rule out the distinction between people who had been well taught and people who had been badly taught. I ask the Minister to give some attention to that point.
The danger of thinking of nothing except how widely the university education that we supposedly prize should be spread may make us forget the purpose of universities. Universities are not there to go in for any kind of social manipulation. They are not there solely with a view to equality. Universities are there to educate their students—and to educate them properly. It is seriously important to bend our mind, as the Bett report suggested we do, to the question of how to recruit really good people to teach. What is the use of a university if there is neither teaching by, nor research from, people who are in the very top class academically. We must not face a future in which the values of imagination, scientific understanding and, perhaps most important of all, historical insight have been allowed to wither away. We rely on the excellence of our élite—and we must ensure that it is an élite, although not a closed élite.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Plumb: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, has just reminded us that this has been a fairly lengthy debate. We are all anxious to hear, and perhaps patiently awaiting, a response from the Minister. Many words of wisdom have been spoken by those involved in universities and colleges up and down the country. It is very appropriate that the debate is being held at this time. It is particularly appropriate because the performance indicators for higher education institutions in universities and

1339
colleges have been produced for the first time by the Higher Education Funding Council. I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for his excellent introduction to the debate and for its timing in particular.
During the course of the debate we have had a fair tour of various universities. I declare an interest as Chancellor of Coventry University, a university that was a polytechnic until about eight years ago. I am also on the Court of Warwick University and I am a Fellow of Wye College, which has recently been linked with Imperial College in London. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, I did not have a university education. There was a little problem of a war, which prevented some of us of a certain age at that time taking advantage of going to university.
As many speakers have said, the recent financial settlement indicates the Government's present failure adequately to fund the expansion of higher education, at the same time expecting a further significant efficiency gain. That has been the policy for many years. It makes it extremely difficult to be internationally competitive in research and teaching. It inhibits the capacity of institutions to provide the support systems that traditional part-time and non-traditional students require. It puts standards at risk. To be internationally competitive, well run universities require a clear policy direction. They need targets for longer term planning, explicit plans for achievement and identification of resources, clear ideas as to who is accountable for the necessary improvements, and career development for improvements and training plans, particularly for staff. I have been impressed by the comments of several noble Lords their concern in regard to staffing. A properly thought out reward structure is needed for students and staff. We look forward to hearing Minister's comments.
Regional development agencies are recognising that universities are the drivers of the knowledge-based economy and have a major part to play in terms of social inclusion. Government must work closely and constructively with universities to realise the vision of an inclusive society in which all have the opportunity to develop their potential.
We recognise the importance that the Government give to the widening of participation in higher education. However, it is totally unacceptable that opportunities are so low in some communities—either because of where students live or because of the occupation of their parents. That was clearly indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Shore.
Some universities have made great strides in their provision for disadvantaged groups. Coventry University, for example, recruits over one in three of its young full-time students from the unskilled and semi-skilled social classes. That compares with a national figure of one in four. Nearly all its intake comes from state schools and colleges often located in areas that are socially and economically the most deprived. There is a cost in making adequate provision for those students. They need extra support to compensate for their disadvantage. Often, they do not
1340
have a place to study at home or any computing facilities. They can afford few books or expensive educational visits. The extra 5 per cent premium provided for universities by the funding council in respect of those students is far too little.
But there is an even more fundamental issue. Students from economically deprived backgrounds suffer enormous financial pressure. Even if they have their tuition fees paid for them, they still have to live. Taking out a loan from a student loans company is not in their culture. Even if they take the maximum loan, it is nowhere near adequate. Those students have to take jobs while still trying to study full-time, and the majority work up to 20 or 30 hours a week. There are plenty of examples. It is no wonder that a higher proportion of such students do not complete their degrees in the minimum period. The universities provide some funding for students on a discretionary basis from their own resources because the access fund provided by government is hopelessly inadequate. However, there is a limit to what the universities can do.
The Government should take note that there is a close correlation between social exclusion and the universities' so-called drop-out rates. Students at universities which are exclusive in their intake have the highest rates of completion. Conversely, students at universities which are at the heart of tackling the Government's (quite proper) agenda of social inclusion find it more difficult to complete their studies. To describe such universities as "failing" or "inefficient" is a travesty. It is the Government's policy which is failing. If the Government are serious in their desire for an inclusive university system, they should provide a more realistic student loan system—larger loans and less onerous repayments; raise the income threshold below which tuition fees are paid by the state; and greatly increase the access fund in proportion to universities' records in attracting economically disadvantaged students.
One action that many universities have taken is to allow students to spread their studies over a longer period than the standard three years. Coventry University, for example, has created a modular structure which enables students to combine employment with studying so that they can take modules at less than the normal full-time rate—say, over four years—to achieve their degree. That is the kind of innovation that the Government and the funding council should be encouraging. It is one way, perhaps the way of the future, in which people from disadvantaged groups can benefit from higher education. Yet the recent performance indicators from the Higher Education Funding Council described that approach as "inefficient". I find that offensive. All our universities need to be more like Coventry University, tackling social exclusion in innovative and creative ways. They should not continue to be forced into an outdated, inappropriate mode. UK universities represent a huge under-utilised resource. The country could put that resource to better use by improving

1341
their links with industry and their managerial capability so that they can respond to the many major pressures for change.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Butler of Brockwell: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, who is chancellor of the university in which I now serve, on initiating this debate. I note in passing that this is the second time in my career when I have had the good fortune to serve under his leadership when he has been in one of his chancellorial modes. I declare an interest as head of an Oxford college.
In the time available to me, I shall concentrate on the financing of universities rather than on their supervision. I should like to remind the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that it is the traditional view of former Cabinet Secretaries to share the dictum of Edmund Burke that being economical with the truth is a virtue.
We need to see the financing of our universities in the wider context of a change of attitude to public services, not only in this country but in other countries also. The Robbins report was written and implemented at a time when governments did not apologise for high-spending, high taxation economies. But about 25 years ago, Britain, like other countries, began to move into a mode in which electors put much greater pressure on governments to hold down taxes. The reason is obvious. Electors want first-class public services, but they also want more money left in their pockets to spend on consumer durables, foreign holidays and the other attractive goods and services available to them today. So governments are under pressure not to raise taxes. In a competition for scarce public resources, it is not surprising that, whatever the rhetoric of successive governments, higher education finds it difficult to compete with services which have higher voter appeal such as health, social security, law and order and primary education. At the same time, we know that higher education has had to cater for a huge increase in the number of students. The result is a 40 per cent reduction in the funding of students over the past 20 years as identified by the Dearing committee. That has been referred to by many speakers today.
Does anyone expect that trend to change? I see nothing in the pressure of politics to make it do so. I share the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, that the only realistic assumption on which to base our expectations and policies is that the public funding of higher education will continue to be squeezed for the indefinite future as it has been over the past 20 years. We do not need to peer into the crystal ball when we can read the book.
It was in response to those pressures that the previous government established the Dearing committee and the present Government introduced the £1,000 student charge. I pay tribute to the Government for the way in which they have enabled higher education to retain the greater resources which
1342
those contributions have provided and have mobilised increased sums for research in partnership with the private sector.
Ironically, all this is happening at a time when the opportunities open to universities in this country, at any rate those with a research capacity, are enormous. Advances in the physical sciences, life sciences and electronics mean that breakthroughs in research are happening every day which are commercially exploitable to huge effect. The investment of major companies in Oxford and Cambridge and other universities is testimony to that, as is the number of spin-off companies in the universities and their surroundings which already command huge values on the stock exchanges.
I believe that when account is taken of research commissions, student contributions and income from endowments, only about one-third of the total income of the University of Oxford is now derived from the Higher Education Funding Council. For my part, I welcome less dependence by higher education on the taxpayer, with the very large proviso that youngsters of ability should continue to have the benefits of higher education, whatever the income of their parents.
This year my college, University College, Oxford, celebrates the 750th anniversary of its foundation, which makes it—I am sorry to be disobliging to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, who is a Balliol man—the oldest college in Oxford, Cambridge or the English-speaking world. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that we have associated this anniversary with an appeal to our alumni. We have made it an objective of that appeal to finance bursaries and scholarships to help students of limited means to meet the contribution to their education that they are now required to make without amassing a huge burden of debt. I do not believe that it is unreasonable to ask former students whose tuition has been fully financed by the taxpayer—in some cases, they have substantial incomes on which, unlike their parents, they pay income tax at no more than 40p in the pound—to assist the students of today and tomorrow who will have to contribute more. In passing, I observe to the Minister who is to reply that the DfEE make this harder for us by offsetting any scholarship of more than £1,000 a year with a pound for pound reduction in the subvention from public funds to tuition fees. I find that policy incomprehensible. I am glad to say that the response to that appeal has been generous.
I would prefer a regime in which universities can charge those who are able to pay a rate that is nearer the true cost of their education while meeting the costs for those less able to pay. If opposition to student charges in Scotland causes the movement in that direction to be reversed, it will do a great disservice to higher education in this country.
I say that all the more emphatically as extra resources in our higher education system are urgently needed, as has been made clear by other speakers. The money which is becoming available for research is naturally tied to that purpose and does not enable us to deal with the general level of academic salaries

1343
which, as others have said, is dangerously low. Some noble Lords have referred to its effect on our ability to attract scholars of the highest distinction for whom we are in competition with the American universities. I am aware of instances where the attractions of working in Oxford and Cambridge have not been sufficient to draw such people of distinction back to this country.
However, I believe that it goes much wider than that. I spent my life in the Civil Service, which is not a profession that is notable for its high salaries compared with the kinds of reward that can be earned in the City. Fortunately, in general civil servants preferred to remain in that profession despite the low rewards, subject to one matter. Occasionally, we reached crisis point in civil service salaries. That happened when people felt that they could no longer make what they regarded as the minimum provision for their families; for example, when they could no longer afford to live in safe areas, educate their children as they wished and afford even a second-hand car or a modest family holiday. I believe that we are reaching that crisis point in the case of academic salaries, and the Government should take it seriously. It was plainly documented in the Bett report of which the Government have so far, I am sorry to say, washed their hands. It would be tragic if, at a time when we have the opportunity to exploit our natural talent for research to the great benefit of higher education and the country generally, we were to squander that opportunity through neglect of the precious stock of human capital on whom progress depends.
7.16 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, in winding up the debate from these Benches I begin by declaring an interest. Until the end of September I was employed by the University of Sussex and I remain a member of the Association of University Teachers.
The debate today initiated by my noble friend Lord Jenkins has been very stimulating and has ranged far and wide. We have discussed student finance, tuition fees, access and access costs and student poverty. We have looked at research and Britain's place within the global research community. We have also discussed the broad cultural value of education. We have enjoyed two excellent maiden speeches, both stressing in different ways the importance of one of the main planks of the Government's current policy on higher education, namely access. Above all, the debate has illustrated the vast changes that have been taking place in higher education over the past two decades, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, referred at some length.
I begin by returning to a fairly fundamental issue. The Dearing Report covered at some length the research undertaken to look at the rate of return on investment in higher education. It indicated that both the social and private rate of return on higher education was very substantial. Private rates of return are much easier to measure and are reckoned to be in the region of 12 to 14 per cent. Social rates of return are much more difficult to quantify because, for example,
1344
they attempt to value the benefit that we get from a more highly educated workforce that is better able to take responsibility and decisions associated with that responsibility. In the world of global competition in which we now operate we know that we cannot compete for manual jobs with the low labour costs of third world countries. We must compete with our wits, which need to be honed and trained.
Estimates of the social rate of return on education range from 8 per cent to over 30 per cent, in part because of the difficulties of making those estimates. Even if we take the lower level of 8 per cent, it is higher than the present long-term rates of interest. If we borrow money at the current gilt-edged rates and invest it in higher education we shall get more back than we are putting into it.
That is precisely what the Government are doing. As we have heard, they are anxious to expand access to higher education, especially for those social groups whose participation has to date been poor, because they know that it is an investment worth making. The question central to much of the debate is who should pay for that investment. The Government, and the Opposition whose policies the Government have adopted in many respects, are anxious to minimise their own investment and believe that a considerable part of that cost should come from the students themselves—in the form, on the one hand, of tuition fees, and, on the other, the withdrawal of student maintenance support.
From these Benches we have consistently opposed the introduction of tuition fees for higher education. We have argued throughout that this is an issue of principle: tuition at all levels of education should be free and the costs met by the state. It is an investment which is clearly worthwhile and the state should make it for the benefit of the whole nation. That does not exclude those who benefit from higher education from making some contribution. In itself progressive income tax means that those who earn more pay more back. Other countries have introduced graduate taxes, which to some extent are a hypothecated form of tax.
What has happened to the Quigley Report on the vexed question of whether English and Welsh students should pay fees for their fourth year in education in Scotland? The report seems to have been lost.
From these Benches, not only would we make that investment, we would make it properly. The precedent set by the Opposition when in government of expanding student numbers but of refusing to make the appropriate complementary investments in teachers, teaching premises and equipment leads to the present situation faced by many universities of overcrowded, run-down and out-of-date facilities. If we are going in for mass higher education, we must do so properly, using the facilities of new technology to mix and match: distance learning with personal contact and feedback. Few universities can afford to make that investment. Instead we offer more of the same: overcrowded lecture rooms and tutorial classes of 20 or 30, sometimes even 50. The degree of personal contact—an element of higher education on which Britain has always prided itself—is often now minimal.

1345
In the circumstances it is not surprising that we see the drop-out rate rising rapidly. In this country, we used to pride ourselves that although we took relatively few into higher education, unlike our continental counterparts, we graduated most of them. Drop-out rates were only 2 per cent or 3 per cent. As we saw from last week's figures, the average is now 20 per cent. A figure of 25 per cent or 30 per cent is not uncommon. The Government argue that if one has a system of mass higher education, some of that is inevitable; and I think that they are correct to a degree. But the evidence is alarming for it shows that many students are dropping out because they cannot afford to stay on. Compared with jobs elsewhere, the opportunity cost is too great—an issue raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby. Drop-out rates are disproportionately high precisely among those students whom the Government want most to attract into higher education—mature students and those from poorer home backgrounds.
Student loans, as we all know, are an inadequate way to cover living costs. Most students are now having to take part-time jobs. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, raised this issue. The overall burden of loans, jobs, the pressure on time and the lack of time to pursue their studies adequately are telling upon students.
I turn to the other side of the universities, and one with which I am more familiar: that of research. Many noble Lords have paid tribute to Britain's research base and the contribution it makes to the national economy. Many have warned that, again, we are in danger of failing to invest enough and killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
I should like to bring to your Lordships' attention three pieces of information, not unrelated, which passed across my desk recently. First, I refer to the figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, from Save British Science on the amount of general university funds devoted to research in higher education on a per capita basis. According to those figures—I believe that they come from the OECD—whereas Sweden, Switzerland and the Netherlands are spending well over £100 a head, the UK spends about £30 per head of population, with only Spain, Greece and Ireland spending less.
Secondly, I cite some recently released figures from the US Department of Labour on productivity growth per hour worked. Sweden, the country with the highest figure on university spending, saw an average growth over the period of 1990–98 of 4.6 per cent, the Netherlands 3.8 per cent, the US 3.1 per cent, and the UK 2.2 per cent.
Lastly, and perhaps most gloomily, I refer to a report from the US Office of Technology Policy on global patenting trends in five leading-edge technologies. It finds that the UK was a leading player in only one of the five, the health sector. But even here, the report remarks, that,
"The UK is not nearly as significant a player as we had expected".
1346
Those figures are from recent publications. However, they indicate that perhaps the UK is not now pulling its weight internationally in terms of science and technology, as it used to do. Many of us suggest that under the previous government the long years of squeezing the budget are beginning to take their toll.
The Government have sought to reverse those trends. In the Comprehensive Spending Review they put £1.4 billion into the science budget. That sounds a great deal of money. However, we have to look carefully at that £1.4 billion. Of that sum, £700 million goes to what is called the joint infrastructure fund, which makes good the dilapidations in equipment and buildings over the long years of squeeze from the Conservatives. In 1996 the Manchester group PREST considered how much was needed to make good those dilapidations. That was nearly five years ago. The figure was £1 billion. The £700 million will not meet the amount required. The sum of £110 million goes into university industry links, such as the new science enterprise scheme. All those initiatives are to be welcomed, but it is not new money going into university research.
That leaves only £515 million of the new money for the universities, of which 50 per cent represents what is needed to keep up with real levels of expenditure at current rates of inflation. In real terms, of that £1.4 billion only £275million is new money into the science budget. We are delighted to have it, but is it enough?
And what about the unfinished business of the Bett Report? The Government conveniently wipe their hands of that: Bett was a CVCP report; it is up to the universities to implement it. But they know well that unless the Government provide some of the funding the universities are in no position to implement the provisions of Bett. Yet unless they are implemented, as many speakers illustrated, the universities will bleed to death and will fail to recruit top quality brains. That does not always show up immediately because of the lag involved. But Save British Science indicated recently that more than 75 per cent of academic institutions report that they sometimes experience difficulties in recruiting any suitable candidate; and, alarmingly, 6 per cent say that such difficulties occur more often than not. Particular problems have occurred in a host of scientific disciplines, including engineering, biological sciences, mathematics, information technology and medicine. Ninety-five per cent of institutions report difficulties in retaining academic staff. That illustrates the points made by other speakers.
Given that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, spoke of the Civil Service, perhaps I may mention that last week I wrote a reference for a graduate student who was applying for a job as economic adviser at the DTI. The rates of pay quoted for someone with at least a Masters degree and two to three years' experience were £36,000 to £50,000. If I were recruiting her within the university, I should be offering her a salary of £15,000 to £17,000.

1347
I want to conclude with the issue of selectivity. As my noble friend Lord Jenkins made clear, we in this country have reached the position in which we have, effectively, a super league of universities. That has been introduced by stealth—we have not debated it properly—and it has come about as a result of the research assessment exercise. There has been a great deal of disquiet about the whole process of bureaucracy. I suggest that if we are going down the American route of having a hierarchy of universities in which we do not assume that every one is the same, do we need that heavy burden of bureaucracy any longer? Are we not, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, suggested, using the market system and should we not remain with it?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but we have kept closely to the time constraint and to extend it is not fair on the other noble Baronesses who are to speak.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I am sorry. I have reached my final point. I believe that the Government are trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. They have four different objectives: to expand access; at the same time, to maintain the traditional high standards in teaching and scholarship; to play a prominent role in leading edge research and technology; and to put no more money into the system.
I believe that those four objectives are irreconcilable—with difficulty, three could be reconcilable—but if the Government will the ends they must will the means to those ends.
7.31 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for introducing the debate. It has been an interesting and, it goes without saying, important debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, said, it has also been a timely debate.
I, too, welcome the two excellent maiden speeches; the first from the bee-keeping Bishop, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, and the second from the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. She touched a chord with me when she regretted that her parents were not present during her maiden speech. Had they been, they would have been immensely proud of their daughter in this place. But perhaps I speak for many people who arrive here not expecting to do so by saying that we regret that our parents are not here to witness our introduction and our maiden speeches.
A country is judged by the quality of its education and particular focus rests on the quality of its higher education. The Government, when they came to office, declared that education was their first, second and third priority. Some of us have considerable reservations about such proclamations when witnessing the way in which core funding for our schools has been reduced as a direct result of the unprecedented and costly expansion of the Department for Education and Employment. I refer to the rise in the number of political advisers on the payroll, the massive increase in
1348
non-accountable quangos and the volume of moneys held back—or, in the departmental jargon—top-sliced by government to fund endless centrally-controlled projects.
However, before I am intervened upon for straying from the subject, I declare that I wish to confine the rest of my remarks to higher education and in particular to the state of our universities. Universities can be forgiven for believing that they have been omitted from that list of priorities.
Higher education students were deceived by the Government—indeed, by Mr Blair personally—when pre-election and post-election pledges were made that a Labour Government had no intention whatever of introducing tuition fees.
Sir Ron—now Lord—Dearing made recommend-ations following considerable consultations and deliberations by his committee. They included the recommendation that students, particularly poorer students, should retain up to 50 per cent grants towards their maintenance at university. This was ignored by the Government and we are beginning to see the signs of debt accumulating for the students from low income backgrounds.
Since the changes in student funding, the fall in applications has been most marked among mature students. Sadly, one problem is highlighted. It is that those students who drop out of universities, sometimes because they are ill-suited for a higher education course, have for a year or more accumulated debt and then have to make a fresh educational start somewhere else.
It will continue to baffle political scientists that it was a socialist Labour government which introduced a system of student finance which resulted in the poorer student carrying the greater burden of debt on leaving university. A great deal of emphasis has been placed by many, including the National Union of Students, on the introduction of tuition fees. However, for the brightest young people from poorer homes the greatest adverse financial impact has been due to the wholesale removal of maintenance grants. Recently on BBC's Radio 4 I heard an NUS representative admit—with hindsight, of course—that he regretted not putting up a greater fight for the retention of maintenance grants for students from low income families.
Before leaving the issue of fees, perhaps I may ask the Minister what progress is being made with the investigation into the absurd anomaly of Scottish and European students receiving preferential treatment over English and Welsh students and those from Northern Ireland by having their fees for the fourth year of their university course waived. Also, what is the latest situation and what are the projections for the Government's support for the collegiate tutorial system at Oxford and Cambridge Universities?
Despite the priority claimed by the Government for higher education, the so-called additional funding has not taken account of student numbers. It is also now clear that the funding per student has fallen. The Minister, when responding, will no doubt repeat her assertion that the "unit of resource", as it is known, fell

1349
under the previous government. It may come as a relief to the noble Baroness to hear that I shall not argue with her about that. However, I shall say that there was recognition that a review of higher education funding was an issue and the Dearing Committee, with all-party support, was set up to consider it and to report back to government. That point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood.
The Government claim to have addressed the issue, but I believe that there is considerable evidence to the contrary. The additional income from tuition fees has turned out, predictably, not to be truly additional funding. It has done no more than mitigate—and only in part—a reduction in funding per student. In each year to 2002, funding per student, even including a proportion of tuition fee income, will fall.
As the Association of University Teachers claimed, student income has supplanted planned central government expenditure. And expenditure as a proportion of GDP fell from 0.7 to 0.6 between 1997 and 1999. What comfort can the Minister have for that third of our universities which, in their returns to the Higher Education Funding Council, are predicting a deficit budget for next year and beyond? The increases for the next three years, announced in another place by the Minister, Mr Wicks, of £318 million, £253 million and £295 million do not begin to address the recommendations in the Dearing Report, especially if participation levels continue to increase. The Dearing Report advised that there would be a shortfall of £350 million in 1989–90 and of £565 in 1999–2000.
The Bett Report on academic salaries has been received by the Government, who so far have washed their hands of it. One argument used by Ministers—indeed, the only argument to date—is that the report was commissioned by higher education employers and that therefore any response is a matter for them. Well, that is in part true, but given the centralising nature of the Government, the lack of flexibility for universities on top-up fees and the dependence upon central government for funding, how can Ministers take the view that there is no link between grant in aid and the cost to universities of paying their staff? If the Government really are saying that any increase in salaries must come from within present resources, and that universities must continue to strive to achieve the Prime Minister's target of additional students—up to 50 per cent of young adults—then the funding per student is heading for serious decline and with it a fall in standards, a rise in wastage rates and the risk of a lemming-like exodus of the best academic staff.
Ministers have sent out confusing signals on participation rates. Will the Minister please clarify the position? In July, the Minister said in this House that no decisions had been made on participation rates. Mr Blunkett continues to talk about expansion. The Prime Minister said in his conference speech:
"today I set a target of 50% of young adults going to university in the next century",
1350
and the Chancellor is said to have claimed that almost all young adults will go through higher education by 2020. I asked for clarification on that issue when responding to the gracious Speech, but so far I have received no reply.
If the participation levels are to rise, what is the timescale and what is the source of funding? Expansion must not lead to a compromising of standards. The key to sustaining standards lies in the schools—as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, mentioned. I can add to the examples of interesting summer schools designed to encourage children to think and to work harder in order to benefit from higher education. At Teesside University there is an effective programme of summer schools and the signs are extremely promising.
I turn to the issue of standards. Are the Government concerned about the standard of entry qualifications to higher education courses? Are the Government concerned about the proliferation, quality and academic content of courses? Do the Government accept that the rise in drop-out rates from university courses may have some link with poor entry qualifications; an inappropriate match between the skills and talents of a student and the courses offered? The acceptance of students through the clearing system often has more to do with filling places than with educational considerations.
I should like to know the Minister's reaction to the following. One university—I shall refrain from using its name unless I am pressed by the Minister—looking to fill vacancies on 184 courses through the clearing system offered civil engineering to students with a mere 12 points; that is, the equivalent of three Ds, geography to students with eight points; chemical sciences to students with a mere six points; and mathematical sciences to students with only four points. At another well-known university, 12 points were enough to study physics with nuclear physics, while a student who preferred his astrophysics straight could be accepted with only 10 points.
Does the Minister agree with last year's report from the Higher Education Funding Council which presented widespread evidence of the dumbing-down of degree standards? What response is there from Ministers about degree courses in rock music and kite-flying, which I believe do little to enhance the academic reputation of higher education?
The publication of tables providing information about higher education intakes, social backgrounds, completed degree courses and drop-out rates is to be welcomed. In all those areas perspective is important and therefore I understand why we should note that the situation for the proportion of students completing courses and the drop-out rates in the United Kingdom show a much better picture than in most other countries. It should not, however, give rise to indifference. The overall figure of 18 per cent of students not completing courses may look reasonable in comparison with other countries, but the drop-out rate at some institutions gives rise to serious concern and does at least beg the question that it could be

1351
linked with pressure to increase participation levels, student funding, academic salaries or even misdirected young people who might be more effectively provided for by sub-degree courses, highly vocational and educational training.
One has to speculate as to whether the Government really are working towards a redefinition of the role of universities as the equivalent of comprehensive schools providing for all abilities in one institution. Perhaps the Minister will confirm or disabuse the House of that assumption.
I have not touched on research because of time constraints. I ask only one question: given the number of different higher education institutions, including those from the polytechnic and higher education sector and the different historical records for research ranging from a high degree in some universities to very little in others, is it government funding policy to recognise those differentials, to level up, or to average out across the whole sector? The Government should clarify the role of universities and give serious consideration to the consequences of a relentless expansion of higher education without proper regard for standards, quality of teaching and learning, academic salaries, funding and the capacity of universities to cape without compromising standards.
Finally, I wish to point out that the burden of bureaucracy, the lack of flexibility and increasing central government control are strangling education, from nursery school to the university, emasculating and demoralising professional teachers and lecturers. As my noble friend Lord Norton said, echoing the sentiments of the late Lord Beloff: set the professionals free by less intervention. Unless those issues are addressed, what has been a world-class higher education sector will be at risk of losing that reputation. As I said when opening, a country is judged by the quality of its education and particular focus rests on the success and quality of its higher education.
7.45 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone):: My Lords, I begin by congratulating, the two maiden speakers in this debate. We learned a great deal from the wisdom of both the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. They made two really excellent speeches. I look forward greatly to hearing both speak in the House on many future occasions.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for introducing the debate. I am sure that the noble Baroness. Lady Blatch, will agree with me that the position of a Minister responding to a debate on universities in this House is always difficult because there is a great deal of expertise and knowledge here, of which we have heard much today.
When the Government took office, higher education was somewhere between a shambles and a crisis. There had been drift and uncertainty over several years. Universities were certainly unsure of
1352
their mission, funding per student had been sharply cut, investment in the universities' infrastructure had collapsed and there was a serious threat to quality. Soon after the report of Lord Dearing's National Committee of Inquiry was published, which set challenges for Government, the universities and students, the Government responded quickly to the main recommendations on the shared responsibility of students and the state for funding higher education and to the remainder of the recommendations not long afterwards. I shall send a copy of the Government's response to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, who did not seem to be aware of it.
I was immensely surprised by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, about the lack of interest by the Government in our universities. I believe that he was exaggerating; indeed, I thought that his measure of lack of interest—which was how many speeches the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education had given—was rather limited in any case. His remarks in that context were quite inaccurate. I was present at a speech given by the Prime Minister on higher education in the summer in which he advocated an increase in the number of students from around the world coming to, as he rightly described it,
"our world-class universities in a world-class system".
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made a number of speeches on the subject. In a speech at the University of Exeter last year, he said:
"It simply is not true that this Government is not interested in our universities. Nothing could be further from the truth".
We are always entertained by rather colourful prose from the noble Lord, Lord Annan. He described the Government as having treated the universities like a "discarded mistress." I prefer the analogy of an active lover. There is an extremely strong partnership and good relationship between the Government and the CVCP, which represents our universities, and, indeed, with many individual universities.
The Government are quite clear about the critical role of universities in an era when the rhetoric about the knowledge economy is becoming a reality. First, universities must provide high quality training and knowledge across a wide range of subjects because the economy is demanding more highly trained people than ever before. Graduates need to be equipped with both specialist knowledge and the skills which our employers expect from them.
Secondly, our universities must generate knowledge through research and be ready to ensure that that knowledge is exploited where possible, as through links with industry and others.
Thirdly, as I believe was said so clearly and eloquently by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, universities must contribute to the social and cultural fabric of the nation through teaching, research and scholarship. However, the Government do not expect all universities to be identical. Rather, we expect them to play to their strengths, with some universities paying particular attention to research and others perhaps to developing new approaches to

1353
teaching in vocational areas. As my noble friend Lady Warwick rightly emphasised, diversity is of enormous importance in the system we have today. And we shall ensure that resources for teaching, research and special projects are carefully directed so that those diverse missions are properly underpinned. Therefore, for some there should be more money for research and more money perhaps for widening participation and for other projects.
In commenting about diversity, perhaps I may say also how much I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. Excellence is to be found not only in our research universities. Excellence can take many forms and many of our new universities are demonstrating that in a variety of ways.
I believe that our universities need to do two things. First, they need to preserve their justified reputation as world centres of excellence in learning, research and scholarship. They are continuing to prove this. An extra 4,200 postgraduate overseas students have chosen to study in the UK compared with just two years ago. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, rightly referred to the importance of universities in this area of invisible exports. We should not downplay that. And they need to be a powerful economic force, not only in their own right but also in enabling a wide variety of industries to grow through exploitation of the knowledge that universities generate, which will be to the benefit of us all. We want them to maintain their excellence and to promote diversity.
The Government are playing their part. In spite of what has been said in the debate, there has been an appreciable increase in the number of students over the past decade or so. We welcome that, and I believe that most speakers in the debate have done so with the possible exception of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I can confirm to the noble Baroness that the Prime Minister has now announced—he had not done so when she asked me a question about this in July; therefore, I was not able to inform her about this—a further target of having 50 per cent of young people benefiting from higher education by the time they reach the age of 30. Many of those new places—I believe that this is more along the lines of what the noble Baroness was suggesting—will be for sub-degree courses with a vocational leaning, which students will be able to take part time as well as full time. Those who take the courses part time will be able to combine work with study. Many of those students will be mature, coming into higher education when they are ready and fitting it in with work and family responsibilities. That will contribute further to the widening of access to which the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane of Llandaff, and a number of other speakers referred.
At this point I must say that I was rather saddened by what the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said. She does not seem to want to encourage to go to university those students who do not come from a tradition of universities and higher education. We must reach out
1354
to those students. We cannot say that because they appear not to want to go, we should simply leave them to miss out on the potential they may have.
As I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, did, some may argue that the expansion of higher education which her government initiated has gone far enough; even too far. I invite noble Lords to look at the evidence. Graduates still earn more than non-graduates with university entrance qualifications. Graduate unemployment is low; their starting salaries rose by 7 per cent between 1997 and 1998. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, the personal rate of return of a university degree—roughly what an individual can expect to gain over a lifetime—remains very high. Employers are reporting shortages of graduates in a number of disciplines, and especially at sub-degree level. Those do not seem to me to be the symptoms of over-production or falling standards. Moreover, our schools and FE colleges are now preparing more young people who have the qualifications that are needed to enter university.
As I have already said, rapid expansion was introduced by the previous government. There was an enormous increase in the age of participation rate; indeed, it doubled. The noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, said on an earlier occasion in this House that that is something in which he believes. I believe he endorsed that position today. The expansion we are initiating at present is a more measured one. It will take into account improvements in achievement in schools and further education to ensure that we can maintain standards of entry in our universities.
Many speakers have commented on the issue of funding for higher education. Of course, the Government have increased funding for universities in order to maintain the quality of our higher education and to support a small amount of further expansion. I did not recognise the comments of some of the contributors to the debate on this matter. I feel that they are perhaps still trapped in the environment left by the previous government when universities were indeed starved of funds. The Secretary of State—
Earl Russell: My Lords, has the noble Baroness read the eighth report of the Treasury Select Committee on the comprehensive spending review? If so, will she tell the House why she disagrees with its arguments?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, if the noble Earl will wait just a moment, I shall give him the figures. I shall give him chapter and verse on the investment which the Government have already made in higher education. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has just announced that an extra £295 million will be available in 2001–02. That is an increase of 5.4 per cent in cash terms, and is on top of £253 million in the previous year, £318 million the year before, and £165 million the year before that. All told, that is an increase of just over £1 billion—an 11 per

1355
cent increase in real terms since April 1998. Most of the increase is new government funding, not just additional fee income.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, those are precisely the Figures I gave. But they represent a fall in funding per student and they represent also a fall in GDP from 0.6 to 0.7 per cent.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Baroness has not answered the point about the Treasury Select Committee which found the method of calculation of those figures altogether deceptive and mistaken. The Treasury Select Committee's findings coincide with real experience as I see it.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am not going to enter into a discussion of the details of the Treasury Select Committee in a debate this evening on universities. Many issues have been raised and in the time available I should like to try to address those issues which are pertinent to the debate. I shall pick up later on the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about efficiency savings.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that over 80 per cent of that funding will come from new funding provided by the Government and not from the income raised from tuition fees. That demonstrates clearly our commitment to supporting higher education.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, the noble Baroness takes great pride in the money that the Government have made available. We debated earlier whether or not that is an increase. On this side of the House, we do not believe that it is an increase in the way that she has explained it. She said that money is available for higher education. Does she believe that the money which the Government have made available for higher education will go any way towards addressing the problems of academic salaries and the specific problem that a professor in a university will probably earn about £40,000 per year, which is exactly half the salary of a head teacher in a large city comprehensive? Will the money that the Government have provided allow the universities to close that gap significantly?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I very much hope that noble Lords will allow me to continue this speech. If I am interrupted every other sentence, it makes it very difficult for me to answer the points which have been raised. I shall deal later with the Bett report.
It is a bit rich for members of the main opposition party, both of whom were in the previous government, to upbraid this Government for not providing enough funding for higher education. What this Government have provided is in stark contrast to the funding provided by the previous government. Between 1989–90 and 1996–97, the amount of funding per student decreased by 35 per cent. That is a figure confirmed by my noble friend Lady Warwick. That was a reduction of £2,553 in cash terms per student. By any
1356
standards, that is a swingeing decrease. It is no wonder that when the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, looked at the previous government's spending plans, he said that further rapid reductions in unit funding were not achievable without putting quality unacceptably at risk.
We responded positively. We have stabilised university funding. As the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, acknowledged, there is room for universities to make improvements in efficiency while student numbers continue to increase. The previous government wanted those improvements in efficiency while they put a ceiling on increases in numbers. In that respect, our universities are no different from any other sectors of the economy.
The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, believed that efficiency improvements should be limited to 1 per cent per year for two years and did not agree with the far higher level which the previous government demanded. We have agreed with that limitation and implemented it. We have now extended that for a third year.
I turn now to the Bett Committee. I know that there are concerns about the pay of university staff and I am extremely sympathetic to what has been said in the House this evening. I understand those concerns. After all, I was in that sector until two-and-a-half years ago. But as a number of noble Lords have conceded, the Bett Committee, which set out some evidence and suggested a number of elements of restructuring, reported not to the Government but to the universities. Moreover, the committee made it absolutely clear that there is no further funding in this CSR which can be used to address some of the problems which the universities face in that regard. Again, that is hang-over from the previous government.
For the time being, its recommendations are for the universities to respond to. The Government do not negotiate university pay nor would it be appropriate if they were to do so. I am sure that many Members of your Lordships' House would become extremely concerned were the Government to take that on. But I recognise the disparity in some salaries to which the Bett report has drawn attention. The next spending review is now under way and university staff will clearly be a factor. But the House will understand that I cannot prejudge the outcome. However, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that the Government are not washing their hands of that issue.
Part of the funding arrangements comes from a new compact between universities, students and the taxpayer, to which a number of noble Lords referred. We accepted the principle of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, that the burden should be more equally shared. That means that full-time students who can afford to should contribute to part of their tuition fees and those on lower incomes—about one-third—do not have to contribute at all. My noble friend Lady Lockwood was right to say that that has been welcomed by the universities. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, for his support in relation to that.

1357
We have modernised the system of student support. Maintenance loans are offered at a very favourable rate of interest and with flexible repayments made when the graduate can afford to do so after leaving university. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Shore of Stepney that I thought he was being rather nostalgic in talking about a period when he went to university when the numbers of young people were about 3 or 4 per cent. We are in a very different position today.
Our new arrangements mean that those who benefit financially from higher education make a contribution to its cost, and not just the general taxpayer. We are waiving fees for part-time students on low incomes or those who lose their jobs while studying. Next year, loans will also be available to them. That will help mature students which my noble friend Lady Lockwood and a number of other noble Lords want us to do. We have increased help for those in financial hardship by trebling the access funds to which the noble Lord, Lord Baker, referred and introducing hardship loans. Of course, those are for maintenance and not for the payment of fees.
The evidence shows—a number of your Lordships asked about this—that there are more young people, not fewer, entering university. The figure is more than 1 per cent up on last year. So those new arrangements have not affected the numbers coming forward.
Perhaps I may say also to my noble friend Lord Shore and others that there has been no deterrence to students from the lower socio-economic groups. Indeed, they comprise a slightly higher proportion of new entrants than before. Nor need they have higher non-completion rates than other students. I do not believe that we should have lower expectations of such students. But of course it is right that we should continue to monitor the new arrangements. I am very concerned that we should do that and do it rigorously. After all, as a social scientist who has always believed that such changes should be properly evaluated, it would be most remiss of me in my present position not to ensure that that happens.
The recently published performance indicators to which other speakers have referred will give those who lead universities helpful, objective and clear information about how students are faring and provide a good guide as to what action universities need to take to improve completion rates across the board. Part of that will be modernising teaching and learning. Universities should grasp the opportunity that information technology presents. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, referred to that. If we do not, we shall be rapidly overtaken by other parts of the English-speaking world.
I turn to the quality of teaching. Universities are unique in having such wide control over all aspects of their teaching, examining and awarding bodies. I see every advantage in our universities being able to demonstrate that their standards are high. I believe also that having some measure of external scrutiny is valuable to them. That should not restrict their
1358
freedom nor the range of courses they teach. Nor should it stifle the freedom to develop new and imaginative courses. However, neither should it mean a mountain of paperwork.
I endorse completely the need to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy. I want a light touch and have asked the Higher Education Funding Council to ensure that that happens. However, that depends on universities demonstrating that they already have sound systems for internal control. By the same token, the RAE does not prevent good quality research. I disagree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. He suggested that it is only quantity that counts in the RAE. Quality does and should count. We must remember, in respect of both teaching and research assessment, that it is not done by bureaucrats in the Department for Education and Employment. I must defend my civil servants against charges of that sort. It is done by peer review; by other academics looking at the record of their colleagues in different universities. However, I take the point about the importance of not having measures that put universities into a strait-jacket. I do not believe they will. We must recognise the need to show that universities provide good value for money and are accountable for it.
Regrettably, I am running out of time. A number of specific questions were raised on a range of issues. I have the answers but perhaps it would be right for me to write to noble Lords concerned. However, perhaps I may say a few words on research. There has been a great deal of additional support for research from the Government with £1.4 billion being made available through the joint infrastructure fund. The first tranche of that spending was announced yesterday. That is a large amount of extra funding. I believe that it was desperately needed. Universities have been unable to invest over the past decade because funding has not kept up with their needs.
In conclusion, I do not recognise the rather gloomy picture painted in speeches made by some Members of your Lordships' House. Nor do I believe that many vice-chancellors, university staff and students would recognise it. Nor is that the view around the world of British universities. As I travel the world carrying out international work for my department, I discover that our universities are the envy of many people.
The Government have a clear vision for the universities in which they are both centres of learning and teaching at the highest level. They are central to the transformation needed for a knowledge-based economy. That means that the universities taken together must teach a wide range of subjects to a high standard. They must conduct the best research. The Government have assured the funding. We have a new target now for participation by students and have set clear objectives. I know that the universities will demonstrate what they can do. I am confident that they will continue to be diverse players in a world class system competing successfully with the best in the world.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I have never greatly believed in an extended second bite of the cherry when initiating a debate. I shall therefore not detain your Lordships for any great length of time. I thank the many speakers who have participated. In particular, I much enjoyed the two maiden speeches, as I am sure did everybody else. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, whose speech was one of the few I missed, was kind enough to make a graceful reference to my time as Home Secretary. I am grateful to her for that.
I have rarely participated in or listened to a debate in which there were so few speeches with which I disagreed. I refer, for instance, to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shore. I have not agreed with a speech given by the noble Lord for a very long time, but I agree with at least 60 or 70 per cent of what he said today. The same applies to the noble Lord, Lord Baker. He made a fine speech. That is an example, of which there are many others, of how leaving office can improve the quality of a person's speaking. Perhaps to some extent that applies to us all.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for winding up and for her exhaustive replies to many parts of the debate. She did not reply in great detail to most of the points I raised. However, I make no great objection to that She made a legitimate riposte to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, with a fine phrase; that she inherited a position in higher education which was between a shambles and a crisis. I do not necessarily contest that. I refrain from saying that after two and a half years she has produced a position which is between a crisis and a shambles; first, that would be too glib; secondly, it would be a little unjust; and thirdly, I would not wish to make such an unfriendly remark at the end of a debate of this kind.
However, in my considered view, the Minister is deluding herself if she thinks that there is high morale and a state of general satisfaction in the university communities. I am an admirer of many aspects of the work of this Government. I remain hopeful for the future, but I cannot say that higher education is, so far, one of their outstanding achievements.
Finally, at one stage in her speech, the Minister indicated that we might be going down a bifurcated road with some universities specialising in research and some in teaching. I am sure that the general view is that in all the best university institutions, research and teaching are necessarily closely linked.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify my remarks. In no way did I mean to suggest that research and teaching should be divided; that some universities should do only research and others only teaching. I suggested that in a diverse system we need to get universities to play to their strengths. The noble Lord will recognise that some universities are stronger in research and others are particularly good
1360
at widening participation and reaching out to some of the new students we want to bring in, and at prodding sub-degree courses.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, there are some which are strong in both. I thank the noble Baroness for her clarification. I thank also those noble Lords who participated in the debate. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Penal Policy
8.17 p.m.
The Earl of Longfordrose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether their penal policy is different from that of the last government.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, is the penal policy of the present Government any different from that of their immediate predecessors? I do not doubt the noble ideals of the Home Secretary, a Christian socialist, or those of the Prime Minister, also a Christian socialist.
For many years I have visited prisons. For the past two and a half years, I have visited on average at least one prison per week, sometimes more, and I have not seen any difference.
It may be said that it is all going to happen very soon. But I am asking the question: is there any difference on the ground between the results of the present Government's policy and those of their immediate predecessors?
I want to give an example of the kind of thing I have in mind, which does not reflect on the good intentions of anybody. I have a youngish friend—by my standards anyone is youngish, even our Front Bench—called Bob Turney. He spent many years in prison and is now a probation officer. He was seconded to be a member of an important committee set up by the Home Secretary to deal with young offenders. The Home Secretary, who had shown a lot of interest in Bob's work, wrote a generous introduction to his latest book, although it is much less important than his earlier one. He wrote: "So far so good: good intentions". But the work Bob is to do on this committee will not show any results until next year. That is where we stand. That is why I ask the question: ought we to see any evidence on the ground of any change in policy? After all, the Government have been in power for two and a half years now.
When I say the Government's "predecessors", I mean their immediate predecessors. The Home Secretary was Michael Howard, but we must not blame one man entirely. He became rather famous for penal reform in the wrong sense. He said that "prison works" and within four years the prison population increased from 40,000 to 60,000—around 50 per cent—without any increase in crime. It cannot be said that it was a change in policy which produced a big increase in the prison population. We have to give that responsibility to Michael Howard—or the then government.

1361
Is the present policy any different? When I say that, I must make clear that I am not talking of Conservative policy over the years. Lord Butler was a famous penal reformer, as were others. The noble Lord, Lord Hurd, who cannot be with us tonight because of his commitments to the Royal Commission on the future of the House, was certainly a penal reformer by any standards. So was the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who is to follow me. In fact, I shall qualify that.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, is without doubt the most important penal historian in British history. He wrote three major books on penal affairs and is now engaged on the fourth. When I think of him, I think of Macaulay's essay on the trial of Warren Hastings. He said that that trial induced in the scholar power to suspend his labours in that vast and profound mind from which he had already brought forward a great treasure of wisdom, a treasure too often buried in the earth—this does not apply to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham—too often paraded with inelegant and injudicious ostentation. So we are very privileged to have the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, with us tonight, having extracted himself from those labours.
But when all is said and done, what is the situation? We have the report of the Prison Reform Trust. I have given the Government notice on all these matters—several days' notice—so they have no excuse for saying that it is new to them. What is the situation? The Prison Reform Trust, of which the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, is now the chairman, produced a document in which it says that there is overcrowding in more than half our prisons. That is either true or not true. Nobody has denied it, so I ask the Government whether they accept that.
I need not dwell on the consequences of overcrowding. No one in this select audience needs me to spend a long time explaining that an overcrowded prison is a building in which the reform of the prisoner is hopeless. It cannot be attempted. So one main object of punishment is nullified from the start.
We must ask the question: do the Government agree that there is overcrowding in more than half the prisons? What is their record in this matter? They can point to the fact that within around one year of their taking office, the increase in the prison population was checked. But it has started rising again. It is around 65,000 now, but it is reckoned that it will shortly be over 70,000. Do the Government take any responsibility for the size of the prison population? That is not an easy question because governments say, "That is the fault of the courts. It is not for us. Some legislation comes into it, but it is for the courts".
I put it in the crudest way possible—at this time of night one must speak pretty crudely—if Michael Howard could increase the prison population by 50 per cent, can a Labour Government with an enormous majority reduce it in the same way? Is that possible? Do they accept responsibility for the size of the prison population? They have done some things I admire very much—the tagging idea is very good—
1362
but, on the other hand, the prison population has begun to increase. So the Government must face the facts. They have not until now answered the question of whether or not they accept the remorseless increase in the prison population. That is the main issue. They have had plenty of notice. I do not expect a definite answer—I never do on these occasions—but I know that I shall have a polite one, which is something in these difficult times.
I want to conclude by referring to the Prison Officers' Association. It has few friends. No one, except occasionally me, ever says a good word about it. The prisoners criticise it; the governors criticise it; and the Prison Service department criticises it. Whenever there is any difficulty, they put the blame on the Prison Officers' Association. But its members are human beings. When I go to prisons, which I do every week as I said earlier, I think to myself, "These people are doing a tremendous job which I could not begin to do myself". I do not mean at the age of 94; I could not do any known job; but even if I were 70 years younger I could not do it.
So we must ask whether we are making the fullest use of the organisation. Are the community, the authorities and the people who represent us treating prison officers in the right way?
My answer is quite definitely no. They have neglected to take the prison officers into their confidence.
I raised a question on an earlier occasion and I repeat it tonight. Will a Prison Officers' Association representative be put on the new strategy committee? I have asked that question before and given plenty of notice. It is only one point.
I am bound to say that when we read the damaging report on Wormwood Scrubs by the much admired chief inspector, which was referred to in the last debate, we wonder what was wrong there. It was said that it was a wrong attitude on the part of prison officers and a number of them were being prosecuted. The whole atmosphere was wrong. But what is happening now in Wormwood Scrubs? Is the atmosphere better? The atmosphere in a prison depends above all on the relationship between the prison officers and the authorities. A much better attitude must be produced if we are to have any real improvement in the prison situation.
I do not want to end on a controversial note. I want to wish everybody concerned well—the Minister and other Ministers in the Home Office, the Prison Service department, the governors of the prisons, the prison officers and the prisoners. At this time, just before Christmas, I want to wish them well with all my heart.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, this week the noble Earl, Lord Longford, celebrated his 94th birthday. For more than half a century he has held many high offices of state and earned many honours—indeed, most recently a life peerage was conferred upon him—and has espoused many causes. However, no cause has been pursued more persistently or argued more

1363
tenaciously than the need for reform in the penal system. Once again, the noble Earl showed his continued vitality and eloquence, ending on a generous note when he said that he did not wish to provoke any controversy. I believe I shall be able to rectify that last comment in what I have to say.
Ingeniously worded as the Question is, I anticipate it will provoke an indignant reply from the Government Front Bench indicating that their penal policy is indeed different from that of the previous Conservative government. I have no doubt that the Minister will have been provided with a lengthy list of policy initiatives taken by the present Government which differ from what went before.
Yet, when we come to look at it, many of the current criminal justice policies, including some of the most contentious, have their origins in proposals put forward by—if not always implemented by—recent Conservative administrations. I shall cite two examples only, both of topical importance.
The first is mandatory minimum sentences for certain categories of repeat offending. As those of us who have taken part in the previous debates will recall, legislation was introduced in the dying days of the previous government in February 1997 for mandatory life sentences for a second serious offence of violence; mandatory minimum sentences of seven years imprisonment on conviction for third-time trafficking in Class A drugs, and mandatory minimum sentences of three years' imprisonment for a third domestic burglary. These were entirely novel proposals—the first ever in our law save for the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for murder, which had entirely distinctive historical origins.
So what lay behind those policies? It is well known that they were an adaptation of the American "Three strikes and you are out" sentencing policy; a fact, that was recognised not least by Mr Howard, in the debates in the House of Commons. They had the unique feature of being both objectionable in principle and counter-productive in practice. It is a characteristic of populist-inspired policies that the next step is to go even further down the road, as happened in the United States. Hone politician says, "I'm going to be tough on crime with 'three strikes and you are out''', what is there to stop his rival saying, "I will be even tougher and hold out for 'two strikes and you are out'"? That, indeed, is what has happened. Whereas the mandatory sentence for repeat drug dealers and burglars was to be imposed on third conviction, the more serious offences which merited mandatory life imprisonment followed after two strikes only.
What happened next? Let us rehearse the sequence. Immediately after the election in May 1997 the new Government announced their intention to implement the first two categories but to postpone the mandatory minimum sentence of three years for the third time domestic burglary conviction. The reason was unstated, but was widely believed to be the forecast effect on the prison population.
Most close observers doubted that the mandatory sentence for repeat burglars would ever be implemented. It was the high point of populist
1364
ideology, and the practical consequences would prevent its implementation. It was thought that the new Government would allow a decent interval and would then seek a suitable moment, in the course of time, for repeal. That did not happen.
Earlier this year, a totally unexpected announcement was made by the Home Secretary that the mandatory three-year sentences for repeat burglars would be implemented. The last date that I heard for implementation was December 1999. I should like to hear from the Minister who is to reply whether that date has now passed, or whether it has been postponed. From the information available to me, it was the proposed date for implementation. At the time the statement was made by the Home Secretary earlier in the year, the prison population was relatively stable. The forecast indicated that might continue.
However, since then the numbers are on the increase again. If what I take to be a commitment is met, the inevitable result will be greater overcrowding, especially in local prisons. There will also be further impoverishment of regimes. It is always a key indicator to look at the number of hours spent in constructive activities, especially in local prisons. On the latest information, the situation is well below target, particularly in education. If there is to be an additional inflow of repeat burglars into the system, there will be a further, unavoidable, downward trend.
The second example I can take more briefly because it is before the House at present. I refer to the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill. The Government's intention is to terminate the right to jury trial for accused persons charged with offences triable either summarily in the magistrates' court or on indictment in the Crown Court—the so-called "either way" offences. This proposal has also been around for a long time. It was recommended by the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice in 1993 and then again in 1997 in a Home Office review of delays in the process of justice carried out by Martin Narey, the current very able Director General of the Prison Service.
Neither recommendation was accepted by the then government, although further consideration was being given to it at the time Parliament was dissolved in February 1997. Who could have anticipated, however, that within two years such fundamental and essential principles of justice as proportionate sentencing and a right to jury trial for either way offences should be set aside and, indeed, set aside by a Labour Government? I suggest that all this goes to show not only that the present Government have embraced some of the most illiberal penal policies of the previous government but that they are now proposing to take them further.
8.38 p.m.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I shall take a slightly different tack and, I hope, offer some helpful solutions to your Lordships other than just sending people to prison. The Question before us this evening is whether this Government's penal policy differs from that of the previous government. I feel I am pretty safe from these Benches in assuring noble Lords that

1365
neither this Government nor the previous one have given sufficient funding to prisons to enable them to rehabilitate offenders rather than teach them to become even more adept at committing crime.
I chair a police authority and have been a magistrate for 16 years, so I speak somewhat from the heart and from some experience when I say that losing one's liberty is punishment enough. Believe me, if your Lordships had visited prisons—as the noble Earl who spoke so eloquently this evening has done—and youth offender institutions, as I had to do many times as a magistrate, you would realise how precious freedom is. The smell, the noise, the lack of privacy, the constant tension, and often the abject fear, are quite overwhelming.
There are appalling problems for prison officers to handle, not least huge drug problems. We really ought to limit the use of our prisons to those people who pose a genuine danger to society, instead of clogging them up with non-fine payers and those who fall at the very lower end of the criminal sentencing scale.
In doing some research for my speech tonight I came across a project being run by the north-east London probation service. It is a programme designed to enable offenders serving community orders to earn credits from the open college network which help towards getting on to courses, into college, or into work. There is clear evidence that people are 70 per cent less likely to offend if they have a job.
It is a laudable project which is well worth supporting. However, I understand that funding for it has had to be raised through matching charitable funds with the single regeneration budget. The work that needs to be done in order to find the matching funding could be better directed at producing more projects rather than being tied up in a bureaucratic tangle. I plead with the Minister, if he can, to find better ways of encouraging such excellent schemes than tying up their instigators in red tape.
I now turn to another area which I think the Government might like to consider, and which in fairness the previous government did not have much opportunity to see brought into practice; namely, the scheme known as restorative justice. Restorative justice is a term used to encompass all those who are affected by an incident. It seeks to bring the stakeholders—I am sure that noble Lords opposite will recognise that term—together and attempts to find a solution which will be acceptable to all sides.
It starts with the idea that crime is fundamentally a violation of people and of inter-personal relationships. We on this side of your Lordships' House see it as complementary to the formal criminal justice system and therefore able to contribute to the quality, effectiveness and efficiency of justice as a whole. It helps offenders take responsibility for their actions.
The beauty of this approach is that it is open, transparent and it works. The public will have more confidence in a system in which they can be listened to and have their views taken into account and where they can be offered a face to face apology, if that is the
1366
appropriate outcome. Work on this system is being undertaken in the police service, most noticeably and particularly in the Thames Valley area, where the chief constable, Charles Pollard, has taken the lead in developing this approach to restorative justice in this country.
The two most familiar facets of restorative justice are known as victim-offender mediation and group conferencing. If your Lordships will indulge me for a moment I wish to mention the extent of this system world wide. There are now at least 300 restorative programmes in North America and over 500 in Europe, not counting the numerous southern hemisphere schemes. Norway has a national mediation policy, while Austria and the Netherlands have introduced victim-offender mediation into their legislation. Conferencing became statutory in New Zealand in 1989. Since then the idea has spread to Australia, Singapore, here in the United Kingdom, Ireland, South Africa, Palestine, Sweden, the United States and Canada.
There is a prospect that restorative justice will become the basis of the Belgian juvenile system, while restorative principles are already implicit in France. A number of American states have realigned their state departments of correction along restorative justice principles, for example Minnesota and Vermont. In the United Kingdom, Thames Valley police have been joined by the Nottinghamshire and Surrey forces in a strategic partnership to promote restorative justice. By 31st September this year Thames Valley had conducted a total of over 5,000 restorative cautions and restorative and community conferences.
Interim results show that conferences make victims feel safer and more involved. Conference victims were six times more likely than court victims to receive some form of repair for the harm of crime. Some 89 per cent received an apology or some form of material reparation, compared with only 14 per cent of court victims. Some 82 per cent of victims invited to attend a conference went, compared with 7 per cent of the victims invited to attend court. Only 10 per cent of the conference victims were still afraid of their offender after the conference. Some 20 per cent of court victims feared their offender would victimise them in the future compared with only 7 per cent of conference victims. Conferences left victims feeling far more optimistic about the future behaviour of their offenders. After a conference young offenders were more apologetic than after court; more likely to feel ashamed of their crime; and twice as many as those who went to court said that they felt the conference gave them a chance to repay their debt to society.
This approach is seen by all parties as offering both a fair process and a fair outcome. Research is still being carried out in the Thames Valley police area but the emerging findings from other parts of the world indicate that conferencing has shown significant reductions in re-offending. A series of four American studies carried out between 1993 and 1997 has found a statistically significant reduction of one-third in recidivism for juveniles after mediation was carried out.

1367
Too often the victim sits in court, observes the process, but feels no psychological restitution, and the perpetrators are in many senses divorced from the impact of their actions on victims. Restorative justice ensures that the two sides identify the impact that crime has had on a personal level and seeks to heal the wounds on the one side, and brings home to the accused the impact of their actions.
I have tried to demonstrate how one effective system might be more widely used and that it may well prevent offenders being sent to prison in the first place. The Government's support for this system would demonstrate their willingness to pursue enlightened policies in this area, should they wish to do so.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, it is good to have this opportunity to debate possible improvements in penal policy. Ideally we ought to have a full day's debate in which noble and learned Lords could participate. However, no such day is on offer, or has been on offer for quite some time. Therefore, we are grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for giving us this rare opportunity to debate this matter in his birthday week.
I speak with trepidation as a complete layman. But surely crime, the consequences of crime, and the criminal law are too important to be left solely to lawyers, magistrates and penal experts as we are all affected by these things, directly or indirectly. I have visited a prison, but it was an open prison and therefore it was not the unpleasant experience that the noble Baroness has just described.
I cannot pass myself off as the man on the Clapham omnibus; the man on the Kensington omnibus might be nearer the mark. However, given house prices in Clapham these days, I do not think that our respective views are so very far apart!
I have a number of wide-ranging questions, or, more accurately, tentative suggestions for the Minister. I do not suppose that he will be able to respond to all or even necessarily any of them tonight, especially as I have not been able to give him notice of them. All I ask is for the Minister and his department to glance at them to see whether any of them strike a chord or provide any kind of basis for future detailed examination. The first three relate to the imperative need to sustain public confidence in the penal system.
For many years, there has been widespread public cynicism about sentencing policy. Even before the wholesale release of murderers and terrorists in Northern Ireland under the Good Friday agreement, most of the public, rightly or wrongly, were convinced that sentences imposed by courts bore little relationship to the time actually served. The previous government recognised this and declared themselves in favour of "honesty in sentencing"—if I have put the phrase correctly—although, unfortunately, they never got round to doing very much about it.
To sustain public confidence, there needs to be some fixed and immutable relationship between "gross" and "net" sentences—descriptions I coined, but which seemed to find favour with the late Lord Taylor of
1368
Gosforth when he was the Lord Chief Justice. By "gross sentence" I mean, of course, the sentence imposed by the trial judge; and by "net sentence" I mean the time actually served after remission. In other words, the public need to be able to work out at the drop of a hat that when somebody is sentenced to three years, they will actually serve two; if they are sentenced to five years, they will serve three years and four months; if they are sentenced to 12 years, they will serve eight years, and so on.
It does not matter whether remission is set at one-third or one-quarter or whatever, so long as it is applied consistently right across the board and is not altered every few years. However, having said that the proportion does not matter, I submit that 50 per cent remission is excessive from the point of view of public confidence, while a mere 20 per cent remission—which the previous Conservative government proposed—is probably an inadequate incentive for those in prison to behave well. It is important to get rid of the current state of affairs whereby someone sentenced to four and a half years spends 12 months longer in prison than someone sentenced to four years—that is to say, three years inside instead of two.
That brings me to the obligatory life sentence for murder, which has been much criticised by the judiciary but over which neither Labour nor Conservative governments seem prepared to budge, on the supposition that life sentences boost public confidence. I fear that they do not, and that most of the public are convinced—erroneously, I believe—that practically no murderer ever spends more than nine years behind bars. Why can we not consider the sentencing policy of some American states, where those convicted of serious crimes are often sentenced to serve, say, between 15 and 99 years—99 years effectively meaning life since no adult is likely to live longer than that? Translated into English terms, this might entail someone convicted of a domestic murder with considerable extenuating circumstances being sentenced to between six and 99 years, which would mean that person normally being released on parole after four years. Someone convicted of shooting a policeman during a bank robbery might be sentenced to between 25 and 99 years, which would normally mean release on parole after 16 years and eight months—but with the 99-year Sword of Damocles always there as a deterrent against reoffending.
I turn now to the treatment of those in prison yet who may quite possibly be innocent. As much as the general public want punishment for the guilty, they are equally concerned with justice for the innocent. Inescapable and inevitable human error ensures that however hard the system tries, at any given moment some convicted persons are statistically bound to be innocent. But, as Byron Rogers reminded us in a poignant case history in the Sunday Telegraph last Sunday, it is ridiculous to expect a totally innocent man in prison to admit to a non-existent guilt—yet if he fails to do so he will lose all kinds of prison privileges, not least the right to be transferred to an

1369
open prison. What is the solution to this obvious injustice? Surely a solution, or at least some amelioration, is not beyond the wit of man.
I step down now from the Kensington to Clapham omnibus—the No. 49, I think—being uncertain as to whether my final two suggestions will win popular favour. I suspect that they may not. The first relates to the force-feeding of a certain hunger striker, notwithstanding the ruling of the then Home Secretary in July 1974. The Home Secretary in question was, by interesting coincidence, Mr Roy Jenkins, as he then was. Having tabled a Question for Written Answer about this, I suspect that I shall be told that the mental state of the notorious individual in question prevents him from making a rational decision. I would argue that anyone told—possibly with every justification; I do not dispute this—that there can never be any light at all at the end of his particular tunnel is making an entirely rational decision if he decides that he no longer wishes to go on living. I submit that the maxim "Thou shalt not kill—but need not strive officiously to keep alive" is the morally correct one to adopt in this and similar circumstances.
Finally, and closely related to that, we come to the treatment of those who can hope to see some light eventually at the end of a very long tunnel but who have been detained beyond the period that the trial judge deemed appropriate for the purpose of deterrence and retribution, either because the prisoner is genuinely believed to be a possible danger to the public, or because the government of the day are fearful of public opinion if the prisoner is released on the date the trial judge originally deemed to be right and proper. Such individuals are effectively being kept in preventive detention, having fully served out the due period of actual punishment merited by their crime. Should they not therefore be afforded the most comfortable treatment in detention as can reasonably be provided, with the opportunity to earn a decent wage and to use those wages to buy in food from outside, and so on, as remand prisoners used to be able to do before the drugs problem became so bad? I leave the Minister with that thought.
Had there been more time, I should have liked to argue the advantages of reintroducing the principle of partly suspended sentences, at least for certain first offenders. It is a proposition with which I know that at least one noble and learned Lord agrees. This would ensure that a hitherto respectable individual, in a good job, who had acted totally out of character—for example, in an air rage incident, having drunk too much or having taken too many tranquillisers—and who had to be given a prison sentence for deterrent purposes, would none the less receive the short, sharp shock of, say, a month in prison without destroying his career or his marriage, in the knowledge that if he reoffends he will go back to prison for a very long time. But a full exposition of this matter will have to wait for another occasion, however distant that occasion might be.
8.57 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I should like to start with an anecdotal example. Some years ago I was waiting outside the railway station in Lewes when I saw the majestic figure of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, walking out of the station. There were no other trains or other transport around, and so I said to him, "Do get in my car. I know where you are going". He said to me, "You do not even know me. Where do you think I am going?" I said, "You are going to Lewes prison". I think he was absolutely shocked. But his fame goes before him and, when his history is written he will probably be on par with some of the great prison reformers such as Lord Butler, and the noble Lords, Lord Hurd and Lord Jenkins and, if I may spare his blushes, perhaps with historians such as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving us the opportunity to contribute to the debate.
When the Labour Government first came into power in 1997, they inherited a record and rapidly rising prison population. They also inherited deteriorating prison regimes, budget cuts and many demoralised prison staff, who could see that much of the progress made following the Woolf report, which was produced under that enlightened Home Secretary, Douglas Hurd—now the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell—had been halted and reversed in the time since Michael Howard had become Home Secretary. Staff reductions; cuts in prison education; a reduction in the level of constructive activity; an increase in the numbers held to a cell and the postponement of repair and refurbishment plans, all led the Chief Inspector of Prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, to write in his annual report for 1996–97 that,
"While money has been made available to implement recommendations made in the Woodcock and Learmont Reports, it has been cut, and continues to be cut, despite the provision of some extra financial resources, from activities designed to help prisoners to lead law abiding and useful lives in custody and after release. Probation Services have been cut, both in the number of seconded staff working in prisons, and staff to supervise prisoners on release. Education has been cut in virtually every prison for financial reasons. There is no laid-down minimum of education for prison, except for those of under school age, and even their statutory needs arc not being met in all cases. There is not enough work in too many prisons because instructor posts have been cut and workshops closed. Psychologists, who design and help to run offending treatment programmes, have been cut. Prison staff trained in resettlement work, are all too often required on other duties since numbers have been cut, and so too many prisoners leave prison without proper preparation for release … In sum, while money and attention have been directed at the security part of the mission, the reverse has been true of the rehabilitation".
How true are those words from Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons.
In April 1997, the prison population stood at 60,137. That was 48 per cent higher than at the end of 1992, and the women's prison population was 93 per cent higher as a result of the more punitive climate fanned by some of Michael Howard's "prison works" rhetoric.

1371
Against that background, what difference have the Labour Government made? At this point I should like to he helpful to the Minister. In relation to the prison population, the Government have done two things right. First, they have not argued that "prison works", or explicitly exhorted the courts to gaol more offenders. Secondly, in January 1999, they introduced an early release scheme combined with electronic tagging for short-term prisoners. That reduced the prison population by about 2,000 without endangering the public. In addition, measures such as the new drug treatment and testing orders and the planned extension of diversion schemes for mentally disordered offenders have the potential to divert many more offenders from prison and from crime in the longer term.
The Government's measures to tackle delay in the criminal justice process should reduce periods spent in custody on remand. Overall, if we tackle fine defaulters; if we tackle the heavy emphasis on remand in custody; and if we tackle mentally ill offenders, I think we shall substantially reduce our prison population.
Following the Comprehensive Spending Review, the Government also provided an extra £200 million over three years to improve prison regimes. This will finance an increase in basic education, in offending behaviour programmes, in drug treatment programmes and in bail information work, together with providing improved facilities for those aged under 18 in a new "juvenile estate". Alongside these developments is the very welcome "Respond" initiative which is working to confront racial harassment and discrimination, to recruit and support more minority staff, and to ensure equal access to regime opportunities and services for prisoners from racial minorities.
These are all important steps forward in comparison with the bleak position in the latter years of the Conservative government. Much more needs to be done and I am pleased that the Home Office and the Prison Service are currently considering proposals to increase resources devoted to work to secure employment anti housing for released prisoners and to improve resettlement services for short-term prisoners. I very much hope that these can be taken forward and funded in the next Comprehensive Spending Review round.
However, in our view the Government have spoiled their record on prisons in two ways. The first is by way of the sin of omission. There has been little sign of any concerted attempt to argue the case to the public for a more sparing use of imprisonment and for a greater use of punishment in the community for many of the less serious offenders whom we now imprison. Sentencers' decisions are clearly affected by the political climate. It is possible for Ministers to "talk up" or "talk down" the prison population; the former Home Secretary did that quite effectively. I should like to see a concerted drive by the Home Secretary and other Ministers to produce a more balanced climate by highlighting the case for a more rigorous use of constructive community sentencing instead of prison. In the absence of such a drive, the prison population
1372
continues to increase steadily and currently stands at a record 66,143—the figure as of 26th November—which is some 5,000 more than when Labour came into power. This is what leadership is all about; it is to lead public opinion and not simply to follow it.
The second is a sin of commission; namely, the introduction of mandatory and minimum sentences, in particular the implementation on 1st December of this year of Michael Howard's legislation introducing three-year minimum sentences for repeat burglars. I shall not expand on that particular problem because the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has so ably dealt with it.
However, perhaps I may say that minimum sentencing is a crude and unjust measure which has no place in a rational policy to combat crime. Repeat burglars range from persistent professional offenders to inadequate young people whose amateurish burglary attempts arise from problems that should best be tackled by intensive probation programmes. Many burglaries are committed to feed a drug habit, and sentencing drug-addicted burglars to drug treatment programmes would be far more effective than mandatory prison terms. Courts should be able to choose sentences that fit the varying circumstances of each case.
The Government estimate that, over time, minimum sentences will increase the prison population by 4,000. We believe that that is a serious underestimate because it wrongly assumes that there will be no knock-on effect on sentencing for other offences. We welcome the Government's anti-burglary measures, including the extension of burglary prevention programmes. If the money needed to pay for minimum sentences were used to extend preventive measures to more households, it would prevent at least six times more burglaries. Home Office research into the Safer Cities programme showed that every pound spent on burglary prevention saved twice that amount in reduced burglaries.
It would be wrong to equate the present Government's penal policy with that of the last government. The Government have a more balanced approach to penal policy. That is not denied. There is a greater emphasis on rehabilitation. However, the prospect for developing constructive prison regimes would be greatly improved if the trend of the past six years to a greater use of prison sentences could be arrested and reversed. Above all, we need to rediscover the enlightened message that came out of the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, on the disturbance in Strangeways Prison.
Only two or three weeks ago, I was fortunate enough to attend a seminar at All Souls College by David Faulkner, who was one of the most senior civil servants in the Home Office. He was talking about what a modern prison would look like. He said:
"The Prison Service is not unique among public services, and the Government's approach should apply to the management of prisons as it applies to the management of other services.
The Government's commitment to fairness, opportunity, inclusiveness and citizenship should apply to offenders as it does to anyone else. Offenders, including prisoners, are still citizens.

1373
If the Government is really determined to reduce crime, it must recognise that jobs, homes and families are likely to have more influence on offending and re-offending than any programme which can be provided in prisons.
Punishment is a matter for the courts, not for the Prison Service. The content of prison regimes should not be made deliberately unpleasant, still less humiliating or degrading, as a means of reinforcing the sentence's punitive effect.
As citizens and human beings, prisoners are to be regarded as having equal worth as people with other members of society and of the prison community, although their position is necessarily different in terms of authority and status … Within the law, and the policy as approved by Parliament, the treatment of individual prisoners should be a matter of professional or managerial, and not of political judgement".
9.10 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I am sure that we are very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for initiating this debate. The House is indeed privileged to have the benefit of his experience of the Prison Service, which extends over many years.
As I am sure your Lordships will be aware, we on these Benches aim to provide constructive opposition and there are a number of government initiatives which we do support. The first point on which I am very pleased that this Government continued the policies of the previous government was in the reappointment of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, who was originally appointed by my right honourable friend Mr Michael Howard, who was then Home Secretary. Your Lordships will be aware of the excellent report on his work in 1997 and 1998 which was produced earlier this year. I refer in particular to his policy of unannounced second visits, which revealed such glaring shortcomings at Feltham young offenders' prison and at Wormwood Scrubs, to name only two.
We particularly welcomed at the time Sir David's critical remarks on what is known as "the culture"—the practice at every level of the public prison service of treating prisoners as subordinates, of resistance to change and, on the part particularly of the older prison officers, of stifling any initiative among younger officers. This is something which, not unnaturally, causes many of them to leave for the private sector. In this respect I am aware that I am addressing this problem from a slightly different angle from the noble Earl. The report displayed a commitment to the subject and was full of constructive comments.
On the subject of the private sector, we support the policy of the Government in continuing a prisons regime containing both publicly and privately run prisons, since in no way can the private sector take over the whole of the prison regime. On the other hand, privately run prisons provide a valuable competing yardstick against which the Prison Service institutions can be measured.
My noble friend Lord Windlesham and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, have both referred to the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 as one of the last measures introduced by the previous government. We are very pleased that on 1st December the Home Secretary gave
1374
effect to the minimum three-year sentence for those convicted for a third time of domestic burglary. I ask the Minister to take the advice of my right honourable friend Miss Anne Widdecombe and extend the three strikes policy to cover assault, vandalism and car theft.
These are prison matters on which we from these Benches support the Government. There are, however, some on which we do not. In addressing the specific subject of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, in initiating this debate, we regard some of the steps the Government are taking as retrograde in a number of respects. For instance, we are in favour of tagging in limited situations. While we support tagging as a community punishment and as a convenient and effective way of ensuring a home curfew, we do not support tagging as an excuse for early release, particularly for violent and sexual offenders. The only reassurance we have received from the Government is that,
"no sex offenders will be released from early curfew unless there are exceptional circumstances and then only if there is the clearest evidence of no risk to the public".
I should like from the Minister some clarification of what he means by "exceptional circumstances". I note that in a Written Answer in another place on 28th April 1999 Mr George Howarth stated that of the 3,730 offenders who had been placed on home detention curfew up to 19th April, 617 had a current conviction for an offence of violence—exactly the situation we need to protect the public against. Will the Minister assure the House that extra precautions are being taken to safeguard the public in respect of this very dangerous category of criminal?
Much has been made by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary of being tough on crime. Does the Minister believe that allowing offenders sentenced to six months to get out of prison in just six weeks is being tough on crime? It will certainly help to reduce the prison population but it is very unsatisfactory.
My noble friend Lord Windlesham and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, referred to the inadequacy of education facilities in prison. We are particularly critical of the Government's current policy on purposeful activity in prisons. In her speech at the Conservative Party conference, my right honourable friend Miss Ann Widdecombe said:
"If you really want to make prison purposeful then you've got to have prison workshops with a full working day that replicates the conditions of the outside world".
During Home Office Questions on Monday 6th December, my right honourable friend referred to the recent Prison Service annual report, which stated that purposeful activity in prisons has declined to less than 23 hours a week. Mr Paul Boateng tells us that the Government have put in place a target for 1999–2000 of 24 hours. Yet that does not begin to match the 26 hours that the previous government achieved in 1994–95. It is a depressing statistic, made even more so by the revelation in a Written Answer that 260,000 pairs of slippers will have been manufactured in the Prison Service between March 1997 and 2000.

1375
I contrast that with an initiative that is taking place at Wormwood Scrubs, where a friend of mine is teaching embroidery to prisoners. The class is fully and enthusiastically attended. That is a small initiative but it just shows that an enlightened service can introduce such worthwhile activities. There are plenty of people in the community waiting to assist. Our idea is to get away from the unrewarding work and to ensure as well as possible that prisoners are properly prepared for life in the community when they are released.
In the notorious leaked letter from Mr Alan Milburn to the Home Secretary, as reported in the Sunday Telegraph, Mr Milburn warned the Home Secretary that he was leaving himself short of funds for priorities other than police numbers, including measures to ease overcrowding in prisons. It included the somewhat positive statement that:
"You should know that I"—
Mr Milburn—
"will not countenance a further reserve claim for these issues".
As I said earlier, the Government should not be tempted to abuse the tagging system to relieve overcrowded prisons if public safety could be put at risk. I would ask the Minister to confirm that the Treasury has re fused to provide additional resources to relieve pressure on overcrowded prisons.
In conclusion, I should like once again to refer to the report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons. He quoted from his report of the previous year:
"It is a sad but undeniable fact that all too much potential progress in the Prison Service is bedevilled by an industrial relations climate that can best be described as uneasy".
This year he went on to say:
"I must be even more direct because I find it quite inappropriate that industrial relations procedures should inflict such severe impact on the treatment and conditions of prisoners".
This is a problem with which successive governments have wrestled for many years past. It is a problem with which I know the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, when he was Minister for Prisons, was concerned. This debate has certainly been about continuity between the policies of the previous government and. the present Government, or lack of it. Any progress that the present Government, in co-operation with the chief inspector, can make in tackling this insidious problem will have the support of these Benches.
9.18 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl on securing this debate and I join in the general congratulations to him on his birthday of last Sunday, when I understand he was 94. I am sure that everyone in the House will wish him well in his 95th year. Long may he be with us. His distinguished career puts many of us in the shade. He has made a profound contribution to issues of penal policy over a very long time. We pay great tribute to the noble Earl for that.
1376
I feel rather humble in the company of this small but select band of debaters, all of whom have a great deal to offer on this subject. Noble Lords have raised these important issues over many more years than I have dealt with them. The debate has been wide-ranging and interesting. I shall attempt to address the issues raised. However, I am sure that the House will forgive me if I do not cover them all, and I am more than happy to write to noble Lords to clarify points raised.
Our Government were elected on the promise to be tough on crime and tough on its causes, and we are doing just that. Since we were elected, we have been laying the foundations for the most co-ordinated and coherent attack on crime in more than a generation. Under this Government there is less crime and more criminals are being brought to book. Recorded crime has fallen by 9 per cent since the election, and the number of convictions in the courts rose by 6 per cent in 1998 alone.
Labour is putting public protection first. Tough and consistent prison sentences, tougher enforcement of community sentences and a crackdown on anti-social behaviour send a clear signal to offenders. We believe that by getting people off welfare and into work, supporting families, improving education and housing and investing in our communities, the Government are also focusing on the factors which lead to crime in the first place.
We are trying to ensure that our approach to penal policy fits within our overall objective of reducing crime in our communities. For that reason alone, it must be part of a coherent strategy which focuses on outcomes. Prison regimes must, of necessity, be tough but purposeful. They must be driven by a desire to put in place strategies which discourage re-offending and encourage those who leave prison into the world of work and away from lifestyles based on criminality.
We also need to be realistic and accept that some offenders cannot be turned away from crime. Some will forever be habitual offenders and the public will always need to be protected from those who commit crimes of violence, sex crimes and major organised crime. Incarceration for those types of offender serves two purposes: it protects the public and it prevents further criminal activity.
Importantly, we also believe that prison provides an opportunity for offenders to make a commitment to changing their lifestyle away from one based on crime. For that reason, we want to do all that we can to make prison regimes more purposeful, educative and training based. No regime should be seen as a soft touch or an easy option. We want regimes which help those who want to change to make the change.
That explains, for example, why we have put in place mandatory drug testing and voluntary testing regimes to discourage drug abuse in prisons and the potential for continued abuse dependency and related criminality outside. For that to work, we know that we need to raise standards of health care in prisons. As noble Lords will know, we have embarked on a joint review of the prison health care service.

1377
Recent evidence suggests that the deterrent effect of drug testing can have an impact on offending rates and in particular, on acquisitive crimes. Part of our strategy means that we also need to ensure that there are services available outside prison to keep offenders away from drugs. Again, we intend bringing forward widely supported reforms that will be included in the Crime and Public Protection Bill, which will refocus the work of the Probation Service. Its primary purpose will be to concentrate on community punishment and the rehabilitation of offenders.
The crime reduction strategy, published on 29th November, focuses on the targeting of crimes and criminals. It summarises our approach in seven main areas. How can we achieve the maximum impact through the work that the police and local crime and disorder reduction partnerships undertake? How can we best tackle burglary and property crime, and break the vicious circle of drug addiction and property crimes? How can we best tackle vehicle crime to meet our national target of a 30 per cent reduction by 2004? How best do we deal with disorder and anti-social behaviour? How can we ensure that youth justice works well in dealing with young offenders? How best do we deal with adult offenders and improve the criminal justice system? And what more can we do to help victims and witnesses?
We have the most comprehensive programme ever to tackle crime. There are 375 local crime and disorder reduction partnerships up and running. There will be an extra £1.24 billion over the next three years for the police; £400 million for the crime reduction programme; a complete reform of the youth justice system; £34 million to build a national DNA database; and a crime fighting fund will provide funding for 5,000 more recruits over and above the number that forces would otherwise have recruited during the next three years.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, asked a number of questions. He asked whether our penal policy differs from that of the previous government. We are not embarrassed to say that some of the policies of the previous administration were sensible. Where appropriate, we have implemented measures that we supported while in opposition and which we inherited when we came into office.
The noble Earl referred to the report of the Penal Reform Trust which states that half of all prisons are overcrowded. The Government continue to believe that serious, dangerous and persistent offenders should be sent to prison. There will always be some for whom prison is the only appropriate response. We recognise the problems that overcrowding can cause. We remain committed to providing constructive regimes for prisoners so that they can be given the opportunity to address their offending behaviour and seek useful employment on release. To this end we have provided an additional £226 million from the CSR for the enhancement of prison regimes. Last year we hit our key performance indicator target to ensure that we reduced overcrowding in prisons. The extra funding should enable us to make further progress.
1378
I can tell noble Lords that, unfortunately, as we speak, for 11,820 of the prison population two are held in cells designed for one. We know that we need to do more to tackle that problem.
However, prison may not be the best or most effective option for less serious offenders. Many noble Lords have raised that very pertinent point this evening. We intend to ensure that courts have available to them a range of community punishments that are effective, punishments in which the public can have confidence and which also have the transparency called for by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. This Government's penal policy was established in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. It introduced a number of new sentencing initiatives, including a major reshaping of the youth justice system. It introduced anti-social behaviour orders, sex offender orders and drug treatment and testing orders. Those have been widely praised by many, including the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and are important initiatives.
The new Crime and Public Protection Bill contains new measures further to improve the criminal justice system. It will modernise and improve the effectiveness of the Probation Service and enable the police to test those charged with acquisitive crimes and Class A drug offences, especially those involving heroin and crack cocaine. The courts will be able to take a positive test into account when considering bail conditions. Another significant measure in the Bill will extend the use of electronic monitoring, which has also been praised extensively in this evening's important debate. It will provide for the conditions attached to licences to be monitored electronically when prisoners are released from custody. It will create a single service to cover children and family court proceedings. It will also establish a scheme to help prevent sex offenders and other unsuitable people from working with children. Taken together, these measures will make a real difference in tackling some of the root causes of crime and ensure that the sentences of the courts are properly monitored and enforced.
The noble Earl raised two further points. He asked whether a member of the POA should sit on the Prison Service Strategy Board. Consideration has been given to this matter but it has been decided that it would be inappropriate. The board is a policy-setting forum chaired by the prisons Minister, my right honourable friend Paul Boateng. As such we cannot agree that a member of POA should be included. There are ample opportunities for the POA to discuss its concerns with both Prison Service senior management, including the director-general, and Ministers through regular meetings. We do not believe that it would be appropriate for it to be singled out from other trade unions who represent Prison Service staff.
The noble Earl also asked for an update on the position at Wormwood Scrubs prison. I am pleased to be able to inform noble Lords that considerable progress has been made. The action plan is being implemented and all targets are currently on course for timely completion. A new staff attendance system was implemented on 3rd October. The POA has supported increased access to education and work for all

1379
prisoners. The area manager and governor are confident that the Chief Inspector of Prisons will be satisfied with the progress that has been made on his specific recommendations when he returns to Wormwood Scrubs for the follow-up visit that he was invited to make by the Home Secretary.
I believe that the Government have also done important work in ensuring that they put lifelong learning at the heart of their policies. A number of noble Lords referred to the importance of improving basic skills. That is a very important part of our national strategy to upgrade the labour force, but we believe that it should be equally effective in prisons. Targets are being set in the Prison Service aimed at reducing by 15 per cent the number of prisoners being released in 2002 with basic communication and numeracy skills at level 1 or below. I can advise your Lordships that there was a 2.5 per cent increase in the number of student hours of study in the last year for which we have figures.
A number of noble Lords made reference to prison work. We believe that that is at the heart of constructive regimes. Its primary purpose is to prepare prisoners for release. Work places are currently provided for 12,000 prisoners daily. The Prison Service aims to expand the range and quality of work available and make work in prisons more equivalent in pace and hours to work outside in industry.
A number of noble Lords raised the question of drugs. We recognise that it is a key factor in offending and repeat offending. The Prison Service has implemented a new drug strategy aimed at tackling drug abuse. We have been providing an additional £76 million for drug initiatives from the Comprehensive Spending Review which will help us to introduce a new and expanded programme in every prison in England and Wales. The good work the Prison Service is doing in this area was recently acknowledged by the Home Affairs Select Committee. Those measures support the overall crime reduction strategy; they are part of it.
1380
Our priority is to reduce reoffending and therefore crime. As I have explained, we shall be taking powers in the Crime and Public Protection Bill to help us achieve those objectives. We remain committed to ensuring that the Prison Service continues its progress in delivering constructive regimes for prisoners, and focuses education on improving levels of literacy and numeracy which will equip prisoners with the basic skills required to participate in active and useful employment on release.
At the heart of our crime reduction strategy are the measures we shall be taking to ensure that every local crime and disorder reduction partnership and police force is performing to its maximum potential. At national level, we are establishing a new national crime reduction task force to be chaired by a Home Office Minister. The aims are to raise performance and to provide strong leadership and support. At regional level we shall appoint new crime reduction directors who will work with members of the local crime and disorder reduction partnership to develop and sustain improvements in crime reduction. I am sure noble Lords will agree that we have set out an ambitious programme.
In conclusion I wish to say this. The reward for achieving that ambition will be major inroads into reducing crime: an objective which I am sure we all share. The fight against crime is an integral part of the Government's commitment to making Britain a better place in which to live. The protection of the public comes first; and cutting crime will make a major contribution to improving the quality of all our lives. I hope that in this short debate we have shown that the Government's penal policy will do just that.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, exceptionally, perhaps I may join with others in wishing my noble friend Lord Longford well in his 95th year.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before ten o'clock.

  Law Commission
  Law Commission
  Diabetic Care in the NHS
  Diabetic Care in the NHS
  Electro Convulsive Therapy
  Electro Convulsive Therapy
  Joint Military Operations and Anti-personnel Mines
  Joint Military Operations and Anti-personnel Mines
  Armed Forces Operational Ration Packs
  Armed Forces Operational Ration Packs
  Political Honours Scrutiny Committee
  Political Honours Scrutiny Committee
  EDS
  EDS
  Ministerial Training
  Ministerial Training
  Select Committee Recommendations
  Select Committee Recommendations
  Yugoslavia: Export of De-mining Equipment
  Yugoslavia: Export of De-mining Equipment
  Yugoslavia: Mail Service Resumption
  Yugoslavia: Mail Service Resumption
  Kosovo: International Police Force
  Kosovo: International Police Force
  Cultural Council, 23 November
  Cultural Council, 23 November
  Northern Ireland: Small Firms Capital Allowance
  Northern Ireland: Small Firms Capital Allowance
  Debt Relief Policies
  Debt Relief Policies