Sitting of 27 January 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Textile Industry
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland.]
9.33 am
Mrs. Angela Browning: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about the United Kingdom textile industry, because of a meeting that I had in the Christmas recess with the management and union representatives at John Heathcoat, a very important company in my constituency.
Let me begin by putting into context the company's importance in my constituency and the contribution that it makes to the UK textile industry. In the early 1800s, John Heathcoat invented the revolutionary plain net-making machine and he set up a company to manufacture net in 1808, moving down to Tiverton in 1816 following problems with the Luddites in the midlands. That is the end of the history lesson.
The company is well established and has been in my constituency for a great many years. It is a private company, with all the share capital residing in the Tiverton area. That gives it the freedom to move quickly to get new products into the marketplace. It has a varied manufacturing base, with weaving, warp knitting—both industrial and apparel—weft or jersey knitting, and dyeing and finishing.
Last year, the company had a turnover of £37.8 million and achieved a pre-tax profit of £3.9 million. Although still profitable, the company, along with most in the manufacturing industry, is finding the present situation difficult and is doubtful that last year's profit figures will be matched this year.
The company continues to reinvest heavily in new machinery and techniques, and over the past five years has averaged more than £2 million a year in capital investment, all financed through its own resources. It currently provides 550 jobs in the south-west, spread across all levels of operative administration, technical and senior management. It operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It has products that people want to buy and keeps its work force fully employed.
John Heathcoat operates mainly in niche areas of business and runs its own research and development unit, focusing on customers' needs and the solutions that they require, with a degree of confidentiality that many other companies find it difficult to match. Among its products are woven fabrics for car airbags and toothed load-transmission belts; parachute fabrics for the Ministry of Defence and other countries; geotextile mattress fabrics; sailcloths—its sailcloth was on Lisa Clayton's
258
"Spirit of Birmingham" for her single-handed round-the-world trip; specialist seating fabric for the new Mercedes smart car; and fabrics using knitted spacer technology, now extensively used in cot mattresses to help to provide airways for the baby if it rolls onto its face. A development of that technology is now being trialled for intimate apparel.
Heathcoat is one of the largest producers of bridal and dress net in Europe and supplies those fabrics globally. Heathcoat net fabrics are used by the Kirov, Bolshoi and National ballet companies. Its industrial warp knits are used in hose reinforcement in high-temperature and high-pressure hose manufacture and in protective garments for chainsaw users.
The company has deliberately chosen to invest in and make products for a wide variety of niche markets. It is not merely producing mass products that might have competition from the far east; it has deliberately invested in producing quality, value-added products that are needed both at home and abroad.
The company's jersey fabric is used for a wide range of garments sold in the larger UK retail stores and it has an export trade in specialist fabrics for riding wear. It also produces fabrics for career wear—uniforms—used by banks, building societies and retail outlets, and apparel for use in hostile working environments, including fire-resistant and acid-resistant treated fabrics.
As well as providing an in-house service, the company's dyeing and finishing unit offers a commission dyeing service to other manufacturers and converters selling to the major UK chain stores.
Last year, 45 per cent. of the company's turnover was direct export. It has been very successful and has not rested on its laurels or been overtaken by commercial or scientific developments; rather, it has been involved in innovation in this country's textile industry. It has also paid attention to its environmental performance, being sensitive to the area of great natural beauty in which we in Devon are privileged to live. Last year, the company achieved accreditation to the international environmental management system ISO 14001—becoming the first textile company incorporating dyeing and finishing processes to achieve that accreditation in the UK. All staff on site received environmental awareness training as part of the programme.
On the quality side, the company has been registered to ISO 9002 since 1989, and is currently working to achieve ISO 9001—design and development aspects for quality systems—which it hopes to achieve this year. For many years, the company has enjoyed a good working relationship with its recognised union, the Transport and General Workers Union, with which the company works closely to ensure that it remains at the forefront of technology and achieves the best productivity commensurate with its chosen role in niche markets. At my meeting at the beginning of January with unions and management, I was worried that such a company should be concerned for the future of the industry.
Last week, the Prime Minister was asked about job losses at Wrangler jeans by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), who suggested that the crisis facing the entire clothing and textile industry in this country was

259
due mainly to high interest rates and the high value of sterling. That view has been commented on by the British Apparel and Textile Confederation, which said recently:
"Whilst the recent fall in interest rates is to be welcomed, it will be at least six months before its benefits begin to flow through into the economy and thus into the industry. The damage had already been done with the high interest rates we have had to endure over many months."
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does my hon. Friend accept that, as regards niche markets, exports are important for the industry as a whole—particularly in the east midlands? We accept that there are problems with sourcing by major retailers, but the industry has managed to capture a number of niche markets. My hon. Friend mentioned a firm in her constituency, and a number of firms in the east midlands have also looked at those niche markets. That is why the export market is particularly important to the textile industry, and that is why it is particularly vulnerable when we have high levels of sterling.
Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend is exactly right. The strength of sterling has led to exports becoming increasingly difficult, and that has been compounded by economic problems in some of our major markets. In addition, imports have become cheaper.
Over the first six months of 1998, exports of clothing and textiles were 20 per cent. down on the comparative period of the previous year. At the same time, consumer confidence in the UK market has been dented. At a time when UK manufacturing industry is having to contend with increased costs, it has also had to contend with social legislation, including the working time regulations and the national minimum wage. The British Apparel and Textile Confederation has stated that
"imported products become that much more attractive and may be the only way in which to provide the necessary margin for manufacturers and retailers alike".
That is a very worrying statement. The TGWU estimates that 500 jobs are being lost in the industry every week. If one looks at the pattern of job losses in the last six months of 1998 alone, one sees that there has been an acceleration.
Mr. Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Lady acknowledge that that is exactly the problem for some very respected companies, such as the one that she has mentioned and Laura Ashley in my constituency which, through no fault of its own, has found itself having to downsize simply to stay afloat?
Mrs. Browning: Indeed. That trend is gathering momentum, and that is why it is good to have an opportunity to debate the matter on the Floor of the House. I have a long list, covering two whole sides of A4, of the job losses in the past six months in the industry. These are spread throughout the country, but particularly affect the midlands, the north of England and Scotland.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Has my hon. Friend given any thought to the level of interest rates in the UK? I am sure that the Minister will remind the House that interest rates in the UK are at their lowest for a long time.
260
Is not the real problem that while in the rest of Europe interest rates are at 3 per cent., our interest rates are at more than 6 per cent.? In fact, we are increasingly seeing the level of the euro go down and the level of the pound go up. The Government must intervene, and not simply leave it to the Bank of England.
Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend points to an important aspect of why the industry is under pressure. However, there are other aspects where the Government could clearly intervene to assist the industry, and I hope to cover some of those in my speech.
The job losses that have been identified—of which the unions are well aware—must be put into context. We are talking about 500 job losses, on average, a week, in an industry that employs just over 350,000 people. It is interesting to focus also on the contribution that the industry makes to our national economy. The manufacture of textiles and apparel contributed £7 billion to the output of the UK economy in 1997. It is an important industry, but it is not just the individual companies that we need to look at. The Government must take a more active role in the industry, as it is has a national dimension that is very important to our economy.
I wish to quote from an article in The Observer last September, which looked at what was happening in some of the bigger companies:
"The exodus from textile manufacturing in the UK has, of course, been going on for decades. And in recent years, all of the main quoted textile companies—Courtauld Textiles, Dewhirst, Coats Viyella, William Baird and Claremont among them—have closed down factories in Britain and opened new ones in Morocco, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and other countries with much lower labour costs.
Earlier in the year, Dawson, which makes Pringle sweaters, closed two factories with the loss of 720 jobs. Burberry and Aquascutum, which have lost sales in Asia, have brought in short-time working and redundancies. Coats Viyella, one of the country's biggest manufacturers, has seen its share price sink like a lead balloon, and faced a further humiliation last week as it was forced to abandon the planned demerger".
The rate at which textiles production is moving overseas varies from company to company, but there is a trend for the removal overseas of companies manufacturing in this country which is very concerning. The article continued:
"Dewhirst, one of Marks and Spencer's oldest suppliers, has told analysts it will have 60 per cent. of production abroad by the end of the year, rising to 70 per cent. by the end of next year."
Hon. Members will no doubt have focused on the fact that Marks and Spencer has made some public statements about where it will source its apparel and clothing from, but it is important to understand that that that does not necessarily mean that the company is saying that it has decided to source from abroad, and not from the UK. Marks and Spencer, like many other retailers, is now faced with a situation where its sources of supply—people with whom it has had producer-supplier relationships for many years—have upped sticks and moved. Marks and Spencer and other companies must now choose—do they stick with those people they know, albeit that they are now producing abroad, or do they seek new suppliers within the UK?
The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): What about Heathcoat?
Madam Speaker: Order. The Minister must not intervene from a sedentary position. It makes it very difficult for the Hansard reporters.
Mrs. Browning: I will give way to the Minister if he wishes to make a point at this stage.
Mr. Battle: I apologise, Madam Speaker. I simply said to the hon. Lady that her whole case was based on the grounds that there were no suppliers, but she spelt out that Heathcoat was doing very well. In her conversations with the industry, was she not advised that real damage was done to the supply chain if Members of Parliament talked down the industry and pretended that it had all gone?
Mrs. Browning: I am disappointed that the Minister should intervene in such a manner on my opening speech. Will he listen to me? I am not making party political points. I am speaking on behalf of a successful company that is concerned about its industry. It is no good the Minister's taking one company in isolation. I do not want the management and unions from Heathcoat to have to tell me that they will put the work force on short time working or close. If companies in my constituency see a trend developing in their industry, they will want to intervene, and they will seek my help. What is happening in the textile industry must be apparent to the Minister. We want companies such as Heathcoat to keep working seven days a week, and that is why I have initiated the debate.
Mr. Battle rose—
Mrs. Browning: I have given way to the Minister already, and he will be able to respond later. Perhaps he should hear the rest of my speech before he intervenes.
Mr. Battle rose—
Mrs. Browning: I am too generous to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Battle: I come from Leeds, so I know something about the textile industry, and I speak on it with some passion. During the period when the hon. Lady was a Minister, my constituency alone lost more jobs every week than the numbers she is referring to today.
Mrs. Browning: We are not talking about former Conservative Governments. The Government, and the Minister, have been in office for nearly two years. As he has chosen to conduct the debate on that level, I shall do what I did not intend to do, and read out the list of job losses for which the Government have been responsible. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously telling me that it does not matter, and that he would rather talk about the situation that pertained two, four or 10 years ago? He should be addressing today, tomorrow and the next 10 years.
In June 1998, Pringle in the north-east lost 280 jobs. In June 1998, Pringle in Scotland lost 245. On 30 June in Scotland, Dawson lost 600. In July, William Baird, in the north-east, lost 25 jobs. On 1 July, Todd and Duncan in Scotland lost 50 jobs. On 30 July, Morley and Kemp in the east midlands lost 37. In August, in the north-east, Textillion lost 100 jobs. Also in August, SR Gent in south
262
Yorkshire lost 50 jobs. On 8 August, Dawson lost 720 more jobs in Scotland. On 22 August, Dewhirst in Scotland lost 120. On 21 September, William Baird in the north-east lost 450. The Minister may laugh if he wants.
Last October, Praxis Tailoring in the north-east lost 15 jobs. In October, JPS Ltd. lost 200 jobs in the north-east. I am half-way through my list, and I have reached only last October, when Kangol in the north-east also lost 200 jobs, Karrimore in the north-east lost 35 jobs and William Sugden had 35 job losses, also in the north-east. On 14 October, Rieter-Scragg had 97 job losses in the north-west. On 16 October, Textillion had a further 240 job losses in the north-east. Slimma lost 103 jobs in Scotland on 21 October. On 22 October, 10 jobs were lost at Woolmart in Yorkshire. On 23 October, the Jerome Group in Yorkshire had 50 job losses.
On 6 November, FII had 130 job losses in the west midlands. On 6 November, Desmond and Sons lost 225 jobs in Northern Ireland. On 10 November, Coats Optilon had 61 job losses in the north-east. On 11 November, Umbro lost 70 jobs in the north-west. Edward Hall Bleachworks on 13 November lost 70 in the east midlands. On 14 November, C and J Clark had 120 job losses in the west midlands. In the north-east, 260 jobs were lost on 19 November at William Baird. Dewhirst lost 600 jobs across the country on 27 November. On the same day, Laura Ashley announced 100 job losses in Wales.
On 2 December, Courtaulds announced 1,220 job losses across the country. On 18 December, Chamberlain Components had 24 job losses in the east midlands. On 22 December, Dawson lost 300 jobs in Scotland. On 22 December, Sherwood lost 300 jobs in the east midlands.
The trend has continued in 1999. We do not want to hear a Minister telling us that that has nothing to do with the Government. All those job losses occurred during the Government's stewardship. I am asking the Minister—politely—to hear what the industry is saying. What can he and the Government do to stop a clear trend that is alarming companies such as John Heathcoat in Tiverton? Those companies are worried not about this week, but about the next few years.
What does the industry want? Heathcoat wrote to me:
"We need the Government to help promote the UK textile industry."
I welcome the Minister's initiative in setting up an industry-led group. However, the Government must do more than hold meetings and sit around tables talking. The Department of Trade and Industry has agreed to support only 19 overseas events to assist United Kingdom exports. That compares badly with the Department's support for 31 last year. At a time when exports are being hit by the strength of sterling and the problems of the far east, it seems ironic that the DTI should provide less support to help companies expand into export markets.
Mr. Phil Woolas: The point about overseas exports is important, but does the hon. Lady agree that the number of companies attending those exhibitions and trade fairs is more important than

263
the number of events that occur? I welcome her call for more DTI support for our industry, but we should be clear about that point.
Mrs. Browning: I do not have a breakdown of those figures, but concern has been expressed by the industry's trade body, the British Apparel and Textile Confederation. If the Government are doing better than the confederation believes, it is surely incumbent on the Government to communicate better and to ensure that the trade body knows what they are doing. The confederation is expressing public concern about the support coming from the Government this year, in comparison with that given last year. If that concern is unfounded, there is clearly a lack of communication.
The industry wants a level playing field. We speak often of level playing fields, but they are vital. They make the difference between winning and not winning contracts. The industry want a level field at home and abroad.
Heathcoat of Tiverton is based in an area that would not be immediately identified as having a large textile manufacturing sector. There is an industry in the south-west, but the area is less well known for it than the north, the midlands and Scotland. If the Government intervene domestically to support the industry, through grants or in any other way, it is essential that they should do so in a way that is fair to companies such as mine in the south-west. It would be quite wrong to address the crisis by putting support into companies or regions that would disadvantage other companies in the textile industry in another part of the country.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Other Governments of divers compositions have helped particular companies to the detriment of other companies in the same industry. The Minister must listen to the hon. Lady's warning.
Mrs. Browning: That is quite right. If the Government are to intervene through regional or sectoral aid, it is vital that they do not set one domestic company against another simply because of geographical position.
The Government can assist companies such as John Heathcoat in another way. I mentioned a level playing field and we all know of the difficulties that companies in all industries encounter when tendering for contracts. As someone who worked in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for three years, I am well aware that within the European Union there is always concern about how hidden subsidies are used to give an unfair advantage when companies from different states are tendering for the same contract.
At my meeting with John Heathcoat, I was concerned to hear about one problem that the company brought to my attention, which involved a contract with the Ministry of Defence for supplying the RAF coverall. I have written to the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Defence Procurement, about that issue and I will outline the company's experience—it is well established in the niche market of supplying that product—and the difficulties that it encountered when tendering for that contract. I shall read a letter from the company, as it includes various
264
registered trademark names, which I hope that hon. Members will follow if I put them into context. The company writes:
"We have been supplying approximately 10,000 metres/year of this fabric"—
it is supplying Ballyclare Special Products, which produces the RAF coverall—
"woven from Nomex (DuPont) Aramid fibre.
In September we responded to a new tender from Ballyclare for 30,000 metres/year over the next three years.
Last month"—
that is, in December, just before Christmas—
"Ballyclare were informed by the MOD that they had not been successful. The contract had been awarded to a German company called Freutcher, who will apparently commission garments to be made, part in Sarajevo and part in Tunisia. The garment tender price was claimed to be 5 per cent. lower than Ballyclare's quotation.
However, Freutcher's tender is based on Conex (Teijin fibre) which is priced lower than Nomex, and is a fibre which we are informed that the MOD has not yet fully evaluated.
Ballyclare contacted the MOD before submitting their tender to enquire whether they should offer an alternative to Nomex. The response was negative, they should only submit based on Nomex."
Ballyclare is extremely annoyed with that scenario simply because it has discovered that the German company's tender was based on an alternative fabric. The letter says that the company is
"very aggrieved … as with Conex being cheaper yarn it is likely that we could at least have matched the competitive tender. We have now lost valuable business at a difficult time for the textile manufacturing industry, putting jobs at risk in our weaving unit."
As I wrote only 10 days ago I do not expect a reply yet, but I draw that matter to the Minister's attention because there is room for Government intervention if one set of rules are applied to one company and another set to others—in that case a company supplying the main supplier—and if that results in United Kingdom jobs being put at risk because the contract goes to a German company. I do not expect the Minister to give me an answer today, unless he has one, but I hope that he will encourage his right hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement to look into the matter and take a personal interest in how such important contracts are lost, as that clearly proves that we do not have a level playing field. That is a genuine case for Government intervention.
The Government could also be making representations on behalf of the industry in another area, which has been flagged up in the newspapers in the past few days. Owing to the banana war, which hon. Members will have read about, the situation with the United States is now serious. I will not go into too much detail, but as a former Agriculture Minister I am only too familiar with the banana trading arrangements of the Caribbean countries and competing south American countries, which all want to export their bananas to the European Union. There is a banana war between the EU and the United States over World Trade Organisation regulations, and the US is threatening 100 per cent. tariffs on EU exports as a reprisal because it cannot get its own way. The tariffs will target cashmere knitwear and printed cotton.
A statement from the industry reads:
"For the cashmere industry, this threat is not far short of a disaster, as the early part of the year is when US buyers place their orders for delivery from June onwards. Cashmere spinners in

265
Yorkshire and cashmere spinners and weavers in the Borders of Scotland are already having orders cancelled and job losses are imminent".
That is the result of the stalemate, and those of us who take an interest in the matter have been following the WTO talks daily. Perhaps the Minister can give us an update. As I understand it, yesterday's talks were deferred, yet again. The Government have a role here. They can intervene at the highest level. I would like to think that the Prime Minister will speak to President Clinton about the matter.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The hon. Lady will understand that people in the borders are as concerned as she is. It is to be hoped that my hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and will be able to develop the arguments from the point of view of south-east Scotland. People in the borders rightly believe that the United Kingdom Government have given the United States international support, which was justified at the time, but their reward for such support is a tariff that is damaging our industry today, here and now. Factories in Hawick are closing because the delivery dates for their garments will be caught by the 100 per cent. tariff. It will bankrupt those businesses if they knit the garments and then have to pay the penalty.
Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman speaks as a representative of people working in that industry and knows far better than I do the impact on his constituents. I endorse his comments. He is right. The Government can legitimately intervene in such issues and I should like to think that the Minister will assure the House from the Dispatch Box that pressure will be brought to bear on the United States at the highest level—at prime ministerial level. If we in this House believe in anything, it is in free trade—well, we Conservatives certainly do. We do not like tariffs and barriers. If Labour's new-found devotion to free market philosophy is genuine, the Prime Minister will not hesitate to pick up that phone, speak to the President and ensure that the barriers are brought down—and not merely in a few months' time when it suits everyone to sit around a table for yet more talks, because we need action in a hurry.
John Heathcoat in my constituency is not a sunset company. I hope that I have clearly demonstrated that it has not rested on its laurels. However, the company is worried and I hope that the Minister will understand that it is not asking me to make representations to the Government with a begging bowl in my hand asking for largesse. I have highlighted several issues in which the Government can rightly intervene and assist the industry.
The managing director of Heathcoat wrote to me saying:
"We are prepared to make our own way in the market; that is our job and we have the managerial skills and trained workforce to do that, so we do not want to appear to the Government to be coming begging for handouts, that is most definitely not our style.
We do not however want to find ourselves disadvantaged in our efforts by assistance or other grants being made to our competitors in Europe or the UK.
We have a good record of investment and training, and have always been prepared to stand on our own expertise and entrepreneurial skills, and have an excellent record on both Environment and Energy savings. What we are looking for is a policy to 'talk up' the textile industry at Governmental level to
266
dispel the view that exists in the country (and regrettably in some areas within the industry) that all is lost, that textiles is a sunset industry and all we can do is wait while it dies a lingering death.
This cannot be the case, the country cannot afford to lose the jobs that the Textile industry provides, and we feel that we should get at the very least moral support from the Government for those companies that have not joined the race to low cost countries and have decided to keep their manufacturing facilities, and the jobs that go with it, within the UK.
We do run a research unit which is continually looking at new uses for textiles and at new processing methods, but we find that the amount of paperwork involved in obtaining a grant and the work necessary in preparing it is burdensome to say the least. We should not have to employ consultants to show us how to best prepare cases for Brussels, we should get Government encouragement and help to do this ourselves."
I have already given the House an example of the difficulties that the company encountered in tendering for one EU contract. Although I am discouraged by the Minister's intervention and his brickbat approach, I hope that he will give us a substantive reply to the debate that will address the practical aspects of legitimate Government intervention so that John Heathcoat can continue for hundreds of years as one of the leading textile companies in Britain within a vibrant sector that can hold its head up high.
10.11 am
Mr. Phil Woolas: I start by offering the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) the traditional congratulations on obtaining this morning's debate; I do so genuinely. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have been campaigning for the textile industry, some for 20 or 30 years. I welcome the hon. Lady's initiative and agree with much of what she has said.
The company in her constituency has clearly taken initiatives and found a niche market, but nevertheless finds the industry fiercely competitive. I would correct the hon. Lady on one point, and I hope that she will recognise my good intentions in doing so. She spoke about the scale of the industry and its importance to our economy, and mentioned a figure of £7 billion in output. That figure represents the total exports of the clothing and textile industry. Its total output is some £27 billion.
The textile industry employs between 350,000 and 370,000 people. It is bigger than the car industry, the chemical industry and the agriculture industry. Although I am not calling for direct subsidy for the textile industry, on many occasions I strain at the leash to do so because of factors with which hon. Members are familiar. It is a hugely important industry, as the Government have recognised in their action plan—an initiative that has been welcomed by the House.
I chair the all-party parliamentary clothing and textiles group and I know that there are disagreements regarding the cause of the problems. Interest rates and the high value of sterling have been mentioned. Ministers, industrialists and the unions recognise that there is a six-month delay in the effect on orders, and subsequently jobs, as a result of problems in the industry, which were prevalent in the latter part of 1998. However, those problems cannot be attributed entirely to interest rates and the high value of sterling. The trend has continued for 100 years. The clothing and textile industry—particularly the production of finished garments—is labour intensive and that makes it susceptible to overseas competition on labour costs.

267
We are a genuinely all-party group. If any hon. Member present is interested in joining, let me say that there is no subscription and we are very friendly bunch. We have a regional make-up, and the south-west is extremely important. We agree that the UK textiles industry cannot compete on labour costs. The minimum wage has not yet been introduced, so it has had no effect, despite what some people in the industry say. However, even at the low level of £3.60 per hour, it is irrelevant in terms of overseas competition as, in Morocco, for example, that sum is equivalent to the weekly wage.
Mrs. Browning: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to put it on the record that although the industry is concerned about the minimum wage, John Heathcoat does not pay below the minimum wage, so it is not an issue for that company.
Mr. Woolas: I recognise that our best companies pay above the minimum wage. That argument supports the action plan as it shows that companies such as Heathcoat are successful not on the basis of suppressing labour costs but as a result of high investment and high skill input.
We cannot attribute all the problems in the industry to interest rates and the high value of sterling, although both factors are now moving in the right direction. However, there are long-term trends and we need to address them. The action plan for the clothing, textile and footwear industry and the carpet manufacturers and unions has been greatly encouraged by the Government, and attempts to provide an analysis and find a way forward.
Let me say a few words about Marks and Spencer, as a great deal of nonsense has been written and spoken about that company. There is no doubt that the predominant position of Marks and Spencer causes problems for suppliers in the clothing industry. It is an extremely powerful operator within the market. In some cases that can be good, as Marks and Spencer has saved many jobs by continuing to source from the United Kingdom. However, other factories have closed, some would say at the whim of a Marks and Spencer buyer making a telephone call and moving an order overseas.
Marks and Spencer has recognised that its change not only in senior management but in emphasis from buyers to marketing is extremely important. The action plan encourages partnership between retailers and manufacturing sectors. To be fair, Marks and Spencer has made that point to its furnishing and clothing suppliers. British manufacturers and retailers should work together to use their unique advantage over overseas suppliers—the ability to respond quickly.
As chair of the all-party group, I am conscious of always wearing clothing that has been made in Britain. As I have said before, Mr. Deputy Speaker, everything you can see and everything that you cannot see that I am wearing is made in Britain. [Horn. MEMBERS: "Prove it."] I shall not respond to that invitation, as I am sure it would not be allowed.
My tie is of modern stain-resistant fabric made and developed in the United Kingdom. It is a good example of a niche market, of high research input and a quick response by a United Kingdom supplier. The relationship
268
between manufacturers, suppliers and retailers, which is part of what the action plan addresses, is an extremely important development.
Mr. David Tredinnick: Is it not a fact that Marks and Spencer often requires small suppliers to supply only Marks and Spencer, and that that brings problems?
Mr. Woolas: I agree. The buying policy of Marks and Spencer might be understandable from the company's narrow point of view, but it is very damaging to the industry because it inverts the market. Suppliers find that they have to put all their eggs in one basket and that is dangerous for any business. I therefore recognise the importance of the hon. Gentleman's point.
The action plan offers us a consensus on the way forward to ensure that Government support for the industry is effective and fast, and the regional strategies that have been developed are part and parcel of that process. However, in our debate today, there have been no calls for direct subsidy; indeed, I note that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton fell short of calling for direct subsidy, although she dropped some strong hints about protectionism, which surprised me given her party's views on that matter. I genuinely believe that the action plan is in the best interests of the industry, but we must recognise that competition on labour costs will never be a way forward and I am pleased about the hon. Lady's remarks about salary levels in the company that she used as the basis for the debate.
I should like to emphasise the points that have been made about the dollar banana affair and the trade war over cashmere. The UK clothing and textiles industry is, in many ways, an amalgamation of small specialist industries. We find a rich history and heritage and a very high skill base in all parts of the United Kingdom and in all parts of the industry—whether lace in Nottingham or cashmere on the borders and so on. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has visited the industries in many of those places and is familiar with them. It is not his fault that he is from Yorkshire, although I must choose my words carefully because Saddleworth is in real Yorkshire—it is still in Yorkshire, as far as we in Saddleworth are concerned—but Oldham is not. The two areas—Oldham's cotton industry and the wool industry in Saddleworth—offer a good example of my point.
The cashmere industry is one of our finest export industries. It is impossible to overstate its importance to areas in the east midlands, Yorkshire and the Scottish borders where the industry has been built up over hundreds of years. The danger for the cashmere knitted industry lies in the fact that it is seasonal. During the next two or three weeks, trade fairs will take place—I think that the first is next week—at which clothing goods will be sold for sale in United States stores during the coming year. If we lose that business at those trade fairs over the next month, the danger is not merely that we shall lose the business this year, but that it will inevitably go to China, because there is nowhere else in the world that does such work. If the business goes to China this year because of cost, and despite the efforts of US retailers who have protested against their Government's action, it is difficult to envisage how we can win it back.
The UK-made brand of cashmere knitted goods is very powerful and US consumers want to buy it. The trade war is a matter for the European Union, the United States and

269
the WTO, but I realise that my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry are aware of the situation. I urge Ministers to do all they can, urgently, because if we cannot change the decision, there will be factory closures during the next few weeks.
Although the future of the industry is not guaranteed even if the action plan is implemented, its implementation remains a necessary criterion for that future. Looming on the horizon are two important matters. The first is the renegotiation of the multi-fibre arrangement, which is of huge importance. I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to give us details of the UK's approach, but I want to flag up the matter to underline its importance. The second is the European regional development fund money. At present, we have Retex money and objective 2 funding, and there is a correlation between objective 2 status and many aspects of the UK clothing and textile industry. We need to ensure that, in deliberations about European regional development fund money, the clothing and textile industry is given due consideration. I welcome this morning's debate. Although I disagree with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, I hope that all hon. Members in the Chamber are united on the importance of promoting the industry.
10.25 am
Mr. Michael Moore: Like the hon. Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas), I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) on securing the debate and bringing this important matter before the House. I am especially grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate, not least because of the significance of textiles to my area in the Scottish borders. In that area, as in many other parts of the country, there has been a gradual decline over several years in the number of jobs in the textiles sector. In the late 1960s, in an area with a population of 100,000, about 14,000 jobs depended on the industry; two years ago, the number of jobs was down to about 5,000. However, the textile industry still represents 50 per cent. of manufacturing jobs in the Scottish borders and in certain towns—not least, where I live in Innerleithen—96 per cent. of jobs are dependent on textiles. In the much larger town of Hawick, the figure is 88 per cent., which is still a large percentage.
Over the past couple of years, we in the borders have not needed to seek out troubles. There has been a range of job losses, in farming and electronics but, especially in textiles. Companies such as Claridge Mills, Ettrick and Yarrow Spinners, Laidlaw and Fairgrieve, Gardiners and, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), Pringle have all suffered significant job losses and some of the smaller companies are now closed. That is a roll call of some of the finest names in textiles in Scotland, perhaps even in the United Kingdom, and people are concerned about what the future holds for the industry, especially during the next few weeks and months.
The downward trend in textiles is understood. We have had a useful debate about the pressures on the industry, some of which, as was pointed out, have existed for more than 100 years. In each part of the country, there are successful businesses that are doing extremely well because they have turned themselves into world leaders, by adopting good business techniques and focusing on
270
world-class products in niche markets. In my constituency, that process is assisted by the Scottish college of textiles, which has done much work on advanced and applied textile science and technology. The college has now successfully merged with Heriot-Watt university and we hope that its expertise and capability will be enhanced.
Although there have been job losses during the past 20 or 30 years, there have also been successes. Companies such as Lochcarron, currently based in Galashiels, have built themselves up and are now significant employers. During that period, the strength, resilience and development of the cashmere business in our area have been very noticeable. Although problems have been exacerbated by the recent levels of the pound and interest rates—perhaps, in due course, there will even be an effect caused by our non-participation in the euro—people understand that those are large issues on which there is legitimate debate. However, in the borders, people are perplexed about why a trade war between the United States and the European Union should have such a potentially devastating impact on our area—indeed, no one can understand it.
The banana war, as it is called, has nothing to do with the borders. It may relate to important principles of trade between the EU and the United States, but British and Scottish borders traders have been very fair competitors over the years. Whereas so much devastation has happened in our area as a result of outside factors involving decisions by companies in the middle of America or elsewhere to close huge factories, the current problem has nothing to do with economic trends. It seems to us that it is the result of pure spite and retaliation, which should have nothing to do with our area.
I should like to highlight the dependency of the borders on the cashmere sector. It is a highly successful sector. It has allowed itself to develop into premium-pricing areas. Cashmere from the borders features in all the top areas. In Tokyo, on Madison avenue, in London and Paris—you name it—Scottish borders cashmere will be in evidence. The cashmere sector employs 2,500 people, which is almost half the remaining jobs in textiles. It is estimated that there are £20 million-worth of exports a year to the United States alone. Fifty per cent. of EU cashmere exports to the United States come from the United Kingdom. It is estimated locally that as much as 90 per cent. of United Kingdom cashmere production comes from the borders.
As the hon. Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas) has said, the catastrophe looming in the industry arises because now is the buying season. Now the important decisions are being taken by American buyers about what they will stock in their shops in the next few months. While we hear much about how quickly trade wars can be stopped, the United States buyers are looking now at what prices they will be paying this spring or autumn. As they see the doubling of prices that they may be expected to pay, they look to local producers to share that pain. Some businesses that are very dependent on the United States for their business are contemplating either losing the business because they are no longer competitive or taking on absolutely massive risks by insulating the prices for their buyers.
The borders is only a small area of 100,000 people. Compared to some of the major conurbations in England and Scotland, it may not seem significant, but we have

271
seen in so many sectors in the last while the devastation of small communities across the Scottish borders. People cannot comprehend why this particular trade development should put so many more jobs at risk. I am the first to acknowledge that some extremely complex negotiations are going on. I have been pleased at the way in which the Department of Trade and Industry and other Departments have been keen to brief me and my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on developments.
When I was across in Washington recently with the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs looking at inward investment, the British ambassador arranged for a meeting between me and members of the United States state department. We have had access to people to make our points in various parts of America, Britain and Brussels. I am under no illusions about the complexity of the arguments. However, we find that the confidence is going out of the industry by the day, and people are worrying about what the future holds.
We are not clear about what happened this week at the WTO. To all outside the arcane negotiations, it appears to have been a complete shambles. That is something that we in our part of the world cannot afford to sustain for much longer. I hope that the Minister will be able to update the House on the industry dispute and reinforce the efforts that he, his Department and other Ministers at whatever senior level are doing to ensure that this trade war, which has absolutely nothing to do with the Scottish borders, is ended before it ends jobs in the Scottish borders.
10.34 am
Mr. Terry Rooney: I recognise the pressure on time so I will try to be brief. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) on securing this debate. It gives us an opportunity to talk about an important industry. I am from Bradford, which used to be the wool capital of the world. I am not sure what description is applied to it now. It has been devastated by what has happened to wool textiles in the past 20 years. My mother, father and two brothers have spent their working lives in textiles. Between them, they have 91 years' service, but unfortunately they also have 23 redundancies. Every reason for problems in the textiles industry has caused a redundancy in my family. I speak passionately, from personal experience of the problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas) said that there had been 100 years of decline in the textiles industry. Unlike him, I cannot go back that far, but I can look back at significant factors that have affected the wool textiles industry in the past three decades. I am afraid that the management of the industry have a lot to answer for over many years. They failed to be bright and proactive.
In the 1960s, managers decided that the industry could survive if it reduced its labour costs by importing labour from the Indian subcontinent. That would be the solution. There was no investment in plant, machinery, new products or new buildings. They simply reduced costs by bringing in labour from overseas. That obviously failed.
In the 1970s, the answer was seen to be mergers. They did not often involve redundancies, but dozens of smaller companies merged without cohesion, co-ordination or
272
management plans for the future. Companies were merged simply to create bigger groups. In the 1980s, for whatever reasons, the industry suffered the most severe recession that it had ever seen and in West Yorkshire we lost 50,000 jobs. The list that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton read out was impressive, but the county of West Yorkshire lost 50,000 jobs in that recession. That produced at last a hard-headed look by the industry at itself, its future and where it could go. As other hon. Members have commented, that refocus resulted in the industry going for the high added value markets, especially Japan and the United States. That brought other problems, to which I shall return.
After the recession there was serious investment in the industry. Sadly, in recent years that investment has fallen off, but in the late 1980s and early 1990s we began to see a plan of action. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton mentioned the Transport and General Workers Union. It is what I have always called the National Union of Dyers, Bleachers and Textile Workers, which was subverted by dubious means into the monolith known as the TGWU. The textile workers section headquarters is in Bradford and always will be. It is about 100 yards from my constituency office and the general secretary is the greatest guy in Britain.
Three issues have had a long-term impact on the industry in the past 10 years. One is the multi-fibre arrangement and the previous Government's failure actively to enforce it and promote its future. The second is the Uruguay round of the general agreement on tariffs and trade. The textiles industry was sold out by the previous President of the Board of Trade, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), in order to reach an agreement for agriculture. The consequence of that was an agreement by the free traders of the previous Government that exports from Britain to the United States would have a 37 per cent. tariff imposed on them. So much for the free traders in Washington. The tariff would be reduced by 1 per cent. a year for 10 years. So the next time GATT is up for review, we shall start from a 27 per cent. tariff on exports to the United States.
The third issue was assisted area status. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth mentioned objective 2, but assisted area status has always had a bigger impact. In 1993, my city of Bradford had that status removed in order that Hastings, Yarmouth and places like that could get it. That had a massive impact on the possibility of helping textiles companies in temporary difficulties by giving them regional selective assistance. Many companies went to the wall that could have survived if they had received assistance for a temporary period. We want to live not in the past but in the future, but we need to know and understand how we got to the present position, so that the same mistakes are not made again.
I point out to my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry—who, as I said last month, was born in the same hospital as me—that we still face the problem that the Governments of Germany, Belgium and Italy are giving significant, illegal support to their textile industries. Either we take that illegal step, or we stop them taking it. I do not care which, but if our industry is to compete, it must do so on the same basis as theirs. In Germany, support is given through the lander, the local government, and is semi-hidden, but everybody knows it is going on. It is not fair; it is not right and it must stop.

273
I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth said about the action plan for the industry. I hope that all sides in the industry seek to make that work. We need a much more focused effort on design, sales and marketing because our products are good, but other aspects have not always been as good. We need to sort out the supply chain and get all the links talking to each other so that they understand each other's needs and problems.
Our textile industry is a fine industry with superb products. We need to promote and sustain this £27 billion industry and its 350,000 jobs. We need not only to look to the future but to learn from the past.
10.41 am
Mr. David Tredinnick: Twelve years ago, I made my maiden speech on the hosiery, knitwear and textile industries. I went to consult the leaders of those industries in my constituency and asked them, "What are the key points that I should make in the Chamber?" They said, "You must refer to the import of cheap Chinese underwear." I need hardly point out that that was a difficult speech to write.
I have lived and breathed the issue since then, and today I want to highlight the problems in Leicestershire, where the industry is very important and accounts for 9 per cent.—35,000—of all jobs in the county. The problems are exacerbated by the fact that three quarters of companies in the industry employ 25 or fewer people, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) pointed out.
The key point that I want to make to the Minister is that high interest rates have had a devastating impact on the local economy, which has contributed more than anything else to companies' difficulties. I know that interest rates have come down, it was too little, too late. It was too late for companies such as Ray Allen Ltd in my constituency. In my constituency, many of those companies have been downsizing.
The Minister said earlier that we were talking down the industry. That was an outrageous remark. I have come to the debate to articulate the industry's problems and tell the Government how serious those problems are. The Minister should remember that, when the previous Government left office, we had a stable economy with low interest rates.
Mr. Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Tredinnick: The Minister will have an opportunity to speak in a moment. He knows that he took over when the economy was in a much better state than it is now and that interest rates have caused the key problems.
The hon. Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas) and others referred to low-cost competition. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Time is limited and the Minister will have an opportunity to respond in a minute. Sedentary remarks are not helping the debate.
Mr. Tredinnick: Low-cost competition from overseas is a devastating factor, as are problems with the
274
multi-fibre arrangement and possible trade sanctions caused by a dispute about bananas, which were referred to earlier. We had to worry about straight bananas and bent sausages in the previous Parliament, and they are back again.
The Minister must take on board the fact that manufacturers in my constituency blame the Government and hold them to account. We look forward to his response.
10.45 am
Mr. Tim Boswell: It is a customary courtesy to thank and congratulate the hon. Member who opens an Adjournment debate, but in this case, it goes beyond a mere formality. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), as the whole House should be, for introducing the subject, and for the doughty way in which she stood up for her constituents' interests.
In no sense are my remarks intended to derogate the major contributions that have been made by hon. Members from all parties, who knew what they were talking about, including the hon. Members for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas) and for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) and the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney). They were an eloquent bunch and explained the industry's problems.
The opening contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton was helpful in that she set in context the particular problems of one major player and reminded us, as did other hon. Members, of the industry's complexity and wide geographical distribution. As one hon. Member pointed out, the industry directly employs more than 350,000 people, so it counts for us all.
We know that the industry is rich in tradition—it can well claim to have founded the industrial revolution—but it has modernised itself, particularly in the past few years, with a heavy investment programme and radical changes of attitude. It is extremely encouraging, for example, that 60 per cent. of wool production is exported. The problem is that having reformed itself, the industry is now frustrated.
We were disappointed by the Minister's earlier remarks. He can redeem himself in a moment. I make him an offer: we will not run down the industry—we do not seek in any way to do so—if he will not fall into the trap of complacency in dealing with the industry's problems. Megaphone diplomacy about the past, and even the present, is nowhere near as important as a constructive attitude to the future.
The present position is not a happy one, which is demonstrated by representations that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton and I have received. The British Apparel and Textile Confederation says tactfully that the economic situation is very difficult and points out that exports in the first six months of last year were 20 per cent. down on the comparable period of the previous year. The Confederation of British Wool Textiles says that there are no signs of any improvement and 1999 will clearly be another traumatic year for the industry.
Surveys show that last year, when consumer demand was comparatively buoyant and rose by 3.3 per cent. in the first half of the year, employment dropped by 4.3 per cent. That is the absolute figure and does not take account of short-time working. There is a difficulty.

275
A possible trap for the industry is that it will pursue niche markets. Of course it is important that every industry should target an appropriate market, but I hope that the Minister and anyone listening to the debate will not feel that the answer to the industry's problems is to select a particular sector and disregard all the others. Two areas of clear excellence in this country are bespoke tailoring and designer clothes. From my days in education, I have links with Central St. Martin's college. It is great to go to its student shows, particularly when one remembers that previous students have been called Galliano and McQueen. However, that is only a small percentage of the industry. When selecting markets, Savile row and the catwalk are all very well, but underpants matter too.
That brings me naturally to Marks and Spencer, which is the major player in the industry, and other important and well-known brand names. Those companies face severe commercial difficulties at the moment, arising from flat domestic demand, which has led to overstocking. That leads to a sales and sell-off culture, which has repercussions as people hold back their purchases for the best opportunity and can yet further depress prices. I am sure that companies represented by interests in the UK and people who know the industry well will devise strategies for trading through that, but there is likely to be a further shift abroad of parts of the supply chain and a reduction in UK employment.
The Government cannot duck their responsibility for the problems arising from the exchange rate. The exchange rate is coming down at last, but it has added to problems which have been further compounded by the weakness of the south-east Asian economies in particular.
As the hon. Member for Bradford, North reminded us, we must remember the industry's potential. In the White Paper on competitiveness, the Government acknowledged that import pressures will increase further when the existing quotas are phased out in 2005. Several hon. Members mentioned the specific and immediate problems arising from the banana war and its impact on the cashmere industry. It is reasonable to ask the Minister and his colleagues at the highest level to be as robust as possible in standing up for British interests.
I must mention the internal solutions that the industry is seeking with the assistance of Government. The White Paper conceded that, despite all the efforts that have been made recently, productivity is still higher in Europe than in the United Kingdom, but the textile industry wants to do something about it. Like other hon. Members, I especially welcome the efforts made by the social partners on both sides of the industry to develop an action plan to make the industry more productive. That may include some requests for Government help and, in particular, export promotion. We can argue endlessly about who did what, but the point is that there is a strong interest in expanding the British footprint in that sphere.
We need to keep a careful eye on our European competitors in order to produce a level playing field. As the hon. Member for Bradford, North said, either we can do more or they can do less, but it needs to be on a fair basis.
A point that has not been flagged up as clearly as it should have been is the need for a constructive, industrywide approach to staff training, development and
276
retention. I know that the Minister met representatives of both sides of the industry on 24 November to talk about the action plan, and it will be helpful if I leave him time to tell us where we have got to with that.
The innovation and excellence of the industry, and its determination to modernise itself and to fit itself for international competitive trading conditions, could come to nothing if sensible general economic policies are not pursued. If the industry is suffering now, before the national minimum wage has come into effect or, indeed, before the working time directive has come fully into effect, the implication is that there will be further pressure on the industry later. The same is true in respect of further taxes which are building up on business generally.
What we ask of the Government is realistic intervention—yes, we will use that word—to help the industry to overcome its internal difficulties and to fit itself for the future. Above all, we ask for a sensible macro-economic policy which will steer this industry and others in the right direction. The Government have their responsibilities to the industry and more generally, but nothing can compensate for the failure of economic policy, a failure already apparent in the difficulties that the industry, despite all its efforts, is facing.
10.53 am
The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): I thank the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) most sincerely for raising this topic on the Floor of the House. My regret is that we cannot speak about textiles all morning. We should have debated the topic much more when I was in opposition. I regret that I shall be able to respond to only a few key points.
My own experience of the textile industry in my city of Leeds goes back some years. Between 1981 and 1996, when interest rates peaked at 15 per cent., 9,000 textile jobs were lost in my city alone. I speak with some passion and anger about the fact that Opposition Members have woken up late to the problem because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) explained, the devastation of the textile and clothing industry caused by Government policies over the past 20 years is incontrovertible.
I welcome all the speeches and interventions made today. Serious points have been made, and in the few minutes that I have I should at least touch on one or two of them, especially the threat to the cashmere and textile industry in the borders, Yorkshire and elsewhere. The industry is affected by the trade dispute between the United States of America and the European Union over bananas—arcane though that may seem to many of us. We are doing all that we can to resolve that dispute. I assure the House that intense negotiations have taken place.
I understand that the World Trade Organisation is meeting formally again tomorrow to pick up the threads of the conversation. In the meantime, the European Union, the US and the Director General of the WTO are in negotiation. I assure the House that the Government are raising these matters at the very highest ministerial and governmental levels, with letters and other exchanges being used to keep up the pressure. We will not resile from keeping up the challenge to ensure that our industry is not jeopardised.

277
Of course we are supporting exports by the textile and clothing sectors. As for trade fair arrangements, in the new 1998 round, 45 clothing bids—or 62 per cent—were successful, not 19. That is higher than the average for other industries, so the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton might concede that we are making a considerable effort. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas) said, it is the number of firms that take part that is important, and more than 700 firms will benefit. If the sponsors' predictions are correct, more textile and clothing firms will be supported in 1999–2000 than were supported in 1988–89. We are keen to promote exports and are doing all we can—that is a fact, not a party political point.
Let me put the debate in context. Of course I am not complacent. I accept that the industry is under pressure—I see that in my own city—but I could have read a list of success stories to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton. The picture is patchy, but in contrast to what happened over the previous 20 years, the bottom is not falling out of the industry. We are stabilising the industry. Our macro-economic strategy is reducing interest rates and getting sterling down to a competitive level. Our general economic policy is stabilising the conditions for the textile and clothing industry, and there are successes.
The company that the hon. Lady mentioned is a success story that should be celebrated, and I welcome her efforts in that regard. Other successes include Desmonds and Brinton's which has made carpet tiles for the new Hong Kong airport. There are also examples of innovation—for example, knitwear companies are using new computer technology. Some companies are using new technology to refresh and regenerate old manufacturing processes. That is precisely the way they must go if they are to be able to compete in intensely competitive global markets.
278
Textiles were mentioned in a positive light on the news at 6 pm the other day. Last September, a company called Autofil put money into the purchase of a £20 million factory near Nottingham. It makes yarn for car seats, and 70 per cent. of its sales are overseas. The directors said:
"it was quite a gamble but despite the strong pound and talk of recession it seems to be paying off."
The BBC news bulletin stated that for a company like Autofil
"official statistics are largely irrelevant…trading conditions are tough but well managed companies with good products can still prosper and that's a big difference between this economic down-turn and the last recession."
The Government are taking action, as shown by my Department's funding for 25 innovation projects in this sector, such as that at J. W. Whiteheads in Bradford, which is doing research into the development of new yarns and technologies. Reuben Gaunt in Yorkshire is improving the strength of yarns during weaving. Skills and training projects are backed by the centres of training and excellence, some of which were mentioned. Mention was also made of Kidderminster college, and work is being done at colleges in Leeds to ensure that the proper skills and training exist to take the industry into the next century.
On the supply chain, we are working with the apparel and textiles challenge to bring the retailers, buyers and designers together to integrate the various parts of the industry so that it works more efficiently.
That is some of the action that our Government are taking and will continue to take. We shall support regional selective assistance. In the past few years, £9.6 million has been allocated. Attempts have been made to call the industry together, not for a talking shop, but to draw up an action plan, which belongs to the industry and the trade unions working together to develop and deliver it—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must move on to the next debate.

Travel Links (North-West)
11 am
Mr. Jim Dobbin: May 1, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, thank the Speaker for the opportunity to have this debate. It is good to see other hon. Members from the north-west present in the Chamber. That illustrates the importance of transport issues in our developing economic environment.
The north-west region includes the conurbations of Greater Manchester and Merseyside, the shire counties of Cheshire, Cumbria and Lancashire, and the unitary authorities of Warrington, Halton, Blackpool and Blackburn, and the High Peak of Derbyshire. The region is mainly urban in character, but has substantial rural aspects. Any transport policy must therefore take account of urban and rural concerns.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on bringing together planning, land use, transport, the environment and regional development. That will provide the opportunity for co-operation in those facets, which has been missing for decades.
I shall make some general points, but I shall tend to concentrate on Greater Manchester. I hope that colleagues will have time to cover the other, no less important areas in the region.
The Government's White Paper, "A New Deal for Transport—Better for Everyone", is the first comprehensive review of national transport policy for well over 20 years, and represents a welcome and much-needed move away from the policies of deregulation and privatisation, which have, sadly, characterised transport policy for the past two decades.
The policies of the previous Government brought considerable hardship to the people of Greater Manchester, with disruption to local bus services accelerating a decline in patronage, and the local rail network being starved of much-needed investment.
The White Paper is a radical attempt to develop a transport strategy that is fully integrated, by which I mean not only integrated between different transport modes to ensure that they are safe, reliable, convenient and easily accessible, but integrated with other Government policies. Only now can transport policy be allowed to play its full and rightful part in the successful regeneration of Greater Manchester, thus contributing to economic growth, providing a sustainable environment and allowing the population to participate fully in the on-going success of the region. Improved traffic links will help to attract industry to the north-west, thereby increasing employment.
Integrated transport cannot be achieved overnight. The previous Government dismantled most of that during their period in office, rather than smoothing the path to full integration. A fine example of the damage caused by the previous Government's transport policies was the 1986 fiasco of bus deregulation. The Transport Act 1985 took away the passenger transport executive's bus operating arm and swept away a mass of regulation.
Bus deregulation, it was said, would increase bus patronage, improve efficiency, reduce fares and cut subsidies. However, the reality in Greater Manchester was very different. Patronage declined by 26 per cent. and fares increased in real terms by about one third. Part of
280
the problem was the chronic instability of the bus network in the free market environment. At one stage there were between 60 and 70 bus operators in the region, and the level of competition meant that there were hordes of buses aggressively vying for the available trade.
Levels of congestion and pollution in town centres and inner suburbs have increased. That has been particularly damaging to the health and quality of life of residents and visitors. The bus operators are not the ones who must bear the cost of the damage.
We hope that the White Paper will provide a framework that will enable the problems to be addressed. The launch in August last year of the Greater Manchester integration project, which is cited in the White Paper as model of best practice for others to follow, will set new standards for travel in the conurbation, and show how working in partnership can provide a public transport system with the qualities that people want.
Profitability in the bus industry depends critically on territorial control without too much competition. That is why, in the past few years, major private sector bus company conglomerates such as Stagecoach have developed. The logic is simple: there is no money in bus operations without a virtual monopoly. Such lack of competition is worrying and imposes increased costs on the passenger transport authority and executive. An economic regulator similar to the system that exists for rail is essential if bus transport is to play its proper role in an integrated transport system.
The dismantling of the UK rail system was another act of sheer vandalism. So far, we know that it has resulted in huge costs, phenomenal complexity, uncertainty and growing customer dissatisfaction. The establishment of the Strategic Rail Authority will provide a vision for the privatised railway, and through tough regulation—not deregulation—will make it more accountable to both passengers and freight customers.
On a more positive note, I shall highlight the considerable achievements of the region in transport terms. Greater Manchester has pioneered projects that are leading the way to the development of an integrated transport policy. As we all know, Greater Manchester is the home of Metrolink, the first modern street-running light rail system in Britain. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer), who led Manchester city council at the time that it was introduced.
The first line, from Bury to Altrincham, was opened in 1992 at a cost of £145 million, jointly funded by the public and private sectors. The system—the track, equipment, trams and so on—is wholly owned by the passenger transport executive, but it is operated under a 15-year franchise agreement with the private sector.
Phase 1 runs on former British Rail lines to Bury in the north of the county through to Altrincham in the south. In Manchester, the line runs on-street through the heart of the city centre, for the first time providing rail access to the retail and commercial core, an essential function of any good transport system.
In 1997, 13.7 million journeys were made by Metrolink. The number is continually increasing and studies are being undertaken to examine options for further increasing the capacity of the fleet. If that figure is compared with the 7 million passengers carried on the British Rail lines that Metrolink replaced, the success of the system speaks for itself.

281
Metrolink appeals to car-owners as well. Studies show that it has replaced 2.6 million car trips on roads in Greater Manchester. The system has brought undoubted benefits to the local economy and has supported efforts to attract new business to the city centre and other town centres in Greater Manchester. It is crucial in the fight against traffic pollution and congestion.
The extension of the Metrolink system is the No. 1 priority. The county now has more developed plans for a full light rail network than any other conurbation and looks forward to its rapid development. Already the first extension to the scheme—the Salford Quays and Eccles extension—is under construction and should be completed by March 2000.
The next priority scheme, which affects my constituency, is the proposed extension to Oldham and Rochdale. I am pleased to see my hon. Friends the Members for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas) and for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons) in the Chamber. Conversion of the existing rail route to Metrolink operation will bring about a major transformation, vastly improving reliability and accessibility to the town centres. Predictions are that use of the existing rail line could be increased 10-fold.
Work is continuing on the development of other extensions for the future—for example, to east Manchester and Ashton-under-Lyme, which will provide a substantial boost to the economic and environmental regeneration of east Manchester and Tameside, and provide world-class public transport links for the Commonwealth games. In south Manchester, the Manchester airport link will enhance economic development potential and improve access opportunities to the airport and surrounding area. I shall return to the subject of the airport.
I should also like to take this opportunity to mention the East Lancs rail line in my constituency, which is voluntarily run and managed. It has made a magnificent contribution to tourism in Bury and Rossendale. There is soon to be a Heywood link, which local business is interested in using for freight. The rail line would provide a regular link with the channel tunnel.
The development of a comprehensive bus corridor strategy has been designed to improve the attractiveness and quality of bus travel across the conurbation. Bus priority is essential to improve the reliability of bus services. Until they can be insulated from the effects of traffic congestion, they will never be reliable or attractive enough to entice people out of cars.
I should like to mention another initiative in my constituency. The Middleton traffic initiative is a voluntary transport study group which has produced plans, of which I know the Minister has had sight, to take heavy goods vehicles of more than 17 tonnes out of the town centre. It is important that further transport links do not cause unnecessary harassment or pollution. Traffic congestion caused by HGVs trundling through residential areas is a focus of political and community concern, and must be tackled. That is why the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, headed by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, is crucial.
As part of plans to upgrade the north-west's rail network, a Greater Manchester rail development and investment strategy is to be developed to improve the quality of services and ensure that the passenger transport authority is best placed to exploit the potential of rail in the context of the county's transport strategy.
282
We cannot debate transport without mentioning the North West Trains company's recent poor performance, which has prompted it to implement a programme of remedial action—known as the recovery plan—which will set a series of targets for rolling stock, driver availability and ticket office opening hours. I hope that it works. The message to Railtrack from this debate and from the House must be that we demand proper investment in the north-west line because it is important to improving the service in the area. The economy would benefit from early investment in north-west links with Eurorail and the channel tunnel. I noticed that a paper on the subject had been put in the Vote Office this morning, although I did not have the opportunity to read it before the debate. Such a link is essential.
Clearly, the task of developing Greater Manchester's public transport network is challenging and will involve securing essential integration of the range of services that passengers and the public generally want to be provided. In taking into account progress to date, including the development of initiatives, such as the integration project and the innovative quality partnership agreement, and proposals to extend Metrolink, which are important to Greater Manchester, I have every confidence that Greater Manchester is well placed to address the Government's objectives of a truly integrated transport network.
Manchester's municipal airport, which I believe is now the second busiest in the United Kingdom, was recently given leave to borrow in order to invest in further and improved transport links in and around the airport. It will be a major player in developing the economic heartland of the north-west and other regions. Such development would be supported by upgrading the west coast main line, rolling stock and subregional links. Further links to the east coast, better trans-Pennine links and links to Scotland and Wales are also desirable. Government support for those necessary transport links would benefit Manchester, Liverpool, Chester and Carlisle, as well as cities in the east, such as Sheffield, Leeds and Hull. Many surrounding towns and large rural areas could also benefit.
This is an important debate for the north-west. The region's economic prosperity depends on its complex transport links. There is no substitute for a properly planned, integrated transport strategy serving commuters, attracting tourists to the north-west's beauty spots—and taking them home again—and, of course, attracting and offering development opportunities to industry. We must plan to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the global economy, and at the same time, protect the environment and our communities. That is what we seek; that is what we hope the Government will support. I shall now end my remarks because I am aware that colleagues have important contributions to make to this debate.
11.15 am
Mr. Stephen Day: I congratulate the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) on bringing this debate before the House. It is important that all colleagues from the area are able to express views. I am grateful to him. I shall make two points, but will be as brief as I can because I recognise that others are waiting to speak.
As joint chairman, along with the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), of the all-party group concerned with the west coast main line ever since the group was

283
formed, the matter has been dear to my heart for many years, as it has to the many other hon. Members whose constituencies are along the route. I am pleased to say that, after many years of slow progress, we are beginning, dare I say it, to see some light at the end of the tunnel.
Mr. Michael Jack: Which one?
Mr. Day: Indeed.
The west coast main line is very important, not only to Greater Manchester, but to constituencies beyond, such as Carlisle. The main body of manufacturing industry in the north-west of England is still largely based in Greater Manchester. I wish those involved in upgrading the line and providing the long overdue and much needed new rolling stock much success. It is a long awaited improvement.
Secondly, I should like to address a matter that is also dear to the hearts of my constituents, except much closer to home, and pertinent to the Government's integrated transport policy. I remember Jim Hacker in "Yes Minister" being desperate to avoid such a policy. It was passed around Westminster because nobody wanted to deal with it. I am still at a loss to understand what an integrated transport policy is. The only result that my constituents have thus far witnessed from this so-called policy, to their great disadvantage, is the cancellation of a bypass—a third of which has been built, but goes nowhere—for which they have waited 30 years.
I accept that the Government are involved in a study of the transport needs of the so-called south-eastern quadrant of Greater Manchester, in which the constituency of Cheadle falls. I wish the Minister luck in the exercise, although to me, it is rather pointless, as I am sure my constituents think, too. Officials in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions know full well of the need to complete the Manchester airport eastern link road. Its title says it all. The central section has been built, but it does not join the airport. How ridiculous!
The central section of the much-needed bypass was built because two shopping cities—one at Handforth Dean and the other at Cheadle Royal—invested money in it. That was fine, although the expectation was that the whole road would be completed. At the public inquiry into the MAELR, and the north-south A34(M), which has already been built, it was projected that, by 2000, the new shopping cities would result in my constituents suffering an extra 20,000 car movements a day. That figure has already been surpassed.
I say to the Minister that my constituents in Bramall, Woodford and Heald Green are suffering massive traffic flows to and from the airport. They feel that, under any integrated transport policy—whatever that may be and, once it is defined, whatever success it may have—they face nothing but increased traffic in the short term. It is absolutely essential at some point—even during the review—for the Minister to come to see for herself.
The people who live in certain roads in Woodford and in Heald Green cannot get their cars out of their driveways. Those roads were never intended to carry the volume of traffic that they are currently suffering. The whole roads system links up with the A6(M) Hazel Grove bypass—the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell)
284
will no doubt want to speak on that matter—and with the Poynton bypass, which is part of the eastern section of the Manchester airport eastern link road, for which we have been waiting 30 years and which is also missing.
It was planned that all that would, eventually, link up to the M60 circular route around Manchester, but, south of the M63, there is no direct east-west or south to north-west link to Manchester airport. I thank the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton for raising this matter.
Mr. Jack: Does my hon. Friend think that, because the Government claim to believe in joined-up government, there will be a commitment to the policy that he seeks for his local roads system?
Mr. Day: I hope that my right hon. Friend is right. I am not trying to make any clever points; I am simply appealing on behalf of my constituents, who desperately need the Minister to listen to what is being said. This whole project, if completed—the A6(M), the Poynton bypass and the MAELR linking up to the M60—would provide the strategic road links that the Greater Manchester area desperately needs, for all sorts of reasons.
I make a final plea. If we are to have an integrated transport policy, please will the Government make it clear that—although they want improvements in rail and want to move as much traffic from road to rail as they can, and although everyone sees sense in that—they do not, as a matter of principle, exclude road building from that policy. They should not exclude schemes that have already started, because that would leave nothing but a future of misery for people in the areas that are affected. I hope that the Government will allow my constituents to escape from that misery.
11.23 am
Mr. Eric Martlew: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin), not only on securing the debate but on his excellent speech. It covered not only his constituency, but the rest of the north-west.
I shall concentrate on the issues appertaining to Cumbria. We have the most excellent motorway anywhere in the country, and anyone who came over the Lancashire border—Lancashire is a fine county, I am sure of that—would be impressed, as they went through the Howgills and over Shap, by the Pennine hills on one side and the Lake district on the other. They would come to the historic city of Carlisle, which would be on the left as they went towards Scotland.
Although the M6 is excellent, it stops at Carlisle and becomes the A74. For nine miles, it is a dual carriageway all-purpose road. The Scottish Office is building a motorway to the border, but the road called the Cumberland gap is dangerous. People think that they are on the motorway but, all of a sudden, they see farm vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists on the road. That leads to accidents.
The previous Government took the road out of the road proposals, and even scrapped it at one point. I talked to a senior civil servant at the then Department of Transport, who said, "Of course, Mr. Martlew, this road goes nowhere." What he meant was that it went to Scotland,

285
so it was not the Department's responsibility. Not filling the Cumberland gap would be nonsense, because it is a dangerous road, and completing it would mean that we would have a motorway link from Brighton on the south coast to Stirling. We must finish that nine-mile stretch to give us a first-class road on the west side of the country.
I understand that the Government have agreed that we should continue to consider upgrading the road to motorway standard, for at least the next three months. I am pleased about that. I accept that the Government have to make some savings on road building—everyone accepts that we cannot build roads in the way that we have previously—but we must continue with this road.
Cumbria county council, of which I was a member, is concerned about the detrunking of the A590, the A595 and the A7. I understand the logic behind the Government's thinking on detrunking, which is to give local authorities more influence and more power. There is concern over whether the money will come to the local authority with detrunking, but I am sure that it can. The county council's real concern is the reduction in a road's status following detrunking. These areas are trying to attract inward investment, and they are afraid that that will send the wrong message to organisations. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can reassure us on that issue.
The A66 is not in my constituency, but in that of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). There is no doubt, however, that the village of Temple Sowerby needs a bypass. Every year there is carnage on that stretch of the road. The previous Government failed to provide a bypass for that stretch of the A66; I hope that this Government will be able to do so.
In my constituency of Carlisle we are not very keen on building new roads. Hon. Members should consider our record over the past 50 years: we built half a ring road, but we realised that building the road was the wrong decision so we cancelled the rest of it. However, we need a north-west bypass. I understand that it may be built under a private finance initiative scheme. The vast majority of my constituents will welcome that, although certain individuals are concerned that the road may go through the corner of a nature reserve. My opinion is that the environmental problems created by not completing the bypass would be much greater than those that we will have if building goes on to the fringe of the nature reserve.
The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day)—who sits across the way and is co-chairman of the west coast main line all-party group—has mentioned some of the points relating to the west coast main line that we have debated. We do not get a good service on Virgin Trains, but I have travelled with it seven times this year and—touch wood—have never been late. It may be that the service is getting better, but it may be that I have been lucky. We have concerns—[Interruption.] From the noise made by hon. Members, I suspect that I have been lucky.
We are concerned that Railtrack is starting to downgrade the upgrade and will do it on the cheap. I hope that that is not the case, because it would affect the high-speed tilting trains that are due to be used on the west coast main line very soon. We are also worried about the point made in The Guardian recently about considerable disruption in the vicinity of Euston station because of the upgrade. That will obviously cause problems for residents.
286
There has been talk about a public inquiry. A public inquiry, as we understand it, would be a disaster for the west coast main line. It would mean years and years of delay and the economy of the north-west and Scotland could not stand that problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton did not have an opportunity to mention the Select Committee document on regional Eurostar services, which is now in the Vote Office. My hon. Friend the Minister may have seen it. According to the first sentence, the regions have been cheated. The document goes on to say that the House gave permission for the construction of the channel tunnel in the belief that all the regions would benefit from it. We have seen no benefit. We need an assurance from the Government—perhaps not today—that the regions will have direct access to Europe through Eurostar services on the west coast.
A Railtrack document that I saw recently said that there were plans to provide Eurostar services between Glasgow and Edinburgh and on the east coast. That would not satisfy hon. Members who are in the Chamber today. I understand that there are also safety problems with east coast services, but that west coast services could be up and running soon. I hope that the Minister will address the difficulties.
I welcome the debate, and hope that the present Government will make good what went wrong under the last. We have reasonable communications in Cumbria, but they could be better. We have a particular problem with the roads that go from west Cumbria to eastern England, and we hope that the Government will put things right.
11.31 am
Mr. Andrew Stunell: I thank the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) for breaking ground for me by raising some of the issues that I want to put to the Minister. Our constituencies, on the south-eastern side of Greater Manchester, experience problems caused not just by congestion and commuters, but by renewed economic growth.
Traffic flows were mentioned by both the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) and the hon. Member for Cheadle. Manchester airport is expanding rapidly; it is clearly very successful, and it is planned to become even more successful with the opening of the second runway by 2005. It is anticipated that the number of passengers travelling to and from the airport will increase from 16 million to 30 million, and that there will an additional 30,000 jobs in and around it.
A sensible strategy has been devised to divert as many passengers and workers as is feasible to public transport: the target is 25 per cent., and a vigorous start has been made. It is, however, a challenging target, which will be difficult to achieve. The development of the Metrolink, the opening of the southern link to the airport railway station and the provision of many new rail and coach services to various parts of the country will all help.
Let me make a constituency plea. Even if all the targets are met, as I hope they will be, an extra 8 million passengers will be travelling by road to the airport following its expansion. If the 25 per cent. target is achieved, 22,000 of the 30,000 extra jobs will still be filled by people travelling by road. According to my calculations—I shall be interested to hear whether the

287
Minister thinks differently—that means an extra 70,000 road trips per day in and out of the airport and the surrounding area.
As well as the severe congestion which—as the hon. Member for Cheadle pointed out—already exists, the opening of the second runway and the economic regeneration of the area will lead to an extra 70,000 road trips per day, even if the public transport strategy works to a T. Those of us who represent communities to the east of the airport—Hazel Grove, Bredbury and Romiley, for instance—face the prospect not just of passengers from our area and people with jobs at the airport travelling to it, but people whose homes are further to the east in Oldham, Tameside or even Sheffield using the conventional road system to filter through my area and that of the hon. Member for Cheadle and reach the airport.
In an intervention, the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) hinted at the need for not just joined-up thinking, but joined-up roads to make the connection to the airport. This will allow the large majority of people who, according to any projection, will be using the road system to do so without destroying the local communities and environment.
In the past, Governments have recognised some of the needs. There are dotted lines on maps. Very shortly, the opening of the M60 link around the east side of Greater Manchester will provide a direct route from the M62 around the east of Manchester to the airport and the national motorway network on the west side of England. There is just one problem—the M60, as it passes through Stockport where for part of its length it has two lanes. It is already heavily congested during commuting times, and people use alternative routes, all of which run through my constituency. I am faced with the opening of a new motorway link from the M62 which points straight at the heart of my constituency, and, on the other side, I am faced with the Manchester airport eastern link road, which is partly finished and which also points straight at the heart of my constituency. In the middle is my constituency, with conventional, suburban, built-up roads that are already heavily congested, and will shortly experience the onslaught of new airport passengers and workers.
Mr. Day: Is it not important for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to accede to the requests that I understand will be made by both Stockport and Macclesfield borough councils for the western and eastern sections of the Manchester airport eastern link road, the Poynton bypass and the Hazel Grove bypass—the A6M—to remain a protected line of route?
Mr. Stunell: I agree. In fact, last Thursday Stockport metropolitan borough council decided to make that specific recommendation as part of its submission to the Minister. I have seen Lord Whitty—I know that the hon. Member for Cheadle has done the same—and talked to him about, in particular, the projected multi-modal study of the south-east quadrant of Greater Manchester, a tremendous mouthful. I gather that the study is due to start in the spring, and that it will take two years to produce a report. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that. I do not know how long it will take to implement the report, but there will probably be considerably more delay before my constituents are relieved of their problems.
288
When I spoke to Lord Whitty, he gave me the clear impression that discussions would take place with local councils about the criteria for the study, and that they would have opportunities to be consulted and to participate. I have, however, heard from Stockport council the worrying suggestion that consultation on the criteria has not taken place, and is not projected to take place. Can the Minister assure me that it will?
Let me briefly make two points that were also made by the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton, and with which I entirely agree. One relates to the difficulties that First North West Trains seems to be having in providing efficient and effective commuter services for my constituents and, no doubt, his. I hope that the Minister will keep a sharp eye on the franchise of that company, as I know that the passenger transport authority is doing, to ensure that it performs to the level that it is required to do by its franchise, and can reasonably be expected to do.
I pick up the point that was made by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) relating to the Eurostar link. Last autumn, I wrote to the Minister and raised the issue of when Virgin's request to run Eurostar services would be considered. I understand that a review is going on. I had the impression that that would have reached a conclusion and that an announcement would have been made before Christmas. Unless I have missed it, I do not think that it has happened yet. Again, I ask the Minister whether that straightforward, simple step to improve our links with Europe and the rest of the world can be given an urgent push forward.
11.40 am
Mr. Graham Stringer: I declare some old interests in transport. For a long period—13 years—I was a paid director of the Manchester Ship Canal Company and of Manchester Ship Canal Development, which eventually became a wholly owned subsidiary of Peel Holdings, which now owns Liverpool airport. I spent 13 years as a director of Manchester airport and 11 years as a member of the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) on securing the debate and on the comprehensive review that he gave of transport in Greater Manchester and the north-west.
On the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) made about Eurostar; I had the difficult choice of whether to come to the debate, or to go to the press conference to launch the report on Eurostar by the Transport Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. It is a fascinating report and I commend it to all hon. Members who are present. It says simply that the regions were conned during the debate on investment in the channel tunnel into believing that there would be some benefit to the regions from having regional rail services.
When we examined the witnesses, including witnesses from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, we found not only that there is no benefit at the moment because we do not have Euro regional Tail services to Manchester, Glasgow and Edinburgh, but that the witnesses did not know what the impact of the channel tunnel on current links was; nor could they project what the impact might be if such regional rail services started.

289
My guess is that, because of all the investment in the south-east, the effect of the channel tunnel has been negative on the regional economies, but no one knows because the work has not been done. It should be.
At present, hundreds of millions of pounds worth of Eurostar regional rolling stock is kept in the sidings doing nothing. There is a simple choice for the Government; either they take up Virgin's offer to run the services at no cost to the taxpayer—one can be sceptical about that; not everything that Virgin promises comes into being—or there needs to be a subsidy.
The decision that the Government came to in sorting out London and Continental's financial mess and in agreeing the deal that will complete the channel tunnel link into London has meant that that service cannot subsidise the regions, so either there needs to be a small subsidy, or a commercial operator needs to be put in place that will carry through the services.
That would benefit the regions, particularly if we allowed that service to carry passengers who were not going all the way. It would bring immediate benefit for those people travelling from the regions just into London or somewhere beyond.
Another aspect of transport in the north-west that I want to talk about is airport and aviation policy. I start with two facts. In 1996, 10 million passengers from the north of England travelled on international scheduled services. Of those 10 million passengers, 4 million—four out of every 10—were forced into the south-east system to make connections.
We do not know how many of those intercontinental passengers did not go into the south-east, did not catch their intercontinental flight from this country, but chose Schipol, Frankfurt, Paris, Copenhagen or another European hub. The statistics would be worse if we could get that information. The money associated with those flights was lost.
Another fact illustrates how we could benefit if those passengers used regional airports, whether it be Manchester or Liverpool. About three years ago, a comparative study was undertaken of the airports at Schipol and Manchester. It showed that, if we looked at the economy immediately surrounding Schipol and at the north-west economy, Manchester airport—we could throw in Liverpool airport for these purposes too—was carrying only about a third of the passengers that Schipol airport was carrying. That fact ties in neatly with the fact that many passengers have been forced into the south-east system and probably into other European hubs.
What can we do about that? I want to be positive; it was slightly negative to start off with the failure of Eurostar to benefit the regions. What can we do to improve the position of the assets of the north-west, which Manchester and Liverpool airports certainly are?
Two relatively simple things can be done to enable business and leisure passengers who want to travel from the north-west and do not particularly want to change planes in London to do so. First, the previous Government declared unilaterally an open-skies policy with America, so that American planes could fly in and take passengers. For regional airports, again, unilaterally, we should declare an open-skies policy—we have done it partially—so that foreign carriers can fly in and pick up passengers.
For sensible commercial reasons, British carriers want a hub in the south-east and it is in their interests to concentrate on the south-east. If they want to do that, that is
290
entirely justified. We should however give passengers the right to get on to those carriers that want to fly in and out of regional airports. There would be an immediate benefit. When a previous Minister with responsibility for transport, the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), agreed an open-skies policy with North America for the regions, there was, over a fairly short period, a gradual, but immediate increase in the number of flights by American carriers into Manchester airport.
The second thing involves a complicated legal issue and would need legislation. Manchester airport is a highly profitable company; now that Liverpool airport is owned by a positive, commercially active private company, things have improved enormously compared with the time when British Aerospace was in control. Manchester airport has one of the best profits to capital employed ratios of any company in the private or public sector, but because, effectively, it is only allowed to do those things that its owners are allowed to do by law—10 authorities own it—it cannot take full advantage of commercial partnership arrangements, for example, with Liverpool.
One of the first things that the Deputy Prime Minister did when he took up his post was to participate in the announcement by Manchester and Liverpool airports that they wanted to co-operate. Those airports may want to buy other airports, to go into joint marketing ventures, and to do what the rest of the transport industry is doing: amalgamating with bus and train companies. Certainly the separation that was there five years ago is no more. To do that, there has to be a change in the vires that freeze up Manchester airport and any similar airport, so that we can get the benefit of those changes in the law.
The old solution of the previous Government, which was that, if there is a problem, privatise it, would be completely wrong. Manchester airport would not be the success it is today had it been privatised 20 years ago. I am not saying that some privatisations have not been successful—they have—but the necessary long-term view of infrastructure investment would not have happened had there been short-term decisions.
Those are the solutions. I was heartened to hear that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister told the Select Committee that he had long advocated that northern airports should not be disadvantaged because of the interests of southern airports such as Heathrow. I take that to mean that he understands that there has to be an uncoupling of the negotiations around British Airways and Heathrow and access to Heathrow in the interests of the northern airports. If that happens, we will see huge benefits for the north-west, with the airports working together trying to benefit the entire region in a new legal framework.
There is a great deal of controversy about roads. Roads can bring economic advantages and disadvantages—we do not always know. They can take jobs away as easily as they can provide them. That is true of many other forms of transport investment, but it is not true of airports. There is a straight correlation between the number of passengers using an airport and the jobs created. In virtually every airport that has ever been studied in western economies—whether it is northern Europe or western Europe—for every 1 million passengers who fly through the airport about 1,000 jobs are created on site and about 1,000 are created in related industries close by. That is 2,000 jobs without saying anything about what is induced in the local economy because the business flier is able to fly in and

291
out and invest. A complicated economic analysis is involved. There is no doubt that the growth of those airports is the fundamental driver of the north-west economy in the same way as cotton was important 200 years ago and engineering was important about 50 or 100 years ago. I hope that we can see some movement to support the growth of those airports.
11.52 am
Mr. Michael Jack: The comments of the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) about the importance of transport to the vibrancy of the north-west economy reflect what many hon. Members have said in their contributions. The comments so far represent many of the frustrations that we all feel when we are serving the interests of our constituents and trying to put right transport issues, which are vital if we are to achieve our common goal of wanting to see the north-west prosper in the future.
I have heard the M6 mentioned during the debate. I know that work is being undertaken to look at some of the remaining key pinch points on that route. To improve access to the north-west, either by car or lorry, the M6 must be upgraded in parts of the north-west, but not, I hasten to add, near Carlisle. At times, the road appears to be impassable. Its importance cannot be underrated and we should not forget it.
Many hon. Members have commented on the integration of transport. That is an aspiration to which we would all adhere. The ease with which one can move from one mode of transport to another is important, particularly if we are to make public transport a real option for car users. Preston, part of which is in my constituency, illustrates precisely some of the difficulties we face. The rail network is to the west of the town and the bus depot is sited at the north-east of the town. The idea of smooth integration such as that witnessed in, for example, Hammersmith in London, where one can go straight from the bus into the tube system, will remain a dream for Preston. If we are to address the traffic problems in Preston and on the Fylde coast and persuade people to use the railways and buses, that type of integration is the physical solution to which we must aspire. Inevitably, there will be further debates reflecting on that point.
I hope that the Minister might be able to say something about the possibility of eventually extending the M65 all the way to Yorkshire. The developments that have taken place are of enormous benefit but, as other colleagues have observed, although natural routeways exist there are gaps in the system. We are all acutely aware of the pressures on the M62, particularly at peak times, in linking that important north-west corridor to the ports on the east coast.
I endorse what many hon. Members have said about Manchester airport. On public transport, there is still a major education job to be done if we are to alert people to the real benefits of the alternative. Equally, providers must be educated to concentrate on quality issues. In many cases it is difficult to persuade car drivers, including me, out of their cars and on to buses. They realise that the bus will not provide them with the same degree of comfort as they are used to enjoying in their cars. There are bus designs now that are meeting that problem, and public transport providers should reflect on that.
292
I want to concentrate on a much more localised issue. I am delighted to see the hon. Members for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) and for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) in their places because I suspect that they will also want to talk about moss roads. Before people immediately leap to the conclusion that those are some sort of ancient green-covered routeway in the north-west, I shall explain that moss roads are the vernacular expression for a vital series of routeways that pass through the constituencies of Lancaster and Wyre—particularly the Wyre area—West Lancashire and my constituency of Fylde.
Recently, councillor Richard Toon, who looks after transport in Lancashire, made some comments to the local press under the heading:
"Crumbling roads face being shut".
The fact that I am raising this issue and that other hon. Members may also choose to do so is an illustration of how long, under the previous Government and this Government, we have been making representations about the very special problems faced by this rural network of roads.
My research has shown that this type of road exists only in Norfolk, Lincolnshire and Lancashire. In correspondence to me recently, the Minister tried to suggest that the roads were similar to those being affected by subsidence in mining areas. I acknowledge that there may be a special case in those instances, but there are special factors over and above the normal wear and tear that affect the rural network of moss roads.
One of the problems is that they are built on a foundation of peat and sometimes a combination of peat and sand. That oxidises because of the weather and time and, eventually, the roads are left sitting feet out of the ground while the land around them subsides. The substructure of the road is then incapable of supporting the carriageway. The next stage is the creation of what I would describe as a funicular railway effect. The roads go up and down and break up and the routeway is in danger of being destroyed. Long periods of dry weather can have a bad effect on the routeways, which are obviously beyond the control of man given the current technology.
In May last year the county council estimated that the cost of putting the roads right was about £32.6 million. The annual safety and maintenance figures alone amount to £400,000. That figure was further revised when the county's environment director noted that a sum total of £5.3 million had been spent on those routeways in the past seven years, but that they simply were not able to keep up with the problems. The new estimate for reconstructing that vital rural network of roads is now £43.5 million. Councillor Toon made what I thought was a telling comment when he said that
"simply patching them up is like throwing money away because they deteriorate at an enormous rate."
That lies at the heart of this problem.
In total, we are looking at 47.5 km of this vital rural routeway in Lancashire, of which 22 km are in a severely distressed condition. In correspondence with me, the Minister attempted to argue that Lancashire should, like everywhere else, like it or lump it and use the money allocated to it under the standard spending assessment to look after the routeways. I am sure that the Minister understands that it is well beyond the county council's ability to look after the roads within the headroom given

293
by the SSA. The construction of the general formula does not allow flexibility in recognition of such specialised local conditions. The Minister mentioned mining subsidence. That is also a special condition. Sometimes our nationally agreed formulae are too inflexible to recognise local problems. I am confident that the Government will be sympathetic to my arguments, particularly in the light of their stated intention to produce a new rural White Paper, one of the key themes of which will no doubt be the maintenance of good transport links in rural areas.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre—I call him my hon. Friend in this context because we work closely together on rural matters—will want to say something about the problems in his constituency if he is called, because I recognise that they are even greater than those in my constituency. The county's environment directorate has made it clear that the moss roads in Wyre, West Lancashire and Fylde are of the highest priority.
I should like to put on record my appreciation for the diligent way in which Mr. Graham Harding has represented the interests of moss roads to hon Members. In a letter to me on 22 May last year, he said:
"Those sections of the moss roads that have had major schemes in the last 10 years are deteriorating to such an extent that compared with 'normal' roads they would be considered to have no residual life and unsafe. The need for work on the moss roads is beyond what could be regarded as normal maintenance and should be regarded as 'small improvements' owing to the need to completely remove the moss road foundations of the existing carriageway and reconstruct these roads on the existing alignment."
He goes on to point out that research is being undertaken on other similar road problems. He says:
"It is my understanding that the Highways Agency is looking for sites for recycling trials using secondary aggregates and it is a pity that, whilst an ideal site in the moss roads is also available the different sources of funding mean that it is not able to be pursued."
Mr. Hilton Dawson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his positive comments. Does he agree that, while reconstruction of the moss roads is fundamental to the rural economy and the life of the rural community, the most important issue is road safety? He will be aware of an incident that happened two weeks ago yesterday in which some of his constituents may have been involved. A double-decker bus carrying 30 schoolchildren tipped over on one of the moss roads. Fortunately, it was saved by a telegraph pole, preventing serious injury to any of the children. Does he regard that as a warning to us all about the grievous consequences of not investing properly in the work?
Mr. Jack: I am grateful for that telling point. The mention of a busload of children shows the vital contribution that the network of rural roads plays in linking sometimes far-flung villages and those involved in farming and horticulture. If the Minister visits the north-west, it would be to her advantage if her officials could carve out a few moments for her to travel along such roads. Once she has seen them, understood their importance as transport links for rural Lancashire and witnessed how dangerous they are when they start to deteriorate, the point will be made.
The moss roads are a special case. This is special pleading. However, as the Minister has seen, there is agreement across the House that something must be done,
294
even if in the first instance it is research by the Department into techniques to stabilise the roads and stop their deterioration. That would at least be a positive start to a programme to address that small but vital problem for many important parts of rural Lancashire.
12.5 pm
Mr. Derek Twigg: I realise that time is tight, so I shall cut what would have been a 10-minute speech to five minutes. I shall do my best to get as much in as possible.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) for securing the debate and congratulate him on his excellent speech. Transport links in the north-west are fundamental to our economy and our social fabric. The north-west has the second largest economy in the country. I welcome the Government's integrated transport strategy. The proposals are welcome in my constituency and throughout the north-west.
It would be a surprise if I did not speak about Halton. Many people accuse me of seeing it as the centre of the universe. There are plenty of important transport links in my constituency, including the Manchester ship canal, the M56, the M62, the major Mersey crossing, and the Bridgewater canal, with Liverpool airport on our doorstep. I shall focus on the Runcorn-Widnes bridge, which is the major transport issue in my constituency and in the Cheshire and Merseyside sub-region. My hon. Friend the Minister is well aware of the problems.
The crossing was built in 1961 and is taking far more traffic than it was designed for. It is one of the landmarks of the north-west. When it is lit up at night it is one of the finest sights around. However, in addition to the 17 per cent. traffic increase since 1991, it has major structural and maintenance problems. I am glad that the Government have recognised some of those and increased the amount that Halton borough council can spend on maintenance and improvements to the bridge.
The bridge is important for transport in the north-west and for the economy in Cheshire and Merseyside. Building a second crossing would create between 5,000 and 5,500 jobs and improve the local economy. The current bridge cannot cope. I am sure that our integrated transport policy will be successful, but it will not solve the capacity problems. There are three options—an eastern crossing, a western crossing and a central crossing. All have their merits and costs. We are trying to find out from the regional development association and the Government which would be the best option.
I favour the eastern crossing. It is not the most expensive, it would have the least environmental impact and it would link with the Runcorn busway. It is not possible to shut off one lane on either side of the current four-lane bridge to use as a busway. That would cause chaos in the region and on the M6. Such a suggestion would be nonsense. However, an eastern crossing would fit in nicely with a busway, which could be extended to Widnes and would sit well with the Government's integrated transport strategy.
The Runcorn busway is unique. It is regarded throughout Europe and the world as an example of how a busway could be. It covers 22 km around Runcorn, with housing, shops and businesses all close to it. It was intended to have a 50:50 split between public and private transport, but in reality only about 20 per cent. of work

295
trips are made by bus. Improvements are needed in its structure and its environment. It needs safer bus stops and bus stations and must be made more attractive.
Halton Transport is one of the few municipally owned bus companies that makes a profit, providing modern, safe transport. It is an example of how the public sector can be a commercial success while providing an important public service.
The west coast main line passes through my constituency, with trains stopping at Runcorn station. The station is crucial to the economy in my area and the north-west generally. Virgin Trains has made a start and, in all fairness, has made some improvements, but it is still a long way from delivering the service that is needed. Putting up the prices and throwing in a few cheese croissants and a couple of drinks is not what I call an improved public service; but we shall see.
I have a letter from a company in my area about ticket pricing and the 9 o'clock deadline. The letter asks how the company's staff can be encouraged to use public transport rather than a car to go to London, when they face exorbitant prices for train travel, especially with the deadline at 9 o'clock, which is not the busiest time on the way back from London.
Runcorn station, which is well used, needs refurbishment, and I believe that there are plans for that. Widnes station is famous because Paul Simon wrote "Homeward Bound" on it; I do not know whether that was because in the 1960s Widnes reminded him of his home town or because he wanted to get away from it, but we have a little bit of faith.
Manchester airport has been discussed, and we should not forget Liverpool airport. It is important to develop links between the two. Liverpool is the fastest-growing regional airport in the country and provides an awful lot of jobs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) said, the expansion can produce a guaranteed 1,000 extra jobs. The airport has an environmental as well as an economic impact on my constituency, but it is a very important employer.
Transport is crucial for the improvement of the economy in the north-west, including my area and Merseyside and Cheshire. I am positive that the Government's approach will ensure success.
12.11 pm
Mr. Graham Brady: I congratulate the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) on securing this important debate, which has been very constructive. My appearance at the Dispatch Box should not be taken as lending any credence whatever to rumours that have been circulating recently in the press; it is my first appearance and could easily be my last. This issue is vital for the north-west and I am delighted to be here to represent Her Majesty's Opposition on a matter of such importance to our region.
Both Government and Opposition Members have spoken eloquently in support of projects and improvements that are vital to our regional economy and to our constituents' quality of life. Our region's prosperity has been built on trade; without effective transport links that trade and that prosperity will die.
296
There has been good news over the years, and we should not forget that; it is easy in a debate such as this to list only the problems. The good news includes the success of the port of Liverpool in recent years. Many people forget that the port of Manchester still handles 9 million tonnes of freight per annum. The Metrolink has already been referred to, first by the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton.
Many hon. Members have mentioned the west coast main line; decades of underinvestment under public ownership have given way to some hopeful signs of major investment and a prospect of serious improvement. Billions of pounds of private money are going into upgrading the track and Virgin Trains is spending £1.3 billion on new trains. There is already more freight on the railways than in the dark days when British Rail was even found on occasion to be persuading companies not to move freight by rail, because it found it inconvenient to handle it.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) referred especially knowledgably to Manchester airport. It is a great success story for the region and is vital to the development of the regional economy. It has been said that the airport is set to double its number of passengers and of employees, and it is essential that it should be allowed to thrive and prosper.
There are, however, real problems for the region. Transport links must be improved for the benefit of tourism and the area's service industries, as well as the manufacturing sector, which has perhaps the more obvious need. The Engineering and Marine Training Authority has estimated that north-west engineering companies are the least likely to export: 36 per cent. against a national average of 45 per cent. That must be improved if we are to increase our region's prosperity, and we need improved transport links to do that, not only within the north-west but on the essential routes linking us with other parts of the United Kingdom.
The north-west is important not only in itself but as part of a transport link to Scotland, as the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) said, and to Northern Ireland. Transport links across the north-west to the Irish sea ports are vital if we are to have lasting peace in Northern Ireland.
Much of the north-west's strategic transport system is choked and congested. The new Government have increased fuel duty, which was already high, and will take £9 billion more from motorists in this Parliament, but the roads programme has been slashed and investment in public transport is frozen. The Deputy Prime Minister recently repeated projections that traffic will grow by a third in the next 20 years, and meanwhile people are paying dearly for the privilege of sitting in queues on the M6.
Road signs on the M60 and connecting roads are scruffy and illegible and vital road improvements have been cancelled or kicked into the long grass for further studies. The old, transparent cost-benefit analysis has been cast aside in favour of choices that often appear inconsistent and irrational. Some very important road schemes have been cut, including the improvement of junctions 12 to 18 on the M60 and junction 6 of the M62.
The A6(M) Stockport bypass was referred to earlier, and the A555 Poynton bypass is crucial to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day).

297
Perhaps the most important of all is the improvement and completion of the Manchester airport eastern and western link roads. The hon. Member for Carlisle mentioned the A590 in Cumbria, which is also of key concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins).
Studies have been ordered into necessary road schemes and into M6 capacity problems. The Minister does not need studies to know about those problems.
Mr. Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Brady: I would very much like to, but I am afraid that I have very little time, as I am keen to leave time for the Minister to respond.
To study the capacity constraints on the M6 one needs merely to drive up it and experience the bottlenecks at numerous points. There is also a study into congestion in the south-east quadrant of Manchester. Improvements are urgently needed and should be started without delay. The M6 was designed to carry between 70,000 and 80,000 vehicles a day but it is already carrying more than 140,000. As 90 per cent. of exports from the north-west travel through the west midlands, that transport link must be improved for the health of our economy.
I could not conclude my remarks without referring to the Birmingham northern relief road, which is essential not only to the north-west but to the west midlands. It has been termed the single most important strategic highway in the United Kingdom, and I endorse that. These congestion problems must be tackled as a matter of urgency.
Several hon. Members mentioned the airport link roads. They are of great importance to the local communities in Bramhall, Poynton, Woodford, Heald Green and Hazel Grove, as well as to the economy of Manchester and the north-west generally. Without a proper infrastructure providing links to the airport at a time of rapid growth, the region's economic development will be hindered. It is essential that the road schemes should be completed.
The Minister has been asked many questions, and I will remind her of one or two. The Birmingham northern relief road is perhaps the most important strategic link for our region. Further improvements are needed along the M6, and not only on the section leading up to Carlisle and on to Scotland; for many, indeed all, of us, it is perhaps even more important that the bottlenecks all along the M6 are tackled. The road links to the airport—without which the airport's growth and development will be a problem and a hindrance to local communities, rather than a benefit—have been mentioned. Clarity in the proposed arrangements for the privatisation of National Air Traffic Services would be helpful, and we need proper safety guarantees at a time when the airport may be disrupted by safety concerns.
As a Member who represents the north-west, I would be delighted to continue raising concerns about the region. However, I am conscious of the desire of all Members to hear the Minister's response, to which I look forward as well.
12.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box—although I regret that his appearance did not confirm some of the stories circulating in the press. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) on obtaining this important debate. I feel I should declare an interest, as I was born and raised in the north-west.
All hon. Members have underlined the importance of transport—and particularly integrated transport systems—to employment, regeneration and the protection of our environment. Many issues have been raised, not least the west coast main line, Eurostar services and regional airports. The west coast main line was referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for Heywood and Middleton and for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), and the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day).
Railtrack has announced a £1.35 billion improvement of the west coast main line as part of the modernisation process. I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, who has been reading stories about modernisation being done on the cheap, that I will certainly raise his concerns with the Health and Safety Executive. There can be no reduction in or infringement of the safety requirements on our railways.
Eurostar was referred to by several hon. Members, in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer). My hon. Friend serves on the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, and the Government welcome the Committee's recent report. We intend to consider carefully its recommendations and, of course, we will publish a full response in due course.
We expect the report to contain the criteria for the review that we are commissioning on Eurostar regional services. The Government believe—as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has made clear on many occasions—that people living beyond London should have convenient and effective access to the channel tunnel rail services. That is why we are undertaking an independent review of those services, and we will make further announcements soon on that issue of national importance.
What has come out of this morning's debate is the remarkable difference between the approach of the Government to the issues of transport and integration and the lamentable failures of the previous Administration. Much has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the particular difficulties within their constituencies—a point made by the hon. Members for Cheadle and for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell). They referred to the unbearable congestion and inevitable pollution that impacts upon their constituents because of the complete failure of the previous Administration, over 18 years, to begin to tackle the difficulties caused by the belief that the solution to all our transport difficulties was the old predict-and-provide system. They refused to acknowledge the fact that improving roads exclusively simply increased traffic.

299
The Government have moved markedly away from that benighted approach, and that is the reason for our integrated transport strategy. However, it is not just a matter of policy. We are giving practical funding to local authorities to ensure that their local transport plans can bring into play the necessary integration to ensure that we make the best possible use of existing infrastructure, and begin to move away from the idea that only one form of transport infrastructure can possibly meet this nation's economic and environmental needs.
We have envisaged an important planning and co-ordinating role at a regional level—for all regions. We have proposed that regional planning guidance should include a regional transport strategy. That will be a key task for a north-west regional assembly. The strategy will set out regional priorities for transport investment, including the role of trunk and local roads.
At this point, I confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle that detrunking is by no means equivalent to demoting. Local authorities have been arguing for a considerable time that they would like to take on the responsibility for those roads, and that is the subject of discussions. My hon. Friend also referred to finance, and we envisage a time when the whole life-costs of a road will be considered during the detrunking process.
Another recurring theme of the debate this morning was the importance of regional air services—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley. He will be aware that the Government have announced a series of regional air studies—the fourth of these, which will examine regional air services in the north-east, the north-west and York and Humberside, will be announced shortly. He was right—as were other hon. Members—about the importance of our airports, but even more importantly, the importance of surface access to them; a point made by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove.
300
We are asking regions to work together, and we must get away from the idea that local authorities must argue exclusively for their own concerns, because those can impact upon contingent local authorities. Much good work, however, has been done in the north-west.
Mr. Day: During the review of transport needs in the south-east quadrant of Greater Manchester, would the Minister be willing to visit the problem areas that have been identified in the debate? Will the requests from Macclesfield borough council and Stockport borough council for protection of the line of route of the roads referred to in the debate be looked upon favourably?
Ms Jackson: In terms of my possible visit to the sites, that is highly unlikely in the immediate to short term, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman on both of those issues.
It will be important for a regional strategy to take account of all the transport studies that have been referred in the debate when considering an integrated transport strategy for the region. That is very much the thrust of our White Paper. We must get away from the blind wisdom that said that we could build roads to meet ever-growing demand. We must have longer-term, sustainable solutions, and that is the message we are receiving from the travelling public. That was the clear message from the extensive consultation that we undertook prior to publishing our White Paper.
We must reduce dependency on the car, and switch to more sustainable transport modes—train, bus, cycling, walking. Our aim is to increase choice for all by improving alternative modes of transport to secure sustainable mobility. Emphasis is very much on a package of measures. There is no big idea to solve all the problems of transport and the environment—the problems are complex. That was a recurring theme of all the speeches that we have heard. A range of different solutions tailored to local circumstances will be needed—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We must move on to the next debate.

Highcliffe School
12.30 pm
Mr. Christopher Chope: Originally, I had intended to use this debate to raise the case of my constituent Miss Sujata Halder and her application for exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom. However, as soon as my success in the ballot became known, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), invited me to a meeting at the Home Office.
At that meeting, which was held last Thursday, we discussed the case, and the Under-Secretary promised to reconsider it. On Monday afternoon, the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary finally decided to exercise their discretion in favour of my constituent and to allow her to remain in this country. I am most grateful to the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary for having addressed the arguments that I raised on behalf of Miss Haider and for ensuring that justice is done in her case.
I am also grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), who is present this afternoon. His agreement to allow me to change the subject of the debate has given me the opportunity to raise the matter of the funding of Highcliffe comprehensive grant-maintained school. I hope that the Minister will be as good a listener as his Home Office colleagues.
Highcliffe comprehensive is the only grant-maintained secondary school in the ancient borough of Christchurch. Following a decision by the previous Government, it now has a sixth form, which it operates on a collaborative basis with two other Christchurch secondary schools—the Grange and Twynham. I am fortunate in having some excellent schools in my constituency, but none has a better academic record than Highcliffe, which came top in Dorset in the 1998 secondary school performance tables published on 1 December. It is a recognised centre of educational excellence and attracts more pupils than it can accommodate, many of them from Hampshire.
To mention Hampshire is to remind the Minister that no debate about schools in my constituency would be complete without another reference to the gross injustice and unfairness of the Government's decision not to alter the area cost adjustment element of the methodology for grant distribution. That means, for example, that another fine secondary school in my constituency—Ferndown upper school—receives £300,000 a year less than it would if it were situated a few miles down the road in Hampshire. The same is true for the schools in Christchurch.
The Government have decided to freeze the methodology for three years, but I can assure the Minister that the argument will not go away, as the feeling of great injustice about the matter persists in my constituency. That sense of injustice is evident in a letter that was sent to the Prime Minister on 20 January by Dr. Howard, the headmaster at Ferndown upper school. I shall not read the letter in full, but Dr. Howard states:
"the anomalies of the present system, as here on the Dorset-Hampshire border, are so gross that they cry out for change… Many of us had hoped in 1997, with a new administration in power, that we would also see the practical application of a commitment to fairness and justice. We are now sadly disappointed."
302
I hope that the Minister will listen again to the matters raised in that letter.
Highcliffe school has benefited from its grant-maintained status, which it attained in 1992–93. Since then, the school's governors have acted in what they consider to be a prudent and efficient manner and have used all the funds at their disposal for the benefit of pupils. With the Government's decision to abolish grant-maintained status, Highcliffe has opted for foundation status from later this year. One of the matters that I hope that the Minister will deal with in this short debate is the funding consequence for the school of that change of status. It is far from clear what will happen in the next financial year, but the school fears that it may lose as much as £40,000.
The matter is causing much concern. The consultation paper preceding the Government's legislation to abolish grant-maintained schools stated:
"The aim should be to level up rather than down, moving all schools towards the level of school budget management currently applying in the GM sector, while ensuring that key services which can only be provided by the LEA … are properly resourced."
In February last year, the then Minister for School Standards, the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), who is now the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, told the Committee considering the School Standards and Framework Bill:
"The Government have repeatedly said that, in accordance with the finding of the Public Accounts Committee, many GM schools received funding over and above that received by local authority schools. It is a question not only of delegated budgets, but of additional support. As a result, the pupil unit costs in local authorities are often far higher for GM schools than for the local authority maintained school. We have said that our objective is not to cut the amount being spent on pupils in GM schools but to increase the funding for pupils in other schools. We are therefore levelling up."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 12 February 1998; c. 461.]
So the then Minister, in those remarks, addressed the concerns of a number of schools in the maintained sector and said that, despite the disparities, funding would be levelled up rather than down. Since then, however, the Government have stated that the basic approach to funding in 1999–2000 should be protection, in cash terms, at 1998–99 budget levels per pupil. That suggests that no allowance is being made for inflation and that the funding for former grant-maintained schools will be kept static in cash terms while other schools catch up. Although that appears to be at odds with previous ministerial statements, I hope that the Minister will assure me that that is the wrong interpretation to put on those words.
Another recent development is that Ministers have decided to exclude from the base budget used to calculate the guaranteed amount per pupil the special purpose grant element known as SPG(N). Moreover, it is made clear in a letter from the Department for Education and Employment dated 20 October 1998 that Ministers have also decided that they, and not the local education authorities, will be responsible for calculating the level of GMS protected funding, in consultation with the Funding Agency for Schools.
Those statements have caused much confusion and uncertainty at Highcliffe and, no doubt, at other grant-maintained schools. They are worried about the level of funding that they will receive in the coming financial year.

303
The crisis that the Highcliffe governors face is made worse by the next problem that I wish to raise on behalf of the school. To the uninitiated, that problem is both complex and esoteric. It concerns the consequences for Highcliffe of a reduction in the school's rateable value, announced in 1994–95 in response to an appeal by Dorset county council as long ago as 1990. As a school with charitable status, Highcliffe has to pay only 20 per cent. of its rates assessment. It has made provision to repay that portion of the 20 per cent. of which it has been relieved as a result of the change in rateable value.
However, the complication arises in the treatment of the remaining 80 per cent. Highcliffe receives some funding that emanates from Dorset county council under what is called LMS replication. Before Highcliffe received charitable status, it was liable for 100 per cent. of its rates. Therefore, under the LMS replication rules, Dorset county council has been paying the Funding Agency for Schools the 100 per cent. contribution for rates, despite the fact that only 20 per cent. of that would be payable by the school to the local authority.
As part of the annual maintenance grant provided to the school, a payment is made to the school to offset the value added tax that it, because it is not registered for VAT, has to pay for the purchase of any items on which is VAT is payable. That grant is referred to as SPG(V)—special purpose grant (VAT). The calculation of that grant is not laid down in any regulations and the Funding Agency for Schools was not bound by any inherited basis of calculation. However, the agency decided that the formula for calculating the grant should be by reference to the rateable value of the school. The system operated on the basis that Highcliffe was given a sum of money sufficient to meet the full rates bill without any allowance for charitable relief.
Once received in the hands of Highcliffe, the actual rates payable were paid to the Christchurch borough council and the remainder of the money was kept to offset VAT. My understanding is that, if the difference between rates payable and the sum received does not exceed 2.5 per cent. of the annual maintenance grant, an additional sum will be paid as SPGV.
The nub of that part of the story is that the calculation for VAT relief bears no relation to the amount of VAT paid by the school on goods and services bought. We are talking about a notional formula that has had some bizarre results, particularly where there has been a reduction in rateable values. Where that has happened, Dorset county council, the education authority, expects to be refunded the difference on the whole sum by the funding agency—an argument with which it is hard to disagree.
The Funding Agency for Schools remained uncertain for several years whether, in such circumstances, it should make a corresponding clawback from the annual maintenance grant. In logic, there was no reason why it should do so because it was a deemed payment for a special purpose but, without the clawback the funding agency would be out of pocket.
The question is simply one of equity: where should the loss fall? Should it fall on an individual school, even if the impact on its ability to meet its requirements might be severe, or should it be borne by the funding agency? I look forward to hearing the Minister's opinion because
304
the funding agency clearly did not find that an easy question to answer. Sadly, it ultimately reached the wrong conclusion and passed the burden on to the individual school.
As a way out of a dilemma, the funding agency adopted successive strategies. First, it denied a claim by Dorset county council for repayment. When that did not work, it investigated whether it should apply special purpose grant to Highcliffe and the other schools affected, but decided not to do so, and then it considered the circumstances in each school.
I have gone into the technical detail to give the Minister a flavour of the subject. The essence is that, on 3 August 1998, the funding agency sent Highcliffe school a letter to the effect that it intended to recover £83,000 from the school, which had been overpaid. The school cannot afford to repay that sum and it would cause a great crisis in its finances.
The school wanted to find out why the agency had reached its conclusion. The agency had received a report by Robson Rhodes, the chartered accountants, and the school, not unreasonably, asked to see a copy. Despite the efforts of the school, correspondence with the Treasury solicitor and parliamentary questions that I tabled here, the Funding Agency for Schools has refused to divulge the contents of the report. That has created a climate of suspicion.
I hope that the Minister will allow the report to be issued. It cannot be consistent with the principles of open government that a report used to deprive Highcliffe of £83,000 is not available to the school and its governors. They have been told that they will have to show on their accounts that they have an unmet liability for £83,000 and that it will be repayable over three years. They are far from certain as to how that will be done.
I should be grateful if the Minister would say how that liability will interact with the new funding regime, which comes into effect when the school loses grant-maintained status. I should also be grateful if he could explain what he expects the school to do. It is unable to prove that the funding agency made an error in its calculations because it cannot see its workings. Clearly, the agency has been very coy about giving information. A number of straightforward questions, which I tabled to the Minister and which were referred to the funding agency, have been ducked. The agency purports not even to know the total amount of money involved in its dealings with all grant-maintained schools, something that I find disingenuous in the extreme.
Those are important issues and I hope that the Minister will produce a solution for Highcliffe school today. This is a serious problem—£83,000 coupled, perhaps, with the loss of £40,000 next year as a result of the change of status, for a school with about 1,200 pupils. It does not need me to spell out that that will have serious implications for the quality of the education that will be provided by Highcliffe.
12.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke): First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate—it is always moving to hear appeals about poverty from deprived areas of the country, such as Christchurch, which he represents. I also congratulate him on his

305
success with his constituent, which led to the change of subject matter for the debate. That is yet another example of the way in which the Government respond to the concerns raised by hon. Members. Finally, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the academic success of Highcliffe school and join him in congratulating the school on that success and on its record, which is well known.
I will deal with the two fundamental points raised by the hon. Gentleman in reverse order—first, with the annual maintenance grant and its redetermination and, secondly, with the general issue of funding.
The Funding Agency for Schools for England has considered Highcliffe school and the other cases carefully. It may be worth giving some background. Where the rates bill has been reduced for past years and schools have received more annual maintenance grant from the funding agency than they should have—money that has not been spent because of the reduction in rate assessment—the regulations permit the agency to redetermine the calculation for previous years if any fact comes to light that would have affected it. The rates revaluation is one such fact, although others are involved, such as pupil numbers and so forth.
That practice goes back to the beginnings of the grant-maintained sector. The regulations that permit the funding agency to do that were introduced by the Conservative Government, of which the hon. Gentleman was a member, according to principles to which he subscribed at the time. The Funding Agency for Schools has simply carried through that process according to its responsibility for securing the proper use of public moneys, as is right and proper. In principle, I conclude that the funding agency was right to redetermine Highcliffe's annual maintenance grant and to recover any overpayment.
In exercising those rights, which has to be done carefully, the Funding Agency for Schools considered the situation for a long time—several years, as you implied. It took detailed legal advice because some of the grant-maintained schools affected were worried and the funding agency was correctly concerned to ensure that any decision that it took accorded with the law and could be properly sustained in the courts. It also took detailed financial advice—you mentioned the accountants, Robson Rhodes and their analyses not only of Highcliffe, but of all the schools involved.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I must remind Ministers as well as Back Benchers of the correct form of address. I think that the Minister is referring to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). If he uses the second person, he is referring to the Chair.
Mr. Clarke: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker and I apologise for the slip. I was so concerned to refresh my memory as to whether the Member for Christchurch was right honourable or honourable that I missed that point. I apologise to you and to him for the mistake.
The Funding Agency for Schools considered the situation carefully, took detailed legal advice and took financial advice from Robson Rhodes for all the schools involved. It considered Highcliffe and the other schools with which it was dealing in that round at meetings held
306
in June and July 1998. At that time, 36 grant-maintained schools were in the position that I described and had received more money than they should have following the rates redetermination. Of those 36, it was decided immediately to recover the funds overpaid from 33. That course of action was not taken for the remaining three schools, which included Highcliffe, because the agency wanted to study in more detail their financial situation to understand correctly the implications of any decision. They considered those matters most carefully.
The hon. Gentleman rightly quoted the cost to Highcliffe as £83,000, which represents about 4 per cent. of the school's £2.14 million annual maintenance grant budget for 1998–99. Although it is a significant sum, it must be considered in the context of the overall grant that the school received for the coming year.
The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know why the rates revaluation is so significant for ex-grant-maintained schools. He described the formula that was used as "complex, if not esoteric". Under the rules that were established by the Government of whom he was a member, schools were funded for 100 per cent. of their rates bills, despite the fact that they had to pay only 20 per cent. The 80 per cent. relief was used to pay VAT charges in a back-of-the-envelope calculation of the type that the hon. Gentleman described. Before the hon. Gentleman described the formula as "complex, if not esoteric", I had noted the phrase "toy-town economics". I am glad that we are getting rid of that aspect of the grant-maintained school regime.
The figures that produced the uncertainties, difficulties and problems that the hon. Gentleman described were ludicrous as they were based not on fact, but on a back-of-the-envelope formula that had been decided by the Government of the day. The hon. Gentleman was right to describe it as esoteric and to criticise the system that created the problem. I hope that he will agree that we were right to get rid of that ludicrous formula.
As part of the transitional process, legal responsibility in respect of the three schools that are still facing a problem—it was resolved immediately in 33 cases and three cases are outstanding—passes to the Secretary of State on the advice of the Funding Agency for Schools. I understand that the FAS will be advising in all three cases that the money is recovered in full and paid immediately. According to the FAS, the current balances at Highcliffe school will leave the school with a healthy surplus this year even after payment of the £83,000.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter in the House and I shall be happy to receive any further financial submissions from the school if it considers that the advice is inappropriate, for example. On the basis of the advice received from the FAS, the Secretary of State will recover the overpayment in full. Frankly, despite the articulate advocacy of the hon. Gentleman, there is no reason whatever for Highcliffe school to be treated differently from all other ex-grant-maintained schools.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether there had been any exceptions to the position that I described. I am advised that there were two: Wibsey school in Bradford, which is the only local education authority with grant-maintained schools that does not redetermine school budgets after rates have been revalued, and Desborough school in

307
Windsor and Maidenhead, which was agreed very early on by the FAS, which then rapidly realised that it would be setting a precedent that would result in a large loss of resource to education in the sector. The FAS decided not to accept that as a precedent although the decision had occurred at the very beginning of the process.
There is no particular reason to reconsider the position of Highcliffe. There have been scores of decisions on schools since the process began. There is no reason why Highcliffe should be treated differently, so in my view the FAS made the right decision.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of disclosure of documentation. As he probably knows, the FAS has given Highcliffe detailed reasons for its decision. It has responded positively to further requests for information from the school governors and set that out fully. The FAS decision not to release the Robson Rhodes report on Highcliffe or any other school was based on counsel's opinion about the nature of the advice that the FAS received.
I now turn to the general issues of current funding that the hon. Gentleman raised at the beginning of his speech. The Government have set out absolutely clearly by law that recurrent funding per pupil is guaranteed for all ex-grant-maintained schools and Dorset is under the same requirement as anywhere else. Beyond that baseline which is guaranteed by law, Dorset will take its own decisions about specific grants and the standards fund. It is instructive to look at the decisions that Dorset has to take. I understand that the provisional budget that Dorset is currently considering has allocated a 4.7 per cent. increase to education in contrast to the 7.3 per cent. increase that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment allocated for that purpose.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, Dorset county council comprises 21 Liberal Democrats, 15 Conservatives, five Labour councillors and one independent councillor and is under no overall control. It is governed by an interesting alliance of Liberal Democrats and Conservatives.
Mr. Chope: I assure the Minister that the Conservatives are not involved in running Dorset county council. If they were, the position would be very different.
Mr. Clarke: Given the current state of the Liberal Democrats, I am always suspicious about with whom they form alliances. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for maligning his colleagues in that way.
Dorset county council is considering whether to opt for a 6 or 11.2 per cent. increase in council tax. The area cost adjustment factors that the hon. Gentleman mentioned will no doubt come into that consideration although, as the hon. Gentleman will recall, the area cost adjustment was invented by the Government of whom he was a member.
As in all local authorities, there are arguments about the merits of the budget-setting period. I regard the hon. Gentleman's story about the possible £40,000 cut affecting Highcliffe in the same spirit as the letter from Dr. Howard about his school—as part of the general blitz of material that occurs in the budget-raising process. All hon. Members will be familiar with the issues that surround that process. We shall just have to see what happens.
I very much hope that Dorset county council will allocate significant resources to education and that, given its success, Highcliffe will get the resources that it deserves. However, a speculative £40,000 cut in the middle of the budget-setting process is not a basis for making firm statements in the House; it should be regarded simply as one of the options that is floating around.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have said that transitional funding will continue for costs that the FAS would have met in such circumstances. I appreciate the chance that the hon. Gentleman has given me to set out the way in which the issues have been addressed in respect of Highcliffe and elsewhere.
Finally, I wish to emphasise one fundamental political point. We attach immense importance to a smooth transition between ex-grant-maintained schools and local education authorities. Many issues of history, ideology, circumstance, jealousy and so on have been floating around. Everywhere I go I ask the heads of ex-grant-maintained schools about arrangements with the LEA. I ask LEAs the same question and in general, with one or two exceptions—one of the hon. Gentleman's neighbouring authorities may be one—the response has been extremely positive and the Government very much hope that it will continue to be.

Electricity Industry Regulator
12.59 pm
Siobhain McDonagh: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter that is important to a number of my constituents and, I hope, to the House. As this is my first Adjournment debate, I should like to thank the officers of the Speaker's Office and the Table Office for their assistance.
Hon. Members could be forgiven for having thought, when they saw the title of the debate, that we would be in for half an hour of worthy but dull academic dispute about pricing mechanisms, double recoveries and distribution price controls. Although I must warn the House that such terms will feature in my speech, they are not what the debate is about in essence. Rather, it is about some of my elderly constituents who are trying to heat their homes; the lengths to which the provider—London Electricity—has gone to thwart them; and the inability of the regulator to do much about it.
To explain the background, I have to give a brief chronology of events. The affair has been going on for more than two years, so my explanation will become quite complicated, but I shall distil the key events so as to describe them as briefly as possible. I have provided my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry with a much fuller background briefing.
In my constituency, there is a small housing charity called Mitcham Garden Village, which is a lovely development of 86 dwellings, comprising flats and maisonettes, reserved for elderly Mitcham residents. It is owned by Mitcham Garden Village trust, which is a registered charity and a company limited by guarantee. It is neither an old people's home nor a sheltered housing development.
The houses and flats were built in the 1920s and have no fixed heating other than one gas fire in the living room, as was standard in that period. As I am sure the House knows, such poor heating would not easily be tolerated in this day and age. That is why, when the opportunity came for the residents to install off-peak electrical space heaters, partly through grants provided by the local council, they took the chance to get some decent heating at last.
Now comes the pivotal point: every single resident of Mitcham Garden Village is an individual customer of London Electricity, receiving personalised bills and being entirely responsible for his or her own account. As the residents are elderly—the average age is between 75 and 80—the trust undertook to co-ordinate their applications to London Electricity to get the new heaters connected up to the mains.
To cut a long story short, London Electricity told the trust that the existing network could not support the new load and that, to connect up the heaters, the company would have to build a new substation and carry out related upgrading works. The company quoted various prices, ranging from £28,000 to £75,000, for which, to this day, it says the trust is liable. "Why are we liable?" the trustees asked, "We are not the customer. It is the 86 individual residents, each of whom is a registered customer of London Electricity, who want the electricity, not the trustees."
If 86 residents of Acacia avenue required individual modest load increases, one would not expect London Electricity to roll up the cost and try to bill the whole
310
street for a new substation. Such costs are provided for in the five-yearly price review, when the utilities are given hundreds of millions of pounds to carry out such upgrading. To try to charge residents for the same work is clearly a double recovery.
The trust submitted a complaint to the regulator—the Office of Electricity Regulation—but Offer replied, naturally enough, that the trust was not the customer and that the regulator could only settle a dispute between an individual customer and London Electricity. However, London Electricity maintained that the trust was the customer. At that point, the trust contacted me and asked for my help. In February last year, I wrote to hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry asking for his advice. He replied on 4 March, saying:
"The problem here is that it is not Mitcham Garden Village who is the customer of the company".
That left London Electricity completely isolated: the trust said, "We are not your customer," the residents said, "The trust is not your customer," the regulator said, "The trust is not your customer," and the Minister of State himself said, "The trust is not your customer." Yet London Electricity continued to dispute that fact, and I have to tell the House that it still continues to do so.
In his letter of 4 March, my hon. Friend the Minister made an excellent suggestion, saying:
"Perhaps the Secretary of Mitcham Garden Village might be able to co-ordinate an arrangement, whereby a small sample of the village residents, (say one or two), seek a quote from London Electricity, as this would clarify the picture on whether it was determinable and what the Director General's determination might be. I hope this is helpful"
Indeed it was, for that was exactly what was happening: one resident, Mrs. Dolly Elnaugh—who desperately wanted to attend today's debate, but who, quite suddenly, had to be taken into hospital—had embarked on exactly that course of action. Needless to say, she got very short shrift from London Electricity, which refused to connect her until the trust paid for all the upgrading work, even though she was only one customer making an application for one set of heaters. Indeed in its evidence to Offer, London Electricity called Mrs. Elnaugh's inquiry—which we must not forget is the course of action suggested by the Minister of State—
"a contrivance designed to circumvent the consequences of the true situation."
Having got nowhere, Mrs. Elnaugh complained to Offer. In its determination on her case, Offer ruled again that Mitcham Garden Village was not the customer—a fact already grasped by everyone from the Minister of State down, except, of course, London Electricity—and stated that London Electricity had a duty to supply Mrs. Elnaugh,
"cognisant of its normal charging principles".
In subsequent letters, the regulator stated that it thought that its determination would mean that Mrs. Elnaugh would be connected up at no cost to herself.
After many tortuous months, Mrs. Elnaugh was eventually connected up, but she was landed with a bill for £500 plus VAT for the privilege. "How could it possibly cost £500?" we asked. "Because," replied London Electricity, "that is about one eightieth of the amount needed to upgrade the network". "But you haven't upgraded the network," we replied, "Mrs. Elnaugh is plugged in to the existing infrastructure." London

311
Electricity had previously said that it could connect around a dozen residents without having to upgrade, so why on earth was the company charging for work that it had not done? Furthermore, when the next resident asked to be connected—this took place a matter of days ago—London Electricity simply refused, saying that she would have to pay £500 up front.
As I said, this is my first Adjournment debate, and I suspected that, once word got out, there would be a flurry of activity; I was not to be disappointed. On Monday, I received several faxes from London Electricity which, sadly, represent a mere reiteration of the company's case. Of the key points sent, the first states that:
"London Electricity has no desire to leave the residents of Mitcham Garden Village unable to use their new night storage heaters".
Well, I am glad that we agree on something. However, the company goes on to say:
"The residents now have efficient heating installed in their homes which, because the full implications of the scheme were not checked at the outset, they are unable to make use of."
That is simply not true: Mitcham Garden Village approached London Electricity in February 1997, almost two years ago and almost six months before the first heater was installed.
The real reason for the heaters not being connected is London Electricity's bizarre refusal to accept that the 86 residents, who are all registered customers of London Electricity, who all receive individual bills from London Electricity, and who are all personally responsible for settling their accounts with London Electricity, are in fact customers of London Electricity. That is despite the determination of Offer and the judgment of the Minister. In its fax to me this week, London Electricity called the decision to settle the matter with reference to individual customers "unreasonable".
Only one party has behaved unreasonably during this prolonged period. I have been shocked by the high-handed and arrogant way in which London Electricity has conducted itself. My constituents have spoken to me of the distress caused to them by London Electricity's insensitivity. I have no idea whether Mrs. Elnaugh is in hospital for other reasons, but I am concerned that her distress about this matter may have something to do with it.
When I spoke to a senior manager at the company in an attempt to reach some compromise, I too experienced London Electricity's unique brand of customer care. I pointed out that these were elderly people, we were in the middle of winter and there was a flu epidemic on. I was told, "It is not that cold and anyway you don't get the flu from cold weather." I had not realised that one of the benefits of privatisation was that London Electricity now dispenses weather forecasts and medical advice. Would that it dispensed electricity as readily.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, these are the facts of the case. I believe that my constituents have been the victims of a wrong decision by London Electricity, but the case also raises some important issues surrounding the effectiveness of Offer in protecting vulnerable customers. I fully accept that my hon. Friend the Minister is not responsible for the behaviour of London Electricity and I do not expect him to judge the merits of the dispute here and now. None
312
the less, I should like my hon. Friend to answer five key questions, of which I have given him prior notice. I hope that I will get them in within the time available.
First, in this instance, a private utility has acted with an arrogant disregard for the needs of my elderly constituents which deserves to be exposed on the Floor of the House. Furthermore, London Electricity continues to dispute my hon. Friend the Minister's clearly expressed view that
"it is not Mitcham Garden Village who is the customer of the company."
I wonder how my hon. Friend feels about his judgment being so clearly rejected by London Electricity.
Secondly, the case raises important questions about the effectiveness of Offer. There is no doubt that Offer has consistently ruled against London Electricity and has met with repeated obfuscation when trying to uncover simple facts. What is an elderly customer to do when a privatised utility simply ignores the determination of the regulator?
Thirdly, the matter raises further important issues with regard to the future regulatory framework. The response to the consultation on the Government's Green Paper, "A fair deal for consumers", clearly states:
"Economic regulation does not occur in a vacuum. Ensuring that the services provided by these industries are available to all members of society, including the most vulnerable, on fair terms, is important to the Government's wider objectives of creating a fairer society."
The terms offered to my constituents are by no stretch of the imagination fair. How can we regulate the fair treatment of elderly customers?
Fourthly, the response to the consultation further states:
"It will also be important to ensure that the needs of disadvantaged customers—many of whom lack the resources, knowledge or power to argue their cases directly with regulators, companies and the Government—are fully understood."
I am aware of the huge legislative agenda that the Government are steering through the House and that we have had to prioritise our manifesto commitments on constitutional reform, modernisation of the national health service and improving the welfare system, but in the absence of a new utilities Bill, how can we guarantee that the needs of disadvantaged customers are fully understood?
Lastly, as I said at the outset, this is not an academic dispute about pricing mechanisms, double recovery and distribution price control. It is about old and vulnerable people who lack adequate heating. I am extremely proud that the Government have cut VAT on domestic fuel and helped pensioners greatly with their winter fuel bills. The residents of Mitcham Garden Village are not installing swimming pools, power showers or electronically controlled garages that would require massive amounts of new electricity supply. They simply want to connect up the small heaters that they need to warm their homes.
In the two years that the dispute has been dragging on, with still no end in sight, London Electricity has received £232 million to spend on upgrading its infrastructure. In the next financial year, it will spend an additional £116 million. Yet it still wants to charge individual pensioners £500 plus VAT for the privilege of consuming more electricity. There is no competition in domestic electricity distribution so my constituents have no choice. They must pay up or go cold.
I intended to finish my speech here, but just under an hour ago my office was faxed a letter from Offer. I have not had the chance to study it in depth, but it appears that

313
Offer has once again ruled against London Electricity and told it that it should not charge Mrs. Elnaugh. I await the response of London Electricity with keen interest.
1.16 pm
The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): It is traditional in the House to compliment the hon. Member who wins an Adjournment debate on drawing a matter to the attention of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) said that this was her first Adjournment debate. Judging by the quality of her speech, which demonstrated what an Adjournment debate should be, I suspect that there will be a capacity crowd the next time she wins one.
I deeply regret that my hon. Friend has been forced to bring the matter before the House, but her diligence and tenacity in following the case through and—I do not know where she gets it from—the sense of humour with which she has presented her forceful case this afternoon is remarkable.
We are judged as Members of Parliament, Ministers and as a Government by the effects of our decisions—taken in this Chamber about laws and budgets—on our constituents' lives. It is when I get home to my constituency in Leeds and attend my advice surgery that I find out the effects of our decisions and learn what is really going on. My hon. Friend has listened to a constituency case, followed it through and highlighted what I deeply believe is a breakdown in the system. If elderly people cannot get basic justice in simply obtaining a supply of electricity, we need to sharpen up the act somewhere.
My hon. Friend mentioned that her constituent, Mrs. Elnaugh, had been taken into hospital. We wish her a speedy recovery. I hope that this carry-on has not contributed to her distress.
I understand that a series of determinations has been made in this episode. In October 1997, the housing trust asked Offer to reduce the cost of the upgrade. In December 1997, Offer ruled that it could not determine because the housing trust was not the customer. As my hon. Friend kindly acknowledged, I made the suggestion that Mrs. Elnaugh ask Offer to determine on her behalf and that of the other residents who exactly the customer was. On 26 November, Offer determined that Mrs. Elnaugh was indeed the customer.
Offer was asked to make three separate determinations. I emphasise that Offer has strong powers to make determinations once it has been formally asked to do so. That seems to be part of the problem. One has to package the request for determination and then Offer will take a decision. Offer's decisions are then subject only to a judicial review.
In this case, Offer was asked to make three separate determinations. In December 1997, it determined that the application for determination by the housing trust could not be accepted because the trust was not the customer requiring the supply. In November 1998, it determined that London Electricity had a duty to supply Mrs. Elnaugh and to ensure that its system was capable of supporting that demand. I can confirm that, no doubt as a result of my hon. Friend's pressure as a campaigning constituency Member of Parliament, Offer has today ruled that Mrs. Elnaugh should not have to pay anything for the
314
upgrade of her electricity connection. I regret that it has taken so long for Offer to arrive at that decision. I hope that London Electricity will now heed the regulator's determination in respect of the other customers in Mitcham Garden Village who are in the same position as Mrs. Elnaugh.
This has been a long-running case and, in defence of Offer, I say only that Offer has guidelines for how long it should take to make a determination and each of those three determinations was made within the target time of six months. We may have to consider the process whereby determinations get to Offer in the first place and the ducks and drakes that companies may be able to play to avoid getting to a determination. In the light of my hon. Friend's comments, I shall examine that process in detail to find out if it can be sharpened up. I hope that this sorry business will now end and that the decisions satisfy the residents of Mitcham Garden Village.
Many complaints are resolved without the need to refer to the formal, statutory powers of determination of the Director General of Electricity Supply. Since 1990, only 181 determinations have been issued, and 25 of those concerned connection charges. The vast majority of complaints can be handled without getting as far as Offer, but I regret that, if it had not been for my hon. Friend's tenacity, this case might still have been unresolved. Once a determination has been made, action can be taken. I hope that the determination in this case will be noted by London Electricity and acted on.
My hon. Friend mentioned our White Paper, "A Fair Deal for Consumers". In opposition, we said that we would encourage competition where possible but would have regulation where it is necessary to ensure that market failure does not mean that people get left out of the system. Regulations were clearly stacked in shareholders' favour, and we want to set up a framework of regulation that has the consumer at its heart. We consulted widely and published our White Paper. We are now working to fulfil our commitment to put consumers first. We shall introduce a package of measures as soon as parliamentary time permits.
There will be a new primary duty on regulators to protect and promote customers' interests. There will be new independent statutory consumer councils with powers to deal with complaints that are not resolved by the utility companies. Those councils will have a strong role and people will know where to take their complaints. There will be financial penalties on companies for breaching overall and individual customer service standards.
The regulators' social duties and obligations will be extended to cover low-income and vulnerable consumers, including the chronically sick, the disabled, pensioners and rural customers. Ministers will have powers to issue statutory guidance to regulators on social and environmental matters that are absent from regulation at present.
In the meantime, until we can introduce our legislation, the new energy regulator, who has combined duties for gas and electricity and who took up his post just weeks ago, is reconsidering a social action plan, concentrating on providing solutions to the problems of those who suffer from fuel poverty. It is worth reminding ourselves that households on the lowest incomes spend, as a proportion of their total expenditure, three and half times more on fuel than other households do. The poorest pay the most.

315
Expenditure on electricity alone, as a proportion of total expenditure, is five times as high for low-income customers as it is for wealthier ones.
Competition and regulation in energy policy should be measured against the test of whether they work for the poorest and most vulnerable. My hon. Friend has highlighted the fact that, sadly, the system has failed in the case of her constituents. Perhaps recalling that distressing saga will encourage us not only to introduce legislation but to ensure that practice changes in future. The regulator's determination has been made and I repeat that I hope that London Electricity will take heed of it in respect of other customers. The case should be closed and those customers should not have to pay for that upgrade.
We shall work towards introducing legislation for a system of regulation that puts the consumer at its heart, gives new powers to the regulators and extends the reach of regulation to ensure that the poor and vulnerable are not paying the highest price.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the matter. The way in which she has followed the case in all its detail and her hard work and diligence are a testimony to how Adjournment debates should take individual constituents' cases and highlight faults in the system's structures and processes. I learned a great deal from my hon. Friend's enjoyable speech. I listened to her carefully and I shall ask my officials to examine the background of the case in greater detail to find out what we can do between now and the introduction of legislation to ensure that no one else experiences the same problems. I would not mind my hon. Friend being my MP if she championed my cause so well.

Train Operating Companies
1.27 pm
Mr. Paul Burstow: I hope that I shall pass the Minister for Energy and Industry's test for the standard of Adjournment debates by raising an issue of genuine concern brought to my attention by my constituents.
I should start by declaring an interest. I am a daily commuter from Cheam station in my constituency. That experience and the many letters that I receive from constituents led me to seek this debate.
The Minister will know of my interest in rolling stock replacement and slam-door mark I trains. Under existing franchise agreements, the number of mark I trains is forecast to fall from 2,300 to about 1,300 by the end of 2000. However, I understand that 1,031 of those trains have been leased to Connex SouthCentral and South West Trains and will continue to operate because neither company has a franchise commitment to replace those vehicles. Both companies' franchise ends in 2003, and I want to ask a number of questions.
I was a member of the London fire and civil defence authority at the time of the Clapham rail disaster. I remember the trauma, not only of the people involved in the accident, but of the firefighters who went to the rescue. Thirty-five people lost their lives in the disaster and many more were seriously injured.
The Hidden report that was produced as a result of the accident pinpointed the fact that mark I coaches afforded passengers far less protection in a collision than modern carriages. No safeguards are built into the mark I trains to prevent the underframe of one vehicle riding over that of another in a collision. That was known in 1988 and it was known when the first round of franchises were let. I find it extraordinary that no effort was made to secure the replacement or modification of those unsafe coaches during the first round of franchising.
The Hidden report says:
"In the light of the accident BR has set in motion a programme of further research into the Mark I coach which is expected to cost £1 million and to be completed by April 1991."
I emphasise that date-1991. The report continued:
"The future of safety and public confidence demand that such research is fully and expeditiously carried out."
So what happened?
In its evidence to an inquiry by the Transport Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs in July last year, the Health and Safety Executive said that the issue of mark I safety "fell between two stools" and that it had passed it by. It is hardly surprising that the franchising director did not address the safety issue—the way in which his office was established by the previous Government requires him to address service levels and value for money, not safety. In other words, the Health and Safety Executive dropped the ball on mark I safety in the mid-1990s.
It was not until May 1998, 10 years after Clapham, that the HSE finally began to consult the rail industry about modifying mark I trains by 2003. The result of that consultation and the HSE's recommendations are currently with the Minister, who told me in the House only two weeks ago that she hoped to make an

317
announcement shortly. How long will we have to wait for that announcement? When will the necessary regulations to bring in the HSE's recommendations be laid before Parliament?
I hold no brief for Connex SouthCentral. Indeed, I hope to show that when it comes to performance, I am certainly no friend of the company and have a very low regard for its delivery of services to many of its customers.
In written answers to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), Ministers have made it clear that the responsibility for mark I rolling stock rests with the train operators. There is a very real fear that the inaction on the part of the Government—or, perhaps to a greater extent, the franchising director—could result in the residual mark I fleet continuing to operate right up until the end of the franchises held by Connex SouthCentral and SouthWest Trains in 2003.
The mark I would then be grounded—on 2 January 2003—and the incoming operator would face a severe shortage of trains. Again, it will be the poor commuter who pays: four more years of uncomfortable and unsatisfactory journeys in coaches of questionable safety, and the prospect of chaos as the new operator—or Connex, if it survives the franchising round—seeks to deliver a timetable without sufficient trains to do so. I hope that the Minister will tell us how that is to be avoided, and what steps are being taken by the franchising director and the Government to ensure that it does not happen.
In answer to several questions, Ministers have told me that the rolling stock leasing companies have to comply with health and safety requirements, but will the Minister assure us today that the value-for-money obligations placed on the franchising director will not be allowed to get in the way of rail safety? Will she also explain why the franchising director has not sought proposals from the rolling stock companies to secure modification to avoid the grounding of mark I trains in 2003?
One question that I have not yet had the opportunity to ask, but to which I hope the Minister can reply today, is whether the franchising director might be requested to consider calling a meeting with the rolling stock companies to discuss mark I trains, because options and solutions are being developed by the leasing companies. It is worth bearing in mind, as did the Select Committee, the proposal that the Classic could effectively modernise mark I trains in such a way as to meet all the HSE's concerns.
I want to raise two other issues relating to the performance of the train operating companies, especially Connex SouthCentral. The first concerns the time it has taken to secure the much-needed and long-overdue upgrading of Sutton station in my constituency. The fragmentation of the rail industry as a result of privatisation has transformed what should have been a straightforward investment decision into a saga of delay and buck passing among different parts of the present rail industry.
I shall not rehearse the history of this sorry saga, but it is now five years since the project was conceived, and works have still not started. Indeed, my local authority—I checked this only today—has over the past two months rung, faxed and written to Connex SouthCentral, seeking information as to whether it intends to proceed with the project, but it has not even had the courtesy of sending an
318
acknowledgement. That is unacceptable customer care, and it is unacceptable practice between potential partners who are meant to be working together to secure the investment.
The London borough of Sutton would have been putting a substantial sum of money into the project, but all it gets—and all that I have got—from the company is a vague undertaking that work might start this year. We need to know exactly when this year, because the same thing was said in 1998. I hope that, even if not today, the Minister might pursue the company and at least get from it a letter with a clear indication of a start date.
I recently called a meeting of business leaders in Sutton so that they could put their concerns about local rail services to Connex SouthCentral management. Connex failed to turn up. To be fair, I have at last received a fairly fulsome apology for its failure to attend, but it is still not moving on the issues of substance.
A wide range of issues was raised by the businesses represented at that meeting in connection with Connex's performance. High on the list of concerns, for town-centre retailers and for some of the larger employers in Sutton such as Reed Business Publishing, was the appalling condition of Sutton station. The business view is that the station is a real drag on the local economy. Reed Business Publishing told me that it does not invite guests to come to its premises by train because the appearance of the station is such that it conveys the wrong image of the company. It is appalling that a publisher of journals about the railway industry feels that the industry has let it down so badly.
I raised the matter with the Minister about a year ago when she visited the Roundshaw estate in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake). She was helpful and sympathetic, and I hope that she will be able to put a bomb under Connex to get it to start engaging with their partners so that the money can be unlocked and invested in the railway infrastructure to improve the services to my constituents.
Secondly, I urge the Minister to examine how the performance standards under which Connex and other train operating companies operate can be tightened. I know that this has been the subject of discussions with the train operating companies, but I hope that the Minister will say a little more about it today. Again, my meeting with local business leaders underlined my concerns about the inadequacy of those standards and the inadequacy of the services being provided.
Reed Business Publishing, Crown Agents and some of the larger retailers in the town carried out a survey among their staff as part of their preparation for the meeting. They found a consistent pattern of complaint and concerns, which can be summed up as follows: short trains resulting in chronic overcrowding, late-running services and filthy conditions.
During the peak periods, someone catching a train into Victoria or London Bridge from my constituency often ends up standing for more than half an hour, shoulder to shoulder with fellow passengers. The term "cattle truck" is one with which I am familiar, because I see the phenomenon every day. I am fortunate in that I get on the train at Cheam and there are still one or two seats left, but by the time the train gets to Sutton, that is not the case. Many people have to stand every day, but are paying

319
well over £1,000 a year for a season ticket which they believe should entitle them to a little more comfort on their journey to work.
In answer to a question that I posed to the Minister in writing last year, she drew my attention to the franchising director's quality performance figures, which suggested that improvements had been made by Connex in that quarter. However, on closer examination, it becomes clear that the basis on which they are compiled is far from satisfactory. For example, in the case of commuter services like those from my constituency, a train is officially overcrowded only if people have to stand for journeys of more than 20 minutes. For a train to be officially running on time, it has to arrive at its destination within five minutes of its timetabled arrival for short journeys and within 10 minutes for long journeys. However, that measurement applies only to the final destination, not the intermediate stops. As a consequence, many of my constituents travelling to Clapham Junction to make connections to go elsewhere find themselves being let down by the service time and again.
Finally, the penalty regime for running short trains is not sufficient. It does not send a strong enough signal to the companies that the franchising director regards it as an important issue. As a result, evening after evening, trains run short and are thus overcrowded. That is partly because the fines are small, compared with the fines and penalties that apply to late-running trains and the cancellation of trains. I do not propose that those fines should be lessened, but we must find ways of sending clear signals to train operating companies that short trains are unacceptable.
The daily experience of commuters in my constituency—I am sure that this goes for the constituents of all hon. Members—tells them that services are not improving. That perception is an important measure of the way in which those companies are delivering.
The January issue of Which? confirms that a survey of rail users found that three quarters of commuters had been late at least once in the previous week, and that four out of 10 commuters had to stand at least once a week. Not all those failings can be attributed to external factors or lack of long-term investment. Many are the result of bad management or management in the interests of the company, rather than the customer.
I hope that the Minister can today give some reassurance to my constituents on rolling stock, not just for the immediate future, but into 2003. I hope, too, that she will give us some comfort that action will at last be taken with regard to Sutton station, and that the shadow strategic rail authority, which I welcome as a proposal, will have teeth and the ability to deliver where privatisation has so manifestly failed.
1.41 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on securing the debate, which provides an opportunity for the House to discuss rolling stock replacement and train operating company performance—two fundamental components in the provision of a proper railway service for the passenger. It is the Government's clear commitment to ensure that such a service is delivered.
320
I shall begin by affording the hon. Gentleman the comfort that he requested with regard to Sutton station. I have made a note of the failure of Connex SouthCentral to respond to his inquiries, and I shall forward his concerns to the company. I have been informed by Railtrack that refurbishment work at Sutton station will begin on site soon and is expected to be completed by April. The work is structural and will consist of repairs to platforms, refurbishing the underside of the bridge, repointing platform edges, re-roofing and painting the steelwork on the canopy of platform 4. I hope that on that issue, the hon. Gentleman feels somewhat comforted.
As I said, rolling stock replacement and train operating company performance are essential for the provision of a high quality railway service for the passenger. We are therefore keen for substantial investment to be made in rolling stock, and welcome the recent orders that have been announced. Since franchising began, a total of about 1,400 new vehicles have been ordered at a cost of £1.25 billion. Train operators are committed to ordering a further 800 vehicles at a cost of approximately £1 billion. In addition, some 4,000 vehicles have been, or are being, refurbished.
New rolling stock orders not only provide more reliable services and better facilities for passengers, but create extra jobs in the rail industry. We want to ensure that investment in rolling stock is a continuous process, and that our great train manufacturing centres will never again suffer an investment hiatus, such as the four-year drought in orders created by rail privatisation. The most recent order for 352 new vehicles for Virgin CrossCountryworth £400 million—witnessed the entry into the UK passenger market of a new rolling stock company and a new manufacturer.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the safety of mark I rolling stock. It is true that mark I rolling stock, although not inherently unsafe, is not as crashworthy as more modern types of rolling stock. In certain types of train accident, one carriage can ride up over the carriage in front.
The Health and Safety Executive consulted widely last year on proposals that would require all mark I rolling stock to be withdrawn by 1 January 2003, unless it has been rebodied or modified to improve its crashworthiness. If the rolling stock were modified, it could remain in service only until 2007. On 22 December, the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission wrote to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister with formal recommendations from the commission that Ministers make regulations on the issue.
The hon. Gentleman asked when the Government intended to announce their views. We are considering the HSC's recommendations and expect to be able to make an announcement shortly. However, before regulations can be made, the HSC must satisfy itself that the mechanism that it is proposing to modify mark I stock to make it safer in a crash actually works. The mechanism, which involves fitting a cup and cone to each carriage to prevent overriding, has successfully completed one test, but a further test is required, which it is intended to carry out on 17 February.
The hon. Gentleman expressed concern about the impact of what he perceived as the shortness of franchising on the Health and Safety Commission's requirements. Train operators are required by their

321
franchise agreements to ensure that they have the necessary rolling stock to enable them to meet their franchise commitments and any HSC requirements. Under the HSC's proposed regulations, Connex SouthCentral as well as Connex South Eastern and South West Trains would be required to replace or modify a significant number of mark I rolling stock.
It would be for the individual train operating companies to make the necessary arrangements with the rolling stock companies. The rolling stock market is a competitive one, as evidenced by the new entrants that I mentioned earlier, and there is sufficient manufacturing capacity to replace, modify or rebody mark I rolling stock by the proposed HSC deadlines.
Mr. Burstow: I shall be brief, in view of the time. I am interested to learn that the HSC needs to carry out further tests, and that those will take place in February. In the Hidden report back in 1989, it was recommended that British Rail should undertake research on that matter by 1991. Was that research ever completed and have its findings informed the HSC's recommendations? If the research was not completed, that raises questions about what was done during the 10 years since the inquiry. I hope that the Minister can answer those questions today, or perhaps she will write to me.
Ms Jackson: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about that.
On the performance of train operators, I trust that all hon. Members are aware of the Government's concerns about the performance of the rail industry. We want more people to travel by train, but trains that are constantly late or unreliable, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, do little to encourage people to leave their cars at home. We expect train operators to run services that are consistently punctual and reliable, and we expect Railtrack to meet its obligations to passengers, freight customers and taxpayers to maintain and develop the rail network in a way that offers proper value for money.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the welcome that he gave to the Government's proposals for the institution of a strategic rail authority. As I am sure he knows, it is the strategic nature of the investment, quite apart from the level of it, that is vital to improve our railway system.
My right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport and I met franchisees and Railtrack on 26 November to discuss our concerns about continuing poor performance. We made it clear that the culture of blame must stop, and that the various parts of the industry must pull together to improve the service to its users. At that meeting, an action plan was agreed to tackle performance problems across our railway. The measures agreed included 800 new train drivers, 500 new vehicles, a joint hit squad to identify and tackle the worst 50 black spots, and a new national passenger survey to find out what passengers think about their rail services and to help measure performance across the network. The action plan is only the first step in delivering short-term improvements to passengers. We expect year-on-year improvements, starting over the next 12 months, and I am pleased to say that the rail industry has committed itself to that.
322
To build on the success of November's meeting, a larger rail summit will be held on 25 February to identify those matters requiring longer term improvement across the network. A wide range of organisations have been invited to attend the summit, including representatives of passenger and freight train operators, Railtrack, rolling stock companies, local government and the rail users consultative committees. The RUCCs have been invited to bring along to that summit rail-using members of the public who are not necessarily members of their committees.
At the February summit, we shall look to the rail industry to demonstrate how it proposes to deliver the year-on-year improvements that were agreed in November. We have been at pains to point out—it is worth doing so again—that this Government will not tolerate poor performance by train operators. It is in all our interests—those of the industry and of the Government but, above all, of the passengers—that performance targets should be met.
We have also made it clear that train operators' performance will be a key criterion when it comes to franchise renewal. Those who perform well will find that we are constructive partners. We are willing to renegotiate franchises, including franchise extensions, where it offers benefits to passengers and good value for money to the taxpayer. Again, those who perform badly will not have a long-term future in the industry.
Mr. Burstow: I entirely agree that we should secure the best value for money and the most effective services possible. I hope that the establishment of a dialogue between Connex SouthCentral and South West Trains and the marketplace for the supply of rolling stock will be explored at the summit, if not before. From discussions that I have had with various people, there seems to be a serious logjam. I hope that the Minister, or the franchising director or the strategic rail authority can act as an honest broker to get matters moving, so that we may be certain that, by 2003, mark I trains will be either replaced or modified.
Ms Jackson: I am somewhat bemused by the word logjam. As I have said, there are new entrants in the rolling stock market, and there is no shortage of capacity in the rail manufacturing industry. It will be possible to meet all the Health and Safety Commission's requirements. I shall of course bring the hon. Gentleman's concerns to the attention of representatives of the rolling stock and train operating companies at the summit that we propose to hold on 25 February.
Everyone acknowledges that not all the challenges facing the rail industry can be solved overnight. We are under no illusion about the scale of the challenge that we have set ourselves. Passengers want an efficient, reliable and reasonably priced rail service. We are determined to work with the rail industry to ensure that passengers get what they want. The next step in that process will be the February summit.
It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  WALES

    National Assembly
    Mr. Peter Luff: What plans he is making to hold regular meetings with the First Secretary of the National Assembly; and how frequent he expects those meetings to be. [66268]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): Regular meetings will be held to ensure that the Secretary of State for Wales is fully aware of the views of the National Assembly for Wales on relevant issues. For the first few weeks following the establishment of the Assembly, I shall have to talk to myself quite a lot. I have made it clear that that period will be brief, essentially to smooth the process of transition—in weeks rather than months. Thereafter, I shall certainly work hard to achieve a partnership for Wales with the new Secretary of State.
    Mr. Luff: It will be very convenient for the Secretary of State to be able to talk to himself in the mirror when he is shaving in the mornings, but does he agree that, in the long run, there will be a considerable inconsistency between the First Secretary and the Welsh Secretary if the posts are filled by the same individual? The Welsh Secretary would be bound by collective responsibility, unlike the First Secretary, which would make a mockery of devolution.
    Mr. Michael: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman, whose interest in devolution is new and welcome, did not listen to my answer. Precisely for that reason, I have made it clear that I intend to step down as Secretary of State for Wales, after a brief transitional period, to concentrate on my work as First Secretary. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is the right thing to do.
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I accept the theoretical point that meetings arranged with oneself are terribly easy to set up—it can be done in a nanosecond—but does my right hon. Friend accept that meetings between two people might be of greater value? Does he also accept that the most significant point behind that question is how Welsh Office civil servants—the Westminster and Whitehall hook-up civil servants, who will serve the on-going functions of the Secretary of State; those who will serve the democratic Assembly; and those who will serve the First Secretary and the Cabinet of the Assembly—will be retrained, or given a new culture, according to which of those functions they will carry out?
    Mr. Michael: I find that, when listening to one's first thoughts, it is sometimes wise to ponder a little rather than to think for only a nanosecond before acting or speaking. I have made it clear that, as soon as the functions are in place, it would be sensible, and right, that the First Secretary and the Secretary of State for Wales should be different people, so that they can fulfil those different functions. That is my intention.
    324
    I am pleased with the positive response of civil servants to the challenge posed by the Assembly. They understand the new nature of the relationship between them and Members of the Assembly, as compared with the current arm's-length relationship with Members of Parliament. The civil service will be doing things in a new way that will be exciting for Members of the new Assembly and for the officials who work for it. The distinction between the new responsibilities and responsibilities to the Secretary of State and this Parliament is well understood.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that the long-drawn-out leadership battle between him and the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), which is now coming to the Floor of the House, is destroying the opportunity for proper debate on the real issues affecting people in Wales? When will that leadership battle end, so that we can get on to important policies such as health, education and economic development?
    Mr. Michael: I regret the synthetic way in which the hon. Gentleman phrased his question. He well knows that it is the battle for leadership within the Labour party that is interesting. He also knows that the Labour party is delivering on promises made at the general election, and that it is the only party that is able to do that for the people of Wales. In the run-up to the arrival of the Assembly we will concentrate on building a strong economy in Wales, providing jobs for our young people, improving health, improving standards of education and creating safer communities. That is what our people want to hear from us.
    Mr. John Smith: When my right hon. Friend engages in those very important and regular meetings with himself, will he remind himself of the valuable role played by Sully hospital, which is in my constituency and which serves my constituents and his very well, and has for many years? When the future of that hospital is considered by himself, will my right hon. Friend remember the important role that it plays?
    Mr. Michael: I could hardly overlook the importance of Sully hospital, given that my hon. Friend is a consistent and long-standing advocate of it. Over the years, he and I have looked at the interests of both Sully hospital and Llandough hospital, which received a charter mark yesterday. I am sure that my hon. Friend will share my pleasure at the recognition of the work of the hospital staff. Certainly, I understand the high priority that he gives the future of Sully hospital.
    Dr. Liam Fox: Leaving aside the presumptuousness, both personal and party, of the Secretary of State's initial answer, may I ask why—in the same Government—it is considered unacceptable for the two jobs to overlap in Scotland, but acceptable for them to do so in Wales? What is the essential difference between the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly that makes that so?
    Mr. Michael: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would know the answer to that. I believe that he has many jobs. I believe that, in the Opposition, he is supposed to be Mr. Scotland as well as Mr. Wales, Mr. Northern Ireland and goodness knows what else.

    325
    He should know full well that the nature of devolution in Scotland is different from that in Wales, and that the transition period—which will be short—needs to be managed carefully.
    When I first went into local government in 1973, there was an 11-month shadow period before responsibilities were taken over. The Assembly will take over its responsibilities very soon after the election. It will be important to manage that transition, in order to ensure that the Assembly starts off effectively and on a sound footing.
    Dr. Fox: I am sure that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) will be grateful for his right hon. Friend's confused boost to his own campaign.
    Surely my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) is entirely right: it is not possible for someone both to be the independently minded leader of a Welsh Assembly and to subscribe to collective responsibility in Cabinet. Those roles are mutually exclusive, and should be separated from the outset, as they have been in Scotland. Would not the Secretary of State do a great service to the whole concept of devolution in Wales by making that clear from the start?
    Mr. Michael: The only confusion is in the hon. Gentleman's mind. I have made it clear that it is for precisely those reasons that I intend to stand down from my Cabinet role once the Assembly is in place, in a short rather than a long time. I have been saying that for two and a half months; the hon. Gentleman is obviously deaf.
    The role of Secretary of State for Wales needs careful consideration. It changed dramatically in May 1979—[HON. MEMBERS: "1979?"]—when a Labour Government began to breathe life and vigour into it. That contrasts with the activities of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who sent moneys and resources back from Wales to the Treasury.

    Bus Services
    Mr. Chris Ruane: If he will make a statement on the provision for urban and rural bus services in Wales for 1999–2000. [66270]
    Ms Jackie Lawrence: If he will make a statement on the provision for urban and rural bus services in Wales for 1999–2000. [66275]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): In future, that will become the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has increased the budget for bus subsidy grants by over 120 per cent. to £5 million in 1999–2000. That is on top of the support provided by local authorities out of their own budgets, and represents a massive boost for bus services throughout Wales.
    Mr. Ruane: Does my hon. Friend agree that £5 million investment—I use the word "investment" rather than the word "subsidy" advisedly—will have an economic as well as an environmental impact? The west ward of Rhyl, in my constituency, has the lowest car ownership in Wales. In 14 months' time, 600 jobs will be created six
    326
    miles away. If we do not have efficient, reliable, affordable public transport to convey my constituents to the business park, they will be denied jobs.
    Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend has made his point effectively. Our new strategy to support public transport will have not just an environmental but a considerable economic advantage, not only to companies but to employees. That is in contrast to the shambles that we inherited from the Conservative Government, whose bus policy reminded me of the present shadow Cabinet: always behind the times, and consisting of a lot of old bangers falling apart.
    Ms Lawrence: Is my hon. Friend aware that nearly all the 1,800 companies that currently receive bus fuel duty rebate use standard diesel fuel? In the interests of the environment in Wales and of oil refinery jobs in Milford Haven in my constituency, will he impress on the Chancellor of the Exchequer the importance of providing incentives for those companies to use ultra-low sulphur diesel?
    Mr. Hain: I will certainly draw my hon. Friend's question to the attention of the Chancellor. She always makes her case effectively on behalf of her constituents. I particularly commend Elf Oil in her constituency for the effective way in which it has promoted ultra-low sulphur diesel because that will help to green motoring throughout Wales and, indeed, Britain.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Minister and the Secretary of State have of late been trumpeting throughout Wales the fact that there will be free bus travel for pensioners if and when Labour takes control of the National Assembly for Wales. When I asked the Minister how much that would cost, he told me, in a written answer, that he did not know, but that it would come from local authorities' present budget. That is downright dishonest campaigning.
    Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman is usually courteous and I find him almost always well informed on policies before the House. On that policy, he is completely misinformed. We are negotiating with the bus operators and with local authorities to achieve the best possible deal for pensioners in Wales, for the public purse and for bus services throughout Wales.
    It is a radical and exciting policy. From this year, all pensioners in Wales will be able to travel for half fares throughout Wales; that is an achievement of the Labour Government. In the following two years, a Labour-controlled National Assembly for Wales will be able to move towards free fares for pensioners on buses throughout Wales. That will be welcomed by pensioners, many of whom are trapped at home and unable to get out because they do not have access to a car. The policy will be an enormous boost to their opportunities.
    Mr. Lembit Öpik: Does the Minister accept the continuing importance of ensuring an integrated system for bus, rail and other public transport? I acknowledge that the money will make a difference, but does he accept that it is still less than 1p per day per resident in Wales? In that context, will he accept

    327
    representations from those involved in the bus and rail industries to talk about how they would like the Welsh Office to help them to integrate their transport systems?
    Mr. Hain: I chair the Wales transport advisory group, on which bus operators and others, including local authorities, are represented. Through that channel, which is unique to Wales, we have made much progress in achieving effective and coherent public transport policies for Wales. We have introduced many changes already, but I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.
    For the first time, we have put £11 million into integrated transport packages throughout Wales. That was never done by the last Conservative Government, who turned their back on public transport in favour of a manic support for the private motor car. The policy will enable the hon. Gentleman's constituents and others to have real choice: to use the car if they wish, but to have available a high-quality choice of other transport if they want to use it.

    Rights of Way
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: What percentage of rights of way in Wales he estimates will be free from obstruction on 1 January 2000; and what further steps he plans to take to ensure that 100 per cent. are free of obstructions.
    [66271]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jon Owen Jones): Of the public rights of way that were surveyed between 1992 and 1997, 53 per cent. were free of obstruction at the end of 1997 and a further 24 per cent. were considered usable. The Countryside Council for Wales is funding programmes that are improving that by a further 1,500 km, or 4 per cent of the total, each year. In future, that matter will become the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales.
    Mr. Bennett: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that, as more than 18 million people in the United Kingdom enjoy walking, and many of them do that in Wales, it is important that the target set for the millennium of having all rights of way free of obstructions is met? What will be done in Wales to increase access to the countryside, which is important for tourism?
    Mr. Jones: I agree that we should have an ambitious target, but I do not agree that it is worth keeping a target if it is not possible to meet it. The target of making rights of way free of all obstructions by 2000 is clearly not likely to be met. What is more, it is good policy not to have that as a target that we must meet, but rather as a continuing task. There will always be a need to invest in access to the countryside. The Countryside Council for Wales is investing almost £1 million in grant in aid to local authorities to improve access to the countryside. In addition to that, we are investing £300,000 over the next three years to develop national trails. I expect to be able to approve a proposal for Ffordd Glyndwr in the next few months, which will be a national trail running right through the heart of Wales.

    National Assembly
    Mr. James Gray: What is his Department's budget for promoting the elections for the National Assembly for Wales. [66272]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): Some £2 million will be spent on the information campaign for the National Assembly elections. I am sure that members of all parties will agree that it is important for people to be fully informed on the powers and responsibilities of the Assembly and to be encouraged to vote.
    Mr. Gray: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Will he submit the budgets for the approval of the Neill Committee on Standards in Public Life? If he does not agree to do so, does he not risk falling foul of that committee in precisely the same way as he did over the misuse of public funds spent on behalf of the Labour party during the referendum campaign?
    Mr. Michael: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the requirements will be met to the letter. I know that he simply means to cast a slur, but it is not justified. We will take advice whenever it is necessary and make sure that it is fully observed.
    Mr. Gareth Thomas: Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the far-reaching nature of the powers of the National Assembly and the difficulties that we face in Wales because of the absence of a national printed press and difficulties with television reception, it is entirely right and proper that public money should be spent to promote knowledge of this important institution? It will change the nature of this place and the civil service.
    Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is right. Objective information will be provided highlighting the date of the elections; for example, there will be a telephone helpline, which I launched on Monday.
    Mr. Richard Livsey: Will the Secretary of State agree to investigate information that is coming through about promotion of the National Assembly by the BBC and other media whereby the conventions under the Representation of the People Act may not be adhered to regarding equal time for all political parties? If that is so, would not that be unfair and not in the interests of democracy in Wales?
    Mr. Michael: Although it is not a matter for me, I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman that the requirement for fairness in broadcasting during the pre-election period is crucial. If the hon. Gentleman has specific concerns, I shall be happy to look at them and to ensure that they are raised in the appropriate quarters. It is for the broadcasters to ensure—I hope that they will do so—that they observe the rules to the letter and are fair in all their coverage.
    Caroline Flint: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in promoting the Welsh Assembly, there is a golden opportunity to promote a modern

    329
    institution that takes into account family-friendly working practices and child care for all those who work and represent within the Assembly?
    Mr. Michael: Yes, that is a very good point and it is our intention to do that. However, an Assembly being family friendly suffers, to some extent, the same problems as this House. Those who live a long distance away in north or west Wales have an interest in concentrated periods of longer hours whereas those who live nearer have more of an interest in limitations on the length of the day. I know that, once elected, the Assembly Members will want to engage in discussions on that. Being family friendly in the way suggested by my hon. Friend is part of our thinking in the discussions that I am having with civil servants in preparing the way for the arrival of the Assembly.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: The permanent secretary has estimated the full cost of the Assembly in the first year as being £121 million, including, £10 million for the cost of the Assembly building, £20 million for new staff and offices, £28 million for the official opening ceremony and staging the elections and now £2 million to sell this piece of flagship legislation to the public. We were told that we were being fanciful when we said that the Assembly would cost £100 million over five years. That figure has now been exceeded and expenditure is above the White Paper estimate on which people voted. When will the Secretary of State get a grip on this expenditure, which is running away with itself, and ensure that the money is spent in a far better way, on the people of Wales, instead of on politicians and bureaucrats? [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. The conversations are far too noisy. It is churlish of the House not to listen to what hon. Members are saying.
    Mr. Michael: Hon. Members were probably asking themselves what on earth the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was on about. He has picked up on figures that were reported inaccurately. In fairness to The Western Mail, it carried a letter, signed by the permanent secretary to the Welsh Office, correcting the figures that he has just used. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman reads that letter before allowing his anger to become even more synthetic.

    EU Representation
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: What response he has made to the recommendations of the working party, set up by his Department, on improving links between Wales and the EU; and if he will make a statement. [66273]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): In December, I published the report of the informal working party. I warmly welcomed it as contributing to the on-going debate on improving links with Europe and sent a copy to each Welsh Member of Parliament. I have taken a number of initiatives to promote Wales in Europe since I became Secretary of State and I shall continue to do so. I have made it clear in everything that I have said that our relations with Europe and Wales's profile in Europe are central to
    330
    everything that the Welsh Office does before the Assembly comes into being and will be central to the work of the Assembly.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that he will accept and implement the almost 50 recommendations in the report? Will he address in particular the suggestion in paragraph 8.5, which says that Welsh Office officials have not been adequately involved in committees and meetings in Europe and asks for greater emphasis to be put on that? What proposals does he have to strengthen the Welsh Office presence in the United Kingdom permanent representation office in Brussels—UKREP—which was also recommended in the report?
    Mr. Michael: I have already taken steps along those lines. I was in Brussels 10 days ago when I discussed with UKREP and with commissioners how to improve Wales's profile in Europe. UKREP is positive about the points that we discussed and we shall be co-operating with our permanent representatives. The report has already been before several bodies. The task force on Europe had a two-day session at the beginning of last week to look again at the onset of objective 1 and other issues concerning our relationship with Europe. I intend to take those points forward during the next month.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the functions that the Secretary of State currently exercises in Whitehall and in Europe will be transferred to the Assembly once it is established and will be exercised by the First Secretary of the Assembly, not by the Secretary of State for Wales?
    Mr. Michael: The vast majority of the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Wales will transfer to the Assembly. Some functions will remain with the Secretary of State for Wales. All those issues will be dealt with in the transfer of powers Order that I shall bring forward shortly. That will make clear the details. I understand the point that my right hon. Friend is making.
    Mr. John Bercow: Why did the Government refuse to give the Welsh Assembly the right to question the Secretary of State for Wales after a meeting of the Council of Ministers?
    Mr. Michael: I am not sure what sort of abstruse point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. The vast majority of the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Wales transfer to the Assembly, to which the First Secretary and the Assembly Secretaries will be fully accountable. They will answer questions and will deal with the issues in much more detail than I and my two ministerial colleagues can.

    Assisted Areas
    Mr. Barry Jones: When he expects changes to be agreed to the assisted area map of Wales; and if he will make a statement. [66274]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): The Commission has asked member states to propose new assisted areas by 31 March 1999.

    331
    The proposals will be subject to the agreement of the Commission and the new map will come into force on 1 January 2000.
    Mr. Jones: I fear that bureaucrats in Brussels are plotting to take assisted area status away from Deeside. I hope that my right hon. Friend and his Department will work hard to prevent that. Flintshire county council has submitted a detailed memorandum, which I support, and I hope that he will read it. He might like to accompany me at half-past 3 to Room W1, where I have a lobby of Raytheon workers.
    Mr. Michael: There is no danger whatever of Deeside being overlooked as long as it is represented with the vigour that my hon. Friend brings to bear. I have been made aware, both by him and by Councillor Tom Middlehurst, of the evidence that Flintshire has submitted, and it will certainly be treated seriously. Having recently visited Raytheon, I can tell my hon. Friend how impressed I am by both the workers and management there, and the co-operation that they demonstrate in their bid to bring new jobs and continued success to the company and the area.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: Given the disastrous state of farming in Wales and the totally anaemic Government response to the Welsh Affairs Committee report, what account has the Secretary of State taken of the rural crisis in assisted areas?
    Mr. Michael: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would keep quiet on such a point, considering the disastrous nature of the previous Government's work on agriculture and farming. He should be ashamed of himself and keep silent in the Chamber, especially on the subject of the damage that was caused to Welsh farmers. Assisted area status, and indeed area 1 status, will be of particular relevance to farming areas throughout Wales, as are the policies that I have introduced and that were promoted by my immediate predecessor, to concentrate on the needs of mid and west Wales, to bring alternative employment to the areas that have had the most difficulty, and to help farmers to expand their ability to increase their incomes and experience success in the future.

    Agenda 2000
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: If he will make a statement on the impact on Wales of the Agenda 2000 proposals. [66276]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jon Owen Jones): The Agenda 2000 discussions are a vital component of reform of the European Union that will make an enlarged Union workable and provide for simpler and more easily accessible European programmes for people in all parts of the United Kingdom and the rest of the European Union. The Department is fully involved in discussions on the Agenda 2000 programme, both here and in Brussels, to ensure that Wales's needs are met. In future, agriculture in Wales will be the responsibility of the Assembly, which will work closely with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as lead Minister on European agricultural matters.
    Mrs. Winterton: Does the Minister agree that the Agenda 2000 proposals will have a damaging impact on
    332
    farm incomes, at a time when Welsh farmers are suffering considerable financial strain under the Government's policies? Cannot a strong case be made for the introduction of an early retirement scheme?
    Mr. Jones: I do not agree that the proposals should be regarded as a threat to our industry. Many benefits will flow from them to United Kingdom consumers and to farmers and rural Wales. They will remove uncertainty, allow farmers to plan future investment and move the industry towards a more market-driven and therefore more sustainable future. I should have thought that the hon. Lady would support the Government's efforts to create a sustainable industry in rural Wales and the rural United Kingdom.

    Tourism
    Mr. Martyn Jones: What are the current employment levels in tourism in (a) Clwyd and (b) Wales. [66278]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): Figures for the former county of Clwyd are no longer available. About 100,000 people are directly or indirectly employed in tourism in Wales. In future, the matter will be the Assembly's responsibility.
    Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend will be aware of the poor year that several sectors of the tourist industry in Wales have experienced. Will he provide any extra funding for the Wales tourist board, in particular for marketing, as we will be hosting the rugby world cup this year?
    Mr. Hain: We have increased the budget of the Wales tourist board by £1 million this year, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced recently—the biggest-ever increase for tourism in Wales. In addition, we are looking closely at promoting extra funding for the marketing of tourism in Wales, because the Wales tourist board's campaign "Wales—Two Hours and A Million Miles Away" has been extremely successful in encouraging people to come to Wales and enjoy themselves.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Stephen Twigg: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 27 January.
    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 will have further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Twigg: No Member of this House could fail to have been moved by the tragic events in Colombia over the past few days. Although the general increase in the Government's aid programme over the past two years has

    333
    been widely welcomed, may I ask the Prime Minister what immediate action the Government are taking to support the disaster relief effort in Colombia?
    The Prime Minister: This is the worst earthquake in Colombia this century. The numbers of casualties are difficult to confirm, but at least 2,000 are reported to have died. Obviously, the immediate need is for rescue efforts to save people who are still trapped in the rubble, to help people injured or made homeless by the earthquake and then to try to help in the task of providing for those who have been displaced by it. We have made significant sums of money available through the British embassy and the Pan-American Health Organisation as part of our initial response to the immediate needs in Colombia. We also stand ready to make a contribution to a European Union effort. We will continue to do all that we can to ensure that the international community responds to this humanitarian crisis in an effective and co-ordinated way.
    Mr. William Hague: May I associate the Opposition with the remarks that the Prime Minister has made on Colombia?
    Last week, I asked the Prime Minister about terrorist mutilations and beatings in Northern Ireland. Following that, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland held meetings on Monday to ask for an end to those horrific acts—an initiative that we welcomed. A few hours after those meetings, a 24-year-old man was seized in east Belfast and shot twice. The same thing happened last night. In the past few hours, Eamon Collins—who turned informer against the IRA—has apparently been found dead. There is mounting concern in all parts of the House—as I know the Prime Minister will acknowledge—about this matter. Will he confirm that the Government have the legal power, if they wish, to halt the early release of terrorist prisoners if this barbaric activity does not stop?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, that is right—we have the power to bring to an end the early prisoner releases. We would do so in circumstances where we could no longer say that a ceasefire was in place. That, therefore, is the issue—whether the right judgment now is that, as a result of the punishment beatings, the ceasefire is at an end.
    I asked for research to be done following Question Time last week, and it might be helpful if I gave the House the figures for punishment beatings over the last few years. In 1994, there were 192; in 1995, 220; in 1996, 326; in 1997, 228; in 1998, 209. During one part of that period—[Interruption.] None of those is tolerable or right. We should do everything we can to stop these incidents and to bring to justice those responsible. However, the point that I am making is that there was a ceasefire before, under the previous Government, during which punishment beatings were being carried out; indeed, to a rather greater degree than now. The previous Government's judgment at the time, which we supported, was that it was not right to bring the whole process to an end. That is the judgment that we continue to make, for the reasons that I have given.
    Mr. Hague: May I ask the Prime Minister to acknowledge several things? First, I am grateful for his clarification that the Government have the legal power
    334
    about which I inquired, as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said on the radio this morning that she was not sure about that power.
    Secondly, does the Prime Minister agree that the word "beatings", which many of us have used about the punishments being meted out, does not do justice to what is happening in Northern Ireland? Thirdly, will he acknowledge that, although in recent years there have always been such beatings and mutilations, we did not have an agreement in the earlier period? Now we have the Good Friday agreement, which people are meant to be implementing. According to figures from the organisation Families Against Intimidation and Terror, representatives of which I met this morning, the number of such incidents increased from 388 in 1997 to more than 500 in 1998. That number is continuing to rise, even after the agreement.
    Will the Prime Minister confirm that legislation requires that the Secretary of State must take into account whether these organisations are
    "committed to the use now and in the future of only democratic and peaceful means",
    that they have
    "ceased to be involved in any acts of violence or of preparation for violence",
    and that they are
    "co-operating fully with"
    the Commission on Decommissioning—which presumably means giving up or preparing to give up their guns or bombs? If none of those things is happening, the Government have not only the power, but the justification at least to put on hold the terrorist releases that are taking place.
    The Prime Minister: I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was referring to the fact that we cannot slow down the process. However, slowing down is anyway what is happening, as releases are running at about a third of their previous rate. [Interruption.] Yes they are. It is true, however, that we can stop them altogether. In those circumstances, we would then declare that the ceasefire no longer exists.
    If that were to happen, the consequences would be immense for the whole of the process in Northern Ireland. I am not saying that it would never be right to come to that judgment, just that I do not believe that such a judgment would be right now. The figures for attacks and assaults on people given by the right hon. Gentleman are not the same as those that I have. However, I pointed out a moment ago that, under the previous Government, there was a ceasefire and punishment beatings went on in exactly the same way. An early release scheme was also going on under that Government. If the right hon. Gentleman wants the figures, I can tell him that there have been 238 releases under this Government's proposals, compared with 325 under the previous Government's scheme. It is correct to say that no lifers were involved under that scheme, but none the less the prisoners involved had been convicted of offences such as conspiracy to murder and to cause explosions, and of armed offences of one sort or another.

    335
    I read out that list simply to convey to the right hon. Gentleman that I accept that this is—and has to be—an imperfect process and an imperfect peace. However, it is better than no process and no peace at all.
    Mr. Hague: We very much agree that it is an imperfect process and an imperfect peace. The Prime Minister knows that we have supported the Good Friday agreement, that we will continue to do so and that we have backed up the Government on very many of these matters—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. This is very time-consuming. I am watching the clock and I want Back-Bench Members to ask questions, as well as the two Front-Bench Members.
    Mr. Hague: If this is not the place to raise the question of violent acts of intimidation carried out against people in our own country, then what is the House of Commons for? We have a bipartisan policy, but we have a disagreement over this matter, as do some Labour Members. It is right for the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) to raise the matter in this House, and it is right for the Opposition to do so as well.
    The Secretary of State says that she is prepared to act if there is evidence that particular parties affiliated to paramilitary groups are returning to violence. Much of the necessary evidence seems to exist. The Chief Constable has said that
    "there is no doubt whatever that all of these organisations, including those who purport to be in cessation of military operations, are engaged in this … activity."
    The evidence comes from victims' families and many other sources. Will the Prime Minister, therefore, also accept that the evidence exists in abundance and that there can be little doubt that the paramilitary organisations are responsible for what is happening?
    The Prime Minister: As I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman last week, it is also the case that the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary believes that the ceasefire is still in place. However, let me make one thing clear. I do not dispute the right hon. Gentleman's right to raise matters. He is correct; this is the right place to raise them. What I dispute is this. The previous Government had to make difficult judgments. For example, for months they engaged in secret negotiations with the IRA and denied that they were doing so. When they had to admit it to the House, not one member of the Official Opposition or one Liberal Democrat criticised them for it because we knew the difficulties of the process.
    When I point out to the Conservatives that there were punishment beatings and appalling things going on under the previous ceasefire, but that there were prisoner releases, I do so not to criticise the previous Government, but to point out that true bipartisanship is not about talking about it, but about delivering it.
    The shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland can chatter away as much as he likes, but I do not doubt that the Leader of the Opposition is well intentioned. I believe that he is being dragged along by some people who do not wish the agreement well. When the Conservatives were in
    336
    government, we gave them that support through the difficult as well as the easy times, so I do not dispute their right to raise the matter, but I question the motives of some of them in doing so.
    Mr. Hague: Of course, the Prime Minister is right to say that the Labour party often supported the previous Conservative Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Always."] But Labour Members also voted against the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The Prime Minister did not make speeches of that sort then. I raise those points not because I am being dragged along by anyone, but because the representatives of Families Against Intimidation and Terror came to see me this morning and said, "You're right to raise this issue. Please go on doing so." We are raising it on their behalf.
    The nature of the disagreement is clear. It comes down to one thing and the Prime Minister is being straightforward about it. We say that he has the power to act and the justification to do so, and so forth. He says that, despite all that, the wider interests of peace require the early releases of terrorists to continue. That is a matter of judgment. Is not the logical conclusion of that approach that every terrorist could be released from prison without a single gun or bomb being given up, and without an end to the mutilations? Will he guarantee that that situation will not come about?
    The Prime Minister: I take the judgment that I do because I believe that the Good Friday agreement still provides the best chance of peace in Northern Ireland. I have made clear our total condemnation of those attacks and our desire to do all that we can to prevent them, but the right hon. Gentleman also has to face up to the consequences of what he demands me to do. If we ended up exercising our power and declaring the ceasefire at an end, the consequences for the agreement would be huge. We make a judgment the whole time, as I said last week, but I believe that that judgment is essentially still correct. We keep it under review the entire time—[Interruption.] I ask the right hon. Gentleman and Conservative Members who are shouting, "Disgraceful!" and "Shame!", at me to recognise the difficulties faced by any Government in this situation and the enormous consequences of bringing the whole process to an end.
    Mr. Hague: We recognise the difficulties, but the great danger is—it is a danger that the Prime Minister must acknowledge—that before long, all the terrorists will be freed without meeting their part of the agreement. For that reason and that reason alone, we are saying that it is right to put on hold the early release of terrorists.
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, even at the end of the two-year period, there will still be people in prison for the offences that they committed. In the end, we have to make a judgment and my judgment is that the wider interests—not of prisoner releases, but of peace in Northern Ireland—require us to continue to do all that we can to make the process work. I raised what happened under the previous Government not to criticise—[Interruption.] No, I am not criticising them. On the contrary, we supported them. We did so precisely because we realised the difficulties that they faced.

    337
    The right hon. Gentleman talks about the Prevention of Terrorism Act. He well knows what the problem was under the previous Government and what we could have done. At the time, their majority depended on the support of the Ulster Unionists. At any point through all the difficulties of those years, we could have brought down the Government on this matter, had we wished to do so. We did not because we believed that the broader public interest demanded that we acted responsibly. I still believe that the broader public interest is secured by making the agreement work.
    Ms Debra Shipley: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the huge burdens that are shouldered by carers such as Lucy? She cares for a man, doing all the cooking and cleaning. She gets him up in the morning, helps to put him to bed at night and assists with his personal needs. Lucy is 10 years old and looks after her father. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such children need practical help urgently? Will he assure the House that young carers will receive that practical help under the new strategy for carers?
    The Prime Minister: I pay tribute to the contribution made by carers young and old. There are literally millions of them of every age and in every set of circumstances, and they do a marvellous job caring for relatives. Of course, the rise in child benefit will provide enormous help to all children. As for older people, our proposed pension reforms will ensure that long-term carers get up to £1,500 per year in pension as a result of the flat-rate credits that we shall award them under our new proposals. In addition, from April, we shall introduce a £2.5 billion package for the poorest pensioners. Children such as Lucy will be helped and so will older people.
    Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Ashdown—[Interruption.] Order.
    Mr. Paddy Ashdown: They will miss me when I am gone.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security recently claimed that the average pensioner in Britain—which does not yet include me—was £140 a year better off under Labour, but as every pensioner knows, that is nonsense. Will the Prime Minister confirm that those figures are based on not one year but two, on a family not an individual, apply to only 30 per cent. of pensioners and take no account of raised taxes or lost tax reliefs under the Government? Taking all that into account, is it not the case that the average pensioner in Britain, far from being £140 a year better off, is actually £2 a year worse off under Labour?
    The Prime Minister: No. The right hon. Gentleman is not right about that. Indeed, as a result of the cut in VAT on domestic fuel, the special bonuses for fuel of £50 for those on income support and £20 for others, and the package of measures that come into effect in April—the £2.5 billion package that will help the poorest pensioners in particular—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is absolutely right.
    Mr. Ashdown: I hope that the Prime Minister will look further at those figures, because he will find that they are contested by almost every group that has any credibility in the matter. May I put a simple and concrete proposition to him? It is nearly always the oldest pensioners who are the poorest pensioners. The age supplement for pensioners over 80 has remained at 25p a week for more than a quarter of a century. If the Government were to raise that from 2.5p a week to £5 a week, it would cost relatively little and would reach twice as many pensioners as the minimum income guarantee proposed by the Government. Why not do that?
    The Prime Minister: Because we believe that, by raising the minimum pension guarantee by £5 for a single person and £7 for a couple, we shall provide more help to more people. In addition to the things that we are doing for pensioners, which I mentioned a moment ago, from April this year, there will be free eye tests and concessionary travel. We are getting help to many pensioners in the country who would otherwise not get that help. That is all being achieved through measures introduced by the Labour Government to improve the living standards of pensioners of every description throughout the country. Although there is far more that we want to do, that is not a bad start for our first two years in government.
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: Does my right hon. Friend share my pride in my constituents from Blackpool Victoria hospital, who came to London yesterday to receive their charter mark award? Does he accept the views of many Labour Members that his comments on that occasion were entirely right, entirely appropriate and in striking contrast to the Conservative Government's frequent denigration of public services?
    The Prime Minister: We value those who work in our public services and we are getting more resources into the front line of those services. We shall not cease to say that the extra £40 billion that is going into schools and hospitals from this April—despite the opposition of the Conservative party, whose members said that ours were reckless and irresponsible plans—will not only help to reward better those who work for our public services, but raise the standards of the services themselves.

    Ministerial Visit (Kingswear)
    Mr. Anthony Steen: If he will visit Kingswear in order to take a trip to sea in a crabber.
    The Prime Minister: I regret to say that I have no immediate plans to do so.
    Mr. Steen: Either the Prime Minister enjoys the seas around the Seychelles more than the icy steel waters of the English channel, or the reason why he does not want to accept the second invitation that I have extended to him to go to sea in a British fishing boat is that he does not want to see the wanton destruction of the sea beds and the marine environment, which is largely caused by Belgian

    339
    and Dutch beam trawlers and scallopers with outsize 1,500 horsepower engines and 40 dredges—20 on either side—which do immense damage to the sea bed and to shellfish. How does he square that with the Labour party's conservation policy?
    The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the holiday advice. We have no information about Dutch or Belgian vessels infringing their access rights, and if the hon. Gentleman has any such information, we should be grateful if he would bring it to the attention of the relevant authorities. However, the proposition apparently being advanced by the Conservative party, which is to withdraw from the common fisheries policy altogether, would not be a sensible way to proceed. There are huge problems, but we are committed to trying to ensure that the CFP is a more effective instrument for the conservation of fish stocks.
    To ensure a more healthy marine environment and a sustainable fishing industry, we are putting in extra investment; and we have managed to tighten European Union rules on the breach of the fishing quotas. To withdraw from the CFP, which is the alternative put forward by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, would lead to a worse situation, not a better one.

    Engagements
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: My right hon. Friend took a keen interest in the miners compensation scheme for vibration white finger, which is now in place to the tune of about £500,000. May I ask him to take a keener interest in the other case that the miners are currently fighting, which relates to emphysema and bronchitis, which is a slow, agonisingly painful disease suffered not only by miners, but by their families and, sadly, their widows?
    The Prime Minister: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's campaigning on these issues. He was a miner for 30 years or more. We were obviously pleased that we managed to achieve a successful conclusion on the vibration white finger issue. That settlement will mean that many people are compensated who should have been compensated. As for the respiratory disease litigation, I can tell my hon. Friend that we are close to finalising the handling arrangements to deal with the 65,000 claims that we have received to date. We believe, and are hopeful that, full final settlement offers will start to flow in as soon as possible. Before long, we hope to be able to proclaim another agreement to deal with these issues. I hope that that will provide security for many thousands of ex-miners suffering from work-related illnesses. After years and years in which compensation claims were not properly dealt with, it will be a pleasure for the Government to deliver to former miners.
    Mr. David Chidgey: I am sure that the Prime Minister will be aware that the Liberal Democrats support the objectives of the Tax Credits Bill and welcome the £1.5 billion of new money to help poorer working families. Does he, however, recognise the strong concerns felt not just by the Liberal Democrats, but by
    340
    the Trades Union Congress, the Low Pay Unit and the Confederation of British Industry about the detail of the Bill? Will he give the House an assurance that small firms will be exempt from the burden of administering the scheme and that all employees will have the right to claim their tax credits directly from the Inland Revenue in order to maintain confidentiality?
    The Prime Minister: We are addressing the concerns that have been put to us by business. The Inland Revenue will be doing all the administration and calculation of what is due if the employer pays the tax credit through the pay roll, but we are also transferring the Contributions Agency to the Inland Revenue. So there will be a big simplification of the way in which many businesses handle payments to their staff.
    We are making provision at least for single-earner couples to choose to be paid through their order book or bank account. We want to make sure that the scheme works properly and has the minimum potential for abuse within it. We are trying to address all the concerns that have been put to us, but it would be disastrous if we put the scheme at risk. Of course we will listen to any concerns put to us, but literally 1.5 million people will receive a benefit of about £17 a week. All couples or single parents earning even the lowest income will have a minimum income of £10,000 a year.
    The shadow Social Security Secretary has pledged that the Conservatives will abolish the scheme. They should know that they will be going into the next election pledging a tax rise of £17 a week for 1.5 million people. Given the state of the Conservative party, it does not surprise me, that that is its proposal.
    Mr. Ben Bradshaw: May I welcome the long overdue separation of those responsible for producing Britain's food and those responsible for policing its safety? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, had we had a Food Standards Agency a few years ago, we might have avoided the fiasco of salmonella in eggs and the scandal of BSE? Can he confirm that the funding mechanism for the FSA is still a matter for public consultation, but that the modest cost proposed is a small price to pay for consumer confidence in the safety and quality of Britain's food?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I gather that the Conservative party is now opposed to the proposal. I think that it is making another big mistake. Most people, who remember salmonella, E. coli and BSE, and see that there were 93,000 cases of food poisoning in the past year, believe that the FSA is a long overdue reform. The charge works out at £1.73 a week, which is less than the price of a Big Mac. That is not a great deal to pay for clean and safe food in Britain.
    Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Does the Prime Minister intend to visit the trade union rally being held in the House this afternoon? If so, how will he reply to the remarks of John Edmonds, who leads the GMB, who, on the radio this week, described the economy as being as

    341
    flat as a pancake? How will he reply to Bill Morris, who leads the GTWU—[Laughter.] Mr. Moms leads one of our major unions. He described the Government's industrial policies as "sterile" and said in the New Statesman that it would be extremely difficult to motivate any of his workers to do any more work for the Labour party.
    The Prime Minister: I am delighted that the hon. Lady has decided to support the trade union movement and read
    342
    the New Statesman after all these years. I say to her exactly what I say to them—the fact that we are entering an economic downturn with interest rates falling, the lowest long-term interest rates for over 30 years, the Budget deficit cured, 400,000 extra jobs created in the economy and youth unemployment halved since we came to power demonstrates that we have a pretty good record. If the hon. Lady wants to quote the Transport and General and the GMB at me, she should hear what they say about the previous Tory Government.

Point of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is there any way in which you can protect the rights of Back Benchers during Prime Minister's Question Time? You will see from the Order Paper that we got to Question 6. I realise that you called hon. Members who are not in the frame, but are you satisfied that Back Benchers are getting a full share during that half an hour, bearing in mind that we are likely to be in the frame only two or three times a year if we table questions every Wednesday? Will you consider that matter, because I believe that Back Benchers are not receiving our full rights within that half an hour?
Madam Speaker: I thought that it was important for the House and the country to hear the exchanges between the two Front Benchers today, but I am concerned that I am not able to call Back Benchers at Prime Minister's Question Time to the extent that I would like. The questions are too long and the answers are too long. It is unfair for Front Benchers to take up so much time when Back Benchers have a right to question the Prime Minister. The Leader of the Opposition is perfectly entitled to six questions, and I make that clear, but I should like questions to be much more brisk and I certainly seek brisker answers so that I can give Back Benchers a fair deal at Prime Minister's Question Time.

BILL PRESENTED
  EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS
  Mr. Secretary Byers, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Mr. Secretary Dewar, Mr. Secretary Darling, Mr. Secretary Michael and Mr. Ian McCartney, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to employment, to trade unions and to employment agencies and businesses: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 36].

Prophylactic Mastectomy Registry
3.33 pm
Ms Joan Ruddock: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a United Kingdom registry of women who have undergone prophylactic mastectomy surgery.
Prophylactic mastectomy covers two types of operation whereby healthy breasts are removed in an attempt to prevent the development of breast cancer. Breast cancer is an emotive issue and any proposals associated with its diagnosis and treatment need careful consideration if they are to assist women and not give rise to greater fears. I am confident that the small measure that I am proposing is responsible and in the public good.
My interest is both personal and scientific. Like so many people—MPs are no exception—I have breast cancer in my family and I receive regular screening in the NHS. I also have an interest in genetics, having spent the early years of my professional life studying and working on that subject at Imperial college, albeit with micro-organisms, not people.
Breast cancer is the most common form of cancer in women, with one in 12 women developing the disease and more than 34,000 new cases diagnosed in the UK each year.
Awareness of breast cancer is high thanks to the numerous campaigns mounted by women's organisations and the cancer charities. Furthermore, recent statistics show that there has been an improvement in breast cancer survival rates in all European countries, including the United Kingdom, as a result of improvements in treatment. However, the more we women take charge of our own health, and the better informed we become, the more difficult it is for the medical profession to give advice.
There are no absolute predictions to be made about the development of this disease. All that women can expect is to receive advice based on the most comprehensive data that can be gathered. Most women are aware that a family history of breast cancer is likely to be significant, and there is a growing awareness that it is possible to develop the disease because of an inherited genetic abnormality.
Only 5 to 10 per cent. of breast cancers are thought to be the result of genetic mutations, yet worried women with a family history form a disproportionately large number of those referred to specialist breast clinics. Most will not actually have an increased risk because their close relative will not be carrying a mutant gene, but there is no simple or sure way of knowing. Some of the genes responsible have been identified; many others remain to be discovered.
The women who are most likely to be at risk of carrying an abnormal gene often have either a mother or sister diagnosed with breast cancer in their early 30s or 40s, plus several other members of the family similarly affected. If a young woman with breast cancer is found to have a genetic mutation, it is reasonable to test whether close relatives have inherited the risk, of which there is a 50:50 chance.
In those circumstances, half the women tested will be reassured that they do not have the susceptibility of their mother or sister, but the other half will be told that they

345
have a genetic mutation which predisposes them to a breast cancer risk over a lifetime of 56 per cent. What are those women to do? What are the many women with strong family histories but no genetic screening to do?
Some will feel able to live with the risk, accept close medical surveillance or enter into a trial preventive drug programme such as that carried out with tamoxifen, but, increasingly, women in high-risk categories are undertaking the most radical preventive action of all—they are having both healthy breasts surgically removed.
I have no doubt that, on the basis of the available evidence, those women—we believe that they number between 200 and 500 a year in the United Kingdom—are making an entirely rational decision. As one of them told columnist Jenni Murray in The Express:
"I can live without my breasts but I don't want to die because of them."
The stark truth is that no one can be certain that those drastic measures, which carry with them risk and trauma, will guarantee a lifetime free of breast cancer. It is for that reason that I am introducing a Bill to establish a UK-wide register of all women who undergo preventive mastectomy. The register would record who had the operations, where and for what reason. Over time, such a register would enable consultants to give women a precise statistical account of the effectiveness of those preventive operations.
The proposal for such a registry comes not originally from me, but from one of the UK's most eminent breast cancer consultants, Professor Ian Fentiman, of Guy's hospital. It is his view that nothing less than a national register will enable us to gain a full picture of the value of those operations.
The only available data come from a retrospective study of 639 women who underwent bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in the United States at the Mayo clinic between 1960 and 1993. Professor Fentiman believes that that study is too small to give dependable statistics that would allow surgeons to compare the efficacy of the different forms of operation involved. Furthermore, and more significantly, that survey was conducted on women who were treated before genetic testing was a reality.
346
I see no alternative to a UK register of those operations, and a compulsory register at that. Such compulsory notification does not break new ground. We already have a national cancer registry into which details of cancer diagnoses are entered. Pathologists, who are already familiar with such record keeping, would simply be required to record details of the preventive operations in a similar way. Once a registry of all prophylactic mastectomies had been set up and linked to a register of all breast cancer patients, we would have the means of properly assessing preventive mastectomy.
In addition to my sponsors in the House, to whom I am extremely grateful, my proposal has the support of Imperial Cancer Research, the UK Breast Cancer Coalition and the Royal College of Nursing.
Women who are seeking genetic testing and having to make the decision whether or not to undergo mastectomy are frightened and uncertain. We owe it to those women and to their families to use every means at our disposal to make that decision as informed as possible. The very least that surgeons should be able to offer them is advice based on proper statistics and proper research. A national registry of prophylactic mastectomies would be a first and vital step towards achieving that and aiding all of us—our scientists, our surgeons and women ourselves—in defeating this pernicious disease.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Joan Ruddock, Ms Judith Church, Mr. Frank Doran, Dr. Ian Gibson, Dr. Evan Harris, Miss Julie Kirkbride, Dr. Ashok Kumar, Ms Jackie Lawrence, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Laura Moffatt, Ms Julie Morgan and Ms Dan Taylor.

Prophylactic Mastectomy Registry
  PROPHYLACTIC MASTECTOMY REGISTRY
  Ms Joan Ruddock accordingly presented a Bill to establish a United Kingdom registry of women who have undergone prophylactic mastectomy surgery: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 26 February, and to be printed [Bill 37].
Opposition Day
[4TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Terrorist Mutilations (Northern Ireland)
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I remind the House that Back-Bench speeches must be limited to 15 minutes.
  3.44 pm
  Mr. Andrew MacKay: I beg to move,
  That this House condemns the alarming increase in the numbers of terrorist beatings, mutilations, shootings, cases of intimidation and instances of people being forced to leave their homes in Northern Ireland; notes that these are being carried out by organisations whose political representatives backed the Belfast Agreement; further notes that these continued attacks are clear breaches of the Belfast Agreement that required a commitment to exclusively democratic and peaceful methods and that terrorist ceasefires had to be complete and unequivocal; recalls that the Prime Minister said that for terrorist organisations to benefit from prisoner release schemes there must be an end of violence including bombings, killings and beatings; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to use its powers contained in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 to halt the early release of terrorist prisoners until violence in Northern Ireland has ended in all its forms.
  It is the duty of the House to debate the serious issue of the mutilations, torture and beatings, which are increasing in Northern Ireland. I know that I speak for every hon. Member who has taken his or her place in the Chamber in saying that this House unequivocally condemns those horrendous, nauseating and brutal attacks.
  I shall set the scene by giving some statistics that have been prepared by Families Against Intimidation and Terror, a non-sectarian organisation that is doing marvellous work to help the victims of such mutilations and beatings, giving them hope, succour and, at times, protection and, sadly, at other times, spiriting them out of the country to safety.
  By 23 January this year, there had been six so-called loyalist shootings and four IRA shootings, 15 loyalist terrorist beatings and 12 IRA terrorist beatings, 37 loyalist terrorist instances of intimidation and 22 IRA intimidations, and the loyalists had forced 33 people into exile away from their homes in Northern Ireland, and the IRA, 29. Those figures illustrate much, but illustrate first that there is absolutely no difference in the evil and violence, whether from republicans in the shape of the IRA and splinter groups, or so-called loyalist paramilitaries, and that they commit their dreadful acts in roughly equal number.
  Some suggestion has emanated from Downing street today that, somehow, the beatings, mutilations and torture have been reduced in number and are diminishing. I wish that that were so. Families Against Intimidation and Terror tells us—I have no reason to doubt its figures—that, in 1996, there were 501 such attacks; in 1997, 388; last year, 500; and, by 23 January this year, already 158.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. MacKay: I shall in a moment; I want to finish this point. The discrepancy arises from the fact that, as the
  348
  Secretary of State and others will be aware, following many cases of intimidation and torture, people dare not go to the authorities or the police, and certainly do not go through the courts. Therefore, FAIT has more accurate and up-to-date figures than, sadly, the Royal Ulster Constabulary can possibly have.
  Mr. Prentice: The right hon. Gentleman has answered my question, which was to ask him to explain the variation in the figures.
  Mr. MacKay: Another point needs to be made at the beginning of the debate, on which I know there will be no dispute between the Secretary of State and myself. We are not talking about punishment beatings. For my constituents in Bracknell, the term "punishment beating" sounds like a modest extension of neighbourhood watch—at the very worst some vigilante group modestly beating up drug dealers or vandals. Let us make absolutely clear what is going on in Northern Ireland. We are talking of mutilation, and of beatings in which every bone in the victim's body is deliberately broken. It is intimidation of the very worst sort, and often leads to exile. Let us ask the media and anybody else discussing those foul acts not to call them punishment beatings, or even so-called punishment beatings.
  Paramilitaries on both sides of the sectarian divide—those evil men—would like us to believe that the victims are often drug dealers, paedophiles or others of an antisocial nature. That is occasionally so, but, more often, it is not. They are innocent victims of brutal, evil men.
  Even if that were not true, and even if the majority of victims were not innocent, it cannot be right in a democracy, and in our country, for any group to take it upon itself to be the police, the judge, the jury and the executioner. I know that all hon. Members in the Chamber will want to send that message, loud and clear, to those evil psychopaths.
  Mr. Robin Corbett: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that those allegations should not be discussed across the Dispatch Boxes of this House, but should be deposited with the Royal Ulster Constabulary? Does he also agree that the agreement that was signed up to on Good Friday gives the best prospect for the people of Northern Ireland to have such matters settled in the way in which they are settled in the rest of the United Kingdom, or is he saying that his contribution is to try to pull away one of the planks of that agreement, at the risk of bringing the whole lot down? How would that serve the people of both parts of Ireland?
  Mr. MacKay: That was an unusually ill-thought-out contribution from a senior Member of the House.
  Mr. Tony McNulty: Answer him.
  Mr. MacKay: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman directly: I believe, and have said so continually since Good Friday last year, that the Belfast agreement is the best hope for lasting peace and a settlement in Northern Ireland. That is why my party whole-heartedly supports it.

  349
  The second question asked by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett)—
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. MacKay: No, there is a second question, which needs to be answered.
  Of course, in a perfect world, I would require any victim of crime to go to the police. If a constituent came to my office in Bracknell and said that something had happened to him, I would immediately say, "Go down to the police station." With the greatest respect, I say to the hon. Member for Erdington, "Life ain't like that in Northern Ireland." I could take him to a significant number of people, in both communities, who dare not go to the police and who have been brutally beaten. That is a sad fact.
  If the hon. Gentleman is saying that, somehow, I am wrong to raise those matters on the Floor of the House, I profoundly disagree.
  Mr. Corbett indicated dissent.
  Mr. MacKay: I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman shaking his head.
  Mr. Robathan: Is there not a curious dichotomy? On the one hand, we hear Martin McGuinness claim on the radio this morning that those people who are being mutilated and viciously beaten up are in some way criminals, without any form of trial having taking place. On the other, the Secretary of State says, understandably, that she has no evidence and cannot bring the perpetrators of those crimes to court. Does that not reveal that the rule of law does not run in large parts of Northern Ireland? There is a rule of fear, and the Secretary of State knows as well as we do that it is enforced by people who are pretending to talk peace.
  Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend gives another good example of Mr. Martin McGuinness and his friends misleading the public and this House by giving the impression that they are merely a vigilante group that is trying to do good for its community. All right hon. and hon. Members who have taken their seats in this House know better than that gentleman, who has failed to take his seat.
  Since 23 January, matters have got worse. There was a brutal double kneecapping in east Belfast by loyalist terrorists on Monday night. An equally obnoxious crime was committed, almost certainly by republican terrorists, in west Belfast last night. News is coming in of the death, outside Newry, of Eamon Collins, the author of "Killing Rage". The House will recall that he was a senior member of the IRA command who turned informer and had to flee to the mainland for a number of years. Eighteen months ago, he courageously returned to his home town of Newry, but he has now been killed. So it goes on, and it gets worse.
  Let me be more specific about a few recent cases. The House will recall that I raised the case of John Brown during a debate in the autumn. John Brown is 79 and lives in a small flat in Belfast. Members of the IRA came to his flat and kneecapped him because, they alleged, he was
  350
  a paedophile. Unfortunately for Mr. Brown, the IRA had gone to the wrong house: the alleged paedophile lived in a flat next door. That poor man will never walk properly again.
  More recently, there have been other dreadful cases. One occurred within the last fortnight, in Strabane. Let me read from an article by Martin Fletcher, published in The Times on Thursday, 14 January.
  "Six masked IRA men burst into Noel Diver's house last Saturday, pulled the 24-year-old from the sofa and beat him with baseball bats and an iron bar. It was several minutes before they realised that they had the wrong house and the wrong man.
  They left without a word, went next door, seized 22-year-old Michael Brennan, and offered a running commentary as they smashed his limbs.
  'Wait till you hear this one break,' one shouted as he swung a baseball bat down at Mr. Brennan's arm. 'You're a big man now,' said another as they left their victim groaning on his kitchen floor.
  This is the story of everyday life on one of the many housing estates in Northern Ireland where republican or loyalist paramilitary groups rule through terror, where the police venture only in armoured Land Rovers, and where neither the ceasefire nor the Good Friday accord has made a jot of difference."
  No one, but no one, here will have been other than moved by the pictures of Andrew Peden, who—brutalised beyond belief, and left for dead—somehow survived, but lost both his legs. The Times reported on Wednesday, 20 January:
  "The Pedens have received no compensation…Mrs Peden has given up her job to nurse her husband round the clock. 'I don't know what it's like having a night's sleep,' she said. 'He cries out every night for help. He relives it every night. If he gets an hour's sleep that's it. It's wrecked our family.'
  She knows the men who attacked her husband, and sees them when she shops. 'When they see me they drop their heads or go to the other side of the streets,' she said. 'They are ashamed. They are just evil men. I just hope God repays them."'
  Mr. David Winnick: Everyone condemns such acts by so-called freedom fighters for republicanism or unionism. They are outright thugs, as everyone recognises, and as is recognised in the Government amendment. However, what guarantee can there be that, if the policy advocated by the Opposition were implemented by the Government, the beatings and thuggery would slow down or end? Is there not a danger that they would increase, and that the peace agreement could be torn to pieces? Surely we should exercise judgment and recognise that the present position is better than a return to bombing, while ensuring that the police use every effort to hunt down thugs who commit the kind of intimidation about which the right hon. Gentleman has been reading?
  Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman and I agree that such beatings and mutilations are abhorrent. Like me, the hon. Gentleman has spoken out in debate after debate in the Chamber. It is indeed a matter of judgment, as the Prime Minister has told us from the Dispatch Box several times in recent weeks. Our judgment—I shall say more about this shortly—is that it is far more likely that the beatings will stop if the terrorist prisoners are no longer released. The pressure in the terrorist communities on

  351
  both sides of the sectarian divide to "get the boys out" will be huge, and we know from past experience that they can turn the tap of violence on and off to suit themselves.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. MacKay: I want to make some progress, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in due course, because he takes a keen interest in debates on this subject.
  Who is to blame? In a BBC Radio Ulster interview on 15 January, the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Sir Ronnie Flanagan, said:
  "I've always said it's not my business to define a cessation of violence or a cessation of military operations, and therefore it's not my business to determine what constitutes a breach of such cessations".
  That, incidentally, shows that the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House last Wednesday when he said that the Chief Constable had said that the ceasefire was still intact. Sir Ronnie went on to say:
  "But you will think the wording of these organisations in terms of their announced cessations and they are cessations of military operations. So perhaps they have some distorted, perverted view that this sort of activity doesn't come within the term, 'military operations"'.
  He also said:
  "But there is no doubt whatever that all of these organisations [IRA, UVF, UDA, UFF] including those who purport to be in cessations of military operations, are engaged in this repugnant activity".
  In a separate article in Police Review on 22 January, he said:
  "Notwithstanding the fact that they are adhering to what they define as 'cessations of military operations', this does not mean that the threat they pose has been permanently disposed of. This does not mean that they are inactive. I have no doubt that these 'mainstream' groups continue to be involved in the barbaric activity of mutilations through paramilitary assaults".
  There we have it confirmed by the Chief Constable. Those who are responsible for those evil, nauseating acts are the same people who signed up to the Belfast agreement on Good Friday. The House needs no reminding whatever that an essential part of that agreement was the renunciation of violence in all its forms.
  I should like to quote from the Prime Minister during the referendum campaign. I, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and other colleagues campaigned for a yes vote in that referendum and would do so again because, as I said in response to the hon. Member for Erdington the Belfast agreement is the best way forward for the people of Northern Ireland. When the Prime Minister made his speech at the Balmoral showgrounds in Belfast on 14 May last year, he said
  "that, again as the Agreement expressly states, the ceasefires are indeed complete and unequivocal: an end to bombings, killings and beatings, claimed or unclaimed; an end to targeting and procurement of weapons; progressive abandonment and dismantling of paramilitary structures actively directing and promoting violence".
  That is also our definition of a cessation of violence. It is clearly not happening. He went on to say:
  "These factors provide evidence upon which to base an overall judgment—a judgment which will necessarily become more rigorous over time".
  352
  I concur entirely and the Secretary of State has made similar remarks at the Dispatch Box in response to me and to other hon. Members.
  In the same speech, the Prime Minister said:
  "the only prisoners whose cases can even be considered by the Independent Review Commission are those belonging to organisations which are observing a total and unequivocal ceasefire".
  That is why, in a supply day on a similar subject before Christmas, we moved a motion on the Floor of the House saying that terrorist prisoners should not be released any more until there was substantial and verifiable decommissioning. It is absolutely clear that the ceasefire is not holding because violence is continuing at pace and increasing. Violent, dreadful crimes are being committed.
  Mr. John Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, only eight days before the speech to which he has just referred, the Prime Minister said in response to questioning by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition:
  "It is essential that organisations that want to benefit from the early release of prisoners should give up violence."—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711.]
  In the light of the fact that that commitment has not been honoured, is it not essential that those releases should be halted until terrorism stops and decommissioning starts?
  Mr. MacKay: There are many people who voted yes in the referendum—whom we rightly encouraged them to do so—because of the assurances freely given from the Dispatch Box by the Prime Minister to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in May and to the people of Northern Ireland in the speech at the agricultural showground to which I have just referred.
  I am trying to keep this speech as low key as possible, but I have to report that many of those people feel badly let down by the Prime Minister, and I can understand why. I believe that there is no choice for the Government but to have the agreement, which we support, implemented in full. An absolutely vital aspect of that agreement is that violence should be renounced for good and that crimes should not be committed. Instead, violent and vicious crimes are still being committed.
  Mr. Stephen Day rose—
  Dr. Godman rose—
  Mr. MacKay: I will give way first to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow. He is going to tell me that I have got his constituency wrong again. I will then give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day).
  Dr. Godman: The right hon. Gentleman is immensely polite but awfully forgetful. My constituency is now Greenock and Inverclyde.
  The Opposition's motion ends with a demand for a halt to the early release of terrorist prisoners until all violence ends. Will the right hon. Gentleman specify what groups of prisoners should be denied early release or is he talking about all scheduled prisoners?
  Mr. MacKay: I apologise for getting the hon. Gentleman's constituency wrong again. I do not know what happened to Port Glasgow, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will tell me privately.

  353
  The answer is straightforward. The Chief Constable and other observers believe that all the paramilitaries who signed the Good Friday agreement, both loyalist and republican, are involved in those awful beatings and mutilations.
  Mr. Corbett: Where is the evidence?
  Mr. MacKay: The evidence is coming from the Chief Constable. The hon. Member for Erdington may shake his head, but I do not intend to repeat myself because many other hon. Members want to participate in the debate. I have quoted extensively from the Chief Constable and I thought that he had made the position abundantly clear. The evidence comes not just from the Chief Constable but from other interested observers whose reputations are high and whose courage is outstanding. Nobody doubts that the evidence is there.
  Mr. Day: My right hon. Friend has talked about the desirability of the Government recognising that those who claim to have signed up to peace are not carrying out their pledges in practice. Will he include in the description of those people not just those who claim to be the official IRA? Will he confirm that, in fact, Continuity IRA and the Real IRA are nothing but a mask to allow certain people in Sinn Fein to claim that the beatings are not carried out by the IRA when we know full well that Sinn Fein-IRA, Real IRA and Continuity IRA are one and the same?
  Mr. MacKay: I am not sure that I can confirm that. That is a matter that my hon. Friend will have to pursue with the Secretary of State and Ministers. However, it is important that the House does not discriminate in any shape or form when condemning terrorism, from whatever side of the sectarian divide and whichever misguided organisation is involved.
  We have now established without any reasonable doubt that republican and loyalist parties that signed the Good Friday agreement are behind the atrocities, beatings and mutilations. They are in breach of the agreement. Last summer, we passed the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. Section 3(9) says that, when specifying organisations, the Secretary of State shall take into account whether that organisation
  "(a) is committed to the use now and in the future of only democratic and peaceful means to achieve its objectives"—
  clearly, that is not so—
  "(b) has ceased to be involved in any acts of violence or of preparation for violence"—
  clearly not—
  "(c) is directing or promoting acts of violence"—
  they clearly are—
  "(d) is co-operating fully with any Commission of the kind referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 in implementing the Decommissioning section of the agreement reached at the multi-party talks on Northern Ireland, set out in Command Paper 3883"—
  they are clearly not doing so.
  The Secretary of State and I were in dispute when the Bill went through. I shall not rake over the arguments, but she knows that I should have preferred the Bill to have said that she had to stop the prisoner releases if any of those conditions were breached. She persuaded the House,
  354
  mainly thanks to the Government's majority, that it was better that she should just take those conditions into account. That is why we voted against the Third Reading.
  I warned in July that there was a real possibility that all the conditions would be breached by the paramilitaries, but the Secretary of State would still be within her rights to say that she was not convinced and that it was better on balance to allow prisoners to be released. That is a great pity. I have shown that the paramilitaries are in breach of the agreement on all four counts, so there is no excuse for letting any more terrorist prisoners out early.
  In the five months since the Act became law, the Government have released nearly 250 terrorist prisoners early, out of a total of approximately 400 who might be eligible. I suggest that the Government have been more than generous. I did not oppose the early release of some terrorist prisoners, because that was part of the agreement, which we supported. I fully understood that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister had to show the paramilitaries their good faith and demonstrate that they were prepared to implement their side of the agreement.
  However, once that had been done, some sign was needed that the violence had stopped and the decommissioning had started. Neither has happened. Not an ounce of semtex or a single gun has been handed in by any of the paramilitaries that signed up to the Belfast Good Friday agreement. As I have shown—more importantly, so have the Chief Constable of the RUC and Families Against Intimidation and Terror—the number of beatings and mutilations has increased. We believe that there should be a halt to prisoner releases until there is substantial and verifiable decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives and until it is clear that violence has ceased once and for all.
  It is the duty of the Opposition to speak out when there is a fundamental wrong. The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister know that we understand the advantages to Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom of a bipartisan approach, which has been in place for several years, but we have always said that we cannot give the Government a blank cheque, just as the Labour Opposition failed to give us a blank cheque when they did not support us on the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act year in and year out. We shall speak out if we believe that the agreement, which we and the Government support, is not being implemented.
  I shall speak out loudly when the victims are innocent people, often with a limited education and difficult job prospects in the poorest estates across the Province. Do Labour Members honestly believe that action would not have been taken if there had been mutilations, tortures and beatings in some of the leafy suburbs of south Belfast or the commuter lands of north Down? Of course action would have been taken, because there are articulate and important people there, but the poor bloody infantry are being brushed under the carpet and ignored.
  Through the work of Families Against Intimidation and Terror and of several journalists, the House can now bring the matter to wider attention. It is time for the House to demand that the Government act. The best way of acting is to stop any further release of terrorist prisoners.
  4.15 pm
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  'condemns absolutely the barbaric practice of paramilitary attacks in Northern Ireland, condemns the human and material cost of these assaults and the contempt they demonstrate for the rule of law; notes the commitment made by all parties who endorsed the Good Friday Agreement to "the protection and vindication of the human rights of all"; welcomes the Government's determination to fulfil its responsibilities under the Good Friday Agreement in this as in every other area; and calls on all people, parties and organisations to use all their influence to bring these attacks to an immediate stop, to help the police in any way they can, and to work to build on the Good Friday Agreement to create a society in Northern Ireland where such attacks are a thing of the past.'.
  I presume that the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) would apply his point about working versus middle class to the previous Government, too, as the policy has not changed, so it is not in that sense a party matter. I assure him that the Government have done more to help victims than the previous Government did. We put money into a memorial fund; we set up an educational bursary to help children; and we are putting together a trauma unit. Through concrete, specific actions, rather than words, we are doing everything that we can to ease the pain and suffering that families are going through.
  I say to the right hon. Member for Bracknell, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said to the Leader of the Opposition last week, that I completely share his disgust at those attacks and that I share many of his concerns. There is no difference between us, nor indeed between any Members of Parliament, in our condemnation of those barbaric acts. The question that we all face is how best to bring them to an end.
  I would argue that the Government are doing everything that they can to answer that question in good faith. There have been thousands of those attacks during the past 30 years. Punishment assaults, beatings, shootings and mutilations have been an unacceptable feature of life in Northern Ireland for far too long, but condemnation alone is not enough. Words are not enough; action is needed on the underlying problems.
  For 30 years, Governments of both parties have tried to stop paramilitary assaults, through extra security measures, appeals to the public to help the police, and television advertising. Governments have condemned, but the attacks have continued. The numbers that are available do not tell the full story; as the right hon. Gentleman said, many people are too frightened to report attacks and go to the police with the evidence.
  Northern Ireland has suffered from a crisis of confidence: a lack of confidence between communities, between politicians, and among the institutions of Government and those charged with maintaining law. Groups have been committed to violence to achieve their ends. That crisis of confidence has to be addressed, and that is what the Good Friday agreement is designed to do, by creating structures that will give the communities the confidence to say no, once and for all, to those who mutilate and to the vigilantes carrying out the acts that the right hon. Gentleman described.
  With the Good Friday agreement, the people of Northern Ireland are now closer than they have ever been to achieving that, and that is what we risk losing if we go
  356
  down the route suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. He made it clear that the motion is based on the view that the paramilitary assaults mean that the ceasefires are not intact. The status of the ceasefires is a judgment that I have to make in the round, taking full account of the best security advice available to me.
  My judgment is that the ceasefires are being maintained, a view that the right hon. Gentleman accepted when we last debated this issue in the House. He said:
  "The Secretary of State has the benefit of the best security advice available, and it is that those organisations are maintaining a ceasefire. I accept that".—[Official Report, 9 December 1998; Vol. 322, c. 330.]
  I discuss these issues frequently with the Chief Constable of the RUC, and while the overall judgment is mine—I take responsibility for it—I have no reason to believe that he disagrees with my interpretation.
  The motion argues that one aspect of the agreement—early prisoner releases—should be halted until all forms of violence end, and that it would then be more likely that the attacks would stop. I do not believe, given the advice that I have that the ceasefires continue to hold, that if I rewrote the agreement, unilaterally stopping one part—prisoner releases—the process would stay intact. I could also, I believe, face challenges in the courts. I accept that the balance is difficult and, like my predecessors, I have difficult judgments to make.
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: How does the Secretary of State reconcile what she has just said with her statement in this House on 10 June last year? She said then that
  "if circumstances deteriorate in Northern Ireland, the programme of release will be stopped and no prisoners will be released…during the referendum campaign, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that if parties are to benefit from accelerated release, their commitment to democratic, non-violent means must be established in an objective, meaningful and verifiable way".—[Official Report, 10 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 1083.]
  Marjorie Mowlam: We are talking about a process that will not happen overnight—it is not like turning a switch on and off. It takes time for the process to develop, and I believe that that is what we are doing now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nine months."] Yes, nine months—a short time in terms of the years of violence that have gone before.
  Decisions in terms of the agreement and the ceasefire are based on evidence from the security forces, the police and elsewhere. I have to make the judgment, and I have judged that the ceasefire is intact. I have no reason to believe that the Chief Constable disagrees with that interpretation.
  Ms Margaret Moran: Is the information from the RUC Chief Constable in accordance with the actions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State? Does she agree that it is important that we do not undermine the RUC, which has a difficult job in identifying the perpetrators of violence and bringing them to justice?
  Marjorie Mowlam: I get evidence from the police and other security organisations, but I make the judgment myself. It is not the Chief Constable—I take responsibility. I consult the Chief Constable regularly,

  357
  and I have no reason to believe that he disagrees with my conclusions. My hon. Friend mentioned how difficult it is for the police to do their job, and there is no doubt about that. We ought to commend the police. In the Markets area of Belfast recently, for example, the local community police officer received a UK-wide award. Efforts are being made to break the vicious cycle, and that is the difficulty that we are faced with.
  Mr. MacKay: The Secretary of State is right to say that the final decision ought to be hers and not the Chief Constable's—the whole House accepts that. However, does she accept that I gave direct and detailed quotes from Sir Ronnie Flanagan's interview with Radio Ulster during my speech? He said again and again, categorically—as he did in the Police Review—that the paramilitaries who had signed up to the Belfast Agreement were the perpetrators of the dreadful tortures, attacks and beatings that we are debating today.
  Marjorie Mowlam: Sir Ronnie said that those groups were involved, but he did not go on to say that there was evidence to charge individuals, organisations or members within those organisations. If there is evidence, the Chief Constable will use it to initiate prosecutions. However, there is no evidence. I must work on evidence, and that is my judgment. I deal not in hearsay or in rumour, but in evidence. I have not seen evidence to support a conclusion different from the one that I have reached.
  Mr. MacKay: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Marjorie Mowlam: I wish to make a little more progress, but I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman later.
  I readily accept that the balance is a difficult one. I, like my predecessors, have difficult judgments to make. Did the noble Lord Mayhew abandon his new law—as I am being asked to do—letting terrorist prisoners out early in 1996? He did not, even though that was the worst year on record for paramilitary assaults, and even though the IRA ended its ceasefire and we had the bomb at Canary Wharf, the London bus bombing, the explosion at Osnabrück and other incidents.
  Lord Mayhew could have abandoned that law. He could have reversed his earlier decision. He did not, because his judgment told him that the process of working for a lasting peace required a different course of action. We supported him in that judgment, because we thought the same—and we still do.
  However, I do not want to dwell on the past. It is better to face up to the future.
  Mr. MacKay: It is very important for the House to be absolutely clear about everything that is said today, as many people will be listening to the debate. The Secretary of State said a moment ago that she had to have evidence before there could be convictions. That is not anybody else's interpretation of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, which provides that she has to make a judgment on the information that she receives from the security forces and elsewhere.
  Will the Secretary of State correct what she said, as it is not true that she can decertify paramilitary organisations only when there are convictions in court?
  358
  She knows full well how difficult the intimidation of witnesses and victims makes it for the police to get convictions. I should be grateful for a clarification, as I think that she inadvertently misled the House.
  Marjorie Mowlam: I did not inadvertently mislead the House. I said that, if there was sufficient evidence to permit prosecution, I have no doubt that the Chief Constable and the RUC would prosecute. I am not saying that the evidence presented to me by the Chief Constable has to go to a court of law, but I have to make a judgment about it. I have made my conclusion clear.
  We must rely on the facts, not delude ourselves with half-answers. The task facing the RUC, with Garda support, in attempting to bring to book and to court those responsible for the Omagh bomb is difficult enough. It does not need to be made all the more difficult by someone threatening to act unwisely under the privileges of this House. Equally, it is difficult enough for both the police and the Government to deal with the issue of paramilitary assaults without having to cope with unhelpful or misleading speculation.
  As I have just made clear to the right hon. Member for Bracknell, we must stick to the facts and to the rule of law, not to the law of the latest rumour.
  Mr. William Cash: On the "Today" programme this morning, the Secretary of State said that she did not really know whether she had the legal powers to deal with the type of situation that we are discussing. However, at Question Time, the Prime Minister said emphatically that she had that legal power. What is the legal nature and character of the problem that she was talking about this morning? Why does she not agree with the Prime Minister?
  Marjorie Mowlam: I do agree with the Prime Minister. What I said this morning was that I have legal powers, but they are limited. If a person breaks his or her licence, I can, under the powers of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, work with the independent sentences review commission and get the licence revoked by resubmitting that person's name. Under the Good Friday agreement, if I think that the ceasefire is not intact, I can name specific organisations or groups and none of their members who are in prison will be released.
  Those are two of my specific powers. It is also possible, under the Good Friday agreement, to stop the whole process. That is what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to, and he outlined clearly the implications if we took that course of action. If I have evidence against organisations, I will act similarly, but I need that evidence—[Interruption.] I need the evidence before I can act.
  In response to the debate, I have tried to put the issue in the proper context, but that does not in any way reduce the Government's condemnation of the appalling assaults. I am determined that they should be brought to an end.
  The Royal Ulster Constabulary will continue to have the Government's full support in its efforts to bring those responsible to justice. If there is clear evidence that any released prisoner on licence is carrying out attacks, I will suspend the licence and the prisoner will be returned to prison. If I judge that any group's ceasefire is at an end,

  359
  based on that information I will stop its releases. At present, that is not my judgment and that is why the Government cannot support the Opposition motion.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: I hope that I will not be too repetitious on some of the points that have already been made, although it is inevitable that one will be. Like the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), I begin by congratulating Families Against Intimidation and Terror, which has done a tremendous amount of good for many individuals who have been trying to free themselves from the influence of terrorist organisations. It has also done a tremendous amount of good by bringing to the public's attention the full horror of the intimidation, social terrorism, beatings and mutilations that have been going on in parts of Belfast, and from which various elements of polite society have been averting their attention for too long, as the right hon. Gentleman said. Class elements are involved and Labour Members might like to reflect on that too.
  I shall start by referring to the death overnight of Mr. Eamon Collins, although it is not yet clear exactly what happened. It is one of those situations in which the police, on discovering that there is perhaps more to it than meets the eye, are rightly taking their time. Mr. Collins's background is well known. He is a former member of the IRA, who gave evidence against them, broke from them and published a book, which has been mentioned. In recent months, he has been an increasingly brilliant critic of the Republicans, particularly in the columns of the Irish News, the main nationalist newspaper in Northern Ireland. Only a few months ago, that resulted in his home on the outskirts of Newry being burnt down under suspicious circumstances, so fears that the death was also suspicious are inevitable, but we must not jump to conclusions.
  At this stage, it looks as though it is another killing and that the republican movement is responsible. It follows on from other killings, in particular the Kearney killing, towards the end of last year; and I wonder about the timing, given the way in which the Secretary of State was snubbed by Sinn Fein-IRA earlier this week.
  A few weeks ago, I had the honour—I use the term advisedly—of meeting Mr. Kearney's mother. She is a lady of republican views, from a republican background, but I take my hat off to her for the courage that she displayed when she went to a shopping centre in west Belfast to confront the man—one of the IRA's leaders in north Belfast—who ordered the killing. She confronted him there in the street and mentioned his name—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Name him."] No, I will not give his name, although I did mention it in the House some years ago. She went up to him and said, "Why did you order my son's killing?" From what she told me of her dealings with the IRA leadership in Belfast in general, there is no doubt about the fact that that killing was ordered by the IRA leadership. It was not some low-level activity. It was not even the work of that north Belfast commander. The action was approved at what the IRA would call brigade staff level in Belfast.
  I am sure that the facts that are known to Mr. Kearney's mother are also known to the police and are part of the reason why the Chief Constable of the RUC told society
  360
  in Northern Ireland that he has no doubt that the organisations—as organisations—are engaged in such attacks. Although there is a tendency to focus on the Republican movement because it is failing to carry out its other obligations, we must remind ourselves and the House that Loyalist organisations are also involved.
  In recent months, the number of beatings and shootings by Loyalist organisations has outstripped those by Republicans. I have my suspicions as to the motives, particularly of the Ulster Volunteer Force. I think that I am right in saying that the majority of Loyalist beatings, shootings and murders—including a recent murder—were carried out by the Ulster Volunteer Force. I suspect that there is a particular political motivation for the escalation of UVF beatings and shootings. However, that will not be news to the Secretary of State, who is aware of these matters.
  I should like to comment on three things said during Northern Ireland questions last Wednesday that disturbed me greatly then and have been repeated here today. First, I shall quote the Secretary of State. She has qualified the position somewhat today, but last Wednesday she said:
  "I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Chief Constable's words were generic and that he said clearly that, in his opinion, all groups were still on ceasefire."—[0fficial Report, 20 January 1999; Vol. 323, c. 898.]
  That is a more categoric misleading of the House than the subsequent words of the Prime Minister to which the right hon. Member for Bracknell referred. As the Secretary of State said today, that is not the position nor is it what the Chief Constable said.
  Last week's questions referred to what the Chief Constable had said in an interview that was broadcast on 15 January. I apologise for the repetition, but I remind the House of his precise words:
  "I've always said it's not my business to define a cessation of violence or a cessation of military operations; and therefore it's not my business to determine what constitutes a breach of such cessations. But you will think of the wording of these organisations in terms of their announced cessations and they are indeed cessations of military operations. So perhaps they have some distorted, perverted view that this sort of barbaric activity doesn't come within the term 'military operation'."
  The Chief Constable was saying two things. First, he said that it was not his business to determine what constitutes a breach. I am glad that the Secretary of State has clarified that. The Chief Constable does not determine. He gives views as to the circumstances and informs people of the intelligence that he receives. The Secretary of State was in error last week when she said that the Chief Constable had said that the IRA and others were not in breach of the ceasefire. Furthermore, on 15 January the Chief Constable was saying that the organisations—particularly the IRA, as the terms of the Loyalist declaration were slightly different—in declaring their cessation said that they were ceasing military operations.
  One can say that the IRA's cessation is intact only if one accepts that the present actions of the IRA are not military operations. The organisation is carrying out beatings, shootings and killings. One can say that there is not a breach of its cessation only if one classifies those beatings, shootings and killings as not being military operations; and that is what the Chief Constable described on 15 January as a "distorted, perverted view". So the view that the Secretary of State expressed at the Dispatch

  361
  Box today is tenable and justified only on the basis of what the Chief Constable has described as a "distorted, perverted view".
  I cannot judge what the Chief Constable has said to the Secretary of State in private, but only what he has said in public. He has described the only possible basis of the view that the Secretary of State has expressed as distorted and perverted.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: The right hon. Gentleman makes a thoroughly compelling case. Anyone who does not live in Wonderland knows perfectly well that there has indeed been a breach. Will he tell the House what, in his view, would be the consequences for the Good Friday agreement if the proposal of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), that the release of terrorist prisoners be slowed down, were carried out?
  Mr. Trimble: That is the primary issue we are debating today and, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I shall develop my argument as I wish, although I shall deal with that serious point in turn.
  The second matter that has been mentioned is the question of evidence and how one should act. By the end of the Secretary of State's speech, we were beginning to get a clear picture of the position, which is quite simple. To bring criminal proceedings in court, one needs evidence in the normal way; that evidence is difficult, albeit not impossible, to obtain and few prosecutions have been brought. However, what we are debating today is entirely different: it is a question of the exercise of a discretion under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998.
  That Act refers to several criteria and gives the Secretary of State a discretion. That discretion has to be exercised on some reasonable basis and with regard to the existing circumstances but, in exercising that discretion, the Secretary of State is not limited in any way to legally admissible evidence; and she is entitled to have regard to the commonly known circumstances in Northern Ireland. In addition, she ought to have regard to the information that reaches her from the police and the security services.
  If the police are saying to the Secretary of State, as the Chief Constable has said to the public, that those organisations, as organisations, are involved in acts of violence, there is clearly a sufficient basis in law under that Act for her to act. I repeat, if the Secretary of State is receiving from the Chief Constable an assessment that is consistent with what he says in public, under the Act there is sufficient material to enable her to exercise her discretion to slow down, halt temporarily or even take more comprehensive action in respect of prisoner releases. There is no doubt whatsoever about that.
  We need to be clear. Those who talk about there being no evidence are obscuring the picture. They might not fully understand the situation, but they are focusing on the wrong point. We must focus instead on the discretion that the Secretary of State has under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act and that she can exercise. I note that she said a few moments ago that, if there was evidence against organisations, she would act. I trust that that is the case.
  In the current situation, "evidence" does not solely mean legally admissible evidence; the term includes the intelligence that the Secretary of State receives from the
  362
  police, the Army and the security services. The right hon. Lady would have great difficulty convincing anybody in Northern Ireland that she is not in receipt of intelligence that indicates that the organisations are involved in acts of violence.
  Mr. Robert McCartney: I can confirm that the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary has personally stated to me on several occasions that he has not the slightest doubt that the Provisional IRA and the UVF are responsible, as organisations, for the vast number of beatings, shootings and mutilations that are carried out in the communities they dominate.
  Mr. Trimble: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for reinforcing what we all know to be true and what the Chief Constable has stated publicly. The Chief Constable has made similar comments to my colleagues and me on a number of occasions. We cannot know exactly what has passed between the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State, but we have difficulty reconciling what we have been told here with statements that are in the public domain.
  My third point relates to what would happen if the suggested action were carried out. I regard as chilling the suggestion made by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State that, if prisoner releases were slowed down or stopped, the agreement would collapse. It is appalling to suggest that that is the state of affairs. Prisoner releases are part of the agreement, but they are part of the whole, which includes an end to violence and decommissioning. That is why, in the legislation last year, the Government linked releases to decommissioning and an end to violence. If the Government say that they fear that slowing down prisoner releases will jeopardise the agreement, they are saying that the republican and other terrorist organisations can rewrite the agreement at will and that they can continue their illegal activities, including beatings and killings, with impunity. That is an appalling state of affairs to have reached.
  The statements made last week and repeated this week chill the heart of many people in Northern Ireland. We have been here before. We were here a year ago. The present situation is similar to the situation then. We know what the terrorists are doing. They are trying to push out the envelope and see how far they can go. They are trying to lay a basis for an attack on the RUC later in the context of the Patten report. They are also trying, as they did a year ago, to unnerve Unionists and bounce them out of the process.
  I remember the killings last year by Direct Action Against Drugs. The Secretary of State twisted and turned, trying to avoid what was obvious and tried to avoid taking action against republicans. Eventually, after a murder in Dunmurry, action became unavoidable and the Government screwed themselves up to take action. They excluded Sinn Fein from the talks, regrettably only for two weeks. I ask the Secretary of State to recall the positive consequences that flowed from acting last year. The tap turned off. The DAAD killings stopped. We had a more positive and serious attitude inside the talks, and that contributed to the agreement.
  The terrorists are pushing out the envelope again. They are testing the Secretary of State's resolve. So far, she has not shown any resolve or willingness to tackle the

  363
  situation. If she continues to allow the terrorists to push her around, the challenge that will face us all in another month or two will be more difficult. If she follows the good precedent of last year, when the Government resolved themselves to act after the DAAD killings, she will find that the next month or two will go more smoothly.
  I hope that the Secretary of State knows that I hope that we manage to maximise the opportunities for society that the agreement presents. I welcome what the right hon. Member for Bracknell said about the need to maximise and take forward the opportunities. The Secretary of State knows that my colleagues and I will make any effort that can be made to carry those opportunities forward successfully.
  The Secretary of State should also know that many people in Northern Ireland who have invested hope in the agreement also have a nightmare. The nightmare is that the paramilitary organisations, rather than turn their backs on violence and cross over into democratic society and thus create a new situation in Northern Ireland in which people can live together at ease, will come into the process and corrupt it, continue with their violence and continue the dominance and racketeering that not only affects estates in certain parts of Northern Ireland but goes much wider than that. People have a nightmare that they will then see the very heart of society become corrupted. That nightmare is reinforced by the fear that the RUC will be so emasculated that it is incapable of acting to restrain the paramilitaries.
  The paramilitaries have grown quite arrogant and confident. One has only to look at the behaviour of some of their political spokesmen to see that.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I am bound by the 15-minute rule.
  4.49 pm
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: May I first put in context the remarks that I want to make this evening, and have been making for many years, about violence and all its manifestations. I personally abhor the violence that is under discussion today, all violence that has taken place and the mindset that encourages people to use violence for political means.
  Sometimes it is necessary to repeat that because, when one listens to debates, particularly on this issue, it is as though there are different rungs on a ladder corresponding to one's own rectitude or self-righteousness on the issue. However, that has not permeated this debate. I have seen no evidence of the self-righteousness or self-indulgence that is sometimes displayed on this issue. There is genuine concern, which I share. It is right that the issue is debated and that Members are able to put their views, and I have no problem with that.
  I also have no problem with coupling my remarks with a gentle word of advice for our discussion on punishment beatings. To lob a petrol bomb through people's window when they are in bed is also a punishment, and it can be lethal. There have been a number of such incidents over the past few weeks. I also gently remind the House that, sometimes, the real punishment meted out by paramilitary
  364
  groups in the north of Ireland is not physical. People, especially the young, are put under different psychological pressures in a way that is devised to protect the turf, influence or corrosive power of paramilitary groups in their organisations.
  I question the wisdom of the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. If that motion were passed and implemented, how would a Secretary of State and a Prime Minister solve the problems of such brutality? How would passing the motion, with the best and most sincere motives, solve the problems? How would that change even the context in which the problems should be solved? Would we or others be debating more and more of those acts of barbarity or different acts of barbarity? I am opposed to the motion for that and other reasons.
  The motion has a subterranean political context, which is already evident. Is it not the supreme irony that, at a time when the business and process of politics has been re-established in the north of Ireland, all concentration is on violence? One would have hoped that, in the context of the new agreement, the new beginning and the new approach, we could have been debating other issues—mundane issues, perhaps—such as education, welfare, carers or young people.
  Another irony is that when, for the first time in the past 30 years—the lifetime of most people in the north of Ireland—we have a future, concentration on that will be overshadowed again by acts of barbarity. Ask anybody what is happening in the north of Ireland.
  Ms Helen Southworth: The hon. Gentleman might be aware that I asked the Library to research Opposition day debates on Northern Ireland in the previous Parliament. I am concerned because bipartisanship is very important to people in the peace process, and I recognise the importance of that process to people in Northern Ireland. The only Opposition day debate on Northern Ireland held during that time was the joint SDLP, UUP and Conservative Members' debate on the Northern Ireland economy. Is that the sort of debate that the hon. Gentleman wants to happen?
  Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Lady for that valuable interjection.
  It is right to point out that, at a time when the primacy of politics and the political process should be establishing itself apace, the political process is actually partially dormant. What is the focus of concentration? It is the acts of barbarity, a throwback from the past; it is the violence that we have lived with for so long. As politicians, we have to ask ourselves how, in effect, the business of violence is overcoming the business of the political process in circumstances in which the political process should be leading in every sense.
  We can ask the same question about the will of the people of the north of Ireland, expressed in a vote of 72 per cent. in the referendum on the agreement. Is that will the will that is being heard in this debate? Is that the will that has been heard in media terms, or is it the will—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The motion deals with good order, but we do not have good order in the Chamber. Let us have good order.
  Mr. Mallon: I am sure that extra time will be added, as they say.

  365
  The reality is that, by carrying out punishment beatings, or whatever we want to call them, those with hoods—the faceless people—are able to grab attention in a way that the legitimate political process is not. Let us not all fall into the trap that is being set by those in paramilitary organisations.
  I am asked whether the passing of this motion would end the brutality. If the release of prisoners were ended, would that end those acts of brutality? I do not believe that it would; I do not believe that any hon. Member believes that it would; and I do not believe that there is anyone in the House who does not believe that, in those circumstances, it would be the next excuse for a vast escalation of the type of violence that we have seen down the years.
  I agreed with the Prime Minister when he said—or implied—that, if one breaks one of the key provisions of the Good Friday agreement, the agreement is in effect broken and finished with. If that is the case, what is the vehicle to be used to solve the problem of these beatings? What, then, is the vehicle to solve the issue of decommissioning? Let us ask ourselves that and answer ourselves truthfully—there is no vehicle left for the political process.
  Of course, there will be those who say that we can solve the problem through policing. If it could have been done that way, those who are carrying out the attacks would have been behind bars long ago, and we all know that. Could it be done with new security measures? They have been tried for 30 years, and the problem has not been ended. Could it be done with new legislation? All of us should think what legislation that is not on the statute book but that might be on it would solve the problems of violence. Could it be done by political exclusion? If that is the feeling and the mood in some quarters, I warn that to exclude people from the political process is not the way to wean them from violence and arms.
  Mr. Maginnis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mallon: I have limited time, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and I want to finish my contribution. I always give way, but not this time.
  The motion presents the House with a choice: we can swap the agreement, with all its difficulties, for another political vacuum. By so doing, we acknowledge the failure of our political process and throw away the keys—the keys to our future, the keys to peace. We throw those keys inexorably into the hands of the leaders of all the paramilitary groupings. Is that we want to do? Can we do it? Can we even contemplate it?
  Right at the core of the Good Friday agreement is a crucial fact that is often overlooked. The central importance of the agreement is the fact that, for the first time since partition, the people of Northern Ireland—Unionist and nationalist—agreed how they would solve constitutional, political and social issues. They agreed to solve them by peaceful means, through the political process, for the first time since partition. It took almost 80 years to get to that point. To throw that out and to throw the keys away would jeopardise any hope for the future. I cannot contemplate the House doing that, and I do not believe that it will.
  I want to make one last point in relation to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State. All the issues surrounding violence in the north of Ireland
  366
  are highly sensitive. We can all bleed within ourselves about them, and we can all blame everybody. I want to put on record my admiration for the courage, the compassion and the concern shown by the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram). I get tired listening to them being bashed.
  Those are the people at the coal face, soaking up the vitriol that comes in their direction—for doing what? For doing exactly what I agreed they should do when my party signed the agreement, and for doing what other parties asked them to do when they signed the agreement, and for standing as a bulwark between the political process and the future, and a return to the awful past that we have experienced for so long.
  I want that to be put on the record, because it is grossly unfair that, when we charge the Secretary of State and her Ministers to pursue a line of policy contained in an agreement that we have reached, we start to complain and bitterly, publicly hold those people to ransom because they have carried out their commitment to that agreement.
  I ask the House not to put at risk the consensus that exists, however tenuous it may be. However difficult it is, do not risk it—the risk is far too high. At risk is the future, and future generations who will have to live with it. Do not make this or any other issue a make-or-break issue for the agreement. Agreements are much more easily broken than created.
  I have spent the years from Whitelaw to Mowlam in negotiations. That is only one part of one lifetime. Do we start again on another 30 years of negotiation, to try to reach the point where we are now, or do we preserve it, with everything under our control? We should never make this issue—I know that it has not been made so—a party political one. I recognise that it has not because people feel deeply about it. If we start playing with an agreement, which had to be created and took so long and so much effort from so many people to create, we are playing with fire. And that fire will be not just the awful barbarism of the beatings that have occurred, but the type of violence that we all know exists.
  5.5 pm
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: I shall suggest another way of looking at the issue, detaching the political element from the criminal behaviour. I shall be interested to hear what other hon. Members think about the suggestions that I make. At the very least, I hope that I provide a different perspective.
  I add my tribute to Families Against Intimidation and Terror and other organisations that try so hard to help victims of organised assaults and, on occasions, even stand up to those who perpetrate the crimes. If it were not for the likes of Vincent McKenna, who showed great courage and determination in ensuring that there are several directions in which victims can turn, the situation could be unimaginably worse than the very grave circumstances in which they find themselves at the moment.
  Let us be clear that the term "punishment beatings" has been put to rest today. I certainly agree with the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) that "punishment beatings" is an inappropriate term. Perhaps we shall no longer hear it used in the Chamber. We are talking of organised assaults; simple criminal action in a criminal

  367
  underworld which has no legitimacy on either political or legal grounds. In some ways, the tactics are similar to those used in the Chicago turf wars in the 1930s, when there was great commercial and political unrest among gangsters. We are talking of racketeers who seek, not just to protect a political interest, but to ensure that coercion keeps them at the top of their pile in Northern Irish life.
  Let us define what is going on: intimidation, injury and, occasionally, death. Indeed, it sounds as if there has been another tragic death among the people in Northern Ireland. Such events occur in a way that we simply do not see on the mainland, where I imagine that, from time to time, there are localised incidents, but, when they occur, the police come down very hard. As the Conservatives have suggested, such things would not be tolerated on the mainland for any length of time.
  It is difficult to assess the incidence of such events in Northern Ireland. The fact that figures—even the statistics quoted today by the Prime Minister and others—vary shows that, due to the intimidation wielded among those who could otherwise come forward to make statements, reliable statistics are difficult to gather. The rule of fear is so great that we cannot know exactly the extent of injuries and problems. I suspect that FAIT' s statistics are pretty accurate because it speaks informally with victims, something that the police cannot always do.
  Who is to blame? It is not the Government, the Good Friday agreement or the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Obviously, it is not the victims. The only people who are to blame for these terrible evils are the paramilitaries and others who commit such crimes. It is the perpetrators who should be called to account, not any other groups of people. Our role is not to attribute blame among ourselves in this Chamber, but to ask what we can do to prevent the perpetrators from carrying out their barbaric acts.
  On that basis, the Conservatives' proposal is inappropriate. Making a connection between prisoner releases and beatings will not resolve the issue, as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) pointed out.
  The important distinction that I seek to make is that it is inappropriate for us to regard the large proportion of the attacks as motivated primarily by politics. They must be regarded as being motivated primarily by nothing more than criminal aspiration—an attempt to coerce a community simply by breaking the law, thereby breaking bones, destroying lives and intimidating individuals, and all that clearly pervades in large areas of Northern Ireland.
  To pretend that there is a consistent and specific link between the political peace process and that criminal activity is to misunderstand the solution that we will ultimately have to implement. I draw an analogy with Estonia, a country that I know well and that also experienced enormous political upheavals, as it shifted from being a satellite state in the former Soviet Union to becoming a free and independent state liberated from the Soviet Union.
  The KGB, which was primarily a political organ for the former Soviet Union, converted itself into a criminal organisation that was primarily motivated by cash interest and by maintaining the power of those near the top of the organisation. It stopped being a political organisation,
  368
  but carried on many of its coercive activities in the criminal interests of those involved. There was a surge in black market activities as well.
  Mr. William Thompson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the criminal activity that is going on is carried out by organisations that were party to the Belfast agreement? Surely what they are doing contradicts what they professed that they would do under that agreement: give up all violence—whether they carried it out for political or other reasons—and take on the democratic process.
  Mr. Öpik: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I shall return to it. I am suggesting that we should look at that issue differently and that it is, in large part, up to us to define the extent to which we should regard the beatings and the intimidation as politically motivated and the extent to which we should regard them as organised crime.
  I return to the KGB analogy. The KGB, which was no longer a political organisation, carried on working, as a criminal organisation, in Estonia and elsewhere. The Estonian authorities converted their approach to it into a criminal approach. As a result, they managed to reduce the criminal and coercive activities to a point at which things were much improved.
  In the same way, we should seriously consider whether it is now appropriate to detach elements of the activities of those paramilitary organisations from the political process—which I hope will deliver peace—and treat those beatings simply as thuggery and crime. We may have to increase massively investment in the police services to destroy that criminal activity and, at the same time, recognise that there is a distinction in motive. There is not necessarily always a political motive, or a motive associated with the peace process, behind such activities.
  Mr. Frank Field: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving away some of his time to allow me to intervene. Although we can accept that each act may be criminal, does he not see that such acts are also part of a political programme? Paramilitaries on both sides want influence over the outcome of the Patten commission. They have a crucial role now; they are increasing the amount of violence to show that certain parts of the Province cannot be policed so that the Patten commission will suggest proposals that would break the national police force. Those activities are criminal, but they are also highly political.
  Mr. Öpik: I want to move on to that issue. Although what I have described may take account of a large proportion of the activity that takes place—I sincerely believe that a lot of it is motivated by criminal, not political, interest—it is nevertheless reasonable to assume, as two hon. Members have done, that some activity is politically motivated.
  We could have made the whole situation a lot simpler, if we had thought about that at the time of the Good Friday agreement. The issue was considered, but it was not specifically included in the agreement, which is why we now face problems of definition in respect of categorising beatings. In fact, I think we made a mistake; last April, we should have expressed a specific view on

  369
  the issue. Still, we could debate that until the cows come home, but we cannot rewrite the agreement. Therefore, the question is merely of historical interest rather than practical application.
  We should consider the consequences of accepting that some of those activities might be politically motivated. That is the issue that the Secretary of State must address in deciding what to do about them. If the paramilitary organisations made an overt effort to proceed with their political intentions, and to move towards their stated goals, through coercive means, we would get into a grey area. There might be a case for reassessing everything, from prisoner releases to the status of the Good Friday agreement.
  I do not have the same information as the Secretary of State, or as hon. Members from the Province, who are much better informed than I am, so I cannot be sure whether any such move is taking place, but my judgment is that the agreement is—at the moment, at least—maintaining a ceasefire that I can regard as intact and a peace process that is our best hope for peace for more than 30 years.
  I recognise that others may have different views. Perhaps Conservative Members and other hon. Members think that the Good Friday agreement has been breached in an unacceptable fashion, but therein lies the path to great danger. The Secretary of State made the point—as did the Prime Minister at Question Time today—that implying that the Good Friday agreement has in some part failed is a much worse option.
  Rather than taking that approach, and rather than the Government specifically and overtly showing that the process is failing by slowing down or stopping prisoner releases, we should handle the beatings in a different way. First, we should find a process that would make it easier for victims to come forward with information. I know that that has been said before, and I shall not suggest such a process now; I may not even be able to do so, and certainly could not do that in three minutes. It might be expensive, but we may have to invest in seeking an alternative to what people are faced with at the moment: either silence or the terror of coming forward.
  Secondly, we have to accept that implementation of the correct rule of law is an expensive business in the face of racketeers and powerful paramilitary organisations. The Government should say that, whatever the cost, since human liberties are involved, the need to normalise law enforcement in Northern Ireland is so great that this is an area for legitimate additional investment in those communities.
  To an extent, there is lack of faith in some of those communities that the law can protect them or even reach them. That has to be dealt with. There are areas where the RUC has a poor profile and, as a result, the mountain that we must climb to institute normal law enforcement activities is great. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State should make a specific commitment, putting this point of principle above cost.
  We must consider the political element on an on-going basis. If it looks as though some of those organisations are specifically using beatings and organised assaults to try to further their political aims, we must think long and hard about whether they are breaching the Good Friday agreement. Here, I do not think that we are arguing a point of principle; we are arguing a point of judgment. The view
  370
  of the right hon. Member for Bracknell is different from mine, and other hon. Members sitting behind me share a different view, but that is why it is useful for us to have a rational debate.
  Where do we go from here? As I have said in the past, there are elements of brinkmanship in the process, and there may be elements of brinkmanship as we seek to turn off the tap on these beatings. We have to be courageous. Once again, the Secretary of State is in the invidious position of attempting to decide how to be tough, what is the most effective way to be tough and what investment should be made to implement a tough policy.
  We must recognise that simple solutions, such as slowing or stopping prisoner releases, make a statement without necessarily taking account of the consequences. Such solutions would have the wrong consequences. It is far more difficult to detach some of those activities and put them into the criminal context, assess the others on an on-going basis in a political context, and provide the investment to make sure that both kinds of activity are controlled. But, if we took that more difficult option, I would be fairly confident that we could not only win the respect of communities, but achieve our long-term objective of normalising Northern Ireland.
  No one should have to live with those beatings, but we must do nothing that would fundamentally jeopardise the peace process, which has gone a lot further than many of us expected.
  5.20 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Members of the campaign Families Against Intimidation and Terror have visited the House many times since the campaign's inception in 1990, but its visit just before Christmas constituted a major breakthrough.
  People in Britain find it difficult to appreciate the degree of intimidation that exists in Northern Ireland estates. That extends to many of my colleagues in the House. The campaign, however, managed to bring a good many people together during its visit, and I think that had some influence.
  I agreed to table a number of early-day motions whose content was drawn from information that the campaign supplied about the beatings. The motions, which were signed by members of all political parties, expressed the genuine concern felt by all hon. Members. I went further, however, and tabled another early-day motion suggesting that there should be a link with the issue of the release of prisoners. I argued for a slowing down of their release, rather than for a complete stop, because I thought that many might interpret a complete stop as a breach of the Belfast agreement, and I wanted to avoid that. I accepted that the word "slow" could mean "very slow indeed", and could be understood in that way by the pal-militaries.
  As a result of that argument, I have been the subject of favourable comments in editorials in The Daily Telegraph, The Times and The Independent, and have even had an honourable mention from the Leader of the Opposition during Prime Minister's Question Time. I would much prefer to receive support in the editorials of "Socialist Campaign Group News", Tribune and the Morning Star, which reflect my political stance, and I would sooner be praised by the Prime Minister. I may not agree with him about "third way" politics, but I am full

  371
  of admiration for all that the Northern Ireland team has done, for the establishment of the agreement and for the role that the Prime Minister has played in the process.
  I am trying to encourage and develop that process, and to ensure that it works. I know that the beatings and other troubles in Northern Ireland pose a massive problem, and that the release of prisoners alienates many people there. We must hold on to those people in our support for the process. The problem is probably greater in the Protestant community than in the Catholic community, because the majority in support of the agreement was smaller there. We must try to sustain the position of the Ulster Unionists who are involved in the process, whichever avenue they follow.
  I thought that the debate was about the link between punishment beatings and prisoners, but some have suggested that certain people should be excluded from the Assembly. I want to avoid that. If people take on board what is said about so-called punishment beatings, it will be easier for us to advance our views.
  I have always argued that we should look for ways in which the paramilitaries can be encouraged to involve themselves in what they call concessions. If the IRA would only tell us where the bodies of the disappeared are, Christian burials could take place. That would represent movement—movement that could be associated with, for instance, the ending of exile. It has been said that we do not want politicians in Northern Ireland to be exiled, but many people are exiled from Northern Ireland. They cannot return until the beatings stop; even if they are told that they can, they will not feel safe. The involvement of paramilitary groups in smuggling and protection rackets also needs to be tackled.
  If we can achieve some movement in the areas that I have mentioned, the prize will be concessions in terms of decommissioning, which is the major issue. A small amount of decommissioning would be fantastic, because it would be contrary to all the IRA's traditions. When people were told to rob a bank in order to get some guns to engage in future terrorist activity, they would say "Get lost. You have given the guns away." Those are serious issues, and the concern of Families Against Intimidation and Terror is justified.
  Nancy Gracey, who helped to set up the campaign, was involved with Protestant families although she was a Catholic. She had experienced similar problems to theirs. She began by looking for support. One of my proudest memories is of seeing her on television with an early-day motion of which she was obviously proud. I had tabled the motion, congratulating her on the establishment of the campaign. It has taken a long time for the campaign to reach centre stage, and to be mentioned other than in parliamentary questions and Adjournment debates. It is not alone, however: there are many other worthwhile organisations, many of which receive Government funding.
  I have a problem with the Government amendment. I have no problem in voting for it, because it expresses all the right sentiments, but where does it go after that? Citrine—whom we in the Labour movement often quote—might describe it as pious. It contains no proposal or strategy for the ending of punishments. Whatever may
  372
  be wrong with the Opposition motion and my suggested amendment, at least they involve some sort of strategy, albeit perhaps inappropriate or weak.
  We all support what has been done by the Northern Ireland Office, and the recent discussions with the leaders of the three political parties in the Assembly. They have laid it on the line. However, we want solid progress: we want all the stops to be pulled out. People in Northern Ireland need that more than anyone else. They need to be drawn into the process.
  Although the Opposition are allowing us to have a good debate, I do not know what their motion means or why it is there. I fear that it is there because some Opposition Members have threatened to name names in the House, and have pressurised their party into adopting a stronger position. The Conservative leadership has come up with this motion in the hope that such matters will be dropped.
  Some Conservatives supported the "No" campaign, and want the agreement to be wrecked. I entirely oppose that position, and oppose Northern Ireland Members who support it, although I agree with them about other matters of a social and economic nature.
  Mr. MacKay: Let me put the record straight. The overwhelming majority of Conservative Members fully support the Belfast agreement and the process, as I have clearly outlined. Only a handful do not. There is one simple reason why we tabled the motion, and I think that it has been proved to be worth while from the high standard of the debate: to draw attention to the dreadful plight of those innocent people who are victims of terrorism of the worse sort. I can put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest.
  Mr. Barnes: I am pleased to hear that. I have a suggestion in connection with that: when we get to 7 o'clock, the Opposition should not press their motion because we will have had the debate. They might say, "We have not quite found exactly the deal that gets the paramilitaries to do these things. We are applying our mind to it. We are arguing with the Government about it. We will listen to their responses and we are encouraging a certain development to take place."
  I tried with an amendment; obviously, it was not going to be selected. I hoped that the Conservative party might have backed it. I am in no sense jumping on any Conservative bandwagon. In fact, I had a little bandwagon going for about 10 years, although it mainly reflected what Families Against Intimidation and Terror was doing. The Conservative party should come on board in terms of my amendment.
  Within politics, there is politicking. Perhaps some members of the Conservative party feel that it would not be all that much of a loss if the process fails because it would do so under a Labour Government, rather than a future Conservative Government. I still want to say many honourable things about certain people in the Conservative party.
  Mr. MacKay: We passionately want the agreement and the process to work, but let me explain why, although superficially attracted to the hon. Gentleman's amendment, I feel that there is a problem with it. His proposal would be illegal, as I think the Minister will explain in his winding-up speech. There is only one of

  373
  two options. We either do not decertify the various parties, so prisoner releases can continue, or we do. We cannot slow the process down. It is not an option, even though the House might like to have it. It is not possible under the law.
  Mr. Barnes: I picked up that there was a problem. Some people seemed to say at first that halting early release, the Opposition's position, was legally possible and that there were problems with slowing it down, as my amendment proposes. However, "slow down" was introduced to try to get around the problem of people saying that halting early release would violate the agreement. Therefore, we can look for something else, but I still think that it would be a great advantage if the Opposition did not press their motion when we come to the end of the debate.
  I agree that there are many genuine Conservatives who support the process and who were there at its birth. At the moment, I should be in a meeting of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, which is discussing exactly the type of economic and social affairs in which we should be engaged in.
  The Chairman is the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). I know that he is solidly behind the process because he produced the form of words initially that started the whole process going, so those elements are there. Let us have the debate, but not then go further by pressing for a Division. We are looking for matters of substance to try to solve these particular problems.
  From a left-socialist position, I always believed that something like the agreement should be established. In the Labour party, we used to have a policy of a united Ireland by consent. It was an inconsistent policy because we could not have a united Ireland by consent; a united Ireland could happen only without consent. It was much more sensible when we developed a position where the parties could be facilitated to come together to agreement.
  We nudged the parties on occasions. Headings of agreement were drawn up on what they had said. The two Governments got together to move in that direction, but it always seemed that that was the right sort of thing to do. I have great disagreements with many people who go for centralist politics in relation to economic and social matters—I disagree even with the Prime Minister in connection with those—but when it came to Northern Ireland's constitution or political matters, there was an obvious area for an almost artificial centre.
  We have got that going and we have to keep it going, but, at the same time, we have to do things to protect people in communities from being beaten, battered and all the other problems that are associated with that. We should act in ways that assist them to get out of those problems.
  I appeal to certain of my colleagues who are very much on the left: if they have any links with Sinn Fein, they should put the strongest pressure that they can possibly on it. We should not be ambivalent in any way about violence or the new violence that is happening now in terms of the beatings, their spread and the fact that there is a political strategy behind them—as well as all the other considerations. It is fully understood that parties are organising to further their own ends in connection with the beatings. We should not have it.
  374
  Therefore, we have to look for methods, more police expenditure and improvements, and ask where the peace dividend is going to be spent; there is no peace dividend if we look at the statistics. Those things should be used to create a situation in which we achieve what everyone wants to be achieved.
  5.37 pm
  Mr. Michael Mates: The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) always makes an idiosyncratic and amusing speech. I hope that his political credentials have not been utterly ruined by praise from both The Daily Telegraph and my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the Leader of the Opposition, on the same day.
  I support wholeheartedly the bipartisan approach and the Good Friday agreement. I think that everyone knows that; I know that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland knows it. However, that does not mean—it is rather offensive to be told this by some Labour Members—that we cannot and must not criticise.
  The definitive remark came from the Secretary of State herself. She may remember that, when we appeared on "Question Time" some years ago, when our roles were reversed, I defended a particularly controversial thing that my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) had just said. She tore into me, and told me that I was talking rubbish and defending the indefensible, whereupon Mr. Dimbleby said, "But I thought you had a bipartisan process." "Of course we do," she said, "but that does not mean that we cannot criticise the Government when they are wrong." That is what we are doing. There is no discredit in that. I am sure that she will agree.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will agree too that, apart from the small print in the Good Friday agreement and all the other bits of legislation that we have had, the words of reassurance that have been spoken by leaders are also important. In the summer, when the releases started—when the process started—there was much concern that the IRA had not moved an inch. To reassure those people who were worried about the process being one-sided, the Prime Minister said clearly and unequivocally, "I shall insist on parallel movement through all stages of the agreement."
  In all honesty, that remark should be withdrawn. There has been no parallel movement. One side has been totally stationary, while the other side—the Government—have pressed ahead, honouring the letter and spirit of the agreement. I do not criticise that, but there must come a time when the Prime Minister has to say either, "I do not insist on parallel movement any longer," or "There is none and I am going to stop moving until someone catches up."
  It is an illogical statement to have made as it simply has not been applied by the IRA in any way, shape or form. It is not particularly honest for that remark still to be on the record if the time of it has passed.
  I come to another remark, which was made by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, to which I noticed the Secretary of State shake her head. He asked what the Prime Minister was doing saying that, if prisoner releases stopped, that would be the end of the Good Friday agreement. He said that last week and I thought that he said it again this week.

  375
  Last week my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said:
  "Is it not time that we put on hold the release of convicted terrorists, when they have not yet given up a single gun or bomb?"
  The Prime Minister answered by saying:
  "The right hon. Gentleman is, in effect, asking us to bring the whole Good Friday agreement to an end."—[Official Report, 20 January 1999; Vol. 323, c. 901–902.]
  That is at the heart of the matter. It would bring the Good Friday agreement to an end. That is what Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuinness have threatened. They have said that if there is a slowdown or deviation in anything that the Government do, the whole thing is off. They are proceeding by implied threat while doing absolutely nothing. They are trying to bring the blame for any breakdown upon the Government and not themselves.
  Nobody has yet called their bluff. The Secretary of State was, uncharacteristically, wringing her hands on the radio this morning when she said, "I could not do anything about it even if I wanted to." That is a counsel of despair. She will run out of options if she continues with this line. All the prisoners will be out and not one bullet, one bomb or one gun will have been handed in. What will she do then? Will she say, "Isn't it dreadful. They have not done anything. We have another year under the agreement and we will press on"? If that happens, the beatings will continue, as will the punishment and the violence, which has not decreased. The right hon. Lady will have lost what I see as her only card in restraining them and calling their bluff. That is why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has tabled the motion. We have had a useful debate.
  Mr. Robert McCartney rose—
  Mr. Mates: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. I have only a short time and I have another point to make.
  We now have a situation in which the Government are proceeding with the agreement in letter and spirit, and the IRA are not proceeding with the agreement in either letter or spirit. Even worse, there are implied threats day after day, week after week, that they will not be told when they have to move in the direction in which the Prime Minister has insisted and on which the spirit of the Good Friday agreement is based.
  The crunch will really come over decommissioning. The Secretary of State continues to say that it has to happen because it is in the agreement. The IRA and Sinn Fein continue to say—I believe them—that it will not happen under any circumstances. At the start of this process, Mr. McGuinness said that there would be, "Not one bullet." Mr. Adams keeps saying that the, "IRA is still there." The Ard Fheis held by the IRA general council or army council—whatever it is called—said that the IRA would not give up its arms or surrender its weapons under any circumstances.
  Why are we in any doubt that the IRA means that? Why do we keep saying, "It is in the agreement so it will have to happen"? The leaders of the IRA are not in a position—I doubt they would be willing anyway—to force the IRA to hand over their weapons. They do not
  376
  want to do it because of their attitude of no surrender, which is always in the thoughts of the IRA. It will not happen.
  What will happen when the time comes, according to the agreement, for the setting up of the Executive? Will the right hon. Member for Upper Bann have to go back on his declared intention not to sit down with those people until they have made a move in that direction? I do not believe that that is a tolerable position for him. I do not think that his party or his people would let him do it and I would think less of him if he did. That is the position that has been taken not just by the leadership in this place, but by all right-thinking people and all the people in Northern Ireland who voted for the agreement. They voted for both parties to move out of the impasse in which they have found themselves.
  We have had no movement whatsoever. If the Government do not take some action to call that bluff, the right hon. Lady will probably say, "It is not down to me. I am afraid it is down to the Ulster Unionists." That is what the IRA is already saying. It is saying that it is the intransigence of the Ulster Unionists that is causing the problems in the setting up of the Executive.
  I know that the Secretary of State takes her responsibilities seriously. She must not just sit back, wring her hands and say that she cannot do anything about it. The crunch will come on 10 March. Perhaps we can delay that, but we cannot delay it indefinitely because the day will not come when the IRA will decommission its weapons. It has said that clearly and unequivocally.
  Such cards as the Government had in what was a skilful and difficult series of negotiations are being dropped one by one. The right hon. Lady needs to take note of the genuine concerns that have been raised on both sides of the Chamber. The time is running out. She must not go on pandering to the IRA—I do not use that word lightly—allowing the wives of IRA killers to come in and see Ministers and providing more money for the resettlement of prisoners than for the victims of crimes.
  I know what the right hon. Lady is doing. She is trying to persuade them that our cause—hers and mine—is genuine. It is genuine, but it needed some persuading at the beginning. With respect, I suggest to the Secretary of State that the boot is now on the other foot. She must start persuading decent Unionists that her determination to make the terrorist organisations honour the agreement is just as strong as her determination to honour it herself. If she does not do that, I fear that what set out to be an exciting adventure may end in tears.
  5.46 pm
  Mr. Eddie McGrady: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in the debate. I shall be brief, so that other hon. Members can contribute. The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) moved the motion in an eloquent and emotive way. He described graphically the trauma, torture and torment suffered by individuals and families. He gave us a litany of data about the terrorist offences visited on those people and on the communities.
  At every Northern Ireland debate in the House since last Easter, whether it was on the Northern Ireland Bill, the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill or any other opportunity, I have tried to make the point consistently that the communities in Northern Ireland, even those that

  377
  are totally opposed to violence, have endured and suffered violence for over a generation—30 years. I have urged the House to consider the fact that it would not be possible by any agreement to switch off immediately the use of violence for political and personal purposes because such violence is endemic in certain parts of our community. That does not mean that we excuse or condone it. There is not a single person in the House, the country or Ireland who, in civilised terms, would condone or excuse any act of violence that has taken place.
  Those of us who live in those communities can see a complex pattern of what is happening. Many of the beatings are rooted purely in criminality. That does not mean that they are different or that people suffer any less. Many of the beatings involve people mixed up in the drugs racket, the protection racket or in territorial claims. Some of them are personal vendettas, many of which can be superficial. It may be that the godfather's car has been damaged and he sends out the thugs and hoods to teach someone a lesson.
  That is what much, although not all, of this is about. The sinister fact to which I want to draw the House's attention is that that is the habitual criminality that our society has to address from now on. We must show that we are determined to work together. We must show leadership in delivering a civilised society based on good social and economic order if we are to cut that cancerous growth out of our society once and for all. Basically, that is what the agreement is about. It is about living together for the betterment of our communities.
  I have no evidence, but I suggest that there may be another agenda. Paramilitary influences in Northern Ireland are very complex. I am convinced that some of the beatings and killings are aimed at discrediting those elements of the paramilitary organisations and their political representatives who are in favour of a continuing ceasefire, even if they cannot yet deliver all that is required of them. There are certainly elements in the IRA, the Ulster Volunteer Force or the Ulster Defence Association—we can give them any name that we like; I could name 10 or more paramilitary organisations that most people have not heard of—that are committing acts of violence. Their purpose is to drive us towards doing what the motion asks.
  The right hon. Member for Bracknell referred eloquently to the tragic event this morning involving Eamon Collins just outside my constituency. My information is that he was killed in a hit and run accident. That may be true, but assessing the situation without evidence risks inflaming the situation. Some of those involved in paramilitary beatings and killings are trying to drive the agreement on to the rocks.
  People knew that we were going to have this debate but, far from there being a reduction in such incidents, they have escalated. That may be a coincidence, but I doubt it. The purpose is to drive us towards the decision that the motion calls for.
  Let us consider the practicality of stopping the release of prisoners. The Secretary of State can do that, given the proper evidence. So what? It would not have much effect on paramilitaries' attempts to control communities by beatings, maimings and killings. We have to address that in a more difficult, more complex and, unfortunately, longer-term way. That requires strong local government by local people.
  378
  There is a political agenda. Almost the entire speech of the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) was a political contribution. It was about not the criminality of what is happening, but the political drive behind it. He put decommissioning in an interesting context. The debate process is part of the decommissioning debate. The parties in Northern Ireland who support the Good Friday agreement and the 18 December agreement, on the bodies to be established, are within 20 days—I hope; the relevant date should be 15 February—of signing up to that. Decommissioning has been put up as an obstacle to that. I shall not argue the pros and cons of that debate today. I want total decommissioning, but I also want the complete dismantling of all paramilitary organisations for ever. It does not concern me that a gun is buried in a pit somewhere if no one goes to that pit and gets the gun to use it against someone in my community. As I said in an earlier debate, we could put a gun on the Table in the Chamber and come back in 1,000 years, during which it would have done no harm if the human element had not touched it. We must be careful not to exclude that possibility.
  We are 20 days away, in my hopeful opinion, from a major breakthrough. There is a difficult balance to strike between those elements of the paramilitaries that are trying to destroy the agreement, which has been carefully nurtured and brought to this point, and other elements that are trying to sustain a ceasefire and keep the process going with their political representatives.
  That is a judgment. I have no hard evidence on who is in one camp and who is in the other. It is just an observation and an interpretation of what is happening around me in my community. Today's debate is not dangerous, but it would be dangerous for the motion to be passed or used as ammunition by the paramilitary opponents of the agreement to disrupt the process further. The exclusion of some members who were elected to the Assembly from participating in the democratic process would be equally dangerous. Whether we like them or dislike them is irrelevant; they have been voted in under the terms of the law that was passed by the House. There are many people whose history I know and do not like, but I have to work with them. That is the price that we have to pay for peace in Northern Ireland. I am prepared to work with them on the understanding that there has been at least an element of conversion that has given us a prospect of establishing an enduring peace in our community. I am a middle-aged man and I have not known enduring peace in my lifetime. We are aiming at a prize beyond compare.
  We should not give ammunition to those who are trying to destroy the agreement by violence or by putting up obstacles in the political process to prevent us from coming to the conclusion that I hope for on 15 February. The right hon. Member for Bracknell said that the purpose of the debate was to draw attention to an evil cancer in our society. That is right and proper, and I have no problem with it; but if he is just drawing attention to the issue, he cannot follow that by asking the Government to stop prisoner releases, because that would immediately give the paramilitaries who oppose the agreement an excuse to take a dominant position and re-establish violence in our society. I sincerely hope that the motion will be withdrawn.
  5.58 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The events since the Omagh bombing and the increase in paramilitary attacks have shown how Governments react to such atrocities. First there is a general outcry, in which everyone joins, and solemn pledges are made by political leaders that the perpetrators will be hunted down ruthlessly. In the case of Omagh, our Prime Minister and Mr. Ahern responded with so-called draconian legislation, even suggesting that suspected bombers would be gaoled—on the word of a senior police officer alone, if necessary. We have had the Prime Minister's word and it is not enough. We have seen the special powers and they are useless. Those who carried out the Omagh atrocity walk free.
  You will remember the recall of Parliament, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will remember the strong words that were spoken and the fact that, in Dail Eireann, the new offence of directing terrorism was introduced, with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. When the threat died down and the survivors' suffering no longer reached the front pages, the condemnatory words evaporated, and little has changed.
  The laws that were to have the terrorists quaking in their boots have failed. They are laughing. Suspects flout the new laws, which are either ineffective or unused. Paramilitaries are getting out of gaol and some of them are very much behind what is going on. In January, we heard that some of the prisoners released had been charged with new offences.
  The Belfast agreement, which brought about their release, promised that the gun would be taken out of Irish politics and that the gunmen would be banished. That has not happened. The Prime Minister acknowledged today that it was not a perfect peace, yet we were told that it would be.
  Many other released prisoners are suspected of involvement in the wave of attacks, including arson and intimidation, that has beset Northern Ireland. We have heard a catalogue of what is taking place. In my constituency, a move is afoot to put the gangsterism out of control and demoralise the police. I think that it was the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) who said that the RUC was being hit and that pressure on the Constabulary was encouraging the commission to move.
  Some think that the wild men, as they are called, have suddenly come into being; but the wild men of the Republican movement, and of other movements, have not suddenly come into being. They are there today because of the failure of Governments to deal with terrorism and to put it down.
  Some of us will remember that, 23 years ago, there was a massacre in Kingsmills. It sparked off one of the greatest revulsions against terrorism that I have seen in the Province. Ten Protestants were gunned down in cold blood when the bus in which they were travelling was stopped by an armed gang. An 11th Protestant, Alan Black, survived, but was maimed for life. The only Roman Catholic on board escaped with his life after the killers told him to flee.
  At that time, we were told that steps would be taken to bring those responsible for the atrocity to trial. If the Government of that day had done their duty and gone after those men ruthlessly, we would not be reaping other atrocities, and perhaps we would not even have had the sorrow of Omagh. There are hard men in the republican
  380
  movement who can fly flags of convenience whenever they like. I believe that the IRA leadership condones their actions, and allows them to return to the ranks after a time. There are all sorts of flags of convenience.
  It is interesting to note that a police dossier carefully prepared on the Kingsmills massacre has recently come to light. It shows that the police did thorough work, had definite evidence and could, if they had been encouraged, have got men into the courts; but that did not happen. Now we are told by the police officer investigating the Omagh atrocity that he knows the identity of the bombers but he cannot secure a conviction.
  The Tullyvallen massacre, another terrible atrocity, was thought to be the work of some group calling itself the South Armagh Republican Action Group; but that, too, was undoubtedly a cover name for a gang of cross-border PIRA terrorists. The fact must be faced that, under the surface, there are those who are ready to act, whose actions will be condoned and who will probably be reincorporated into the republican movement after they have acted.
  There is something seriously wrong with any country—and any Government—that permits known killers to walk the streets with impunity while their victims lie in cold graves. The fact that the killers could operate both inside and outside the IRA name, according to political circumstance, is no comfort to the community. It is an indictment of the Government's and the legal system's failure to address the problem.
  The documents that I have mentioned reveal that top PIRA players are free to operate as PIRA, or under any other name during times of ceasefire, in the knowledge that they will be accepted back into the PIRA fold when they are required. The futility of those who believe that the IRA ceasefire is foundation enough on which to build the peace process stands exposed.
  According to the dossier, Eugene Reavey, a well-known republican,
  "set up the Kingsmills massacre"
  and transported Malachy McParland to the site. It says that Brendan Ferris of Drumcraw was seen to be diverting traffic away from the Kingsmills crossroads before the tragedy took place. It says:
  "Ferris is sourced as being seen in the area of the massacre shortly before it took place."
  The dossier says:
  "The same terrorists are involved in these incidents"
  under a cover name for a gang of cross-border PIRA terrorists. It says that some of those people are
  "implicated in the Drummacravall shooting, the murder of CPL. Frazer, and possibly the murder of McNeice and Gibson."
  It refers to Michael Thomas Brannigan,
  "formerly of McKinley Park Tullyvallen. He has been reported several times for his involvement in explosions and shootings."
  The dossier says that on 31 December 1975,
  "at Road House",
  near Jonesborough,
  "14 PIRA men were holding a meeting—Michael McKevitt, Tony Magill, Brian Smith and 11 others were there."
  Those are well-known PIRA men. It says that the Kingsmills ambush was
  "carried out by some of the top PIRA…Brian Smith, Arnold White, Brian Hearty, Michael Brannigan, Tony Magill."

  381
  All that information is authenticated in the police document, which also names T. G. McVerry, Joe McSharry, Michael O'Hare, Jim Feehan, the Markey brothers, Peter McCann and the Loughran brothers as having good knowledge of what took place on that dreadful day.
  The dossier says that Aiden McKeown of Whitecross and F. Mcllhaw of Camlough were there as witnesses and that a blue van containing the PIRA terrorists was driven by Michael Coburn of Blackwatertown as part of the ambush and that another Ford Cortina was driven by F. Cullen. All those facts were set out, yet nothing was done, and the men walk free.
  The problem with the Government's strategy is that only a knave and a fool would believe that a few places in government handed to Sinn Fein-IRA will secure for us a long-term peace. It will do nothing of the kind. To put Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness into government is not the way to get peace. It is a way to give them even greater force to carry out their objective—to destroy Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom.
  Sooner or later, the IRA-Sinn Fein movement will want its appetite thoroughly quenched by further concessions. None of this will secure peace, stability or reconciliation. There is no prospect whatever of securing the disarmament of weapons, or the break-up of the paramilitaries.
  Theodore Roosevelt said in one of his addresses:
  "Peace is normally a great good and normally it coincides with righteousness. But it is righteousness and not peace which should bind the conscience of any nation as it should bind the conscience of an individual. Neither a nation or an individual can surrender conscience to another's keeping."
  In Northern Ireland today, we are in danger of being victims of surrendering righteousness, justice and truth to a process that only promises a peace that it will fail to deliver, as it has failed up to this date.
  6.11 pm
  Mr. Martin Salter: I rise to speak as a Member of this House, a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee and a supporter of, and campaigner for, the Good Friday agreement. It is a shame that the modernisation process of this House has not advanced sufficiently to allow us to have time to debate on the Floor of the House some of the excellent reports that are produced by all Select Committees. I look forward to that day.
  If hon. Members were to read the report on the RUC by the Select Committee, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), they would have a better understanding of the linkage between the policing problems in a acutely divided society—or perhaps more accurately, in sections of an acutely divided society—and what is euphemistically called summary justice. I prefer to call it criminal assault, as would all hon. Members.
  Just so that there is no misunderstanding, I want to state clearly that I carry no flag for either republicanism or unionism. I am a socialist—we are still allowed to be socialists in the Labour party—and my comrades and I often take a cynical view of politicians who wrap themselves in national flags. It is often a substitute for coherent political analysis and argument. As the right
  382
  hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) pointed out, the poor bloody infantry are often sold down the river when flags become a substitute for political analysis.
  One cannot ignore the constitutional question, but I long for the day when, in Northern Ireland—and perhaps throughout the island of Ireland—we can discuss politics that transcend the constitutional questions. I hope that we can talk about schools, hospitals and jobs—the bread and butter of politics. I hope that we can discuss the tension between left and right, and arguments in favour of individualism or collectivism. I long for a kind of politics that defines people by what they are and by what they believe in, rather than by what they are not.
  The Good Friday agreement has given us the best opportunity of securing peace in Northern Ireland for 30 years or more. It involved taking risks and courageous decisions by Members of all parties, in this Chamber and over the water. We are talking about the establishment of an equality commission, cross-border bodies, the Assembly and a policing commission. There are also vexed questions, such as decommissioning and prisoner releases. The agreement is the best hope that we have, and it received overwhelming public endorsement from 72 per cent. of the people in Northern Ireland.
  Now is not a time for backsliding. If the British Government cannot deliver their obligations within the agreement, who can? What alternative is there to the Good Friday agreement? History shows us that, when politics and politicians fail—we in this place have often failed the island of Ireland—violence fills the space, and with political violence comes gangsterism. All those aspects bear the hallmark of a dysfunctional society, but only in elements of the north of Ireland. I will return to that point later.
  The right hon. Member for Bracknell was right to say that, in Twinbrook, Poleglass, Tiger's Bay or Rathcoole, we are not dealing with the politics of Stow-on-the-Wold or Chipping Norton. An English village green mentality will not do: we must lift our eyes higher. Paramilitary assaults and gangsterism can flourish only when there is a breakdown in the fabric of society—whether engineered or otherwise.
  I commend the report on the RUC to the House. It is a valuable contribution towards resolving the problems of policing in Northern Ireland and the problems of no-go areas for the RUC that create the conditions which allow the thugs to operate. It is a matter of deep regret that there is less than wholehearted support for the RUC in many of the working class and inner-city areas of Londonderry-Derry or Belfast, and that is particularly prevalent among the nationalist communities.
  The point is acknowledged in the Good Friday agreement—the vast majority signed up to it—which states:
  "The participants recognise that policing is a central issue in any society … They believe that the agreement provides the opportunity for a new beginning to policing in Northern Ireland with a police service capable of attracting and sustaining support from the community as a whole … They consider that this opportunity should inform and underpin the development of a police service representative in terms of the make-up of the community as a whole.
  An independent Commission will be established to make recommendations for future policing arrangements in Northern Ireland including means of encouraging widespread community support".

  383
  The Select Committee report highlighted the deep imbalance in the composition of the RUC, with 93 per cent. from the Protestant tradition and only 7 per cent. from the Catholic tradition. The report concluded that there were many reasons for that, including deliberate intimidation of members of the Catholic community who wished to join the Northern Ireland police service or the RUC. An RUC survey, which was appended as evidence, said that 63 per cent. of Roman Catholics
  "have been subjected to religious/political harassment within the RUC during their career … These levels could be higher as others who had experienced harassment did not reply".
  The point I am making is that we cannot discuss the issue of criminal or paramilitary assaults in isolation.
  Mr. Robathan: From his vast experience of Northern Ireland and the RUC, could the hon. Gentleman enlighten the House as to what proportion of RUC officers were from the Catholic or nationalist community in 1969, and what proportion of the Ulster Defence Regiment, when it was first established, was Catholic? Why have all those people fallen by the wayside?
  Mr. Salter: If the hon. Gentleman cares to read the Select Committee reports, he will find some facts in them. There has been a significant decline in the proportion who consider the RUC representative of the whole community. However, the figures have started to rise since the ceasefire, and we should welcome that.
  As much as we may wish to, we cannot discuss the appalling brutality of the paramilitaries and the gangsters in a vacuum. There is an essential connection between the issues that form the building blocks of the Good Friday agreement. Like other hon. Members, I have spoken with victims of assaults, and friends of mine in parts of Belfast who dare to call themselves socialists. I remember well a taxi ride to the airport from a conference during which the driver confided in me that he had been hijacked no fewer than 16 times. His young son had been disabled for daring to do something many teenagers should not do, but do anyway: he experimented with cannabis. That is not summary justice: it is brutality.
  Some assaults are political, but there is a flourishing culture of gangsterism. The Select Committee has received evidence of oil smuggling, and of paramilitary involvement in it. Corporal Gary Fenton, a constituent of mine, was the last British soldier to lose his life in Northern Ireland, and that happened when he was challenging smuggling. Crossmaglen has become the oil capital of Northern Ireland; it even rivals Dallas. There is clearly paramilitary involvement in smuggling, and we have received information suggesting that republican paramilitaries may be involved in smuggling, while loyalist paramilitaries are involved in distribution. Again, we can see the clear connection between paramilitary activity and gangsterism.
  The Good Friday agreement provides the building blocks on which our hopes for a just and peaceful society in Northern Ireland rest. We cannot cherry-pick the issues that will command tomorrow's headlines. The Opposition could choose many other issues to use as sticks with which to beat the Government, but they are aiming at the wrong target. In attacking the Government tonight,
  384
  they are not attacking the thugs. In many ways, they are helping to undermine confidence in the Good Friday agreement.
  We have had a useful and wide-ranging debate. Is there really a need to push the matter to a Division?
  6.22 pm
  Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: The debate has touched on the reasons why it is important for people to honour the obligations placed on them. The Belfast agreement says clearly, on prisoner releases, that:
  "Prisoners affiliated to organisations which have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire will not benefit from the arrangements"
  for early release.
  What is meant by "complete and unequivocal ceasefire"? For a definition, we can turn to the words of the Prime Minister at Balmoral in Northern Ireland during the referendum campaign. On 14 May 1998, he said:
  "In clarifying whether the terms and spirit of the agreement are being met and whether violence has genuinely been given up for good, there are a range of factors to take into account: first and foremost, a clear and unequivocal commitment that there is an end to violence for good …that, again as the agreement expressly states, the ceasefires are indeed complete and unequivocal".
  The Prime Minister goes on to clarify what he means by "complete and unequivocal", by saying:
  "An end to bombings, killings and beatings, claimed or unclaimed".
  It is clear from the words of the Prime Minister that beatings and killings represent breaches of ceasefires. In his view, ceasefires that are complete and unequivocal require an end to such paramilitary activities.
  The Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary has said that all the organisations benefiting from prisoner release have been engaged in such activities. Those organisations are, therefore, in breach of complete and unequivocal ceasefire. What did the Prime Minister say when he wrote his pledges to the people of Northern Ireland up on the wall during the referendum? On the prisoner issue, he wrote:
  "Prisoners kept in unless violence is given up for good."
  Those are the Prime Minister's words, in his own handwriting.
  The decent people of Northern Ireland are bewildered by the Government's recent actions. The Government say that they will not slow down or halt the release of prisoners in spite of continuing violence. The people of Northern Ireland are saying that the Prime Minister has broken his pledge, and that the Secretary of State is not fulfilling her responsibility to ensure that ceasefires are complete and unequivocal.
  If the ceasefires do not meet the Prime Minister's own definition of "complete and unequivocal", the Secretary of State has the responsibility, placed on her by the House in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, to review the release of paramilitary prisoners. Yet she says that releases will continue, implying that, if she halted that release, the paramilitaries would go back to full-scale terrorist violence. In other words, she is being held to ransom by the paramilitary organisations. That is the only conclusion that I and others in Northern Ireland can draw.
  Clearly, terrorist organisations have been engaged in violence. The Belfast Telegraph of 24 July, just a few weeks after the Belfast agreement was signed, ran the

  385
  headline: "IRA linked to murder". We are talking not only of beatings and shootings, but of murder. Who is to know that the latest murder—that of Mr. Eamon Collins, which appears to have taken place in South Armagh, although we do not yet have the full report—did not have some republican involvement? Many will conclude that there was such an involvement.
  What response do we expect from the Government? Is it their policy now to see no evil and hear no evil? Is that their policy on the interpretation of whether there are a complete and unequivocal ceasefires? Did the Prime Minister's word mean anything in the commitments that he gave to the people of Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Maginnis: In addition to the clear indication that the IRA is involved, is there any evidence that Sinn Fein is involved? I refer to people such as Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams. On 1 June, did not the Secretary of State say that she had already said that Sinn Fein and the IRA were inextricably linked? What are the repercussions of that statement for the subject that we are considering?
  Mr. Donaldson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Prime Minister has several times said at the Dispatch Box, as he did at Balmoral, that, in his opinion, the IRA and Sinn Finn are "inextricably linked". They are two parts of one organisation. Sinn Fein, when considered against the context of continuing IRA violence, is in breach of its obligations.
  Sinn Fein signed up to the Mitchell principles when it entered the talks process. On punishment beatings and killings, those principles include:
  "To urge that 'punishment' killings and beatings stop and to take effective steps to prevent such actions."
  When the Secretary of State met the leaders of Sinn Fein-IRA, and the Progressive Unionist party and the Ulster Democratic party earlier this week, what answer did they give if she asked them what effective steps they were taking to prevent such actions? In the view of the people who live in the areas where the beatings are taking place—some of them in my constituency—no action is being seen to occur. People hear pious comments from some leaders, but they see no action being taken to prevent the beatings. Clearly, Sinn Fein-IRA and those other parties are failing in their obligations and are in breach of the Mitchell principles.
  The release of prisoners is at the heart of the motion. In Northern Ireland, deep concern is felt about the ongoing releases, especially against the backdrop of on-going violence. As the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said in his opening remarks, legislation enacted by this House places an obligation on the Secretary of State to review the situation and to consider whether the organisations that benefit from prisoner releases are engaged in complete and unequivocal ceasefires and have ceased to be involved in any act of violence. The Chief Constable of the RUC has said that they are involved in such acts, yet the right hon. Lady refuses to review, slow down or halt the release of terrorist prisoners. Unfortunately, that is because the threat of violence is holding back the Government from acting in the democratic interests of the people of Northern Ireland.
  The people voted for the agreement by a majority, but they voted for an end to violence. That is not happening and it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that it
  386
  does. If not, they must hold the terrorists to account. Let there be no more appeasement. We want the Government to take a firm line against the terrorist organisations and to halt the release of prisoners—whether they are loyalists or republicans does not matter, because both sides are engaged in the violence. Opposition Members condemn the violence unequivocally wherever it emanates from. The Government must bring the consequences to bear on all those organisations.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Moss: This has been an important debate for several reasons. First, it is the first time in a long time that the needs, requirements and fears of the people of Northern Ireland, who are on the receiving end of those terrible atrocities, have been expressed and debated in the House. Secondly, it has given the Opposition the opportunity to challenge the Government—rightly, as the Prime Minister agreed at Question Time—on their judgment in this critical situation.
  The paramilitaries and their political representatives seem to have a twofold agenda. First, they want to control the estates in Northern Ireland, particularly those in Belfast, so that criminal activity can take place without any police intervention and the racketeering, extortion, drugs peddling and intimidation of those who do not fall into line with those peddling such views can continue. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) put forward that view and asked the Government to differentiate between those and political activities, which is impossible because the same people are perpetrating both the political activities and the acts of terrorism in the estates of Northern Ireland.
  As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) pointed out in an intervention, the second part of the agenda is to undermine the Royal Ulster Constabulary by influencing, or trying to influence, the Patten commission on that body. The line will be taken that the RUC is not working on the estates—witness the beatings, shootings and atrocities—and therefore a new police structure is needed. Sinn Fein-IRA and some of the loyalist groups will then propose community policing and we all know who will undertake that—the same paramilitaries who are running the show on the estates at present.
  The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) had an interesting theory that elements within the paramilitary groups who commit the violence, do so for personal motives or as a lever against their leaders to bring them into line, so that they do not make too many concessions. If that is so, why did all those activities stop—on both sides of the sectarian divide—when President Clinton last visited Northern Ireland? In Police Review the Chief Constable of the RUC confirmed:
  "these organisations have demonstrated an ability to bring such activity to an end when it has suited their purpose".
  Several hon. Members implied that our motion was calculated, at best to destabilise and, at worst, to wreck the peace process and the agreement. I assure the House that we want implementation of the agreement in full and that includes a commitment to meaningful decommissioning, an ending of violence and an acceptance of peaceful, law abiding and democratic means to achieve political progress in Northern Ireland.

  387
  On 6 May 1998, the Prime Minister said:
  "It is essential that organisations that want to benefit from the early release of prisoners should give up violence."—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711.]
  On 14 May 1998, at Balmoral in Belfast, he said that there had to be
  "an end to bombings, killings and beatings".
  Will the Minister tell us whether the Government interpret the ceasefire simply to mean the absence of bombings, rather than including the killings and beatings, which can continue unabated? I do not think for a moment that the voters in Northern Ireland believe that. The people who gave their assent in the referendum certainly did not.
  The agreement requires concessions from both sides. From the paramilitary groups, it requires decommissioning and an end to violence. In return, they obtain prisoner releases. If there is no movement on decommissioning or prisoner release, it is likely that all paramilitary prisoners will have been released with no concessions in return. That is unacceptable to Opposition Members, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) pointed out so forcefully.
  The Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 gives the Secretary of State the power to suspend the prisoner release scheme or to review it. The Prime Minister confirmed that today at Prime Minister's questions, although the right hon. Lady seemed uncertain about it in her interview on the "Today" programme earlier. According to that legislation, she could specify organisations and remove their prisoners from the scheme. Once all the prisoners have been released, the right hon. Lady will have no further negotiating power. She said that she had to decide whether or not there had been a cessation of violence—despite the many sources of security advice—by making a judgment. Again, I shall quote the Chief Constable, who said in a BBC interview:
  "there is no doubt whatever that all of these organizations"—
  referring to the IRA, the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Freedom Fighters—
  "including those who purport to be in cessation of military operations, are engaged in this repugnant activity".
  The Secretary of State confirmed this evening that she can use her discretion under the 1998 Act. She also confirmed that she had received the Chief Constable's advice—it is in the press and I am sure that she has received it privately. From her conclusions today, are we to interpret her remarks as confirming that, at this stage, she has heard the advice, but chosen to ignore it?
  In summary, the motion is not merely to take note of the atrocities but, as the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) said, to offer a strategy that is a way forward and an attempt to curtail and prevent those atrocities from taking place. There is little point in debating those key issues if we do not put the motion to the vote, which is what we shall do.
  The Government response in their amendment seems to ignore the facts. We have all met the same people—from FAIT and other communities—who are doing sterling work, which is often dangerous, to give solace, comfort and help to people on the receiving end of those
  388
  horrendous and atrocious acts. Intimidation means that many families have to leave Northern Ireland at short notice and be rehoused in mainland Britain.
  The Government seem to turn a blind eye to the potentially damaging end game. Their amendment is frankly toothless and offers the House nothing but more of the same. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire pointed out, time is running out.
  The fundamental questions are these: first, will the Government accept a position in which all the prisoners have been released, but there is no comparable movement from the paramilitaries on decommissioning or a cessation of violence? We have asked that question a number of times and it has never been answered. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked it again during Prime Minister's questions this afternoon and the Prime Minister himself declined to give a straight answer. It really is time that the Minister gave us an unequivocal answer.
  Secondly, is the partial implementation of the agreement tolerable to the Government? Can the Minister explain to the House how he and his party expect the smooth operation of a devolved Government when guns remain in the hands of the paramilitaries and violence of the kind that we have discussed today continues unabated? If not, perhaps he can tell us how they hope to obtain movement on those critical issues.
  Thirdly, if the agreement has not been implemented in full at the end of two years—we hear time and again from the Government and from the Prime Minister that that is their intention—will the agreement fall? Can it be renegotiated and where will the Government draw a line in the sand, if at all?
  The time has come for the Government to face up to the reality on the streets and the estates of Northern Ireland. They need to plan their strategy carefully to achieve the beneficial end game that we all want and to use the law that is at their disposal and that they put on the statute book not a few months ago.
  6.43 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): I shall respond as best I can to all the points that have been raised in the debate. Some of the concluding comments by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) send a clear message. He used the language of defeat and failure. We are trying to build confidence to ensure that difficulties from any direction are faced and an attempt is made to achieve reconciliation and find a solution. The language of defeat saps the confidence of people who have spent more than 30 years in very difficult circumstances. I am glad that my party is in government and the hon. Gentleman's party was removed at the last election.
  We have had a wide-ranging and clearly useful debate. It has been useful because the issues and arguments that have been raised tonight from both sides of the House lie at the very heart of understanding the process in which we as a society are involved in Northern Ireland.
  As usual, my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) got to the point at issue with clarity and precision. I thank him for his kind words to myself and my ministerial colleagues. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire

  389
  (Mr. Barnes) who has a long-term interest in the subject. He robustly argued his point of view and he is right about the specific issue that we have debated tonight. He referred to other areas of concern—such as exiles and the disappeared—that should never be neglected. The Government do not intend to neglect them.
  The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) alleged that released prisoners out on licence have been charged since their release. The hon. Gentleman nods in agreement, so I understood him rightly. Not one prisoner who has been released under the scheme has been charged subsequently. The RUC has no evidence that those who were released under the scheme have become re-involved. If such evidence is drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and there has been a breach of licence, clearly the Government would be obliged to take action.
  It is true to say that every citizen of the United Kingdom has an interest in achieving a lasting peaceful settlement for Northern Ireland, not least because the terrorist violence over the last 30 years has not been confined to Northern Ireland, but has been visited with tragic effect upon communities and families here in Britain.
  It is because of that reality that the country is united behind the Government in what has been achieved to date since the Good Friday agreement last April and what the Government are seeking to achieve for the future with the commitment of the political parties that are signed up to the process and with the support of the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland.
  Everyone in the House, with a few notable exceptions, agrees with those sentiments. The House is also united in its complete and unequivocal condemnation of the spiteful and barbaric paramilitary assaults carried out, for whatever reason, within the various communities that make up Northern Ireland.
  All hon. Members who have spoken have expressed in their own way their abhorrence at what these vicious acts mean in human and family terms and the way in which they add to the sum of community division and strife in Northern Ireland. There is not a scintilla of difference between anyone in the House on that point.
  The speech by the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) gave graphic details of cases in which terrible things were done to individuals. I would caution him about that. It is all very well wallowing in the gory details, but, as one who speaks to many victims of violence in Northern Ireland, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that others out there do not want to hear about such grief and suffering or see it on their television screens. That is why, when the BBC and other responsible journalists show bodies and the effects of terrorist violence, they do their best to contact the families concerned.
  Mr. MacKay: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Ingram: Let me finish my point. The right hon. Gentleman spoke for half an hour. I have just 15 minutes to sum up.
  390
  There is a need for sensitivity and I regret that the right hon. Gentleman made such a graphic speech. I shall give way to him and then I shall refer to another point that he made which has been rebutted by one of the families concerned.
  Mr. MacKay: Both the victims concerned gave their agreement and went public because they wished the people to know just what had happened. So there has not been any irresponsibility whatever and I suggest that the Minister withdraws those comments, which are a disgrace and quite wrong.
  Mr. Ingram: I shall not withdraw because the right hon. Gentleman clearly did not hear what I said.
  Mr. MacKay: I did.
  Mr. Ingram: I do not doubt for a moment that the right hon. Gentleman may have spoken to some of the families that he listed. However, other families and other victims do not like the parading of such pain and grief. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people have been affected over the past 30 years and I caution the right hon. Gentleman on that basis.
  As the Minister with responsibility for victims, I meet many of them. I visited the pathology lab only yesterday and spoke to senior pathologists about what they do on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. We have had to put counselling support into the victims liaison unit to ensure that its staff—the people who assist me—can cope with much of the pain that they encounter. That is why I caution the right hon. Gentleman to remember that his words can have an adverse impact.
  The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) spoke sensitively about Mrs. Kearney and his tribute to her was genuine. She is a brave women, who is challenging the circumstances in which she finds herself. However, the right hon. Members for Bracknell and for Upper Bann and others have referred to the Chief Constable, who has given interviews and written articles in which he tries to take a rounded approach to the subject and his comments on it. The article of 15 January has already been quoted extensively and extremely selectively, but it will be worth while for me to follow suit and quote selectively the Chief Constable's summation. He says:
  "Despite all of these barriers to the ultimate elimination of violence however, there remains a solid basis for optimism and hope for the future."
  That is not a defeated Chief Constable, but a man who has to assess all of the problems in his society and who, even knowing what he has to interpret, still looks hopefully toward a vision of a better future.
  Mr. Maginnis: Will the Minister give way on that point?
  Mr. Ingram: No, I shall not.
  Where division exists, it is on our response to the actions that have been described tonight and on how best to put an end to them. Clearly, there are groups and individuals at work in Northern Ireland who seek to bring an end to the whole peace process—indeed, there are some Members of Parliament who want the current

  391
  process to fail. The right hon. Member for Bracknell indicated that there are those within his own party who might adopt such an approach. Such people reflect the views of a small minority and the Government are determined to ensure that they do not succeed. They are minority voices who represent the past and offer no hope for the future.
  The debate has dealt with two distinct ways forward for the current peace process—two separate strands of thinking. The first, set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, is to look at the process in the round. It is to look at the history of paramilitary assaults and the backcloth against which previous Governments acted as they sought to drive forward the process, as defined at the time. It is to look at the context within which such actions are being carried out and the motivation behind them. It is to put those actions in the framework of everything else that is happening to create the new building blocks for a new and better society in Northern Ireland.
  There is no question that those actions pose a risk to obtaining that new future. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has pointed out what she has done to date to challenge directly those who have influence over those who carry out such acts. She has made clear her determination to base her actions on the very best of security advice as to whether or not the ceasefires are still intact. The Government and the Secretary of State have not been complacent or indifferent to the ever-changing political and security landscape we face in Northern Ireland—far from it. The judgment that has been made is that there is no guarantee that stopping the prisoner release programme will bring an end to paramilitary assaults.
  It would be most unwise for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Government to play brinkmanship with the Good Friday agreement. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) made an excellent point in that respect. It is the Government's judgment that for us to indulge in such brinkmanship could place the whole Good Friday agreement in jeopardy. All our efforts to date have been aimed at honouring our commitments under the agreement and pressing others to honour their commitments. We shall not tire of repeating that the Good Friday agreement offers the best way forward for all sections of the community in Northern Ireland.
  However, the Government have to weigh all their decisions carefully before acting. We cannot and should not indulge in short-term fixes, as has been demanded by the Opposition and others in today's debate. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said earlier today, previous Governments and Secretaries of State have continued a programme of prisoner releases against a backcloth more violent than the one that we face. In opposition, we judged that those Governments were right to do so, because the ultimate prize was so great, both then and now. In government, we are trying to keep on course a process that offers the best possibility of success.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Ingram: Let me develop my argument. I shall deal with the points raised by Opposition Members and then we shall see whether they want to argue them.
  392
  The other strand of thinking that has been advanced in the debate is that the Government should bring a halt to the early release programme. However, no arguments have been put forward as to why it is thought that to do so will result in a reduction of such actions, or bring about a better climate, with the prospect of more progress being made on the implementation of the Good Friday agreement. The right hon. Member for Bracknell said he would establish that point—that he would set out the basis for his arguments and prove the results—but he did not do so. He did not provide evidence for what the consequences would be, but simply gave an analysis of what he thought was desirable without justifying his conclusions.
  Mr. Moss: Will the Minister give way?
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. Ingram: I shall give way in a moment.
  Instead of the Government's strategy, which offers what we consider to be the best possibility of success, we are being urged to embark on a course of action that will almost certainly lead to failure. We know that the Opposition are genuinely committed to the Good Friday agreement, as are most, if not all, of the other parties represented in the House. However, the Opposition are advocating a punitive response, without supplying any evidence that it will produce the desired result. That response is at variance with, and contrary to, what the Conservative party did in government. The only conclusion that I can draw is that they are playing party politics with people's lives.
  Mr. Moss: Will the Minister give way?
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. It is entirely up to the Minister whether or not he gives way, and persistence will not necessarily be successful unless the Minister is willing to give way.
  Mr. Ingram: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Robathan: The Minister is scared stiff.
  Mr. Ingram: That is a silly comment—it is not something that can ever be said of me.
  I shall quote a small article that appeared in today's Belfast News Letter. It is headed, "Hague 'using terror victims'" and states:
  "The wife of a man maimed by loyalist paramilitaries last night accused Tory Party leader William Hague of using the issue of paramilitary attacks for political ends.
  Linda Peden, whose husband Andrew lost both legs in a UVF 'punishment' shooting, was incensed that Mr. Hague had cited her husband's case in his call for the suspension of prisoner releases."
  Before I used that article, I got my office to contact Mrs. Peden to ensure that the story was accurate and that she had no objection to my using her name in the debate. She said that she was happy for me to do so, so that her message was put across.
  Mr. Moss: Like the Secretary of State during our previous debate on the subject, the Minister has repeated

  393
  the half-truth that was also peddled by the Prime Minister this afternoon. The release of prisoners under the previous Government is in no way the same as the current policy of the Labour Government. We simply amended the remission dates in line with those of the United Kingdom mainland. We did not include lifers, whereas the current Government have included all life prisoners, and all prisoners will ultimately be released.
  Mr. Ingram: I shall place in the Library of the House some of the details of those who have been released so as to set out the long-term prisoners, some of whom were involved in planning terrorist acts, who were let out under the early release programme set in motion by the previous Government.
  Mr. Moss: Not lifers.
  Mr. Ingram: Defining the difference between lifers and long-term prisoners—do the Opposition want us to base our judgments on that, rather than on what those prisoners plotted to do or what they actually did? The Opposition have sunk very low and it is a matter of great regret that they have done so.
  I can now provide the examples that I mentioned earlier. Two prisoners who were under sentences of 18 years for conspiracy to murder were released. One prisoner was released from a sentence of 17 years for conspiracy to cause explosions. One prisoner was released from a sentence of 14 years for possession of firearms and explosives and attempted murder. One of the prisoners released had been convicted of involvement in a ghastly sectarian murder—the murder of two Catholic girls in a mobile chip shop in Portadown. Those are just some examples of the people whom the previous Government released. We never criticised. We recognised the benefit of that process.
  I do not have time to deal with the other points that have been raised or further to concede the Floor. I ask that the motion be defeated and that the amendment be carried.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 141, Noes 343.

  Division No. 49]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Amess, David

  Clappison, James

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Baldry, Tony

  Beggs, Roy

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  Bercow, John

  Collins, Tim

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Blunt, Crispin

  Cran, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Brady, Graham

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Brazier, Julian

  Duncan, Alan

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Evans, Nigel

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Faber, David

  Burns, Simon

  Fabricant, Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Fallon, Michael

  Cash, William

  Flight, Howard

  Chope, Christopher

  Forsythe, Clifford

  394

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Page, Richard

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Paice, James

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Fraser, Christopher

  Paterson, Owen

  Gale, Roger

  Pickles, Eric

  Garnier, Edward

  Prior, David

  Gibb, Nick

  Randall, John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gray, James

  Robathan, Andrew

  Green, Damian

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Greenway, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Hammond, Philip

  Ruffley, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Hayes, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Heald, Oliver

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Shepherd, Richard

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Spring, Richard

  Steen, Anthony

  Key, Robert

  Streeter, Gary

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Syms, Robert

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Lansley, Andrew

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Leigh, Edward

  Thompson, William

  Letwin, Oliver

  Tredinnick, David

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Trend, Michael

  Lidington, David

  Trimble, Rt Hon David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Viggers, Peter

  Luff, Peter

  Walter, Robert

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Wardle, Charles

  McCartney, Robert (N Down)

  Waterson, Nigel

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Wells, Bowen

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Whittingdale, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Maginnis, Ken

  Wilkinson, John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Willetts, David

  Maples, John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Mates, Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Woodward, Shaun

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Yeo, Tim

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Moss, Malcolm

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Norman, Archie

  Mrs. Caroline Spelman and

  Ottaway, Richard

  Mr. Stephen Day.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ainger, Nick

  Berry, Roger

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Best, Harold

  Allan, Richard

  Betts, Clive

  Allen, Graham

  Blackman, Liz

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Blizzard, Bob

  Ashton, Joe

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Boateng, Paul

  Austin, John

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Banks, Tony

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Barnes, Harry

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Barron, Kevin

  Brake, Tom

  Bayley, Hugh

  Breed, Colin

  Beard, Nigel

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Burden, Richard

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Burnett, John

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Burstow, Paul

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  395

  Caborn, Richard

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Godsiff, Roger

  Canavan, Dennis

  Goggins, Paul

  Cann, Jamie

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gorrie, Donald

  Casale, Roger

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Caton, Martin

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Chaytor, David

  Grocott, Bruce

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Grogan, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Gunnell, John

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hain, Peter

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hanson, David

  Clelland, David

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Clwyd, Ann

  Harvey, Nick

  Coaker, Vermon

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Healey, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Coleman, Iain

  Heppell, John

  Colman, Tony

  Hesford, Stephen

  Connarty, Michael

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hill, Keith

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hinchliffe, David

  Corbett, Robin

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Home Robertson, John

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cotter, Brian

  Hope, Phil

  Cousins, Jim

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Crausby, David

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cummings, John

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Hurst, Alan

  Darvill, Keith

  Hutton, John

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Ingram, Adam

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Denham, John

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Edwards, Huw

  Kemp, Fraser

  Efford, Clive

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Khabra, Piara S

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Kidney, David

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Fisher, Mark

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Flint, Caroline

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Follett, Barbara

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Laxton, Bob

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gapes, Mike

  Levitt, Tom

  396

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Linton, Martin

  Radice, Giles

  Livingstone, Ken

  Rammell, Bill

  Livsey, Richard

  Rapson, Syd

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lock, David

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Love, Andrew

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  McAllion, John

  Rendel, David

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rooker, Jeff

  McCabe, Steve

  Rooney, Terry

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Ruane, Chris

  McDonnell, John

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  McGrady, Eddie

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Sanders, Adrian

  McNulty, Tony

  Sawford, Phil

  MacShane, Denis

  Sedgemore, Brain

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  McWalter,Tony

  Sheerman, Barry

  McWilliam, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Singh, Marsha

  Mallon, Seamus

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marek, Dr John

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Soley, Clive

  Martlew, Eric

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Maxton, John

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Meale, Alan

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Merron, Gillian

  Stevenson, George

  Michael, Alun

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Milburn, Alan

  Stott, Roger

  Miller, Andrew

  Stringer, Graham

  Mitchell, Austin

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stunell, Andrew

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Moore, Michael

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Morley, Elliot

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Mountford, Kali

  Timms, Stephen

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mullin, Chris

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Touhig, Don

  Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

  Trickett, Jon

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Norris, Dan

  Turner, Dr George(NW Norfolk)

  Oaten, Mark

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Tyler, Paul

  Pearson, Ian

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Pendry, Tom

  Wareing, Robert N

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Watts, David

  Pickthall, Colin

  Webb, Steve

  Pike, Peter L

  Welsh, Andrew

  Plaskitt, James

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Pollard, Kerry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Pond, Chris

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Pound, Stephen

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Willis, phil

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Winnick, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Wise, Audrey

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wood, Mike

  Purchase, Ken

  Woolas, Phil

  397

  Worthington, Tony

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Mr. David Jamieson and

  Wyatt, Derek

  Mr. Greg Pope.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added,put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House condemns absolutely the barbaric practice of paramilitary attacks in Northern Ireland, condemns the human and material cost of these assaults and the contempt they demonstrate for the rule of law; notes the commitment made by all parties who endorsed the Good Friday Agreement to "the protection and vindication of the human rights of all"; welcomes the Government's determination to fulfil its responsibilities under the Good Friday Agreement in this as in every other area; and calls on all people, parties and organisations to use all their influence to bring these attacks to an immediate stop, to help the police in any way they can, and to work to build on the Good Friday Agreement to create a society in Northern Ireland where such attacks are a thing of the past.

London Underground
[Relevant documents: The Seventh Report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Session 1997–98, on London Underground (HC 715-1) and the Government's Response thereto (CM 4093).]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): We now come to the debate on the London Underground. The Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
7.15 pm
Mr. Richard Ottaway: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the Government's delay in the financial restructuring of London Underground; calls on it to put forward plans, as soon as possible, for the private finance and operation of the Underground; condemns its handling of the completion of the Jubilee Line; and abhors the abolition of financial support from 2000 with no alternative sources of funding in place.
There is widespread and growing concern that London Underground is failing—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are not staying for the debate please conduct conversations outside the Chamber?
Mr. Ottaway: There is widespread and growing concern that London Underground is failing to provide the expected quality of service. Despite substantial investment in the core network in the 1980s and 1990s, delays and service interruptions are routinely reported on news bulletins. Complaints regularly feature in newspaper letter columns, and public displays of customer anger and frustration are becoming more frequent.
Under the headline, "The Tube service no one in power cares about", the columnist Simon Jenkins recently wrote in the Evening Standard that London has two tribes: those who travel on the tube and those who do not. He described the former as
"a tribe of moles, bruised, pasty-faced and lost to the call of the clock."
He continued:
"For millions of working Londoners, the Tube is their only experience of Third World squalor. They may not visit London's prisons, mental hospitals or sweat-shops. They may not frequent the ghettos of Hoxton or the tenements of Walworth. They live in tidy homes, work in neat offices and eat in clean restaurants. But they use the Tube. It is the nastiest thing they do."
Notwithstanding the writer's licence to produce a few artistic flourishes, there is a grain of serious truth in those remarks.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that such an article could have been written at any time in the past 18 or 19 years under the Conservative Government?
Mr. Ottaway: Some would say that it could have been written at any time in the past 50 years, but it happens to have been written 18 months into this Government and it had not been written before.
In his statements on the underground last year, the Deputy Prime Minister ignored the level of investment of the past decade, which dwarfs anything that the

399
Government are spending today. Instead, he apportioned blame for the current state of affairs on the former Greater London council and the previous Government. It must be said that one can never invest enough in the underground, as the Minister of Transport is only too aware, but, whatever the merits or otherwise of the Deputy Prime Minister's statement and despite the lack of investment by Governments in the 1960s and 1970s, it is clear that this Government must now shoulder responsibility for the present situation and, in particular, for their failure to provide any hope of improvement in the foreseeable future.
The delay in any policy development is utterly regrettable. After 18 years of Labour preparing its policy in opposition and as we approached the last general election, the then shadow transport spokesman, the right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), urged a future Labour Government to get moving straight away with a public-private partnership. Admittedly, that was the same speech in which he said that he would not privatise air traffic control, but he gave the impression that Labour was raring to go with its plans for London Underground.
During the Opposition day debate in June 1997—after the election—the Government moved an amendment applauding their
"swift action on options for public-private partnership to improve the Underground".
The then Minister of Transport kept up a brisk pace, saying that he would not be paying his financial advisers much because,
"we shall be using them for only a few months".—[Official Report, 25 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 866-9.]
I am sure that he now regrets those words.
In January 1998 the tone changed. There was no talk of "swift action", just a great deal of self-congratulation; but our hopes were raised in March last year when the Deputy Prime Minister announced that he was going to make a statement on London Underground. What did he say after 10 months' of brainstorming on a new policy? Wait for it, Mr. Deputy Speaker—he said that he was going ahead with the public-private partnership for London Underground, and that is all he said. However, our worst fears were realised when he said that it would take him at least until the new Greater London authority was launched in May 2000 to put his plan in place. That is three years after the general election—but it did not stop there.
During the Second Reading of the Greater London Authority Bill, the Deputy Prime Minister caught us all on the hop—he said that he was not going to be rushed. Well, that is one pledge that he has kept. Supported by inspired leaks, he implied that it might be towards the latter part of 2000 before any public-private partnership was in place. Here we go—this is the brave new world for London Underground: not a single step taken by the private sector for three and a half years after Labour came to office, and when anything happens, it will be only a few engineers turning up in Ruislip or Cockfosters. By the next general election, there will be no tangible improvement to the underground.
It is also becoming increasingly apparent that there is a black hole in London Underground's finances. The Minister needs to tackle three fundamental issues. The
400
first is the financial situation in April 2000. The Government's comprehensive spending review makes it clear that all Government grant to London Underground ceases in April 2000. That is just 14 months away, and the House and London Underground are entitled to know what the Government's funding plans are from then on.
The second issue that the Minister has to tackle is the grave doubts about London Underground's ability to be self-financing. In its evidence to the Select Committee, London Underground said that it would need an operating surplus of at least £400 million a year to meet investment requirements and to stop the backlog in investment getting any larger. Based on a surplus last year of £265 million, it said that it believed it could get its surplus up to the required £400 million in three ways: a 13 per cent. volume increase in passengers, a 13 per cent. reduction in unit costs, and annual fare increases of 1 per cent. in real terms. It defies belief for the Government to argue that that is achievable.
A 13 per cent. volume increase in passengers means another 100 million passengers on the tube each year. At the same time, no extra capacity is planned. What does the Minister think the reaction to that would have been in Baker Street, Bond Street and Green Park stations, where last week, passengers were jammed into trains like sardines? At peak times, the tube is already full to capacity—the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) knows that because he was stuck in a tube at the time.
Does the Minister really think that a 13 per cent. reduction in unit costs is achievable, when the Government are having to bribe construction workers on the Jubilee line with bonuses just to do the job that they have been contracted to do? The one thing that we know the Government are capable of doing is putting up fares—they have just increased fares by twice the rate of inflation.
The Minister of Transport (Dr. John Reid): Is the hon. Gentleman against bonuses in principle? If so, why, during the 18 years that the Tories were in government, did he never once complain when huge bonuses were paid in the City, especially in the privatised utilities? Why is it all right for the fat cats to get bonuses, but no one else?
Mr. Ottaway: If that is all that the right hon. Gentleman can come up with, this is going to be a pretty rum debate. The truth of the matter is that the electricians on the Jubilee line have a contract, but they have been holding the Minister to ransom and he has given in to their demands because they are the union paymasters.
As I was saying, the one thing that the Government have done is to put fares up. Indeed, they have just put them up by twice the level of inflation. It is interesting to compare that with the situation on the railways. On the underground, there are fare increases and break-even investment. On the privatised railways, there are fare cuts and a level of investment that the underground would die for.
The third problem that the Minister has to address is whether London Underground can become self-financing. It is its inability to be self-financing that is undermining the Minister's plans for the public-private partnership.
Mr. Geraint Davies: The previous Government cut investment in London Underground by

401
£378 million, whereas this Government have reinstated some £365 million. How does the hon. Gentleman square the financial circle without investment and without increasing fares? How would he do it, or is he financially illiterate?
Mr. Ottaway: Before the hon. Gentleman makes an intervention like that, he should take a closer look at the facts. In their last 10 years in office, the Conservative Government invested a total of £7 billion, or £700 million a year, in London Underground, compared with this Government's £500 million a year. Also, I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is looking at the figures in the spending review for 1998–99, which show that the total level of expenditure would be down to £250 million. That earlier investment was state investment; on top of that would have been the money from the privatisation that our party would have got on with by now, recycling funds and adding investment, thus taking it to levels that Labour could never have dreamed of.
Mr. Davies rose—
Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman is coming back for more.
Mr. Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman have any idea what the projected investment would have been under privatisation, or was the project just pie in the sky and not thought out? What really happened was that the previous Government slashed expenditure in the run-up to the election. Also, there was no private finance initiative or any real partnership with the private sector under the previous Administration, only hot air.
Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman can be excused because he was not in the House in February 1997, but we made it absolutely clear in a statement on 25 February 1997 that investment would be in the region of three quarters of a billion pounds a year—again topping anything that Labour has tried to do. It is here in the record, in black and white, for everyone to see. Does the hon. Gentleman want to come back for another go?
Mr. Clive Efford: The hon. Gentleman says that privatisation would have improved the underground. Does he believe that his constituents get a good service from the railway network that his Government privatised at a bargain basement price?
Mr. Ottaway: I should have thought that, as an ex-London cabbie, the hon. Gentleman would know that the London underground does not go to Croydon. [Interruption.]
Mr. Efford: I was talking about privatisation of the rail network, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. His hon. Friends are shouting loudly because they do not want to hear the facts. If he can get them to be quiet, perhaps he could answer my question. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that his constituents get a decent service from the rail network that his Government privatised at a bargain basement price?
Mr. Ottaway: I can do no more than quote the Deputy Prime Minister, who said that he did not honestly think
402
that people really cared whether the railway was privately or publicly owned, and that they just wanted a good system.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my hon. Friend invite the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) and all the other Labour Members to Southend-on-Sea where the rail line used to be referred to as the misery line? As a regular traveller, I found that trains were constantly an hour late; the conditions were terrible, the trains were deplorable and there was no investment. Since the service was privatised, the service is vastly improved, and we are getting new rolling stock. If anyone doubts the improvements, let them come to Southend, where they will see that the line is much changed for the better since privatisation.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We seem to have been led into a siding. We should get back to the London underground.
Mr. Ottaway: I should hate to be diverted, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) makes a powerful point, as always.
We welcome the Government's decision to involve the private sector in London Underground. There are many forms of private finance initiative. The Government's preferred option is to award long-term contracts for the maintenance of the infrastructure and to leave the operations in the public sector. We do not agree with that format, but we must live with it.
In his statement, the Deputy Prime Minister proudly said that his plans for the private sector were a £7 billion investment programme over the next 15 years. That sounds all very well until one starts to probe the statement. First, the proposed investment compares badly with the £7 billion invested by the previous Government in the 10 years from 1987 to 1997.
Secondly, the present level of investment is about £500 million a year. One does not have to be a genius to work out that, over 15 years, that would come to £7.5 billion, so there will be nothing new or significantly different from the level of cash that is already going into London Underground, except for one highly relevant factor.
Under the Deputy Prime Minister's plans, that money is not a Government grant; it is a private sector investment and the private sector will want it back. Out of London Underground's proceeds, we shall have to pay back the £7 billion, plus interest. A pay-back period of up to 30 years is planned, but that exacerbates the situation. In my judgment, it is virtually impossible to write a 30-year infrastructure contract in an era when technical changes move so rapidly.
Not surprisingly, many of the private companies involved are having serious doubts about the viability of the entire project. It came as no surprise that the much-respected Construction News stated:
"Only half the firms bidding for the £11 billion revamp of London's Tube network believe the project will go ahead.
Fresh doubts over the future of the scheme have surfaced after London Underground's decision to ditch its original plan to have the deal signed by May 2000.

403
Contractors are concerned that the scheme in its present form fails to stack up financially.
The level of scepticism among firms is highlighted in a Construction News survey of the 20 bidders. One angry contracting boss said: 'It's a dog's breakfast.' Another frustrated bidder said: `It concerns me that there is actually any will for this to go ahead.'
Even London Underground's former director of civil engineering, David Hornby, admitted: 'The timetables were always very optimistic.'
Construction News quizzed senior sources with these firms and only 10 thought the project would definitely go ahead in its current form. None thought the original timetable was realistic. One said: 'They don't know what they want out of it apart from a lot of private cash without ceding any control. Nobody knows what the real risks are.'"
That quotation goes to the root of the problem. The private sector is making it clear that it is not prepared to carry the unknown risk. If the Government want to keep control, they will have to underwrite the investment. The snag is that, such is the high-risk nature of the project, such a guarantee would inevitably go on to the public sector borrowing requirement. Having just got shot of the subsidy to London Underground, the Treasury is hardly likely to take that on.
The truth of the matter is that the Government's plans are in deep trouble. We have the severest doubts whether the public-private partnership will ever get off the ground. In our view, the concept as currently proposed is doomed, and the only loser will be London's public.
Equally serious is the issue of the transfer of London Underground to the Greater London Authority. Grant will stop next year; a partnership will be put in place in a couple of years; and the whole lot will be handed to the mayor, who will be told, "This is your problem now."
The present state of affairs is unacceptable. We all know that the Deputy Prime Minister is making a pig's ear of the policy, but it is adding insult to injury to expect Londoners to pick up the pieces.
A central feature of the mayoral election will be the candidates' proposals for sorting out London's transport problems. It is unacceptable that the mayoral candidates will have no idea of the nature of the contracts being negotiated. [Interruption.] Perhaps they may have a quiet word with the hon. Member for Brent, East. Perhaps such a facility will be made available to other candidates.
The Government should conclude their negotiations by this autumn, so that all is clear to the candidates involved, or the final negotiations should be concluded by the new mayor, and he should—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Or she."]—he or she should have the final say.
The new authority will have to pay back the private contractors their £7 billion, plus interest. To do that will require at least £750 million a year. London Underground can raise £300 million. The mayor will have to make up the difference. The only tool that the Government are giving him is road user charging.
Notwithstanding the fact that London is almost certainly the worst place in the whole of Great Britain to start the first road-pricing scheme, it is provisionally estimated that road pricing will bring in about
404
£300 million a year, with motorists passing 130 pricing points. That is a shortfall of £150 million for the mayor.
Already 83 per cent. of Londoners travel by public transport, and only 17 per cent. use the private motor car. Of those, many are obliged to do so because they work unsociable hours—for example, nurses, or mothers driving their children to school, or the disabled who rely on their own transport. Why on earth should those people be expected to pay for the Government's dog's breakfast of a public-private partnership?
Mr. Roger Casale: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's speech closely, looking for some sign that he wants the underground to be run in the public interest. Does he accept that public-private partnerships may be in the public interest, or is he still wedded to the discredited philosophy of his party in the 1980s that the public interest can be served only by full privatisation?
Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. His own deputy leader said that it does not matter whether London Underground is in the public or the private sector. We believe that private sector involvement not only in the management of the infrastructure but in the operation is highly desirable.
Why should the vulnerable of London underwrite a package that the Transport Committee described as a "convoluted compromise"? If I were the first mayor of London, I would stand up for those people and reject any notion of the Government dumping the debt on Londoners. In our opinion, road pricing is not necessarily the best way of raising funds for the underground. Why should the mayor not have the discretion to borrow if he considers it appropriate? Why should he not have the power to raise funds by bond issues, as is the case in New York?
We urge the Government to break out of their anti-motorist mind set, particularly as there is no guarantee that the Treasury will not nab the funds from road pricing and put them in the Consolidated Fund. The Deputy Prime Minister said that the money would be ring-fenced for 10 years. That is not good enough. Any proceeds from road pricing must be spent on transport in perpetuity.
Furthermore, our faith in the Government's ability to make all their proposals work is shaken all the more when we learn that the operational control of the underground is to stay in the public sector. The people who bring us today's hopeless service are the very people who will be doing so tomorrow. They are the management on whom Londoners will be relying to clear the huge debt imposed on them. The Government have shown a complete lack of faith in the present management by bringing in Bechtel to finish the Jubilee line. In the Government's opinion, London Underground does not have the management skills to do the job. Leaving operations in the public sector is the worst of all worlds, and no doubt raises concerns among bidders.
If one really wants to see how the Government run the country, one has only to look at their management of the Jubilee line. In June 1997, the Minister for Transport in

405
London said that construction work was drawing to a close, engineering work was well under way and the line would be open by the end of September 1998. In February 1998, she said that it would open in spring 1999. At the end of June, she confirmed her thinking, saying that a thorough review of the programme has been undertaken and she planned to open the entire line in spring 1999. Then, disaster struck. The Government went away for their summer holidays. They took their eye off the ball and, by October, were saying that the line would not be open fully until late autumn 1999.
Ms Linda Perham: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, more than two years ago, when tunnelling problems increased costs from £1.9 billion to £2.6 billion, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) reduced the Government's contribution to £100 million and told London Transport to find the rest? What commitment to completing the Jubilee line on time did that show?
Mr. Ottaway: Why did the Minister say after the general election that she was confident that the line would open in 1998? She was perfectly happy with the contract and the finance that she was getting. The truth is that she has failed to deliver on her early pledge.
Mr. Ken Livingstone: In the light of the problems that—I think—both parties have had with the Jubilee line, does the Opposition spokesperson now deeply regret his Government's decision in 1982 to refuse to allow the then Labour Greater London council to build the line? It would now have been operating for eight or nine years. The short-termism and refusal to invest of Mrs. Thatcher' s Government have denied London that functioning line for the past decade.
Mr. Ottaway: If the hon. Gentleman were still running London's transport, we would still be waiting for the Jubilee line. So incompetent was his management of London's transport that, in 1984, we had to take it away from him.
Mr. Simon Hughes: As the hon. Member who represents areas in which the largest stretch of the Jubilee line extension runs, I say to the hon. Gentleman that, at this stage in the proceedings, it does nobody any good to undermine the almost certain prospect that the Jubilee line will be finished on time. Management, new management, the Government and London Regional Transport have put themselves out to ensure a line worthy of the next century. Talking it down, making it sound as if it will not succeed, when we want people to visit London and use London transport, is the absolute opposite of the approach that we should be taking to the Jubilee line extension.
Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman is being a little pious. Completion of the line is within the Government's gift to deliver. If he wants something done, and since he is part of a coalition with the Government, he should talk to them about it—unless his intervention was merely part of his leadership campaign.
There is every doubt that the line will not be operational by the end of this year. The millennium dome project was proudly conceived by the previous Conservative
406
Government, but is being messed up by this Government. In 11 months' time, the eyes of the globe will be on Greenwich as we enter the new millennium. We shall be the laughing stock of the world if the Jubilee line is not fully operational and the Minister for Transport in London is bussing people through the Blackwall tunnel as part of her contingency plan.
But then, this Government's management of the London underground is already the laughing stock of the nation. Gone is the previous Government's vision that brought us the docklands light railway, the Jubilee line extension, the Croydon tramlink, modernisation of the East London line and Thameslink 2000. In contrast, this Government have absolutely no plans whatever. London faces fare increases, more overcrowding and less reliability. The Government do not know where the money will come from, they expect Londoners to pick up the tab, and they are waiting for the mayor to solve their problems, as if he were some magician. The public will not buy it.
7.45 pm
The Minister of Transport (Dr. John Reid): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
notes that the Government inherited a substantial investment backlog in London Underground and that this backlog arose from the previous Government's ideological antipathy to public expenditure and unwillingness to seek genuine and viable partnership between the public and private sectors; welcomes the Government's rejection of the Conservatives' policy of wholesale privatisation and applauds it for its thoroughgoing investigation of a public-private partnership as a means to secure necessary investment funds; notes that by providing additional funding of £365 million and that by bringing forward two Private Finance Initiative deals on ticketing and the power distribution system, the Government has already ensured that the Underground will benefit from around £1 billion of investment over the next two years; and is confident that the present Government's approach to London Underground will secure value for money for passengers and the taxpayer and give Londoners an underground system which meets their needs, is fast, reliable, comfortable and worthy of such a great capital city.
I approach the Dispatch Box with trepidation. This is the first occasion on which I have led for the Government as Minister of Transport. Over the weekend, I wondered who would be facing me, because, as the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) knows, there were constant rumours of changes to his transport team. The shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), displayed his confidence in the transport team by suggesting that they should bring in a new recruit who has
"great insight into the motoring industry. We would be interested in getting together"—
presumably in another bonding session. He was referring to none other than Mr. Vroom Vroom himself, Jeremy Clarkson, recently of television's "Top Gear".
Perhaps I put two and two together and made five when I saw that the Tories were thinking of recruiting Mr. Clarkson, because that attempted press-ganging of the reluctant Mr. Clarkson into the Tory team coincided remarkably with a story that the shadow Transport Secretary was about to be sacked. I noticed that that has changed. I hope that it was not only because Mr. Clarkson politely declined the offer extended to him, by saying:
"The idea of working for the Conservative Party is ridiculous."

407
I have waited a long time to say that I entirely agree with every word of Mr. Jeremy Clarkson.
The first thing that strikes me about the Opposition motion is that it does not once mention the word "passenger". If the underground in London and the London transport system are not about passengers, then they are about nothing. That is the litmus test of the motion.
I listened very carefully to the hon. Member for Croydon, South. I heard him speak about the vulnerable and the desperate need to protect those who are deprived and who do not have a car. At one stage, he mentioned the homeless. There are three statements that always stretch my incredulity. The first is, "Your cheque is in the post," the second is, "I will love you all the more for it in the morning," and the third is, "I am a Tory, and deeply concerned about the vulnerable and public transport."
It is noticeable that the Conservative party in opposition has sponsored three debates on the London underground. That stands in marked contrast to its reluctance to debate the London underground when it was in power. In the five years of the previous Parliament, the Conservative party, which is supposedly concerned about the London underground, could not find the time on one single occasion to debate the subject which they are now declaring to be so important. What wisdom the Tories have achieved in hindsight. What commitment they apparently have now that they have neither power nor responsibility. After listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Croydon, South, I must also say what self-righteousness they now have in their selective and collective amnesia.
The Government are picking up the pieces after 18 years in which the Conservative party, through its neglect and abandonment of any responsibility for it, allowed the London underground to decay and degenerate. Conservative Members have the gall to criticise a Government who have been in power for 20 months.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Thousands of people travel into London from Hertfordshire to work. They arrive at King's Cross and get on the Victoria line. Over the past two years, the underground trains have become more and more packed. The overcrowding is serious, so can the Minister point to a single measure that he has taken, or is going to take, that will ease overcrowding on the Victoria line for my constituents?
Dr. Reid: I will come to that issue later, but a Conservative Member saying, "Put us in charge, because we will make the underground just like Connex trains" will not bring people flocking to the banner of conservatism. Our knowledge that the essence of those problems springs directly from the almost criminal negligence of the previous Government does not in any way diminish our determination to face up to the challenges.
We do not underestimate the seriousness of the tasks that we face in respect of the London underground, and we know that, wherever the blame lies, Londoners are more interested in the problems being rectified than in the buck being passed. We will face up to those challenges,
408
not only because London is a major city, an influential city or a capital city, but because it is a great city. It is pre-eminent in terms of the extent of its boundaries, the size of its population, the wealth that it generates, its importance as a global financial centre and—perhaps above all—the burden of its history and the meaning of that in the history of this country.
London is the most populous city in the European Union, something that creates challenges for the transport system. It has 7 million residents in an area covering 1,578 sq km and it is a massive centre of finance, commerce and industry. London's gross domestic product stood at £93,450 million in 1996, and it has by far the highest GDP per head in the United Kingdom. It accounts for about a quarter of all businesses in the United Kingdom with a turnover of £5 million or more.
With all that, no one could fail to take London's transport system seriously, and such a great city deserves a great transport system. Transport in London represents the arteries of commercial and economic life, social activity and tourism. Although there has been continued growth in the use of the private car in Great Britain over the past 15 years, the number of car journeys in Greater London has fallen.
On an average week day, more than 1 million people come into central London during the morning peak, and more than 80 per cent. of them use public transport. Within London in 1997–98, passenger travel totalled nearly 4.4 billion passenger kilometres on the buses and 6.5 billion passenger kilometres on the underground. That is a massive amount, which is up 5 per cent. on the previous year. Passenger traffic on the docklands light railway has more than trebled since 1992–93.
Those figures alone show that the London public transport system is vital. Within that system, the underground is central.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I do not dissent from anything that the Minister has said so far. Does he accept that, if we are to achieve an underground and a public transport system in London for the next generation, it should be owned by the people who will use it? The logic of that position is that, although the Government are right to be working on getting the system ready, agreement on the system and decisions about financing it should be left to the new London authority. If that does not happen, whoever runs London will be able to say, "It's not our fault. The Government put us in this mess."
Dr. Reid: I agree with the first part of what the hon. Gentleman said, but the second part does not follow from his premise. I believe that Londoners, as well as the Government, want a publicly owned and publicly accountable system, operated in the public interest.
I also believe that we should keep all the operations of the London underground in the public sector—something that we fully intend to do—and make the system even more accountable by putting it under the control of the newly elected mayor of London, rather than take the avenue that the Conservatives propose: a rushed, wholesale privatisation where the underground is sold off at a knockdown price—that is what they did with Railtrack—irrespective of the consequences for either Londoners or the Exchequer.

409
The route that we are taking will reinforce the control and the effectiveness of the accountability system, which will result in a far better operation by London Underground in the long run.
Mr. Hughes: If I had to choose between the Minister's position and that of his Conservative opponents, I should certainly say that wholesale privatisation is not what Londoners want or what experience suggests is the right way forward.
Will the Minister reflect on the point that we are debating? If he and his colleagues do a deal that locks London Regional Transport and London Underground into a financial package, and that package is handed to the new London authority without it having the right to agree to it, alter it or take part in negotiations until their conclusion, the authority cannot be accountable. Its members will always be able to say, "This deal was done before we had control and therefore we are not to blame—nor are we are taking the blame—for anything that goes wrong."
Dr. Reid: First, waiting several more years before even making a start would let down the people of London. Secondly, we want to start at the earliest possible date, so changing the negotiating partner half way through would, in effect, put any deal off for years because no one would enter those negotiations.
We have said that we will undertake that there will be a publicly accountable, publicly owned operation on the underground, that we will enter into negotiations and that we will complete those negotiations. If a mayor is elected in the course of the negotiations, we will do everything in our power to bring him or her into the consultation process. In the world that we have inherited from the Conservatives, and following almost two decades of neglect, it would be grossly unfair on Londoners to wait any longer before working through and starting negotiations.
We will not proceed unless we can secure best value for Londoners and for people throughout the country. This is an immensely complex task. We could do what the Opposition have asked: set a final date and tell those with whom we are willing to go into partnership, "By the way, we have to finish by next May." I wish that I played poker with the hon. Member for Croydon, South; to declare one's hand at the beginning of negotiations is virtually to hand over control to the other person. That would not be in the interests of either the people of London or the people of this country.
Mr. John Wilkinson: I am most grateful to the Minister, who is extremely courteous in giving way.
The Minister travels hopefully towards the destination of a successful outcome to the tenders for the operation of the infrastructure, but there is a likelihood that he may not arrive at such a successful deal. Can he assure that House that, in that eventuality, he will not close his mind to outright privatisation, which happened with the express train link to Heathrow? That is an extremely good example to follow.
Dr. Reid: No. We have made it plain that we will retain the operations of London Underground in the public
410
sector. It will be publicly accountable to the new mayor of London and to the people of London. That is what Londoners want, and what they are proud of, and it is certainly what the Government want. The Opposition's constant allusions to the happy experience of the privatised railways will not draw people to their cause, whatever frustrations are caused by the present difficulties on the tube.
The hon. Gentleman would do better to admit that the privatised railway system has not been without its difficulties, particularly fragmentation. It is for precisely that reason that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I have engaged with the privatised companies in an attempt to provide a networkwide and strategic dimension. Those are some of the benefits of a publicly controlled operation, and London Underground will remain in that state for as long as we are the Government.
Mr. Geraint Davies: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Dr. Reid: I must make some progress first.
Although hon. Members may be familiar with the underground system, I want to give them some idea of the sheer immensity of the project. Most of us think merely in terms of the central area, but the full network stretches far beyond that, serving commuters and communities from Amersham, 27 miles from central London, to Upminster, and from Morden to Epping, 18 miles from the centre. It is a massive complex: 243 miles of railway line, 106 miles of which is in tunnels. It serves 269 stations, the busiest of which—Oxford Circus—handles 90 million passengers a year. The underground has 12 lines, and last year its 4,000 carriages carried 832 million passengers. The commuters and communities served by that network need, indeed demand, an underground system that is modern, frequent and reliable.
I am sorry to say that, in facing the challenges, we start with a system that is not modern, frequent and reliable. That, unfortunately, is the inheritance passed to us by the previous Government. Spurred by their antipathy to public expenditure, their distaste for public ownership and their cavalier attitude to public transport—which they have exhibited this evening—the Tories ran the network into the ground. Owing to those years of chronic underfunding, the hard work of London Transport's staff is constantly undermined and passengers are persistently frustrated as worn-out, unreliable kit fails day after day, rush hour after rush hour.
The Conservatives' reaction was actually to cut the grand plan for London Transport. They made sharp cuts in funding, and, partly owing to the overspend on the Jubilee line extension—which, apparently, was not noticed by the hon. Member for Croydon, South in the four years before the general election, but now is—effectively cut London Underground's budget by nearly 50 per cent. There was a decade of Tory neglect.
The hon. Gentleman seems to think that Tory government started in 1987. Every reference that he made to investment related to that year. A decade of Tory neglect, however—from 1979 to 1989—could not be compensated for by a halting and inconsistent investment plan in the 1990s, which helped to create the mountain of difficulties that we must now overcome.

411
By their last year in government, the Tories had abandoned any hope, let alone intention, of investing in the network. They left us with an investment backlog of no less than £1,200 million. That was the legacy of those who have the gall tonight to criticise a 20-month-old Government.
I must tell Opposition Members that it is no surprise that the people of London, faced with such an abdication of responsibility, rightly told the Tories to go away, leaving them with only 11 MPs in the capital. I must also tell them that, if their current approach to London's transport problems continues, there will soon be as many Tory MPs in London as there are reasons for voting for them: none at all.
Unlike the previous Government, this Government have made a start—I claim no more than that—by tackling some of the problems. Lest anyone imagine that there is an ounce of complacency, let me say immediately that my colleagues in the Department and I realise that we have only begun to scale the foothills of the mountain of problems that we inherited from the previous Government. Indeed, in the short term, some of the remedies that we are applying—for instance, updating signals and escalators—may add another frustrating but necessary impediment to the smooth running of the system: necessary because the scale of the problem cannot be tackled without some disruption, and frustrating because the same problems were apparent during the 18 years in which the Tories were in power but did nothing about them.
I know that it is difficult to ask passengers to continue to be patient while stations and escalators are being refurbished and new trains are being brought into service. I recognise that that causes disruption and generates frustrations, especially when there are teething troubles, but at least the problems arising from progress and investment, in contrast to those arising from the neglect of the previous Government, hold out the prospect of a light at the end of the underground tunnel.
I do not hesitate to acknowledge, for instance, that the service on the Central and Northern lines is not up to the standard that passengers rightly expect. Passengers on the Central line are already travelling on new, larger and better trains, but the service is not yet as reliable as it should be. I accept that London Underground is working hard to resolve problems with a signalling technology that is causing some difficulties. It is new technology, which, when it is fully operational, will enhance train frequency and shorten journey times. The priority is to work towards achieving a reliable service.
That problem is typical of problems associated with new investment, rather than investment neglect. On the Northern line, existing rolling stock is being replaced by a fleet of 106 new trains. That brings its own problems: they are the first new trains on the line since 1972. All too often, old trains have broken down; if there are also teething troubles with new trains, that is no less frustrating for passengers because it is associated with renewal—but at least it heralds the prospect of an enhanced service once we come through the current period. Already, 20 new trains are in service. I have met the contractors to discuss a range of issues, and have raised that specific point with them. I know that they intend to introduce more new
412
trains as quickly as possible. Passengers should be able to enjoy a full service, run entirely with new trains, by autumn this year.
There is a difference between problems that will lead to service enhancements and the problems that resulted from the previous Government's neglect and abandonment of responsibility. The current position is a sign that the Government have made addressing London Underground's problems one of our highest priorities. We are tackling the problems head on. We have restructured and strengthened senior management. Last week, we were delighted to announce the appointment of a new chairman of the London Transport board. Sir Malcolm Bates, who has already worked with us on matters connected with the private finance initiative, will take the helm on 11 February. Derek Smith is due to take over as the new managing director of London Underground on 1 February. Both have proven track records, and I am confident that, with the right senior management team, London Transport will be able to meet the challenges that it faces.
We have secured new private investment in new ticketing technology and the power supply of the underground. In August last year, two private finance initiative deals, "power" and "prestige", were signed. They will bring real improvements for passengers. "Power" is worth more than £1 billion. Under that deal, the private-sector contractor will renew the underground's power distribution network, which will make the system more reliable and improve the underground's already impressive safety record. The "prestige" deal is a major ticketing project worth £1 billion, at the heart of which will be the introduction of smart-card ticketing for the first time on the underground and on London buses. Therefore, we have improved management and secured new deals with the private sector.
Above all, we are putting our money where our mouth is. We are providing London Transport with an extra £365 million over the next two years. That will mean that, including PFI, around £1 billion will be invested in the core network over the two years. That means that projects that include investment in track, escalators, embankments, signalling, rolling stock and stations throughout the network will benefit. Investment in projects such as the JLE and the Croydon tramlink will be in addition to that £1 billion. Our approach is in stark contrast with that of the previous Government, who cut planned expenditure to London Transport by some £380 million over the period that we are investing that £1 billion.
That extra funding is not all. It is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of necessary investment. Our proposals for a public-private partnership for the tube will bring a further £7,000 million over the next decade and a half. That partnership will provide the underground with the investment that it needs to meet our aim of a safe, reliable, affordable and modern network. It will mean what matters: faster journey times, increased train service levels as new signalling is introduced, and refurbished and modernised stations. All those have to be judged by the real litmus test: whether passengers perceive that there has been improvement.
I freely admit that, unlike the previous Administration, we did not want full-scale privatisation. Like passengers, staff and taxpayers, we wanted to keep the underground publicly owned and publicly accountable. However, we realised that both the public and private sectors had much

413
to offer. Our radical approach—a partnership between the two sectors—will secure the investment from the private sector that is necessary to meet our aim of a safe, reliable, affordable and modern network, but keep the underground under the control of the public sector.
Our partnership proposals mean that the infrastructure will transfer to the private sector on the equivalent of a 30-year mortgage, with the public sector taking over the assets again in an improved condition at the end of that period. I stress: the freehold of the network will remain in the public sector throughout the contract.
There has been some criticism by the Opposition over the fact that we are giving that £7 billion project detailed scrutiny. They apparently wish us to declare a deadline. Perhaps they would like us to post the deadline to all possible negotiating partners. If the hon. Member for Croydon, South were asked to form a firing squad, he would have people stand in a circle. I cannot think of anything that is more self-defeating than laying one's hand on the table at a negotiating session and saying to the opposite negotiator, "No matter how hard you bargain, no matter how much I dislike it, I have to tell you that, by next Friday, I will give in." That would unilaterally hand over London Underground infrastructure contracts at a massive loss to the public sector, in exactly the same fashion that the previous Government rushed to judgment on Railtrack, handing assets worth billions of pounds more than they got for them to the private sector. That may be an ideological ideal for the Conservative party. It does not make sense to the people of London or to the taxpayer.
I have made it clear that, in the private-public partnership, the value-for-money proposal will be the criterion against which all our proposals are tested. The Government will not implement a public-private partnership unless we are entirely satisfied that it will secure best value for the taxpayer.
Mr. Harry Cohen: My right hon. Friend is making an impressive speech, as he always does. May I take him back to the issue of current investment levels? I heard what he said about the £1 billion, but my concern is that Treasury has put a cap on the amount that it is prepared to put into the Jubilee line construction and that, as the costs soar above that, London Underground will have to find those additional costs from the amount for running the current network. Is there not a case for the Government to reconsider that point and to ensure that Jubilee line costs do not fall on existing passengers in the rest of the network?
Dr. Reid: The costs of the Jubilee line are kept under constant review by Ministers. They are published from time to time, normally quarterly. Our judgment has to be exercised over that matter and we will continue to scrutinise it, but I assure my hon. Friend that the allocation of funds to London Underground is not being affected detrimentally. We have given some £1 billion over the figure that would have been injected by the Conservative party. If I remember correctly as regards the Jubilee line, at least six delays were announced by the previous Government before we came to power. About £500 million was added to the Jubilee line, so none of us should underestimate the difficulties of a massive project such as that line.
414
I take only one aspect of it—Westminster station. That is the largest man-made hole in Europe. A third line is being driven between two existing lines on the banks of the Thames, and under and next to Big Ben and the House of Commons. The potential for disaster is obvious. Many people might think that the prospect of the House of Commons disappearing into the largest hole in Europe is not entirely a disaster for the nation, but, seriously, that shows some of the problems of the Jubilee line, with which I shall now deal—I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned it.
I will not belittle the problems that have faced the project and the challenges that remain. There have been delays. Most significantly, in late 1994 and early 1995, major tunnelling work in the project came to a halt for some months. Those related to safety fears over a similar tunnelling method at Heathrow. There was a significant delay. Most people would agree that halting the tunnelling work was the prudent and cautious thing to do because of the safety consideration, but it caused delays and higher costs. In March 1997, before the present Government came to power, London Transport announced that it was not able to meet the original planned opening date of March 1998.
That is the situation that we inherited, but the Government are determined that the new line will open in time for the millennium. In spring last year, we encouraged London Transport to review the project management's arrangements. Bechtel was appointed project manager to drive through the commissioning stage and to help to ensure that the extension was completed in time.
I assure Opposition Members and others that Ministers are sometimes in daily, and always in weekly, contact with London Underground and with Bechtel. My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London and I both take a keen interest in the project, not just because it is a matter of transport for London and a state-of-the-art, modern and complex underground line of which we should all be proud, but because it is an element of national pride that, at the millennium, the millennium dome, the village and the project should be completed.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South and his friends should be careful on that one because I am sure that Londoners want the project to succeed. The Government want the project to succeed. The nation wants the Jubilee line to succeed. It appears that only one group of people wishes the Jubilee line to fail: Tory Members. As has been said, the Tories should be careful about undermining the efforts of the rest of us to have this modern, state-of-the-art and prestigious symbol of London finished this year. The Government are determined to do it. I hope that what is happening on the Conservative Benches is not becoming wish fulfilment as they run down and undermine the line and hope that it will fail.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: How can the hon. Gentleman possibly say that Conservative Members want the Jubilee line to fail when it was our Government who started the work and put the money there in the first place? Of course we want it to succeed.
Dr. Reid: I hope that the hon. Lady is the exception that proves the rule. I am sure that other hon. Members and those who read this debate in the morning or hear

415
it on the media will have cause to consider whether the Conservative party would glory in something that the rest of the country would regard as a disaster—the non-completion of the Jubilee line.
I would not want the House to underestimate the massive complexity of the task on the Jubilee line or what has been achieved so far. I shall tell the House what has been achieved.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Reid: In a moment.
On the Jubilee line, all the tunnelling is complete, all the track has been laid and all the trains have been delivered. The new stations are structurally complete and, as we speak, trains are being tested under signal control on the line between Stratford and north Greenwich. We are now into the crucial commissioning stage. As I have said, we do not underestimate the task, but we assert the simple fact that, when the Government inherited this project, it needed remedial action. The Government have provided that remedial action.
I have been honest with the House tonight—the Minister for Transport in London has been equally honest on previous occasions—in facing up to the formidable challenge of overcoming our inheritance from the previous Government. Sterling efforts are being made to give this great capital the underground system that it deserves. As a Scotsman, I am proud to be part of that effort because this is the capital city of the United Kingdom, not just of England.
The staff at London Transport are soldiering on. They are coping with the dilapidated infrastructure bequeathed to them. Despite that inheritance, during the last financial year, passenger journeys on London Underground reached record levels. Over 800 million passenger journeys were made last year and, this year, we expect to see a record 860 million journeys.
The Government want those journeys to be something to look forward to, not something to be dreaded. We want passengers to travel in comfort and to have a reliable service. As I have said, the Tory motion does not even mention the word "passenger". I believe that that says a great deal about their attitude to tonight's debate.
It is imperative that we modernise our essential tube system and I am glad to say that, by strengthening the management, bringing in new projects, new technology and new trains and putting in new resources, we have begun to make a successful start on tackling the underground's problems. However, I am the first to acknowledge that we have a long way to go. I hope that we will soon see our proposals for the public-private partnership implemented, but we would rather have them right than have them rushed. When we have them, we can make a real start on improving the infrastructure and, at long last, we will be able to give the citizens of our capital—our premier city—not only the capital investment but the premier performance on the underground that they surely deserve as we enter the new millennium.
8.24 pm
Mr. Tom Brake: I have a sense of deja vu tonight as it is exactly a year since the last Tory Opposition day debate on the tube. This is another opportunity to remind Londoners that the Conservative party has primary responsibility for the chaos on the tube today. It was the Tories who organised a fire sale of the tube. They wanted a miserable £800 million for it at a time when it had £13 billion worth of assets. Of course, they hastily dropped that plan when it was leaked to the newspapers. It is the Tories who have left a backlog of repairs—the equivalent of £170 per Londoner.
That is not a partisan view; it is the view of the business community. London First said that
"the last Government cut public funding for the existing system below the level needed even to sustain it in its present condition, in spite of the fact that they accepted that there was a £1.2 billion backlog."
The Confederation of British Industry said that
"there has been a serious under-investment for a long time".
This is an opportunity to consider the Jubilee line extension project—it has been discussed at length. The Tories condemn the Government for their handling of the completion of the line, but what about their record? A number of hon. Members have referred to that record tonight. In October 1993, the original cost was expected to be £1.9 billion. That had increased to £2.76 billion by 1997. In other words, it was 45 per cent. over budget.
When the Tories claim that the Government's inaction jeopardises reliability on the underground, they are right. Their Government's inaction over nearly two decades has left the underground with record levels of breakdowns and under-investment.
Before Labour Members get too excited about what I have been saying, I must now say that, for the sake of Londoners, I wish that, since the election of the new Government, it had been "all change". I am afraid that under-investment in the tube has not changed. In fact, the Labour Government will have invested, on average, 11 per cent. less over the period 1997–2000—the latter being the last year for which figures are available—than the Tory Government spent on average after the 1992 general election.
I will give the Tories credit for the fact that, between 1992 and 1997, they spent more on investment on the underground than the present Labour Government will have spent. In case anyone wants to challenge them, I can tell the House that I obtained the figures today from London Transport's finance director. The figure is about £494 million for the Tory Government and £440 million for the Labour Government.
One thing has changed and that is the prevailing dogma. The Minister mentioned the Conservative ideological antipathy towards public services, but that has been replaced with Labour's obsession with public-private partnerships—the Government's alternative to wholesale privatisation. In July 1997, the Government commissioned a report into the future of the tube from Price Waterhouse. It looked at the various financing options for the tube and would, therefore, have looked at the public-private partnership. The findings of Price Waterhouse have not been made public, in spite of a

417
request from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Transport Sub-Committee in its seventh report on London Underground, which recommended that
"the Report from PW, which evaluated the possible financing options for modernising the Underground and the advice submitted by London Transport, should be made public."
Why has that report not been made public? According to the Government's response to the Transport Sub-Committee's report it is because it is
"not in the best interests of the taxpayers and passengers."
Is that really the case? Many would argue the exact opposite. It is in the taxpayers' interest that the information be made public immediately. Only then will we be able to judge whether the public-private partnership proposal is best value.
If the Minister answers just one of the points I have raised tonight, I should like him to say at what point the Government will accept that PPP is or is not best value. If the Minister accepts in a year or two that PPP is not best value, four or five years will have elapsed without any further progress on the tube. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.
Many other people feel that the information should be in the public domain. For example, I suspect that Peter Ford, the old chairman of London Transport, would have liked it in the public domain. He told the Transport Sub-Committee that the Government's method of breaking the infrastructure into between one and three privately managed concessions would cost £1 billion to £3 billion more than retaining a single, publicly owned organisation.
That view is supported by House of Commons Library research, which estimates an extra capital cost of £70 million for every percentage point that the cost of private capital exceeds the cost of public capital. It is easy to arrive at Peter Ford's figure of £1 billion. If we assume that private money costs about 10 per cent. more than public capital—that is not an unreasonable figure; I have information from the National Audit Office on the extra costs of the Skye bridge project—we arrive at an extra cost of £700 million per year.
That figure is valid if all the money is borrowed up front and is spent on day one, but that will not happen—it is impossible to spend £7 billion on day one. If the £7 billion that the Government have referred to is for the duration of the contract, the additional cost of borrowing the money in the private sector will be about £1 billion, according to Library figures.
The Government's response to the Transport Sub-Committee report suggests that a substantial sum will be spent up front:
"The design of the Public/Private Partnership will be aimed at ensuring that the private sector moves quickly"—
not over the duration of the contract, but quickly—
"to eliminate the backlog and modernise the Underground's infrastructure".
It is fair to assume that a high proportion of that £7 billion will be spent in the early stages of the contract.
The Minister must tell us how much extra this will cost. Will it cost £1 billion extra over the duration of the contract, with the spending spread evenly, or will it be £700 million extra, with the £7 billion spent early in the contract? Where does the true figure lie? Londoners
418
would like to know, because that would help them to establish whether the public-private partnership proposal is best value.
The Government's blind faith in public-private partnership and their belief that it is a panacea that will fill all financial gaps is leading towards a financial solution that will cost the taxpayer and Londoners dear—if the PPP proceeds. The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) has referred to the story, in Construction News, that half the contractors bidding for the PPP do not believe that it will proceed.
If that were not enough bad news, there are also problems with the Government's timing of the public-private partnership proposals. London's mayor and assembly will be elected in May 2000. They will have had no say over the London Underground contract, so they will be able to hide behind a "Not me, guv" attitude on tube cancellations, delays and overcrowding. The Minister is naive if he thinks that they will not respond like that. When overcrowding continues at current levels—no new lines are going to be built as a result of the PPP proposals—the mayor and assembly will deny all responsibility for the deal if their signatures are not at the bottom of the document.
The public-private partnership proposal is either an expensive or a very expensive means of financing improvements to the underground. It may never see the light of day and it will enable the mayor to pass the buck when things go wrong. The hon. Member for Croydon, South has already quoted from the Transport Sub-Committee's report, but it is worth reminding Labour Members that the Committee said of the PPP proposals:
"Treasury rules have forced the adoption of this form of Public/Private Partnership, which is rather a convoluted compromise, when other financial solutions might have been more cost-effective."
In the meantime, the backlog of repairs grows.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I have one more point to add to my hon. Friend's case. If the new London authority inherits something that it has had no opportunity to influence, the problem will go deeper than the authority being able to wash its hands of the issue; the new authority will be undermined. If the people of London think that their authority cannot influence affairs and has no power over one of the most important public services in London, its credibility will be undermined from the start. That will not be good for the government of London on any issue.
Mr. Brake: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Unfortunately, the situation is even worse, because there are severe doubts about the extent to which the mayor and assembly will be able to influence rail commuter services in London.
In the meantime, the backlog of repairs will grow. The Minister has had the honesty to admit that things are getting worse before they get better. There has been a 20 per cent. increase in signal point failures and rolling stock failures in 1997–98. London Underground is on track for further increases in rolling stock failures this year.
How do we get out of the quagmire? We need to establish a public interest company or trust, with objectives set by the Greater London authority,

419
which would be outside the public sector borrowing requirement. The hon. Member for Croydon, South referred to bonds. This is not an untested model. It is similar to arrangements that work acceptably in New York and San Francisco. The Liberal Democrats would will the means to provide the funds that are needed for the investment programme.
The Government are considering—and probably support—the measures that we propose, although the Conservatives do not. We advocate a levy on non-residential car parking spaces. A rough estimate suggests that £150 million a year could be raised from that. We support road congestion charges, provided that a viable public transport alternative is put in place. The London congestion charging research programme suggested in 1995 than between £95 million and £795 million could be raised through road congestion charges. We have also talked about a small increase in business rates for London's largest businesses, which could raise £150 million per annum.
In return, Londoners would get a transport system that was reliable, safe and affordable. They would get cleaner air, fewer cars on the road and a reduction in pollution-related illnesses such as asthma. The Tory Opposition have no solution other than privatisation. The Liberal Democrats—and Londoners—will not back that. Nor will we support the Government's proposals. I do not believe that the Government can demonstrate, as they suggest in the amendment, that their proposals will deliver best value.
The Liberal Democrat proposal—a public interest company backed by ear-marked revenues—would take the tube into the 21st century and, with the Liberal Democrats, Londoners are guaranteed a smooth and safe ride, in comfort and at an affordable cost.
8.39 pm
Mr. Ken Livingstone: It is absolutely monstrous to be lectured by the Conservative party about neglect of the tube. Let us look at the figures that I jotted down while we were being lectured. Back in 1991, after the Conservative Government had been running London Transport since 1984, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission condemned them in a report that said that there was a backlog of maintenance and repair on the tube that would require an investment of £700 million to £750 million a year for 10 years to be cleared.
Initially, under the embarrassment of that report, the Conservative Government came up with £632 million for 1992–93, but, by the time that we got to the last full year of Conservative rule, the figure had been halved, with an investment of only £371 million to clear the backlog. There was additional funding for the Jubilee line, but that was not part or parcel of the MMC report.
It was absolutely monstrous of the Conservatives then to complain when one of the first acts of the Deputy Prime Minister was to put in another £365 million to revive the programme. I welcome that investment, just as I welcome his replacement of Mr. Ford, who had an agenda that was not in the interests of Londoners.
420
Having said that, I am not yet convinced of the Government's case on the funding arrangements, for all the reasons that we have heard.
Mr. Jenkin: I once went to the Library to try to find out what the capital investment in the London underground was under the Greater London council when the hon. Gentleman was its leader. The Library told me that the GLC accounts were so opaque that it was impossible to tell.
Mr. Livingstone: The accounts were subject to the approval of the district auditor and we never had any complaints about them.
One of the first acts of the Conservative Government when they came to power in 1979 was to pass legislation removing from local authorities any power to determine their own capital programmes. In the early days of Mrs. Thatcher's Administration, we lost the power to buy a bus or a train or to build a council house without the prior approval of the Department of the Environment.
Every year, under both Labour and Conservative leaderships, GLC leaders and their transport chairs had to trek across to beg the Department of the Environment to allow us to invest more in the tube, and every year we were sent away without our requirements being met. Investment in London Transport was determined by the Conservative Government in every year from 1980. They effectively had control of the capital investment programme for the best part of two decades, and they can blame no one but themselves for the chaos that they have left us to sort out.
I have been deeply impressed over the years by the Chancellor's commitment to prudence and to getting value for money. It seems to me that the entire public-private partnership will hinge on a simple bottom-line calculation of what is the cheapest way for Londoners to pay for the modernisation of their tube system.
If the public-private partnership comes up trumps and turns out to be cheaper than the other options that we have heard about from the Liberal Democrats, that would be fine, but it is likely—although I have to confess that this is a wicked calculation by the trade union concerned, the RMT—that the rate of return that the private sector will require for such investment may be between 20 and 25 per cent. Who in his right mind would take out a 30-year mortgage on a house at a rate of interest of 20 to 25 per cent? It is an absolute nightmare.
I strongly suspect that we will have to take a difficult decision at the end of this great exercise and consider how much cheaper it would be if we were allowed to have a bond issue to fund the investment. That works perfectly well in New York. In a sense, the Government have moved a good step in that direction. My dear and right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), before his demise, made the breathtaking, bold and radical left-wing gesture of allowing the Post Office finally to slough off the shackles of the Treasury and start raising funds in the market for a programme of expansion.
If we can do that for the Post Office, why not for London transport? One could even consider a tax increase, although I know that that is horrendously off message. I find remarkable acceptance among major City institutions for an increase in their business rate or a new

421
tax on business in London, provided that it was ring-fenced for the modernisation of the tube. That is a sea change in the attitude of City institutions to taxation. I strongly suspect that, if Londoners were told honestly that an additional sum would be put on the council tax so that the domestic sector could make a contribution—although one that, perhaps, would not match that of the private sector—the money could be raised through taxation.
It would be jarring for Londoners to be told by a Government so dominated by people from other regions of the country what they should and should not be doing with their own money, when there is a willingness among Londoners to pay for the investment. There are many problems to solve before the Government will be able to persuade Londoners. The opinion polls show that Londoners overwhelmingly reject the public-private partnership, and remain committed to the tube remaining completely and utterly within the public sector.
Mr. Brake: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of a report in The Guardian on the public-private partnership in relation to National Air Traffic Services, in which the Civil Aviation Authority expressed concern about the safety implications of the public-private partnership? Does he agree that the Government should reconsider their position on the matter?
Mr. Livingstone: The evidence from the RMT on the old British Rail service—which suggested that probably illegal immigrants from Croatia who did not speak English were responsible for looking after safety equipment on the railways, and were unable to read the instructions on safety equipment—was very worrying. Directly employed people, accountable to the public sector, are much safer than fly-by-night operators, who are often picking people off the corner at busy London junctions and driving them to do cash-in-hand work in vital areas of public safety.
There is one danger that the Government may not have fully anticipated. As the programme has slipped back, we have got to the point where no final decision will be made before the mayor and the assembly are elected. I am a responsible person and, if selected, I shall run on the Labour party policy—heaven forfend that I should do anything else. However, suppose a candidate turned the election into a referendum on the issue of the public-private partnership and called on Londoners to reject it at the ballot box?
What could the Government do if a mayoral candidate were elected on a specific, primary commitment—above everything else in the election—to oppose the introduction of public-private partnership and to put forward other options, such as the bond issue or taxation? Would the Labour Government reject the clearly expressed will of Londoners at the ballot box? I hope that, in the Minister's reply tonight, we will be given some idea about that. As the operation has slipped back, it has offered Londoners the option at the ballot box of expressing an opinion on the issue. The Government need to work out what they will do in those circumstances beforehand, rather than in a panic afterwards.
Mrs. Laing: Following the hon. Gentleman's heartfelt remarks about what he would do for London transport, he received no support from his hon. Friends around him.
422
It is only fair that I and my hon. Friends should give him a little support. We may not agree with what he wishes to do financially or politically, but we wish him luck in terms of being allowed the freedom of speech that everyone should be allowed in this country to put his views to Londoners.
Mr. Livingstone: I am deeply moved by that intervention. I would have liked to hear a bit more like that when the Conservatives were abolishing the GLC. There was no great desire on the part of the Tory party in 1983 that I should continue to be able to put my interesting views before the British people.
We may yet find that it is Londoners who determine what happens with the issue. I suspect that is why many of the companies involved in negotiations are expressing some doubt and uncertainty. The Labour party needs to work out in advance that if we cannot convince the public, we do not have the right to impose on them something that they specifically reject at the ballot box.
8.49 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: I wish that the Minister of Transport was still here so that I could wish him well him on his appointment. He may have felt that the Ministry of Defence was an obstacle course, but it was as nothing compared with the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions. At this early stage of his career as a Transport Minister, his sense of humour seems not to have forsaken him, and his allegory of a circular firing squad will have caught the imagination of hon. Members.
What caught my imagination, however, was the fact that he, a Scottish Member of Parliament, delivered a committed speech about London Underground. I wonder whether, before very long, when the Scottish Parliament is up and running and able to increase the income tax by 3p in the pound, the voters of London may not feel, with good reason, that the subsidy for Scotland disbursed at present from London and elsewhere south of the border should cease in favour of better investment in public transport and other public services of great importance to Londoners.
At the general election, two issues predominated—health and public transport. Labour spokesmen told us that things could only get better for both, but for my constituents things have only got worse. I shall not stray out of order by talking about the woeful situation facing Harefield and Mount Vernon hospitals, two centres of excellence. However, my constituency has no fewer than eight underground stations: Northwood and Northwood Hills on the Metropolitan line; Ruislip, Ruislip Manor and Eastcote on the Metropolitan and Piccadilly lines; and West Ruislip, Ruislip Gardens and South Ruislip on the Central line.
If there is any problem with London Underground, as there so frequently is—particularly when there is what is euphemistically described as industrial action—my constituents face a real problem in getting to work. I imagine that more than half of them travel to work on the underground. The railways offer no effective alternative. There are only two railway stations to the south of my constituency, at South Ruislip and West Ruislip. Just outside the north of my constituency, at Moor Park, the Chiltern line trains no longer stop. If there is a dispute, or other problems, real difficulties arise.

423
The roads are already hideously congested. One would have imagined that the Government—so committed in their election rhetoric to improving public transport—would have adopted the intelligent approach of improving public transport to encourage people to use it before they clobbered the motorist. In fact, the motorist has been hit by increases in fuel duty well above inflation. If, as Labour plans, the Greater London authority is able to impose charges on motorists going into London, or to impose levies on employers who provide parking spaces, the motorist will be subject to a double whammy.
None of that will clobber those who stay in bed and do not go to work. It will penalise those who make the effort to get to work, or who, as employers, provide opportunities for others to work. This is quite the wrong approach. The Government ought to have improved public transport first to encourage people to use it. They would have had an incentive to do so. Instead, year after year, London Underground fare increases are well above inflation. This year, 4.5 per cent. is the average increase, which is almost double the present rate of inflation.
Many right hon. and hon. Members may have a view of my constituency that derives from "Tropic of Ruislip", by Leslie Thomas, or from the late poet laureate, Sir John Betjeman's vision of "Metroland". It is, perhaps, a vision of genteel tea taken in china cups behind lace curtains and of long, lazy summer evenings playing tennis. The reality is very different. My constituents have a real struggle, financially because the cost of housing in outer London is so high, but above all to get into work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) graphically described the mole-like existence of the London commuter on the underground. Quite honestly, moles have a happier life than many commuters today. At least moles are not jostled and shoved and I think that they have a modicum of certainty about their existence. There is virtually none on London Underground. If the service runs on schedule and there is not some hideous glitch, the commuter regards himself as exceptionally fortunate. This is the exception rather than the rule.
My long-suffering constituents—commuters who are so typical of the many hard-working Londoners—are looking to the Government to find out whether their election rhetoric will bring them a better deal. First, they ask whether the system will be properly financed. There was a debate across the Dispatch Boxes between my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South and the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman took 39 minutes to put his case, which was a bit much in every sense, and the Government amendment ran to 15 lines on the Order Paper.
I thought that the party below the Gangway—the party from south London, which does not have much connection with the tube or anything else—might at least have some academic insight on this subject. However, having listened to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), we were not much the wiser about the benefits that Liberal policy would bring.
The electors ought to know that, if the tender for the infrastructure of London Underground is not a success, the Government have some alternative in mind. There is no mention of that in their public expenditure provisions.
424
The Government are against privatisation, so I asked the Minister whether their ideological commitment would be forgotten in the interests of providing funding by that means. I cited the example of the Heathrow link to Paddington. The Minister set his face against it. Our constituents and Londoners can only deduce that the issue will be a hot potato that will land in the lap of the mayor and the Greater London authority. How will it cope? It will have no mechanism to do so other than the imposition of road traffic charges and parking levies for workplaces.
The Government may think that the newly elected authority will take all the blame and face all the odium, but they should remember that they failed to face up to the funding realities, so they will have to carry the political can.
Mr. Brake: On funding realities, does the hon. Gentleman recall that the Conservatives were expecting to get £800 million for a privatised tube system? What would he expect the previous or present Government to achieve with that sum?
Mr. Wilkinson: Sadly, we never had the chance to float London Underground and find out what the market price would be. Londoners are looking not only for enhanced investment, but for the enhanced service that the privatised companies would have supplied. That was another aspect of our policy.
The system must be financed properly and be affordable to users. Although the mayor and the authority should not meddle politically with the management of London Underground, we hope that the body that the mayor will appoint to deal with transport for London will encourage London Transport to be more imaginative in its fares structure. I would not wish London Transport to return to the "fares fair" policy which was instituted by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). Although it was well intentioned, it was a financial disaster. Nevertheless, there should be some encouragement for the hard-working Londoner who gets up early and is prepared to go to work before 8 am. Before the rush hour there should be an exceptional discount on fares—an early-bird system. I hope that the mayor will encourage London Underground to introduce just such a scheme.
Mr. Livingstone: In describing the Greater London council's fares policy as disastrous, the hon. Gentleman overlooked one simple fact. Although we cut the fares by roughly 30 per cent., so many more people used the system that we collected 10 per cent. more revenue in fares in real terms, enabling us to cut the rate after just 18 months of the operation of the policy. In my view that it was pretty successful.
Mr. Wilkinson: The difficulty is that the system is already bursting at the seams and there is no spare capacity to cope with the increased throughput which the hon. Gentleman suggests would ensue. That is why I propose a policy directed at the off-peak time before the rush hour with the introduction of early-bird fares.
The Government led Londoners and others to believe that there would be an increase in the network with new lines and the expansion of the system. All those ideas seem to have ground to a complete halt. Perhaps the Government feel too battered and bruised by the Jubilee line experience, so I shall cite three other examples.

425
First, if the Government have decided that crossrail is dead and that there is no possibility of a high speed east-west link in London, they should say so. It is a matter for the Government to decide. They cannot just pass the buck to the mayor and his authority as the crossrail link would extend far beyond the boundaries of Greater London. The decision to keep the route sacrosanct from development is causing blight, so an early decision is necessary.
My second example is the Croxley link, which would be a modest improvement of potentially immense benefit to my constituents and others in north-west London. It would link the Metropolitan line from Croxley tube station, through Watford high street to Watford Junction railway station. It would represent a modest increase in the system as the track already exists and simply needs to be opened up. I hope that the money will be forthcoming. That is why I pressed the Government to stop the subventions to Scotland when the Scottish Parliament is established in Edinburgh and inject some money here, where it is needed. The Croxley link is just one such example of need. The third example is the Chelsea-Hackney line, which has been anticipated—indeed, eagerly awaited—for some time, but of which there is no sign.
Although the debate is thinly attended and although the Liberals decry it as an annual event and therefore somewhat boring, it is of intense interest to Londoners. They expect the interim period to be used well by Her Majesty's Government and they are not prepared to wait until late summer 2000, when the mayor and his authority enter office: instead, they expect hard decisions to be taken now. They expect the tendering process for the infrastructure to be accelerated and, if it is not to be successfully concluded, they expect the injection of private capital for privatisation.
9.6 pm
Mr. John Cryer: I represent a constituency containing thousands of people who, like me, travel in and out of London by tube every day. We have all seen the system gradually deteriorate: I remember one occasion when I had to walk from Ladbroke Grove to Euston because a single cable had failed in one part of the system, resulting in the whole system being out of action. That was a direct result of something that the Tories prefer to forget—the running down of investment in the system during the years when they were in office.
The speech made by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) was a vacuous whine, which served no useful or constructive purpose either in the debate or generally. We know what the Tories' view of the tube is: their solution is privatisation. Privatisation has only ever served one purpose, which is to put taxpayers' and workers' money into the pockets of wealthy shareholders. That is how it has always worked and how it would always work if the Tories were back in government. They have proved that on various occasions, the most glaring example being the privatisation of the railways, not to mention the coal industry privatisation and every other privatisation that they undertook.
I must admit that I have my doubts about the public-private partnership planned by the Labour Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) pointed out, in its submission to
426
the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, the Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers union estimated that, from a 15-year contract and a £7 billion investment, a private contractor would look for a return of between 20 and 25 per cent., or about £1.5 billion. Those figures appear to have been accepted by the Committee.
Mr. Brake: For information, the return required on the Skye bridge was 18.4 per cent.
Mr. Cryer: London Underground could borrow money far more cheaply on the market through a bond issue and I can see no reason why it cannot do so, other than the fact that it might affect the public sector borrowing requirement, which might be a factor. However, the company could successfully borrow the money through an issue of debt on the bond market, which would produce a great influx of capital without the need to resort to hiring private contractors, who would demand a return of about £1.5 billion, which would effectively come out of taxpayers' pockets. What would happen if things went slightly wrong and the contracts overran or targets were not met? I should be interested to know what targets would be set and to what incentives and penalties the private contractors or contractor would be subject when the agreements had been finalised.
There is also the question of employees of London Underground and how they would be affected by the new contracts. New employees taken on by the underground after the PPP comes into effect will not be part of the pension scheme. They might join the pension schemes of some of the big contractors, but it is possible that they will end up working for subcontractors or even sub-subcontractors.
RMT representatives told me only a couple of days ago that some of union members who are former British Rail employees are now working for their sixth employer since 1995. When employees are passed on in that way, it is highly likely that they will end up working for some cowboy who will certainly not run a pension scheme and whose terms and conditions will be rock bottom because he undercut all the other cowboys to get the contract with the original contractor. The RMT also made the point that London Underground management has refused to negotiate on whether there will be compulsory redundancies or on terms and conditions.
The bottom line is that we can raise the investment without resorting to a PPP or any kind of privatisation. We can do it by borrowing on the bond market through an issue of debt. We can do it by increasing taxation. There are many options, but the important thing is that I know from my long experience of travelling through London and from the experiences of my constituents, of many people whom I know and of people in the unions that, if the Government are successful in sorting out transport in London, especially the tube, they will be praised to the rafters. The true path to a better transport system is to be found in the public sector through public investment.
9.11 pm
Mr. Peter Brooke: The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) will recall that I was present when he made

427
his maiden speech. I am delighted to follow him on this occasion and I congratulate him on the questioning nature of his speech.
When the Minister spoke in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), he said that this was the third debate that the official Opposition had asked for on this subject. When the Deputy Prime Minister made his statement on the London underground, I asked whether, given the complexities that we were being asked to absorb in the brief space of a statement, it would be possible shortly after to have a debate in Government time. I say willingly that the Deputy Prime Minister was not unsympathetic to that idea, although he produced the disclaimer that the matter was not wholly in his hands. It is the official Opposition who have called this third debate and I am delighted that they have done so.
Politicians are divided into healers and warriors. I do not think that even my worst enemy would put me in a category other than the healers. In our first debate on the London underground, to an extent that even my Front-Bench colleagues probably thought was eccentric and idiosyncratic, I offered London Labour Members an olive branch of common cause. It was on that occasion flatly rejected in speeches of assault on the previous Government's record. The same blame for their record has been evinced tonight. I misquote deliberately, in order to avoid personalising the issue, "Methinks they do protest too much."
Both the Government amendment, the length of which was worthy of the length of the tube network without the benefit of a Frank Pick map, and the aggressiveness of the response from Opposition Members, were coloured occasionally by recall of that vignette of a Latin American delegate at the United Nations, in the margin of whose speech were marked the words "Weak point—shout." Certainly between them they revealed a Government on the defensive, by which I was not surprised.
That said, I salute and give credit to the Minister for one statement in the early part of his speech. He said that Londoners were interested in seeing the problems of London underground faced up to. He had a good crack about there being no references to passengers in the five-line motion tabled by the official Opposition. However, the one reference to passengers in the Government's 15-line amendment did not exactly overdo passenger concern. The Minister discreetly omitted from his speech any reference to the criticisms by the Transport Sub-Committee of the Select Committee of what the Government were about.
As a Londoner, I agree that the Underground has been under siege under Governments of both colours and Greater London councils of both colours. My recollection of the relief of Lucknow is that the first sign of it was a skirl of bagpipes to the tune of "The Campbells are Coming." Londoners might be forgiven if on this occasion they thought that not all the Campbells would necessarily be welcome or of help if media presentation took precedence over solid improvement.
In such presentation as we received today, no reference was made to the Chelsea-Hackney line, phase 2 of the
428
channel tunnel rail link or advanced construction of the new Thameslink station at St. Pancras, let alone crossrail. That silence is not what Londoners expected of new Labour, and on Thameslink 2000 that silence is steadily lengthening.
What do third parties—I refer to those in London, not to those in the House—think of the position? The London chamber of commerce and industry said that the Government have a "can't do mentality". That is very new Labour. It says that 70 per cent. of businesses would oppose road user charges and workplace parking levies if revenues were not fully invested in improving public transport.
London First, to which the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) referred, had a powerful influence on the previous election result in London through its canvassing on the London underground during the campaign, so it is no particular friend of the official Opposition. It has identified 20 transport actions that need to be taken before the setting up of the Greater London authority and 10 new powers that must be given to the authority. When the Minister for Transport in London winds up the debate, it will be interesting to hear how many of those proposals the Government are prepared to accept.
London First also reported that 51 per cent. of respondents in its business survey said that the underground was the most important transport issue for the Greater London authority, against 38 per cent. who said that road congestion was most important.
What about the Government's response, as demonstrated this evening? The reference to the £1.2 billion deficit on infrastructure, which I acknowledge—the figure is agreed throughout the Chamber—gave no credit to the fact that it is much less than half the deficit that the previous Government inherited from the Greater London council. The Minister of Transport claims that the Government have made a start, but he should also acknowledge the progress made by the previous Government, which has been recognised in my constructive conversations with London Transport management.
I am delighted to see the Minister return to the Chamber. I apologise for having referred to him in his absence. He did not refer to the fact that London underground fares are heading in the opposite direction to privatised rail fares. He made no reference to the article by Simon Jenkins, which my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) quoted, or the astronomical charges that the Treasury is thought to be insisting that bidders should pay for access to the network. We were not told how far the absence of a survey for the infrastructure of the underground may be adding to the risks with which bidders are having to cope. The Opposition and those bidders have no idea what uncompetitive work practices the RMT may insist on.
Campbells may be coming—I treat the Minister with good will—but the terrain over which they are advancing remains unpromising. Londoners using the system need, above all, long-term stable policies. It is the task of the official Opposition to continue to man the ramparts of Lucknow. If that means a fourth debate, a fifth debate and a sixth debate, so be it. We shall know that relief is on the way when at last we have a debate in Government time.
9.18 pm
Mr. Clive Efford: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport referred in his opening remarks to the fact that the word "passengers" does not appear in the Conservative motion. He should know that the previous Government gave up using the term "passengers" because it gave the travelling public the impression that they intended to take them somewhere.
As somebody who worked in London's transport system for nearly 12 years, I witnessed the ravages inflicted on that transport by the previous Government. In an attempt to be brief and allow other hon. Members to speak, I shall not respond to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) or cite the catalogue of errors and attacks on public transport made by the previous Government.
I represent a constituency in south-east London and I know that public transport has to be treated as a public service that will always require funding from public money. Leaving it to the ravages of the private sector does not allow it to meet the various needs of the community. Many public transport services are essential but not profitable. Public subsidy will always be required, so public accountability will be necessary.
We have to start to plan, and to make the word "integrated" mean something if we are to tackle the economic environmental problems in London. We have to integrate trains, buses, the tube and the road network. I welcome the measure in the Greater London Authority Bill to combine responsibility for roads and other modes of transport because, for far too long, that lack of integration has been an obstacle to an effective plan for London's overall transport system.
London's traffic is likely to increase by 2 to 11 per cent. by 2000, by 8 to 21 per cent. by 2011, and by 22 to 59 per cent. by 2031. That points to serious problems for the economy and for people's health in London. We need to start addressing those problems, and we need to start now. With all due respect to the Liberal Democrats, we cannot wait to plan until the GLA is in place.
Mr. Brake rose—
Mr. Efford: There is very little time left, and I know that other hon. Members want to speak. The hon. Gentleman has had plenty to say this evening.
Network SouthEast, which serves my constituency, is already running at capacity. There is very little scope for increasing that capacity at peak times, although investment in longer carriages and platforms may result in some improvement. Five of the operating companies are operating in excess of capacity—they carry many persons in excess of capacity every day—and, as I said, south-east London has no tube network.
Investment in London Underground, via the Jubilee line and other schemes, is planned to increase capacity outside of peak times by 25 per cent. by 2002 or 2003, but it is going to take a great deal longer to increase capacity at peak times. There is the potential for a further 20 per cent. increase, according to London Underground's own figures.
The bus is not seen as a suitable alternative by people travelling to London from my constituency or, for that
430
matter, by those travelling through my constituency. People use their cars out of choice. A recent survey in the Evening Standard demonstrated that even a cut in the cost of travelling by public transport would not result in people choosing to give up their cars, so we have to make public transport extremely attractive.
Derek Turner, the Traffic Director for London, was quoted last week in the Evening Standard as saying that we have to take a carrot and stick approach. I very much agree with that. Bus lanes will take out sections of the road but will then offer an opportunity for people to travel more quickly by bus. He regards the bus as being the only solution to the problem of excess demand for transport over the next five years. That is not true in all cases, but in south-east London, where there is no underground network, we certainly need to find other ways to expand our links to the underground.
We have the prospect of road pricing in London, which will fund investment in public transport networks. If people in south-east London are contributing through road pricing to investment in public transport, it is only right that that investment goes into modes of transport that will benefit them in the absence of the underground in their area. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board.
I have stressed the fact many times in the House that there is no underground network in south-east London. Other than the bus network and the over-subscribed Network SouthEast, there are no alternatives to the car for people travelling to central London. Unless we use our road network and turn sections of our roads over to guided bus links or other modes of transport of that sort, we shall have difficulty in getting people out of their cars and on to public transport in south-east London.
Let us consider the cost of extending rail links. The Jubilee line costs £172.5 million per km, and the Croydon tramlink costs £7.1 million per km. Guided bus links are considerably cheaper than that. The schemes in cities such as Ipswich and Leeds have succeeded in bringing people on to those forms of transport. The March edition of Local Transport Today contains articles about those schemes. Surveys demonstrate that few new journeys are made as a result of the schemes, but that significant numbers of people switch from their cars to public transport. That is the way forward for London.
My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said that he wanted the bus to become a racehorse, not a workhorse. I echo that. We must change people's attitudes to buses and other forms of public transport. We must improve links between existing modes of transport. People should view switching from a bus to the underground, or from a bus to the rail network, no differently from the way in which someone travelling on the London underground views changing from the Bakerloo line, for example, to the Central line.
By changing people's attitudes to public transport, we can start to address the growing problem of traffic levels in London. That would help to address the problems that my constituents face daily, with two of London's major arterial routes dissecting my constituency. I welcome the opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, and I hope that in her summing up, my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London will take my comments on board.
9.26 pm
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Labour and Liberal Members are wrong to suggest, as they have been doing all evening, that Conservative Members of Parliament do not care about standards on the underground. We do. We all want the best possible service for the passengers on the London underground.
I care particularly because the underground is extremely important to those who live in my constituency. However, I was pleased to hear the Minister say—I entirely agree with him—that the underground is also important because London is the capital city, not just of England, but of the United Kingdom. That is why hon. Members in all parts of the House and people in all parts of the country should care about London Underground.
Before the election, the Government made promises, as they did on many subjects, that they would wave a magic wand and make the underground, like many other parts of our national life, better. However, they have done nothing about it. They have been delaying all this time. I should point out to Ministers that, when our party was in government, we privatised the entire British Rail network in 18 months—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should not say that we did it wrongly. We did not.
Mr. Andrew Love rose—
Mrs. Laing: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Those who have scrutinised the financial affairs of British Rail and the way in which it was privatised have criticised certain aspects of it, but not the whole of it. Hon. Members should think what British Rail was like before we privatised it, and imagine how much worse the railway would be now, if it did not have the benefit of private sector investment.
Labour Members and Ministers know that the only way to get the capital that is needed for London Underground is to privatise it, but they are so full of dogmatic ideas against privatisation, simply because it was such a great success for the Governments of Margaret Thatcher and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major).
Mr. Love: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. According to the recent National Audit Office report on the privatisation of Railtrack, the public purse lost between £600 million and £1.4 billion in that privatisation. It should not be forgotten that the National Audit Office is an extremely conservative body. That money could have been used to improve London underground.
Mrs. Laing: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well—the National Audit Office acknowledged this—that privatisation of the railways was conducted in the best possible way at the time, and that the best possible financial and professional advice was accepted and acted on. If we knew in advance what would happen, we would all be rich from playing the markets because we would know where to invest.
Mr. Love: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Laing: No, I do not have time to give way again. The hon. Gentleman knows what point I am making,
432
and he knows that I am right. The railways would be very much worse if they had not had the benefit of privatisation.
Ministers have the problem of a rose by any other name smelling as sweet. They know that they want a privatised underground, but they do not want to privatise it because that is a successful Conservative policy which they cannot bear to acknowledge. In trying to give the rose some other name, they have created this PPP thing—public-private partnership—which simply delays matters. The people of London and of the United Kingdom as a whole would benefit far more if Ministers admitted what must be done and privatised the underground.
For the sake of time, I shall not go into all the detail as I might otherwise have done. I shall concentrate on one important point pertaining especially to my constituency, which is outwith the area to be covered by the proposed Greater London authority, and therefore outwith the area for which the mayor of London will have responsibility. The Minister for Transport in London has politely listened to me making this point before in a different way. I should like to ask her questions on a slightly different aspect of the same point.
After the Greater London authority assumes responsibility for the London underground and the mayor of London becomes accountable to the people of London for its running, who will be responsible to my constituents? Of whom will I be able to ask questions about the underground on behalf of my constituents? They will not have a vote for the mayor of London. If anybody standing for the post of mayor of London had to consider in which part of the underground they would invest and which part they would neglect, would not they propose investment in parts where people were able to vote for them, and neglect the parts for which they would not be responsible?
The Minister has patiently listened to that important point before. I hope that she has done so again. I am looking for assurances on behalf of my constituents that I will be able to continue to ask questions of Transport Ministers in the House about the underground once the mayor of London assumes responsibility for it. [Horn. MEMBERS: "There he is."] We might hope that my hon. Friends are right in referring to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who has just entered the Chamber. We certainly hope that the hon. Gentleman has a chance to put himself forward if he so wishes, and that the control freaks in his party allow him free speech.
We on the Conservative Benches care about the London underground. I certainly do because it is of prime importance to my constituents. I sincerely hope that the Government will stop shilly-shallying, delaying and depending on their dogmatic principles, and start thinking about what is best for the people who depend on the underground, and get on with the privatisation process as soon as possible.
9.34 pm
Mr. Keith Darvill: Upminster is, of course, at the beginning of the District line. Many thousands of my constituents travel on the London underground each day, and many work at the Cranham depot, which supports the District line. Apart from education and health, I think that transport is the most important issue to Londoners. It is just as important to visitors to London, 90 per cent. of whom use the tube when visiting the capital.

433
There is no doubt that, if any Government failed to tackle the issues of investment and improvement in the underground, they would ultimately fail to secure the support of Londoners. Londoners know that the Conservative party failed miserably in office, and that is one of the many reasons why it remains so unpopular.
In many ways, the underground epitomises good public investment in infrastructure. It is a perfect example of how public investment can help the nation to prosper. What would London have been if that investment had not taken place? Each time that we travel on the underground, we are receiving a dividend from that past investment. I first used the underground in the early 1950s, to travel into central London from Leytonstone on the Central line. People were amazed at the frequency of the service and moved into that part of London because of the quality of that service.
Unfortunately, in the second half of this century, investment has not kept pace with need. If the post-King's Cross disaster investment and the much-belated Jubilee line extension investment are stripped out, the underlying investment over those 18 years has been miserable. Conservative Members should be ashamed at the wording of their motion, and, of course, of their management of the underground over 18 years.
London cannot flourish without higher levels of investment in public transport. In the global economy, cities across the world compete with each other, and our businesses cannot afford to have transport system infrastructure that receives no investment. It is astonishing that London has done so well, despite the decline in investment. However, we all know that the system is cracking under the strain and it will not provide anything like the level of service required without higher, and sustainable, levels of investment.
The recently published "Four World Cities Transport Study" compared four metropolises: London, Paris, New York and Tokyo. It contains lots of interesting statistics, but of most interest to me was the information contrasting Tokyo with London. In London, 64 per cent. of journeys are made by car from Monday to Friday; the figure for Tokyo is 27 per cent. In London, 19 per cent. of journeys are made on the railways and by underground; the figure for Tokyo is 38 per cent.
The study sets out many standards of reliability and punctuality: 98 per cent. of Tokyo's metro trains arrive within a minute of their scheduled time; in London, only 85 per cent. arrive within five minutes of scheduled time. London needs to address its punctuality record.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) will no doubt welcome the study's recommendation on fares. It suggests that London and New York could consider reducing high public transport fares, thus making public transport more affordable.
The Opposition motion makes no mention of their involvement in the decline in investment; no mention of their legacy; no mention of the inheritance that they left to this Government; and no mention of their role in the delayed start for the Jubilee line extension. For those reasons, their motion should be rejected.
9.38 pm
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: We have had an interesting debate, but perhaps its most salient feature is that not a single speaker—apart from the Minister of Transport—defended the proposal for a public-private partnership.
434
I, however, intend to follow the example of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and will attempt to be a healer in this debate. That means that we must put behind us language such as that used by the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford), who talked of leaving the system to the "ravages" of the private sector. That is an unfair charge to make. [Interruption.] The Minister of Transport did not use that phrase; the hon. Member for Eltham accused him of leaving the system to the "ravages" of the private sector.
We must move ahead and begin with what the Labour party said at the election, which has certainly raised expectations about what it would deliver. I appreciate that the Minister of Transport did not read the London manifesto, because he was standing elsewhere, but it said:
"Londoners want a clean, efficient, safe and reliable transport system to get them where they want when they want."
We can all agree with that, and we should start from the premise that we all have Londoners' interests close to our hearts and want to improve the system.
The manifesto went on to say:
"In future, the Greater London Authority, elected by Londoners, will appoint the Board which runs London Transport."
That has changed; it will not happen for some time.
Much criticism was levelled at our privatisation proposals. The manifesto was, perhaps, being ironic in stating:
"Much-needed investment would be delayed."
At present, it seems that the public-private sector partnership is leading to the delay of much-needed investment in the underground. Perhaps more extraordinarily, Labour is wedded to the dogma of public ownership
"to safeguard its commitment to the public interest and guarantee value for money to taxpayers and passengers."
If public accountability had guaranteed value for money and the public interest, we would never have needed to transfer any of the state-owned interests to the private sector. The Labour party has now embraced the practical benefits of privatisation in industry after industry. It has even decided to reverse its position on, for instance, the national air traffic control service, which is now to be privatised.
Dr. Reid: No.
Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman is unwise to say that. He told the Select Committee that it was privatisation. Of course, he corrected himself quickly, because it is not linguistically politically correct to use the term "privatisation"; but, if selling 51 per cent. of a business is not privatisation, we did not privatise British Telecom until well after 1984, when we sold 51 per cent. of it. I seem to remember that the right hon. Gentleman opposed that at the time, although he did not know then that a public-private sector partnership was involved.
We need to put aside dogma. We also need to understand that, if we had waited for public support before doing the necessary things, we would not have privatised a single industry. The right hon. Gentleman's party made sure that the public were against us on every one of those privatisations.

435
Let us compare and contrast the privatised railway with the London underground, which is under state control and enjoying that public accountability and responsiveness to the public interest. At least the privatised railway has an investment programme of £17 billion for Railtrack, and huge new sums for rolling stock. Regulated fares are falling against the rate of inflation, and there have been substantial improvements in performance since privatisation. I think that even the right hon. Gentleman would accept that. The figures have been produced by Railtrack, and are not disputed by his Department.
There is still virtually no investment in London Underground, which is under state control. Fares are rising at well over the rate of inflation, and the service is falling to pieces. Where would the right hon. Gentleman have got £17 billion for rail infrastructure investment if the railways had not been privatised by the last Conservative Government?
New Labour opposed the investment that is now being made in the railways. That is the logic of the position taken by the right hon. Gentleman's party, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) so ably demonstrated. It now opposes the same sort of investment in the London underground. It is worth recalling what our policy for the underground was when we were in government. We made 10 commitments. Safety was a top priority; other commitments were to integrated through ticketing, the retention of travelcards, the retention of concessionary fares, shares for employees and passengers enabling them to acquire a real stake in the business, the protection of travel concessions and pensions, guaranteed levels of service, safeguards to keep stations open, controls on fares so that they did not increase above the rate of inflation as they have under the present Government, and, of course, investment. We said that investment should be a priority. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) said earlier, we were planning a privatised underground with reinvestment of at least £750 million a year.
Mr. Gapes: If its transport policy was so good, why has the Conservative party, which used to have a huge number of seats in London, been decimated in the capital?
Mr. Jenkin: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has asked that question, because it enables me to say that, had we privatised the system 10 years ago, the benefits of privatisation would have been felt. British Airways is now the world's leading airline; perhaps London Underground would now have been the world's leading underground system.
State ownership does not give public accountability. Under state control, passengers are the last priority. I represent North Essex. My constituents commute to London and use the underground, which is more than can be said for the right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid). Passengers, who are first and foremost in our mind, are helpless under state ownership. They are herded around like cattle. Their complaints are ignored. The state-owned service is a take-it-or-leave-it service for passengers.
I counsel the Minister of Transport to be cautious about the benefits of changing the management. We changed the management often for London Underground, but the same
436
fundamental problems remain. A state-owned industry, particularly a state-owned monopoly, is run in the interests of producers, not passengers. What is needed is a step-change in the culture and values of the management and staff of London Underground, an infusion of finance, and the discipline and values of the private sector. If that is what his public-private partnership is intended to achieve, bravo, we shall be the first to cheer him on, but, unfortunately, it does not look as though his PPP will deliver those benefits.
Passengers are at the heart of the debate. We did not do enough for the tube—I would be the first to acknowledge that—but the Government's policy means that they are doing even less for the tube because the investment that we were promising has been choked off. The cancellation of Conservative plans means the cancellation of the investment plans that would have flowed through to the benefit of passengers.
Mr. Martin Linton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jenkin: I will not give way. I have little time.
What exactly are the Government's proposals? What does public-private partnership actually mean? It is a "have your cake and eat it" proposal. The problem is that the Government want the advantages and benefits of private capital, without any of the disciplines and loss of control that goes with transfer of ownership. The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) is right: the policy is an expensive way in which to run a nationalised industry.
Having decided to go ahead, the Government published their proposals in March last year. Around 20 credible bidders have emerged, but the key issues all concern the uncertainty of the process. In August, the Government effectively asked bidders, "How on earth shall we manage the process?" They will not say when the deadlines are to be. They will not say when the public-private partnership is to happen. It is expensive to bid: it costs each bidder about £20 million. With no certainty of success, it is likely that some of the bidders will fall by the wayside: they will not put up the capital on a purely speculative basis when there is so much uncertainty.
There is a widespread feeling that one bidder is in a privileged position and that the process will be a shoe-in for Railtrack. I think it would be helpful if the Minister for Transport in London made it clear, particularly as there are no financial deadlines, that Railtrack is not getting privileged access because of its special relationship with the Government in view of the utility that it currently runs.
It is a little vain of the Government to protest that they are not negotiating against a deadline. What gives the lie to that is a written answer by the Deputy Prime Minister. It shows the outcome of the public spending review and confirms that the figure for London Transport
"includes no provision for London Underground from 2000–01, from when a PPP is planned to be in place."—[Official Report, 20 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 379.]
There is a deadline for the PPP. The Government are busy advertising that they are not negotiating against a deadline because they are terrified of the consequences of reaching that deadline without a PPP in place.

437
Therefore, will the Minister for Transport in London confirm that the pre-qualification will take place in March or April this year, that there will formal invitations to tender by August and that we will have a PPP in place in 2000? Otherwise, the best-value process is nothing but a delay to the investment that the underground badly needs.
What will the subsidy regime be under the public-private partnership? Is there going to be a subsidy? Does the Minister seriously think that it will be possible to run London Underground without a public subsidy, unlike any other public metro system in the world and differently from the way in which we privatised the railway? [Interruption.]
I hope that we will put aside all the past dogmas. The politics of the cold war should be over and the tube should not be the plaything of politicians. There should be a third way—a way of consensus and co-operation for the benefit of Londoners. That third way will not be found if we stick doggedly to the old religion of public ownership and control where there is only one customer—the politicians.
9.51 pm
The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): I am rather sorry that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) was urged to sit down by my hon. Friends because he has clearly been converted to the third way, which is inherent within the Labour Government. I had a strong feeling that, if he had been allowed to linger a little longer at the Dispatch Box, he might even have walked across and joined us to confirm that he has accepted what the Labour party has been arguing for a considerable time, which is that there is a third way to tackle the basic and truly important issue of how we provide a first-class public transport system in London. As the Minister of Transport said, the London Underground provides the arteries for this great city.
The Opposition must be regretting their choice of this topic for what is undoubtedly an opportunistic debate. Their amendment does not even mention the word "passenger". Despite the assiduous efforts of the Conservative Whips, only three Opposition Members were found to speak and sit on their Benches for the majority of the debate. The work of the Whips is still going on, and I can now see more Conservative Members in the Chamber, but only as the debate is drawing to a close. Their presence debunks, as powerfully as did my right hon. Friend the Minister, the somewhat pathetic claims by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) that they wanted to debate this issue because they are concerned for the vulnerable people of London.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South attempted to condemn a public-private partnership and demanded to know, as did the hon. Member for North Essex, the timetable for PPP. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, he would dearly love to play poker with the hon. Member for Croydon, South. The inability to hide one's hand seems to be shared by all Conservative transport spokesmen. The hon. Gentleman ignored the realities that would have resulted from the Conservative Government's proposal for privatisation of the underground. He also ignored the deeply seated opposition felt by Londoners for those proposals.
I must tell the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) that rail privatisation took a great deal longer than 18 months. I believe that it took almost four
438
years. The previous Government said that privatisation of the underground would take at least four years. The costs of rail privatisation were astronomic and many of my hon. Friends have given the figures involved. Privatisation of the underground, which had been proposed by the previous Administration, would have had to be subsidised from the public purse for a considerable time, as has been the case for rail privatisation.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Jackson: Regretfully, I have very little time.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) also talked about the timetabling for PPP. He is someone else who does not know how to play poker. My right hon. Friend the Minister dubbed the hon. Member for Croydon, South's inability to understand how to hide one's cards when one is in—[Interruption.]
Mr. Hughes: Give way now.
Ms Jackson: I would give way if the hon. Gentleman had asked more quietly and had not waved his arms, but I did not believe the request—he overplayed it somewhat.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport said that had the hon. Member for Croydon, South been in charge of a firing squad, he would have put it in a circle. Had the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington been in charge of a firing squad, not only would he have asked it to stand in a circle, he would have asked the condemned men to hold the rifles.
Mr. Ottaway: The Minister of Transport talked about a firing squad in a circle and his willingness to play poker with me because he did not want to be up against a deadline. Does the Minister agree that the workers on the Jubilee line are working to the ultimate deadline?
Ms Jackson: The ultimate deadline in 1 January 2000. We have consistently said that the three phases of the Jubilee line extension will deliver the line on time.
There is little doubt from their remarks about the Jubilee line extension this evening that the Conservatives are not just uncommitted to this excellent example of what is best in British civil engineering, delivering a wonderful service to the capital city, but are looking for it to fail. Let the record show that, in this area, as in so many others, the official Opposition are busy talking the country down.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) suggested that the RMT was not happy with the public-private partnership. It argued strongly to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister that such a system should be used on the Tyne and Wear metro. The PPP has certainly not slipped back.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) raised justifiable concerns about London Underground staff in relation to the PPP. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has written to all members of the union assuring them that there will be no change in their terms and conditions of service. They will be able to be members of the pension scheme. Only last week, he met union representatives to discuss their concerns and reassure them about what is being proposed.

439
The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) gave one of his usual fascinating contributions. However, we are talking about modernising. I was rather nonplussed by his analogies involving Lucknow—part of an empire that this nation has long since lost—and relief. I was expecting the word Mafeking to appear. I have no doubt that he will use such an analogy on another occasion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) highlighted the need for an integrated transport system. He reminded us that, despite 18 years of Conservative rule, there are no underground services running south of the river. We believe that our creation of a mayor and assembly, with an overarching policy for integrating transport in London, will have a major part to play.
I must point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East, and the hon. Members for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and for Carshalton and Wallington that the creation of a PPP—a Government policy that the Government will complete—will not leave the mayor and assembly in a position to throw up their hands and say "Not me, guv" or regard the issue as a hot potato, because they will be responsible for delivering the services.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 130, Noes 335.

Division No. 50]

[9.59 pm

AYES

Amess, David

Flight, Howard

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Fox, Dr Liam

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Fraser, Christopher

Baldry, Tony

Gale, Roger

Beggs, Roy

Garnier, Edward

Bercow, John

Gibb, Nick

Beresford, Sir Paul

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Blunt, Crispin

Gray, James

Boswell, Tim

Green, Damian

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Greenway, John

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Brady, Graham

Hague, Rt Hon William

Brazier, Julian

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Hammond, Philip

Browning, Mrs Angela

Hawkins, Nick

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Hayes, John

Burns, Simon

Heald, Oliver

Butterfill, John

Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

Cash, William

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Chope, Christopher

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Clappison, James

Hunter, Andrew

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Jenkin, Bernard

Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

Key, Robert

Collins, Tim

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Cran, James

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Curry, Rt Hon David

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Lansley, Andrew

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Leigh, Edward

Donaldson, Jeffrey

Letwin, Oliver

Duncan, Alan

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Duncan Smith, Iain

Lidington, David

Evans, Nigel

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Faber, David

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Fabricant, Michael

Luff, Peter

Fallon, Michael

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

440

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Spring, Richard

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Steen, Anthony

McLoughlin, Patrick

Streeter, Gary

Major, Rt Hon John

Swayne, Desmond

Malins, Humfrey

Syms, Robert

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

May, Mrs Theresa

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Moss, Malcolm

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Nicholls, Patrick

Tredinnick, David

Ottaway, Richard

Trend, Michael

Paice, James

Tyrie, Andrew

Paterson,owen

Viggers, Peter

Pickles, Eric

Walter, Robert

Prior, David

Wardle, Charles

Randall, John

Waterson, Nigel

Wells, Bowen

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Whittingdale, John

Robathan, Andrew

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Wilkinson, John

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Willetts David

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Ruffley, David

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

St Aubyn, Nick

Woodward, Shaun

Sayeed, Jonathan

Yeo, Tim

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Shepherd, Richard

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Soames, Nicholas

Mr. Stephen Day and

Spicer, Sir Michael

Mrs. Caroline Spelman.

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Cann, Jamie

Ainger, Nick

Caplin, Ivor

Allan, Richard

Casale, Roger

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Caton, Martin

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Ashton, Joe

Chaytor, David

Austin, John

Chidgey, David

Baker, Norman

Chisholm, Malcolm

Ballard, Jackie

Clapham, Michael

Barnes, Harry

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Barron, Kevin

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Battle, John

Bayley, Hugh

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Begg, Miss Anne

Clelland, David

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Clwyd, Ann

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Coaker, Vermon

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Coffey, Ms Ann

Bennett, Andrew F

Cohen, Harry

Bermingham, Gerald

Coleman, Iain

Berry, Roger

Colman, Tony

Best, Harold

Connarty, Michael

Betts, Clive

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Blackman, Liz

Cooper, Yvette

Blizzard, Bob

Corbett, Robin

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Corbyn, Jeremy

Boateng, Paul

Cousins, Jim

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Crausby, David

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Bradshaw, Ben

Cummings, John

Brake, Tom

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Burden, Richard

Dafis, Cynog

Burnett, John

Dalyell, Tam

Burstow, Paul

Darvill, Keith

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Caborn, Richard

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Davidson, Ian

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

Campbell—Savours, Dale

Dawson, Hilton

Canavan, Dennis

Dean, Mrs Janet

441

Denham, John

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Dobbin, Jim

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Donohoe, Brian H

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Doran, Frank

Keeble, Ms Sally

Dowd, Jim

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Drown, Ms Julia

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Kemp, Fraser

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

Edwards, Huw

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Efford, Clive

Khabra, Piara S

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Kidney, David

Ennis, Jeff

Kilfoyle, Peter

Fearn, Ronnie

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Kirkwood, Archy

Fitzsimons, Loma

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Flint, Caroline

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Follett, Barbara

Lawrence, Ms Jackie

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Laxton, Bob

Foster, Don (Bath)

Leslie, Christopher

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Levitt, Tom

Gapes, Mike

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Gardiner, Barry

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Linton, Martin

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Livingstone, Ken

Gibson, Dr Ian

Livsey, Richard

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Godman, Dr Norman A

Lock, David

Godsiff, Roger

Love, Andrew

Goggins, Paul

McAllion, John

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

McAvoy, Thomas

Gorrie, Donald

McCabe, Steve

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

McDonnell, John

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

McFall, John

Grocott, Bruce

McIsaac, Shona

Grogan, John

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Gunnell, John

McLeish, Henry

Hain, Peter

McNulty, Tony

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

MacShane, Denis

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Hanson, David

McWalter, Tony

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

McWilliam, John

Harris, Dr Evan

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Harvey, Nick

Mallaber, Judy

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Healey, John

Marek, Dr John

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Heppell, John

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Hesford, Stephen

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Hill, Keith

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Hinchliffe, David

Marshall—Andrews, Robert

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Martlew, Eric

Home Robertson, John

Maxton, John

Hoon, Geoffrey

Meale, Alan

Hope, Phil

Merron, Gillian

Hopkins, Kelvin

Michael, Alun

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Howells, Dr Kim

Milburn, Alan

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Miller, Andrew

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Mitchell, Austin

Humble, Mrs Joan

Moffatt, Laura

Hurst, Alan

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Hutton, John

Moore, Michael

Iddon, Dr Brian

Moran, Ms Margaret

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Jamieson, David

Morley, Elliot

Jenkins, Brian

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Mountford, Kali

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Mullin, Chris

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

442

Norris, Dan

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Oaten, Mark

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

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Soley, Clive

Öpik, Lembit

Southworth, Ms Helen

Organ, Mrs Diana

Squire, Ms Rachel

Palmer, Dr Nick

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Pearson, Ian

Stevenson, George

Pendry, Tom

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Perham, Ms Linda

Stinchcombe, Paul

Pickthall, Colin

Stoate, Dr Howard

Pike, Peter L

Stott, Roger

Plaskitt, James

Stringer, Graham

Pollard, Kerry

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Pond, Chris

Stunell, Andrew

Pope, Greg

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Pound, Stephen

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Primarolo, Dawn

Temple—Morris, Peter

Purchase, Ken

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Quinn Lawrie

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Radice, Giles

Timms, Stephen

Rammell, Bill

Tipping, Paddy

Rapson, Syd

Touhig, Don

Raynsford, Nick

Trickett, Jon

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Rendel, David

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Walley, Ms Joan

Ward, Ms Claire

Rooker, Jeff

Wareing, Robert N

Rooney, Terry

Watts, David

Ruane, Chris

Webb, Steve

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Wicks, Malcolm

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Ryan, Ms Joan

Sanders, Adrian

Willis, Phil

Savidge, Malcolm

Winnick, David

Sawford, Phil

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Sedgemore, Brian

Wise, Audrey

Shaw, Jonathan

Wood, Mike

Sheerman, Barry

Woolas, Phil

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Worthington, Tony

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Singh, Marsha

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Skinner, Dennis

Wyatt, Derek

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Tellers for the Noes:

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Mr. Kevin Hughes and

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

Question accordingle negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 159.

Division No. 51]

[10.13 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Beggs, Roy

Ainger, Nick

Bennett, Andrew F

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Bermingham, Gerald

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Berry, Roger

Ashton, Joe

Best, Harold

Barnes, Harry

Betts, Clive

Barron, Kevin

Blackman, Liz

Battle, John

Blizzard, Bob

Bayley, Hugh

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Boateng, Paul

Begg, Miss Anne

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

443

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Godsiff, Roger

Bradshaw, Ben

Goggins, Paul

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Burden, Richard

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Caborn, Richard

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Grocott, Bruce

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Grogan, John

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Gunnell, John

Campbell—Savours, Dale

Hain, Peter

Cann, Jamie

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Caplin, Ivor

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Casale, Roger

Hanson, David

Caton, Martin

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Chaytor, David

Healey, John

Chisholm, Malcolm

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Clapham, Michael

Heppell, John

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Hesford, Stephen

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Hill, Keith

Hinchliffe, David

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Home Robertson, John

Clelland, David

Hoon, Geoffrey

Clwyd, Ann

Hope, Phil

Coaker, Vernon

Hopkins, Kelvin

Coffey, Ms Ann

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Cohen, Harry

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Coleman, Iain

Howells, Dr Kim

Colman, Tony

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Connarty, Michael

Humble, Mrs Joan

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hurst, Alan

Cooper, Yvette

Hutton, John

Corbett, Robin

Iddon, Dr Brian

Cousins, Jim

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Crausby, David

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Jamieson, David

Cummings, John

Jenkins, Brian

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Dalyell, Tam

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Darvill, Keith

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Davidson, Ian

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Dawson, Hilton

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Denham, John

Kemp, Fraser

Dobbin, Jim

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Khabra, Piara S

Donaldson, Jeffrey

Kidney, David

Donohoe, Brian H

Kilfoyle, Peter

Doran, Frank

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Dowd, Jim

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Drown, Ms Julia

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Lawrence, Ms Jackie

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Laxton, Bob

Edwards, Huw

Leslie, Christopher

Efford, Clive

Levitt, Tom

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Ennis, Jeff

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Linton, Martin

Fitzsimons, Lorna

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Flint, Caroline

Lock, David

Follett, Barbara

Love, Andrew

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

McAllion, John

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

McAvoy, Thomas

Gapes, Mike

McCabe, Steve

Gardiner, Barry

McDonagh, Siobhain

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

McFall, John

Gibson, Dr Ian

McIsaac, Shona

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

McLeish, Henry

Godman, Dr Norman A

McNulty, Tony

444

MacShane, Denis

Ruane, Chris

Mactaggart, Fiona

Ruddock, Ms Joan

McWalter, Tony

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

McWilliam, John

Ryan, Ms Joan

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Savidge, Malcolm

Mallaber, Judy

Sawford, Phil

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Sedgemore, Brian

Marek, Dr John

Shaw, Jonathan

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Sheerman, Barry

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Singh, Marsha

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Skinner, Dennis

Marshall—Andrews, Robert

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Martlew, Eric

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Maxton, John

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Meale, Alan

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Merron, Gillian

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Michael, Alun

Soley, Clive

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Southworth, Ms Helen

Milburn, Alan

Squire, Ms Rachel

Miller, Andrew

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Mitchell, Austin

Stevenson, George

Moffatt, Laura

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Stinchcombe, Paul

Moran, Ms Margaret

Stoate, Dr Howard

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Stott, Roger

Morley, Elliot

Stringer, Graham

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Mountford, Kali

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Mullin, Chris

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Temple—Morris, Peter

Norris, Dan

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Organ, Mrs Diana

Timms, Stephen

Palmer, Dr Nick

Tipping, Paddy

Pearson, Ian

Touhig, Don

Pendry, Tom

Trickett, Jon

Perham, Ms Linda

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Pickthall, Colin

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Pike, Peter L

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Plaskitt, James

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Pollard, Kerry

Walley, Ms Joan

Pond, Chris

Ward, Ms Claire

Pope, Greg

Watts, David

Pound, Stephen

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Wicks, Malcolm

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Primarolo, Dawn

Winnick, David

Purchase, Ken

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Quinn, Lawrie

Wise, Audrey

Radice, Giles

Wood, Mike

Rammell, Bill

Woolas, Phil

Rapson, Syd

Worthington, Tony

Raynsford, Nick

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Wyatt, Derek

Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Rooker, Jeff

Mr. Kevin Hughes and

Rooney, Terry

Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

NOES

Allan, Richard

Blunt, Crispin

Amess, David

Boswell, Tim

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Brady, Graham

Baker, Norman

Brake, Tom

Baldry, Tony

Brazier, Julian

Ballard, Jackie

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Browning, Mrs Angela

Bercow, John

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

445

Burnett, John

Kirkwood, Archy

Burns, Simon

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Burstow, Paul

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Butterfill, John

Lansley, Andrew

Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

Leigh, Edward

Cash, William

Letwin, Oliver

Chidgey, David

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Chope, Christopher

Lidington, David

Clappison, James

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Livsey, Richard

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

Luff, Peter

Collins, Tim

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Cormack, Sir Patrick

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Cran, James

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Curry, Rt Hon David

McLoughlin, Patrick

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Major, Rt Hon John

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Malins, Humfrey

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Duncan, Alan

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Duncan Smith, Iain

May, Mrs Theresa

Evans, Nigel

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Faber, David

Moore, Michael

Fabricant, Michael

Moss, Malcolm

Fallon, Michael

Nicholls, Patrick

Fearn, Ronnie

Oaten, Mark

Flight, Howard

Ottaway, Richard

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Paice, James

Foster, Don (Bath)

Paterson, Owen

Fox, Dr Liam

Pickles, Eric

Fraser, Christopher

Prior, David

Gale, Roger

Randall, John

Garnier, Edward

Redwood, Rt Hon John

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Rendel, David

Gibb, Nick

Robathan, Andrew

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Gorrie, Donald

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Gray, James

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Green, Damian

Ruffley, David

Greenway, John

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Gummer, Rt Hon John

St Aubyn, Nick

Hague, Rt Hon William

Sanders, Adrian

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Sayeed, Jonathan

Hammond, Philip

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Harris, Dr Evan

Shepherd, Richard

Harvey, Nick

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Hawkins, Nick

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

Hayes, John

Soames, Nicholas

Heald, Oliver

Spicer, Sir Michael

Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

Spring, Richard

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Steen, Anthony

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Streeter, Gary

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Stunell, Andrew

Hunter, Andrew

Swayne, Desmond

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Syms, Robert

Jenkin, Bernard

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Key, Robert

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Taylor, Sir Teddy

446

Tredinnick, David

Willetts, David

Trend, Michael

Willis, Phil

Tyrie, Andrew

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Walter, Robert

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Wardle, Charles

Woodward, Shaun

Waterson, Nigel

Yeo, Tim

Webb, Steve

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Wells, Bowen

Whittingdale, John

Tellers for the Noes:

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Mr. Stephen Day and

Wilkinson, John

Mrs. Caroline Spelman.

Question accordingly agreed to.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes that the Government inherited a substantial investment backlog in London Underground and that this backlog arose from the previous Government's ideological antipathy to public expenditure and unwillingness to seek genuine and viable partnership between the public and private sectors; welcomes the Government's rejection of the Conservatives' policy of wholesale privatisation and applauds it for its thoroughgoing investigation of a public-private partnership as a means to secure necessary investment funds; notes that by providing additional funding of £365 million and that by bringing forward two Private Finance Initiative deals on ticketing and the power distribution system, the Government has already ensured that the Underground will benefit from around £1 billion of investment over the next two years; and is confident that the present Government's approach to London Underground will secure value for money for passengers and the taxpayer and give Londoners an underground system which meets their needs, is fast, reliable, comfortable and worthy of such a great capital city.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That the Business of the House Order of 25th January shall apply also to the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Darling relating to the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating (No. 2) Order 1999 tabled on 26th January.[Mr. Betts.]

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(4) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  HALLMARKING
  That the Hallmarking (Hallmarking Act Amendment) Regulations 1998 (S.I., 1998, No. 2978) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Betts.]
  Question agreed to.

Local Government Ombudsman (Wales)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
10.24 pm
Mr. Don Touhig: I very much regret that I have had to ask for this debate. I did so because of what I believe is the indifferent response of the local government ombudsman in Wales to a serious matter that I have raised with him. Before becoming a Member of Parliament, I spent 20 years serving as a councillor, and I hold strongly to the view that local councils must be accountable for their actions. More than that, they must be seen to be accountable and they must act in an open and transparent manner. That is the only way to retain public confidence and appreciation of the valuable services provided by local councils, and the only way in which local councils can gain respect for the decisions they take.
The public must have confidence in the Commissioner for Local Administration in Wales, more commonly known as the ombudsman. As we all know, the ombudsman has a crucial role: he has the task of policing local councils and ensuring that any complaints made against a council by the public are properly investigated. I know from experience the extreme frustration felt by any individual who thinks that he or she cannot obtain a fair and impartial investigation after arriving at the belief that the local council has acted improperly. That is why individuals who have a grievance against their local council often look to the ombudsman for justice.
On the whole, the ombudsman does a good job and provides an essential public service. I will go so far as to say that I should not be opposed to the ombudsman being given even greater powers to ensure that a local council found guilty of maladministration is made to change its ways. Having said that, I regret having to express my anger and disappointment at the ombudsman, following an investigation into a complaint made against Caerphilly county borough council last year.
On 10 August 1998, the ombudsman published a report after investigating a complaint made against the council following its decision to refuse a planning application. In his report, the ombudsman concluded that the council was guilty of maladministration, because one of its members, at a meeting of the planning committee, had failed to declare an interest—that he was a friend of the principal person opposing that planning application. By not declaring an interest in the matter when it came before the planning committee, it was said by the person who called in the ombudsman to investigate the complaint, the councillor in question had influenced the committee to refuse the planning application. I add, less in mitigation than to put the fact on the record, that the appeal against the council's decision to refuse the planning application, which went to the Welsh Office, was eventually turned down.
Although only one councillor was cited in the original complaint upheld by the ombudsman, the ombudsman went on to name three other councillors on the grounds that they were members of the same local Labour party branch as the person who had opposed the planning application in the first place. I have no criticism to make of the ombudsman's decision, in so far as he was satisfied
448
that the four councillors were in breach of the national code of local government conduct as it relates to members declaring an interest: they knew the person who opposed the planning application. Indeed, the ombudsman commented that he had a statutory duty to name the councillors involved and I do not challenge that, because the House decided to give the ombudsman that responsibility, so he is right to carry it out.
My concern is that, in his report, the ombudsman made the following statement:
"the decision to refuse the planning application was instigated by the local councillors in a private meeting".
Let me stress, there was no private meeting of councillors. The report was wrong, and the ombudsman was wrong. Caerphilly county borough council's monitoring officer, who is the person charged with providing the ombudsman with the information necessary to draw up his report, made the following statement:
"the decision to refuse the planning application was instigated by local councillors at a previous meeting".
That was a "previous" meeting of the planning committee, not a "private" meeting.
Despite being given the opportunity to correct the error, the ombudsman declined. The error was the reason for the following comment that the ombudsman made when he censured the council:
"It is of course quite natural and reasonable for councillors to discuss in private, issues due to be considered by the Council at a formal meeting.
What is not acceptable, however, is for decisions on a planning application to be made prematurely in private by a small group of local councillors before the material issues have been fully considered by the appropriate committee and the arguments for and against a particular course of action have been fully aired. Such a process is unacceptable."
Let me stress that there was no private meeting of a small group of councillors. It never ever took place.
The serious inaccuracy was queried with the ombudsman in a letter from the council dated 28 July last year containing its comment on his draft report. I have the letter here. On page 17, paragraph 3 the ombudsman was asked the specific question:
"Could you please explain the reference to a private meeting".
The ombudsman replied on 31 July with a two-sentence letter that did not even acknowledge the question from the council. What is the point of circulating a draft report on a complaint against a council to the council, its officers and so on and then ignoring the comments on that draft report?
Despite being made aware of this considerable error, on which he based a substantial part of his criticism of the councillors, the ombudsman made no attempt to correct it. As a result of the inaccuracy, the councillors involved were the subject of newspaper stories and banner headlines which questioned their integrity and brought each of them into grave disrepute. There were headlines such as "Councillors rapped by ombudsman". The story said that the ombudsman criticised the councillors for meeting in private and predetermining the planning application. Another story was headed "Councillor: I acted improperly", and made more references to private meetings on planning matters. Another headline was "Councillors were wrong." Again, the story contained references to the councillors holding a "private", not a "previous", meeting of the planning committee. Another

449
story with the headline "Rapped over the knuckles" contained further references to the councillors holding private meetings. Such meetings never took place.
I stress that I do not challenge the core conclusion reached by the ombudsman in his report. He investigated and reached his conclusions and I do not challenge them at all. I do challenge his arrogance in failing to correct a blatant and serious error in the report. More than that, I am advised that he later refused to alter the report or reissue it. He simply offered a perfunctory apology to the councillors involved, saying that a typographical error had been made. How many times have we heard the poor old typist blamed for getting it wrong?
It cannot be right to base a report's conclusion, even in part, on a typing error and not issue an amended report. Stating that there were private meetings when there were none and linking the term "private meeting" to the main findings of the report had serious consequences for the councillors and the local authority.
The suggestion that the councillors met in secret to predetermine a planning decision has had an appalling impact on the public perception of the council in general and the councillors in particular. They live in a small valley community where everyone knows everyone else. I know the councillors well. They have told me that in the churches, chapels, shops, pubs and clubs, they have all been subjected to the odd remark. People say, "What do you think about councillors having these private meetings to predetermine planning matters?" A private meeting never took place. The councillors have had their good names taken away from them without justification. I know them; they are decent people who have given years of public service.
Like all Members of the House, everyone in public life can expect to take knocks from time to time, but no public official has the right to damage another public servant's reputation unjustly. I have no criticism of the press reports of the matter. The press reported what the ombudsman had put in his report. What is at issue is the councillors' integrity and the truth of the report.
The impression remains even today that the councillors met in private to determine the planning application before it was considered by the appropriate committee. It is a matter of record that all the comments made by the councillors named in the report were made in public at open meetings that were attended by the press and members of the public. The failure of the ombudsman to correct such an evident wrong has affected public confidence in the councillors and the council. That is most unjust.
Mr. Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, by and large, the ombudsman seems to be a reliable point of contact for people with complaints? Does he agree that, above all, it is absolutely vital that the ombudsman be seen to have an impeccable record of scrutiny and scrupulous decision-making because he or she is the last point of call for those who have a complaint about a local authority decision?
Mr. Touhig: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I have made that point. I subscribe to the ombudsman's role, but in this case he has acted unjustly. Surely his role is to serve justice, not to create an injustice, which is what he has done in this instance.
450
Had the ombudsman corrected the error, I would not be raising the matter tonight. At no stage has he shown a willingness to correct the error. He is not prepared to publish a new report. He did not correct the error when the council's head of legal services wrote to him querying the reference to the private meeting. In fact, when he replied, he dismissed the error as if it were a peripheral matter, and he has not corrected it since.
I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has limited powers with which to deal with the ombudsman, who must be seen to be distanced from the Government as well as local government, but perhaps he might ask the ombudsman in for a cup of tea and a chat and point out to him that there is an evident injustice in this case which he needs to put right. He should not be allowed to make such a serious error without redress. I am certain that, if the shoe were on the other foot and the ombudsman were investigating a similar error by a local council, he would have plenty to say, and rightly so.
The ombudsman is a public servant responsible for upholding the rights of individuals to complain against the actions of local government by investigating those complaints and making a judgment. However, the ombudsman needs to be told that he does not truly enhance justice and fair play or the rights of the individual making the complaint if he infringes, indeed ignores, the rights of those being investigated and delivers an injustice to them.
If we are to retain confidence in the ombudsman as an individual and in the office that he occupies, he must not be seen to be beyond criticism. Like the councils that he investigates, he makes judgments and if he gets them wrong, he has a duty to put them right.
10.37 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jon Owen Jones): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) for raising the important issue of the local government ombudsman.
Before answering the specific points that my hon. Friend has made, I should like to put on record my appreciation of the sterling work that the local government ombudsman and his staff have done and are doing in policing local government in Wales. He has responsibility for investigating allegations of maladministration involving injustice, and last year received more than 1,048 new complaints.
My hon. Friend's concern arises from the ombudsman's investigation into Caerphilly county borough council. In August, the ombudsman issued a report naming four Caerphilly councillors for their non-disclosure of private and personal non-pecuniary interests when they spoke against a planning application for the extension of a dwelling at meetings of the authority's planning committee. The four councillors supported the views of the only objector against the application with whom they were closely connected in a personal and, in one case, a business capacity. Three of those councillors were also fellow members of the same local ward Labour party as that objector. Their objections were instrumental in the council refusing planning permission for the extension in spite of the fact that officers of the council had recommended its approval.
Although the four councillors were fully aware of the identity of the objector, not one of them declared their interest in any of the planning committee meetings.

451
That was a clear breach of the national code of local government conduct, which is clear about when interests should be declared. It says:
"You should not allow the impression to be created that you are, or may be, using your position to promote a private or personal interest rather than forwarding the general public interest. Private and personal interests include those of your family and friends as well as those arising through membership of, or association with, clubs, societies and other organisations such as the Freemasons, trade unions and voluntary bodies".
The code goes on to say:
"If you have a private or personal non-pecuniary interest in a matter arising from a local authority meeting, you should always disclose it, unless it is insignificant, or one which you share with other members of the public generally as a ratepayer, a community charge payer or an inhabitant of the area".
In this context, the councillors' association with the objector and their membership of a local ward political party were relevant issues. In those circumstances, where there has been a breach of the code, the ombudsman has a statutory duty to identify the councillors in his report.
Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend said, there was a typographical error in the ombudsman's final report, and a reference to a "previous meeting" mistakenly became a reference to a "private meeting". The error occurred during the copy typing of the monitoring officer's evidence, which was referred to in the ombudsman's final report. The typographical error, referring to a paragraph of the report which was highlighted by the press, implied that the three ward councillors had had a private meeting before the planning committee to determine the application. There was no evidence of such a meeting. I can well understand that local councillors would be aggrieved at being criticised for something that did not occur. I personally would like to record my regret that that happened.
The typographical error, however, had no bearing on the ombudsman's conclusion or his naming of the councillors. The ombudsman's decision to name the councillors would have been the same even if there had been no typographical error. The naming arose from his statutory duty and the fact that the councillors had not declared their interests during successive meetings of Caerphilly council's planning committee.
It is most unfortunate that the typographical error was not spotted before the ombudsman's report was published in its final form. However, it is important that the error does not divert attention from the ombudsman's findings in this case, which I regard as extremely serious.
Mr. Touhig: I must point out that in a letter of 28 July from Caerphilly county borough council, the ombudsman was asked the specific question:
"could you please explain the reference to a 'private meeting'?".
The fact that there was a query over the report was flagged up with the ombudsman, but he did not bother to respond in any way.
Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend anticipates the point that I am about to make.
The findings call into question the effectiveness of the existing national code of local government conduct, which requires councillors to act properly when reaching
452
decisions, such as determining planning applications. I expect all Welsh councils to ensure that their elected members are fully aware of the requirements of the existing national code.
My hon. Friend's specific concerns are twofold. The first is that the typographical error was pointed out to the ombudsman before the report was published, but the ombudsman declined to change it. The second is that, although the ombudsman has now accepted the mistake, he refuses to apologise.
On the first point, I am satisfied that the ombudsman acted reasonably and did all that he could to ensure that there were no errors in his final report. The ombudsman circulated the draft report, for comment and for the purpose of checking its accuracy, to all those who gave evidence in this case, including the four councillors, the council's chief executive, the monitoring officer and other senior officers. He warned the council and councillors of his duty to name the councillors, given the apparent breaches of the code. The fact that there was a typographical error was not pointed out to the ombudsman. The council's members services manager did, however, raise a query as to what was meant by "private meeting".
It is understandable that the ombudsman ignored the members services manager's question. The ombudsman was at that stage unaware of the typographical error and believed, wrongly, that, as the words "private meeting" had been taken from the monitoring officer's evidence, it was a matter for the council itself to explain. The members services manager's question was not framed in a way that suggested that there had been an error or that it was an amendment to the text of the ombudsman's draft report. The monitoring officer had already written his response to the report and made no reference to any typographical error. Not one of the three ward councillors commented on the draft.
Mr. Touhig: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. I stress that the ombudsman wrote back on 31 July in response to the letter from the members services manager, and did not respond to any of the points raised there. If he thought at that time that the phrase "private meeting" was a matter for the council's monitoring officer, he should have written back and said, "I do not know what this is about. It is a matter for you, as the monitoring officer, to discover." The ombudsman did that, but only after the matter had been raised with him again some weeks later. He did not respond to the query at all.
Mr. Jones: I understand why my hon. Friend raises that point. It is also understandable, however, that the ombudsman did not believe at that stage that the original draft of the report was in any way incorrect. The council was responsible for the comments that had been made.
For the sake of completeness, I should make it clear that, once the error was discovered after the report's publication, the option of amending and reissuing the report was not available to the ombudsman. As the ombudsman is by law "functus officio"—I must be careful how I pronounce that—once he has issued his final decision, he cannot amend it in any way, unless he is ordered to do so by the courts following, for example, judicial review. The courts are likely to order him to do so only where there is a significant error or omission.

453
The second issue raised by my hon. Friend was that the ombudsman has accepted the mistake, but has refused to apologise for it. I am satisfied that, after the discovery of the typographical error, the ombudsman acted properly and did everything possible to explain the position and to inform those affected by the report of the error.
It is also my understanding that the ombudsman apologised for the error. He met the leader, chief executive and monitoring officer of Caerphilly council to explain the reason for the error and to apologise. He followed up the meeting with a letter, again apologising for the error. He also asked that his letter be reported to full council, which it was, and placed with the report for public inspection. Furthermore, he sent a letter to all recipients of the final report, including my hon. Friend, pointing out the error and apologising for it.
On a point of procedure, I remind my hon. Friend that the ombudsman is not accountable for his decisions to the Secretary of State for Wales or to Parliament. He is entirely independent, above political influence, being appointed directly by Her Majesty the Queen. It is important that such independence is maintained and not put in doubt. The proper and ultimate course of action open to anyone wishing to challenge an ombudsman's final decision is to seek a judicial review of that decision by the High Court.
The failure of councillors to follow the existing code of local government conduct suggests the need for a new code that is easier to understand and to which councilors
454
are fully signed up. The Government intend to introduce such a code—the national code of conduct for local government in Wales—as part of an ethical framework. The Government will also introduce a much tougher enforcement regime, including an independent standards commission, to take effect in the event that codes are breached.
I hope that all councils will note the ombudsman's report in this case and will take steps to ensure that their councillors are fully aware of the requirements that the existing code places upon them. The public expect, and should receive, the highest standards of conduct from their elected members. Those elected members often do a difficult job. We owe it to them to ensure that the codes of conduct are easily understood. Clearly, a mistake was made by the councillors in this case. For that mistake, they paid a heavy price—a price that was made heavier by the typographical error that occurred.
I well understand why councillors were aggrieved, and why the local Member of Parliament would see it as his duty to try to do what he could to ensure that the public understood that the error, which was highlighted in the press, was typographical. There was no private meeting, and councillors were not responsible for that error.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HEALTH

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice has been sought by the East Surrey Health Authority from his Department in respect of providing services and treatment for multiple sclerosis. [65481]

  Mr. Hutton
  No specific advice has been sought by East Surrey Health Authority. The organisation of health services and the manner in which they are delivered, including services for people suffering from multiple sclerosis, is a matter for health authorities.

  However, we are determined to challenge and address unacceptable variations in the provision of clinically and cost effective treatments, which are not based on the health needs of the local populations.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the Government's policy on the provision of Beta-interferon for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. [65488]

  Mr. Hutton
  Current guidance on Betaferon (Beta-Interferon-1b) recommends tht health authorities will have in place local arrangements with hospitals for purchasing and prescribing the drug in the light of medical evidence and local priorities.

  Appointed by voluntary organisations

  Name

  Organisation

  First appointed

  Terms

  Until 31 August 2000

  Ms Evelyn Brand

  League of Jewish Women

  1 September 1996

  First

  Ms Jean Coops

  Citizen's Advice Bureau

  1 September 1996

  First

  Ms Rhoda Flynn

  Barnet Mencap

  1 September 1996

  First

  Ms Mary Leigh

  Disablement Association

  1 September 1996

  First

  Until 31 August 2002

  Ms Ruth Rees

  Alzheimer's Disease Society

  1 October 1995

  First/Second

  Ms Jean McEvoy

  Barnet Borough Sight Impaired

  1 September 1998

  First

  Mr. John Chappell

  Barnet Carers Centre

  1 September 1998

  First

  Ms Suzanne Collins

  Mental Health Consultative Group

  1 May 1996

  First/Second

  Appointed by the Secretary of State for Health

  Name

  Date appointed

  Terms

  Until 31 August 2000

  Ms Sally Malin

  1 September 1996

  First

  Ms Elizabeth Manero

  5 February 1995

  Second

  Until 31 August 2002

  Helen Barget

  1 November 1998

  First

  Mrs. Janet Friend

  1 September 1998

  First

  Head Lice
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy for dealing with the spread of head lice among school pupils. [67033]

  Mr. Hutton
  Our policy is to encourage a "whole school approach" to the detection and treatment of head lice. This entails parents checking their children and other family members for head lice and arranging treatment where necessary, with such support from the local primary health care team as they may require. If this exercise is successfully undertaken on the same evening by all parents of children within a school, then the spread of head lice will be arrested.

  Barnet Community Health Council
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give(a) the names, (b) the terms of office and (c) the nominating body of the members of Barnet Community Health Council. [67035]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is shown in the tables.

  Appointed by Local Authorities (12) London Borough of Barnet

  Member name

  First appointed

  Terms

  Until 31 August 2000

  Ms Kate Brown

  1 September 1996

  First

  Ms Pam Coleman

  1 September 1992

  Second

  Mr. Raymond Mann

  1 September 1996

  First

  Ms Katherine Rounce

  1 September 1996

  First

  Until 31 August 2002

  Ms Fitzpatrick

  1 September 1998

  First

  Mr. Roger Chapman

  1 September 1994

  Second

  Mr. Alan Sloan

  1 July 1995

  First/Second

  Mr. Hooker

  1 September 1994

  First

  Ms Sandford

  1 September 1998

  First

  Mr. Stern

  1 September 1998

  First

  Ambulances
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he takes to assess value for money in the purchase of ambulances by health trusts; and if he will make a statement. [67219]

  Mr. Hutton
  The purchase of ambulance vehicles is the responsibility of individual National Health Service ambulance trusts. All NHS trusts are expected to adhere
  243
  to purchasing policies and procedures which ensure fitness for purpose, demonstrate best value for the NHS and maintain the highest standards of probity.

  Bone Marrow Transplants
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people had a bone marrow transplant in the UK in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [67107]

  Mr. Hutton
  Provisional hospital episode statistic figures for National Health Service trusts in England show that there were 695 finished consultant episodes with a primary operation of autograft or allograft bone marrow operations in the financial year 1997–98.

  Questions relating to residents who had bone marrow operations in NHS hospitals in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland respectively.

  Beta Interferon
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the recommendations on beta interferon funding made by West Midlands Beta Interferon Management Group on 6 October 1998. [67049]

  Ms Jowell
  The West Midlands Beta Interferon Management Group's recommendation to chief executives of health authorities was to increase the region-wide budget for beta interferon to £1 million, to ensure continuation of treatment for existing patients and to facilitate the inclusion of more patients onto the programme in the West Midlands.

  The health authorities are currently considering how to implement this recommendation.

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the waiting list for beta interferon treatment drawn up by the West Midlands health authorities. [67050]

  Ms Jowell
  The information is not collected centrally, nor is it held by the West Midlands health authorities.

  Aspirin and Paracetamol
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the health implications of variations in costs of the new aspirin and paracetamol pack sizes; and if he will make a statement. [67034]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department has made no specific assessment of the health implications of the variations in costs of the new analgesic pack sizes. However, variations in the prices of aspirin and paracetamol have always been a feature of this very competitive market and equivalent products continue to be available at a range of prices.

  The Medicines Control Agency is monitoring the impact of the new pack sizes on public health and will review the effectiveness of the measures once sufficient
  244
  data have been collected. They are currently consulting on a proposal to exempt low dose aspirin 75 milligramme from the new pack size restrictions.

  Stroke Care
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the differences in care and outcome for stroke victims, according to the postal code of their address. [66843]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 25 January 1999]: None. Evidence-based national service frameworks are being developed to ensure consistent access and quality of care right across the country. In December 1998 we announced that the national service framework for older people would include stroke services.

  Nurses
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses worked for more than 48 hours a week in the last year, broken down by month. [67380]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally. The General Whitley Council (the national negotiating body for National Health Service staff with Whitley contracts) has agreed that an employee will not be expected to work more than a maximum of 48 hours averaged over 17 weeks in accordance with the Working Time Regulations. An employee may however agree to work over the 48 hour limit and will have to do so in writing to his employer.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Abortion Legislation
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to review the abortion legislation in Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement. [63040]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The suggestion that the law on abortion in Northern Ireland should be reviewed has been made on a number of occasions, most recently in the report of the All Party Group on Population, Development and Reproductive Health, launched on 10 December 1998. I am still considering what, if any, action, should be taken in response to these suggestions.

  I am, however, aware of the great strength of feeling on this issue, and the divergence of opinion that exists. I would want to reiterate most strongly the assurances already given by the Government, that we will not impose any change in Northern Ireland on this issue without consultation with elected representatives, including the Northern Ireland Assembly, and that any change would come about only with broad support from a cross-section of the people of Northern Ireland.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how long it takes to process an application for grant aid under the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Scheme. [67030]
  245
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The average time, based on claims dealt with in the first 9 months of the current financial year, is 10.15 weeks.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications were made for grant aid under the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Scheme(a) in each year from 1 April 1995 to 31 March 1998 and (b) from 1 April to 31 December 1998; of these (i) how many have been approved, (ii) what payments were made, (iii) how many were refused and (iv) how many are outstanding. [67031]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The figures are as follows:

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99 (to 31.12.98)

  Claims made

  1,107

  2,173

  2,655

  2,557

  Claims paid

  1,107

  2,173

  2,655

  1,492

  Approved

  All

  All

  All

  All

  Refused

  None

  None

  None

  None

  Outstanding

  None

  None

  None

  1,065

  Payment total (£m)

  1.619

  2.752

  4.921

  4.477

  "We Will Remember Them"
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland with which groups she or other Ministers in her Department have had discussions as a consequence of the publication of Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's report, "We Will Remember Them". [68302]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  As part of the follow-up to Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's report, "We Will Remember Them", I, or one of my Northern Ireland Office Ministerial colleagues, have had discussions with representatives of the following groups:

  Damien Walsh Group

  Disabled Police Officers' Association

  Families Acting for Innocent Relatives

  Families Against Intimidation and Terror

  Families of the Disappeared

  Loughgall Truth and Justice Campaign

  Prison Officers Association

  Relatives for Justice

  Survivors of Trauma

  WAVE.

  The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), has established a 'Touchstone' Group, to enable a cross section of those representing victims interests to provide advice and support to him on the development of policy for victims. In this connection he has also met with representatives of the following organisations:

  An Crann/The Tree

  Cost of the Troubles Study

  Kairos

  Shankill Stress Group

  UDR Benevolent Fund

  Victim Support NI.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Burundi
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to introduce change of funding strategy for Burundi, moving beyond emergency relief towards more rehabilitation work; and what timeframe exists for this change. [67744]

  Clare Short
  A twin-track approach to the resumption of development assistance to Burundi was agreed at a donor meeting convened by UNDP on 11 January and attended by representatives of the Government of Burundi and ex-President Nyerere.

  The international donor community agreed to provide immediate direct assistance to communities in Burundi focusing on local level reconciliation and rehabilitation. We already have the capacity to do this. It was also agreed that donors should prepare for the re-introduction of structural development assistance, which should follow the signature of a peace agreement. Burundi will need a substantial and well co-ordinated international effort to address its development constraints. Britain has not been a traditional bilateral donor to Burundi. But we will attempt to ensure that those multilateral organisations to which we are major contributors, including the EU and the World bank, are well prepared to make a major input when the political environment is right.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on progress on the Libra system for magistrates courts; and if he will make a statement. [67553]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Libra contract was awarded to International Computers Limited in December 1998. Libra will provide national standard computer services to magistrates' courts and offices with the first implementation planned for mid-2001 in Suffolk. The systems and services are expected to be implemented in all magistrates' courts by 2004, and will provide electronic links with other agencies in the criminal justice system.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how many magistrates' courts committees have conducted formal access audits since his Department issued the Disabled Court Users Good Practice Guide for Magistrates' Courts Committees; and from what sources the funding for necessary changes will be provided. [67402]

  Mr. Hoon
  I issued a performance standard in December 1997 setting out the minimum standards of performance that magistrates' courts committees are required to achieve in relation to disabled court users. It is not a requirement that formal access audits be undertaken, however, the Good Practice Guide that accompanied this standard does recommend it.

  A survey, undertaken by this Department during May and June 1998, showed that 64 out of 96 magistrates' courts committees had undertaken internal audits during the previous twelve months and 32 had arranged for

  247
  independent inspections. It is always open to any magistrates' courts committee, in conjunction with its local authorities, to bid for additional resources from this Department towards the cost of improving disabled access, subject, of course, to there being funding available.

  Legal Aid (Mediation)
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department in how many cases, and at what cost, the Legal Aid Board has provided legal aid for dispute resolution by mediation. [67611]

  Mr. Hoon
  In the period December 1997 to December 1998, 1,962 mediations in family cases have been conducted as part of a pilot project. At this stage of the pilot project, it is not possible to provide exact cost per mediation as these costs include the cost of an initial information meeting with the clients, a contribution towards overheads and set up costs which enable mediation services to meet the requirements of the Legal Aid Board Family Mediation Franchise Specification. Legal aid has only been available for non-family cases since October 1998. It is at present not possible to provide information on the exact number or costs of non-family cases.

  Solicitors (Professional Misconduct)
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how many solicitors were disciplined for professional misconduct in each of the last five years. [67606]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal hears and determines applications relating to allegations of unbefitting conduct or breaches of the rules of professional misconduct. Under Section 47 of the Solicitors Act 1974, the Tribunal can make orders to strike off, suspend from practice, fine and reprimand solicitors found guilty of professional misconduct.

  162 such orders were made from 1 May 1993 to 30 April 1994

  206 such orders were made from 1 May 1994 to 30 April 1995

  193 such orders were made from 1 May 1995 to 30 April 1996

  171 such orders were made from 1 May 1996 to 30 April 1997

  179 such orders were made from I May 1997 to 30 April 1998.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Home Detention
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prisons from which prisoners are to be released on home detention curfew on 28 January 1999 and the number of prisoners to be released in each case. [67426]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The assessments for Home Detention Curfew are still ongoing. I will write to the hon. Member after 28 January 1999 when this information becomes available.

  Polling Stations (Access)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the 248
  establishment of an independent electoral commission which would have responsibility for the provision of practical assistance to the elderly and those with disabilities in using polling stations. [67257]

  Mr. George Howarth
  As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced during the debate on the Neill Committee report on the funding of political parties on 9 November 1998,Official Report, column 55, provision for the establishment of an independent Electoral Commission will be included in the draft Bill, to implement the main findings of the Neill report, to be published before the summer recess. The Government are currently giving careful consideration to the Neill Committee's detailed proposals with regard to the precise role and remit of the Electoral Commission.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in improving access to polling stations for people with physical impairments. [67258]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Consolidated and enhanced guidance which includes advice on national access standards will be issued to all returning officers shortly. The Working Party on electoral procedures which I am chairing will continue to consider disability access to electoral services of all kinds.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if a person who has been refused political asylum but granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom has the right to appeal to a special adjudicator about the decision to refuse political asylum. [67109]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There is no right of appeal against a refusal to grant asylum in these circumstances.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research has been carried out on the comparative costs of(a) current arrangements for funding asylum seekers and (b) restoring benefits for asylum seekers, during the period that his Department takes to process an application. [67043]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The evidence available suggests that the removal of access to benefits to those asylum seekers who do not make their claim at their port of entry leads to a significant reduction in the numbers of asylum seekers. The Government believe that cash is a strong factor in encouraging economic migrants and that the restoration of benefits would lead to a significantly higher number of asylum seekers thereby leading to a much greater cost than the current arrangements. These conclusions come from an examination of the publicly available data.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were granted(a) refugee status and (b) exceptional leave to remain following a successful appeal against refusal of that status in each year since 1993, broken down by country of origin. [67112]
  249
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret that this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Information on the number of allowed asylum appeals over the period 1994 to 1998 is available and this is given in the table.

  Asylum appeals under the 1993 and 1996 Acts determined by adjudicators of the Immigration Appeals Authority, excluding dependants, 1994 to 1998

  Year

  Appeals determined 2

  Appeals allowed 3

  Percentage of appeals allowed

  1993

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1994

  2,440

  105

  4

  1995

  7,035

  230

  3

  1996

  13,792

  515

  4

  1997

  21,090

  1,180

  6

  19981

  25,320

  2,750

  11

  1 Provisional data

  2 Based on information collected by the Lord Chancellor's Department

  3 Estimates based on information collected by the Asylum Directorate

  Police Federation
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what central Government payments have been made to the Police Federation in each of the last five years in support of(a) conferences organised by the Federation and (b) other purposes; and if he will indicate the statutory authority under which such payments are made. [67028]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is shown in the table. The only payments made in support of conferences are in respect of travel and subsistence expenses made for members of the Joint Central Committee and these cannot readily be shown separately from expenses paid for other purposes. Payments are made under sections 57(1) and 60(2)(d) of the Police Act 1996.

  (a) Home Office/common police service contribution towards the costs of the salaries and running costs of the Police Federation of England and Wales

  £

  Police Federation of England and Wales

  Salaries

  Running costs

  1994–95

  110,000

  57,000

  1995–96

  51,000

  57,000

  1996–97

  93,000

  54,900

  1997–98

  50,439

  48,259

  1998–991

  60,211

  54,500

  (b) Contribution received as a member of the staff side of the police negotiating board

  £

  Police Federations of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland

  Administrative costs

  Travelling and subsistence expenses

  1994–95

  8,441

  54,627

  1995–96

  17,800

  62,914

  1996–97

  18,200

  64,300

  1997–98

  18,185

  32,602

  1998–991

  17,479

  33,262

  1 Estimate

  UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government have to remove the United Kingdom's reservation on Article 37 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. [67216]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We do not propose to remove this reservation. We are establishing a separate juvenile estate, but there will continue to be occasions when the mixing of young offenders and adult prisoners is necessary. This may be due to a lack of suitable accommodation or adequate facilities for a particular young person.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many reservations and derogations the UK Government have entered under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. [67214]

  Mr. Hutton
  I have been asked to reply.

  Upon ratification in 1991 of the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child, the United Kingdom Government entered four reservations and two declaratory interpretations.

  Police Manpower
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown, by rank, of the numbers of police officers(a) per police force and (b) in total, in each of the last 10 years. [67586]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information in the form requested is available from 1991. For earlier years, only information on the total number of officers in each force is available. The details for each year between 1989 and 1998 are set out in the tables, which I have placed in the Library.

  Jury Trials
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he plans to publish the responses to his consultation paper on the right to trial by jury; [67582]

  (2) what research he has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the election of trial in the Crown Court by defendants charged with an either-way offence since 1 October 1997; [67580]

  (3) what steps he plans to take regarding the right to trial by jury following his consultation paper of July 1998; and if he will make a statement. [67583]

  Mr. Boateng
  No research has been conducted into the election of trial in the Crown Court by defendants charged with an either-way offence since 1 October 1997. The consultation paper on determining the mode of trial, considered whether defendants should be able to choose to be tried by a jury in cases which magistrates have indicated that they would be content to hear. We are currently considering the responses to this consultation exercise and will make a statement when we have reached a final decision.

  Firearms Certificates
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many section 5 firearms certificates he has issued in each of the last five years. [67767]
  251
  Mr. Boateng
  The authority of the Secretary of State to possess, purchase or acquire, manufacture, sell or transfer weapons and ammunition prohibited by section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended) is granted only to those applicants who can demonstrate a genuine need to have such weapons and ammunition. The total number of such authorities issued in England and Wales in each of the last five years is as follows:

  Year

  Authorities issued

  1998

  540

  1997

  320

  1996

  304

  1995

  261

  1994

  214

  CS Spray
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to collect information on the number of times police officers and members of the public have started legal proceedings because of injuries caused by CS sprays. [67609]

  Mr. Boateng
  This information is not held centrally and there are no plans to collect it.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  A14
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) personal injury accidents and (b) fatalities were recorded on the A14 between Cambridge and Huntingdon in 1998. [66734]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested will not be available until June 1999. The latest available full years data are shown in the table.

  Accidents/casualties on the A14 between Cambridge and Huntingdon: 1997

  Severity

  Number of accidents

  Number of casualties

  Fatal

  1

  1

  Serious

  10

  12

  Slight

  50

  79

  Total

  61

  92

  Vehicles Directive
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about progress at the Environment Council meeting on 21 December 1998 on the proposed Directive on end of life vehicles. [67340]

  Mr. Meale
  At the Environment Council, Ministers reached a degree of common understanding on many of the important issues raised by this Directive. However, the views of the European Parliament will need to be carefully considered and final decisions on the Council's252
  Common Position will not be taken until the next Environmental Council in March, when the European Parliament's opinion should be ready.

  Whipps Cross-Redbridge Relief Road
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what representations his Department has received concerning the delay in opening the Whipps Cross-Redbridge relief road; [67458]

  (2) how much money has been spent on the Whipps Cross-Redbridge relief road; [67459]

  (3) when the Whipps Cross-Redbridge relief road will be completed; [67461]

  (4) what the projected opening date was for the Whipps Cross-Redbridge relief road on 1 May 1997. [67460]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. David Amess, dated 27 January 1999:
  The Minister for Transport in London has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the Whipps Cross/ Redbridge Relief Road.
  I am assuming that you are referring to Contract 4 of the A12 Hackney to M11 Link Road which goes from Whipps Cross to the Redbridge roundabout on the A12.
  On 1 May 1997, we anticipated that the contract would be completed in the Spring of 1998.
  Several local people, including the local Member of Parliament, have asked about the cause of the delay and we have explained that there have been difficulties with the specialist equipment necessary for safety in the tunnel at George Green. We now expect the road to be open to traffic this Spring although finishing work could take a little longer. This does not affect the overall completion date of Autumn 1999.
  The cost to date of the works on Contract 4 is £53.2M (excluding VAT).

  Departmental Papers (Access for Visually Impaired)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for departmental(a) White and (b) Green Papers to be made available on floppy disk format in a form which facilitates access for the visually impaired. [67852]

  Mr. Meale
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions currently publishes all White and Green Papers in HTML format on its Internet site. This ensures easy access by systems such as "screen readers, text-to-speech and text to Braille converters" making documents more accessible to the visually impaired.

  Where appropriate, publications are also made available on audio tape, in large print, Braille or on floppy disk.

  Water-borne Freight
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to achieve an increase in water-borne freight; if he will set targets; and if he will make a statement. [67618]
  253
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 25 January 1999]: The Government are keen to encourage increased movement of freight by water where that is a practical and economic option. The Department currently gives Freight Facilities Grants for inland waterways schemes where freight would otherwise have gone by road. The Department will be re-examining the rules of the scheme to encourage more applications for inland waterways projects; and as announced in the White Paper on the Future of Integrated Transport, we intend to bring forward legislation to extend the application of the freight grant scheme to include coastal and short-sea shipping. The scheme is demand-led and the Department aims, as far as possible, to meet all eligible demand from within its budget. Since May 1997 there have been 5 inland waterway grants made totalling almost £1.65m, which represents a maximum of 770,000 tonnes. In addition the total 1998–99 budget for both rail and inland waterway schemes has been increased from the previous year by one-third to £40 million.

  In addition, the Department is working to update planning guidance on transport which will encourage more freight to be carried by water. Local authorities in their development plans will be expected to consider opportunities for new development which are served by waterways; and to give better protection to sites and routes, both existing and potential, which could be critical in developing infrastructure to widen transport choices, including water transport.

  Water Pollution (Costs)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the costs of agriculturally derived water pollution from(a) nitrates, (b) fertilisers generally, (c)pesticides and other biocides and (d) soil erosion; and if he will make a statement. [67714]

  Mr. Meale
  The environmental and economic costs of agriculturally derived water pollution are not available centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Classic and Vintage Vehicles (Leaded Petrol)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what studies his Department has undertaken on the effect of the phasing out of leaded petrol on classic and vintage vehicles; how many vehicles currently run on leaded petrol; what is the statutory basis for the change; and if he will make a statement. [67632]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In accordance with EU directive 98/70EC, leaded petrol will be banned from general sale from 1 January 2000 by regulations to be made under the Clean Air Act 1993. Of an estimated 6 million vehicles currently running on leaded petrol, about 5.3 million will still be doing so at the time the ban is introduced. Of these as many as 3 million could use unleaded petrol either directly or with simple engine adjustments. For a remaining 2.3 million, for which lead provides lubricant protection for soft valve seats and in some cases octane requirements, substitutes for lead, either in the form of additives incorporated in "lead replacement petrol" or provided separately for motorists' use will be made available by the oil companies. Such products will be 254
  suitable for classic and vintage vehicles as well as older vehicles generally. The Government are in addition exploring the possibilities for implementation of the provision in the directive which allows sales of leaded petrol to continue to a limit of 0.5 per cent. of total sales, though supply will ultimately be a commercial decision.

  Aircraft Emissions
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department has commissioned or carried out on the effect of emissions from aircraft with particular reference to the upper atmosphere; and if he will list such research. [67470]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Since May 1997 my Department has participated in the following research projects:AEROTRACE: identification and measurement of trace species in exhaust gases close to the combustor of a jet engine;
  UK TRACE: measurement of changes in trace species between the combustor and engine exhaust;
  AEROCERT: identification of possible revisions and extensions to engine certification procedures, and the effects of maintenance and operation on certified emission levels;
  POLINAT: measurement and modelling of aircraft emissions in the North Atlantic flight corridor.

  We also supported the development of the European inventory of emissions from aircraft worldwide, which was published last year.

  Maintenance Vehicles (Safety Belts)
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the consequences of excluding maintenance vehicles from the laws enforcing the wearing of vehicle safety belts; and if he will make a statement. [67359]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Maintenance vehicles are not exempt from the requirement that seat belts must be worn where they are available. There are specific exemptions for drivers in particular circumstances—these are listed in regulation 6 of The Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) Regulations 1993, SI 1993 No. 176.

  Building Stock
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the increase in building stock over the next 10 years; and what plans he has to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from buildings by 2010. [67689]

  Mr. Meale
  The Government intend to develop a balanced and equitable strategy across all sectors to meet the UK's climate change targets. As a first step, on 26 October 1998, the Government published a consultation paper describing progress to date in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the UK and setting out a variety of policy options for further action. The consultation paper refers to a number of options which could be taken to reduce carbon dioxide emissions including improvements in emissions from buildings in the commercial, industrial and domestic sectors.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which local authority headed his table which measured the speed with which planning applications were considered. [67875]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In the 12 months to September 1998, Worthing Borough Council headed the Planning Performance Checklist, determining 99.9 per cent. of planning applications within 8 weeks.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the average length of time taken by local authorities to process planning applications in 1997–98. [67877]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In 1997–98, district planning authorities in England decided 62 per cent. of all applications for planning permission and other related consents within 8 weeks and 84 per cent. within 13 weeks. Information is not available on the average length of time taken to determine a planning application.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidelines are issued to local authorities in respect of the processing of planning applications. [67878]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government's policies on different aspects of planning are contained in Planning Policy Guidance notes (PPGs) and Circulars. PPG 1 on "General Policy and Principles" gives general advice on a number of issues bearing on the consideration of planning permission. Environment Circular 9/95, "General Development Order Consolidation 1995", covers permitted development and more detailed procedural matters, including consultations before the grant of planning permission. It also contains advice on best practice in handling planning applications.

  Health and Safety Executive (Workplace Deaths)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many incidents of death in the workplace were investigated by the Health and Safety Executive in each year since 1996. [67416]

  Mr. Meale
  The number of fatalities investigated by the Health and Safety Executive is set out in the table.

  Year

  Number of fatalities investigated

  1996–97

  397

  1997–98

  402

  1 April-30 September 19981

  213

  1 Provisional

  Dock Work
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the health and safety implications of increased casualisation of dock work. [67417]

  Mr. Meale
  It is not possible to assess how recent changes in the patterns of employment in the docks industry have affected health and safety. Such changes have included increasing mechanisation, bulk handling and containerisation at the same time as a substantial reduction in the numbers working in the docks. The 256
  Health and Safety Executive regularly meets docks industry representatives to review trends and consider any issues which might affect health and safety.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the Birmingham northern relief road on the air quality levels as set out in the National Air Quality Strategy; and how he expects any breaches of the levels to be remedied. [67577]

  Mr. Meale
  The original air quality assessment for the Birmingham northern relief road was published within the environmental statement for the scheme in 1993. Additional evidence was submitted to the public inquiry in 1994.

  The United Kingdom National Air Quality Strategy, published in March 1997, post-dated both the original assessment and the public inquiry. However, the existence of the air quality objectives within the strategy was acknowledged in the decision letter for the scheme as a post-inquiry development which had to be taken into account, alongside the Inspector's report, in reaching a decision on whether or not to proceed. A judgment was made, based on an interpretation of the previous assessment work, on whether or not the objectives might be exceeded. It was concluded that all of the objectives, with the possible exception of that for PM10, would be met with the road in place.

  Under Part IV of the Environment Act 1995, local authorities must review and assess air quality within their areas. If a local authority decides that any of the air quality objectives are not likely to be met by 2005, it must designate an Air Quality Management Area covering the area of the predicted exceedance and produce an action plan for the achievement of the objectives. The Highways Agency would need to be closely involved in the development and implementation of any action plan which required measures to be taken in relation to a trunk road or motorway.

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will name the road schemes by each local authority which make up the existing commitments in the Local Transport Settlement 1999–2000; and if he will indicate for each(a) the money awarded in the 1999–2000 local transport settlement and (b) the total costs. [67021]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: The table shows allocations made to grant supported major road schemes as part of the 1999–2000 local transport capital settlement. These schemes were accepted for funding between the 1986–87 and 1997–98 settlements. The Government are committed to providing sufficient funding for their completion, provided they continue to make reasonable progress, although we do not commit to fund the full costs of a major local road scheme. The table does not include committed expenditure on non-road schemes or resources which cannot be identified to a single road scheme, such as resources to meet applications during 1999–00 for grant under the Industrial Development Act 1982.
  257

  Authority

  Scheme name

  Allocation (£000)

  Total gross cost (£000)

  Lincolnshire

  Market Deeping Bypass

  410

  11,378

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  West Central Route

  4,500

  21,709

  Redcar and Cleveland

  Skelton and Brotton Bypass

  2,500

  13,500

  Cheshire

  Chester Park and Ride Phase Two

  1,000

  7,858

  Cheshire

  Wheelock Bypass

  2,200

  11,600

  Lancashire

  South Ribble M65 Interface Improvements

  2,800

  12,847

  Oldham

  A62/A627 Oldham Way Improvements

  300

  6,981

  Trafford

  Trafford Road Improvement

  282

  23,952

  Buckinghamshire

  Tingewick Bypass

  282

  13,274

  East Sussex

  New Route (Dittons to Seaside) Eastbourne

  2,200

  29,370

  Kent

  Barracks Link Ashford

  250

  4,487

  Kent

  South Thames-Side Development Route Stage 4

  4,000

  14,480

  Kent

  Wainscott Northern Bypass

  24,250

  77,139

  Kent

  Thanet Way Dualling (Sections 1–7A)

  8,000

  191,405

  Medway Towns

  Gillingham Northern Bypass

  2,584

  44,685

  Surrey

  Runfold Diversion/Blackwater Valley Route A31-A323

  1,500

  50,059

  Dorset

  A37 Improvements

  120

  9,029

  Gloucestershire

  Gloucester South West Bypass

  2,654

  21,022

  Somerset

  Yeovil to Dorset Boundary Phase 1

  1,430

  5,842

  Somerset

  Wells Relief Road

  700

  14,422

  South Gloucestershire

  Avon Ring Road II: B4465 Shortwood—A420 Warmley

  9,700

  29,961

  Dudley

  Dudley Southern Bypass

  9,000

  57,000

  Solihull

  West Midlands Renaissance Area

  300

  18,878

  Wolverhampton

  Wednesfield Bypass and Industrial Access

  1,400

  23,819

  Barnsley

  Dearne Towns Link Road

  1,000

  40,422

  Leeds

  Leeds City Centre Loop Phase 3

  700

  6,989

  Leeds

  Leeds Inner Ring Road Stages 6 and 7

  3,800

  78,821

  North East Lincolnshire

  Grimsby, Peakes Parkway

  1,600

  25,991

  Hertfordshire

  Cheshunt Link Road

  220

  16,552

  Peterborough

  Werrington to Glinton Phase 2

  748

  1,752

  Bexley

  Erith-Thamesmead Spine Road (Phase IV)

  712

  34,499

  Greenwich

  Woolwich Road Improvement

  2,114

  24,828

  Harrow

  A409 Sheepcote Road Widening for two-way traffic

  524

  2,905

  Harrow

  A409 Wealdstone By Pass

  292

  16,517

  Hillingdon

  Uxbridge Town Centre

  350

  2,329

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Harrow Road Junction with Ladbrooke Grove

  516

  9,171

  Kingston upon Thames

  North—South Strategy—A240 Corridor

  800

  4,730

  Knowsley

  M57—A562 Link Road

  1,000

  47,607

  Sefton

  Aintree, Park Lane Improvement

  2,000

  3,936

  Total

  98,738

  1,037,489

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many local authorities have formally asked his Department for the routes of road schemes withdrawn in the National Roads Programme to be protected as advised in paragraph 96 of the draft guidance on Local Transport Plans. [67023]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: To date no local authorities have formally indicated whether they intend to seek route protection for any of the schemes on routes to be detrunked which were withdrawn from the National Roads Programme as a result of the Roads Review. But, two authorities have proposed that route protection should be retained beyond the end of July pending the outcome of further studies.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the number of major new road schemes for which each local authority bid for funding under the TPP system for 1999–2000. [67022]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: We received eighty bids for new major local road schemes from English local highway authorities requesting
  258
  capital funding in 1999–2000. The following authorities bid for one major scheme each: Lincolnshire, Northumberland, Stockton-on-Tees, Halton, Salford, West Yorkshire PTA, Buckinghamshire, Kent, Milton Keynes, Oxfordshire, West Sussex, Windsor and Maidenhead, Bath and North East Somerset, Bristol, Birmingham, Sandwell, Warwickshire, Barnsley, Kirklees, Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Bexley, Enfield, Greenwich and St. Helens. Authorities bidding for two or more schemes are shown in the table:

  Authority

  Number of new major road scheme bids

  Leicestershire

  2

  Nottinghamshire

  5

  Surrey

  4

  Cornwall

  4

  Devon

  2

  Gloucestershire

  2

  Somerset

  2

  Staffordshire

  3

  Stoke-on-Trent

  2

  West Midlands Joint authorities1

  9

  Worcestershire

  2

  Doncaster

  3

  259

  Authority

  Number of new major road scheme bids

  Luton

  2

  Norfolk

  7

  Sutton

  2

  Westminster

  2

  Total

  80

  1 the bid from the West Midlands Joint authorities was submitted on behalf of Birmingham, Centro, Coventry, Dudley, Sandwell, Solihull, Walsall and Wolverhampton authorities.

  As announced in the local transport capital settlement for 1999–2000 on 17 December 1998, we accepted two of these schemes.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the mileage rates currently applicable to staff, indicating what changes have been made to encourage staff to switch from cars to public transport and other less polluting forms of travel. [67489]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: Staff are encouraged to use public transport where it is available and if they do not do so, a single flat rate of 23.8 pence per mile is payable. Where public transport is not available, would give rise to excessive journey times or where staff have equipment or bulky luggage to carry, there are currently two sets of mileage rates payable for cars used on official business:

  Pence per mile

  Ex-Department of the Environment staff

  Ex-Department of Transport staff

  Engine capacity

  Up to 4000 miles

  Over 4000 miles

  Up to 4000 miles

  Over 4000 miles

  Up to 1000 cc

  N/A

  27

  15

  1001 cc to 1500 cc

  34

  19

  35.7

  19

  1501 cc to 2000 cc

  43

  23

  42

  23

  Over 2000 cc

  47

  30

  46

  30

  The rates are currently under review not only to harmonise them but also as part of the Department's aim to encourage staff to minimise journeys by car and reduce the environmental impact of transport activity through Green Transport Plans. Consideration is being given to a single rate, regardless of engine size.

  London Underground
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has received a Public/Private Partnership bid from Railtrack for the surface and sub-surface London Underground lines outside the criteria for the tender process. [67923]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government have not sought or received any bid from Railtrack in relation to the London Underground public/private partnership (PPP).

  Railtrack has made proposals to integrate London Underground's sub-surface lines (Circle, District, Metropolitan, and Hammersmith and City) with the main
  260
  line network. The Office of Passenger Rail Franchising (OPRAF) is carrying out a preliminary study of the feasibility, costs and benefits of these proposals and is assessing them in the same way that it would any other such proposals. This work does not in any way imply that the Government believe that a case has been established for Railtrack's proposal on cost-benefit or other grounds, or that London Transport is minded to handle the sub-surface lines differently from the deep tube lines in the PPP.

  The Government are continuing to develop the London Underground PPP along the lines announced to the House by the Deputy Prime Minister on 14 December 1998, Official Report, columns 629–30.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Death by Dangerous Driving (Sentences)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Attorney-General how many cases of causing death by dangerous driving have been referred to him for reference to the Court of Appeal on the grounds of unduly lenient sentence in the last 18 months; how many he has referred to the Court of Appeal; and how many sentences have been increased as a result of such referrals. [67657]

  The Attorney-General
  Since 27 July 1997 19 cases of causing death by dangerous driving in England and Wales have been referred to the Law Officers. 12 were referred by members of the public (3 through their MPs); 7 were referred by the CPS.

  Of these 19, 1 case has not yet been considered; in 13 cases the sentence passed was not considered unduly lenient; 5 cases have been referred to the Court of Appeal. The sentence was increased by the Court of Appeal in 4 cases (although in one case the overall sentence, taking into account two other offences, was not increased). 1 case has yet to be heard.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Scottish Land Fund
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what powers the Scottish Parliament will have to(a) alter policy priorities in Scotland for the New Opportunities Fund and (b) increase the proportion of New Opportunities Fund money which goes to the Scottish Land Fund; [67421]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the powers of the (a) Scottish Parliament, (b) Welsh assembly and (c) Northern Ireland assembly to direct or alter the distribution of lottery funds by each of the lottery distribution bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; [67419]

  (3) if he will make a statement outlining the mechanism under which payments will be made to the proposed Scottish Land Fund from the New Opportunities Fund; and who will decide the level of payments made from the New Opportunities Fund into the proposed Scottish Land Fund. [67420]
  261
  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: The power currently held by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to issue policy directions to Scottish sports and arts Lottery distributors will be transferred to Ministers of the Scottish Parliament. In relation to the Heritage Lottery Fund, the National Lottery Charities Board and the New Opportunities Fund (NOF), whose operations range across the UK, Scottish Ministers will be able to make directions which require distributors to take into account for their activities in Scotland the desirability of achieving particular objectives for devolved policy areas including giving priority to particular kinds of recipients, or recipients in particular parts of Scotland. In the case of a NOF initiative applying only in Scotland, Scottish Ministers will after consultation with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport be able to make the order specifying the initiative, and to issue directions on any matter except the amount of funding to be allocated to the initiative. Powers in relation to the Millennium Commission will remain unchanged since most of its work is now complete. Scottish Ministers will not be able to make directions relating to the allocation of resources between Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom, or those relating to the administration of Lottery funding, regardless of the purposes to be achieved by particular projects. Scottish Ministers will however be consulted on these matters as they affect Scotland.

  Similar arrangements will apply to the National Assembly for Wales, although any order specifying a Wales only initiative of the New Opportunities Fund would be made by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport with the agreement of the Assembly. The details of these arrangements, including their application to a Northern Ireland Assembly, are still under consideration. Concordats being drawn up between my department and home country departments will set out how the new arrangements will work.

  There has been widespread public consultation on the three new NOF initiatives, which include one on green spaces and sustainable communities which could in Scotland constitute a Scottish Land Fund. Consultation on this initiative closed on 15 January and no decisions have yet been made regarding the final form of the initiatives or the financial allocations. After consultation with Scottish Ministers, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will decide the level of funding each initiative will receive and has the power to direct that a percentage of this amount be used in Scotland. NOF will administer the grant-giving process, taking into account the directions they have been given and decide which applicants should be supported.

  Foreign Broadcasters
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what plans he has to extend the jurisdiction of the ITC and the scope of the Broadcasting Acts to companies based abroad who, through cable, broadcast in the United Kingdom; [66257]
  262
  (2) how he intends to ensure that the political impartiality required by the Broadcasting Acts is maintained in respect of broadcasts being made in the United Kingdom by companies based abroad; and if he will make a statement. [66256]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 20 January 1999]: Transfrontier broadcasting in Europe is regulated, in the European Economic Area, by Council Directive 89/552/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 97/36/EC ("The Broadcasting Directive"). Outside this area it is regulated by the European Convention on Transfrontier Television of the Council of Europe. Both legal instruments enshrine the "home State" principle; where a broadcaster is under the jurisdiction of one State, and hence licensed by that State, it may transmit freely to all others, provided that the minimum standards of the Directive or Convention are complied with. The Independent Television Commission may not extend its jurisdiction over such broadcasters, whether they broadcast by means of cable or satellite in the United Kingdom. Conversely, an ITC licensed broadcaster cannot be under the jurisdiction of any other State. By these means, a free market in legitimately licensed broadcasting services has been created throughout Europe.

  European public service broadcasters are expected to observe principles of political impartiality and balance in their coverage of news and current affairs. This is regulated by the competent authorities in individual States. Any concern about political impartiality in a programme from abroad would need to be taken up on a bilateral basis either with the relevant regulatory authority or with the relevant Government.

  Tourism (Training and Accommodation)
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proposals his Department has to raise the standards of(a) staff training and (b) accommodation in the tourist industry. [67357]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 25 January 1999]: National Training Organisations (NTOs) are already working to ensure that training and development products are of high quality with a strong emphasis on transferable skills.

  Current accommodation inspection schemes aim to identify and promote establishments to the public so that they can use them with confidence, through a system of facility classification and quality grading. The English Tourist Board, the AA and the RAC are now harmonising their accommodation schemes. The new harmonised accommodation rating scheme, being launched to consumers in September 1999, places far more emphasis on quality and will remove the confusion caused by the plethora of signs, and the lack of clarity about what to expect from each kind of serviced accommodation.

  Further, our new tourism strategy, which will be published soon, aims to create a competitive world class tourism industry which provides affordable quality, is open to all and makes wise use of resources. The strategy contains specific recommendations for action to develop a trained and motivated work force in the industry and to improve the quality of tourist accommodation.

  Tourism (Devon)
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much Government money per head of population was spent on tourism and tourist attractions in Devon in the most recent year for which figures are available. [67317]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 25 January 1999]: Government funding for the national tourist boards supports tourism in Devon and every other county. In 1998–99, some £35 million will go to the British Tourist Authority (BTA) and £9.7 million to the English Tourist Board (ETB). The ETB in turn grants around £504,000 to the West Country Tourist Board (WCTB) which covers Devon and other counties in the South West of England. It is not possible to distinguish support for Devon from support for other counties.

  Tourism also benefits from Lottery awards and funds from European programmes. In 1998–99, lottery awards of over £8 million (just over £7.50 per head of population) and over £1.4 million (just over £1.30 per head of population) from various European programmes has so far been granted to projects in Devon from which tourism stands to benefit.

  In addition, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy estimates that in 1997–98 local authority expenditure on tourism promotion in Devon was just over £2.8 million (over £2.60 per head of population).

  New Opportunities Fund (ICT Training)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport by what date New Opportunities Fund moneys for information and communication technology skills training for teachers will be available to schools. [67384]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 25 January 1999]: The New Opportunities Fund (NOF) will be sending information to schools, including details of how to apply for their funding entitlement and how to use it, in Spring 1999. The aim is that training for teachers and school librarians can begin—in schools—in Summer term 1999. Funding from NOF will be available to schools from mid-April.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list, for the delivery of information and communications technology skills training for teachers funded by the New Opportunities Fund, the organisations which(a) expressed interest in applying to become approved providers, (b) formally applied to become approved providers and (c) have been accepted as approved providers. [67391]

  Mr. Banks
  The New Opportunities Fund (NOF) is currently completing an approval process within which prospective providers have to demonstrate the skills and experience necessary to deliver high quality training in information and communication technology (ICT).

  Some 3,500 organisations applied for the specification for training providers. Of this number 194 (England), 38 (Scotland), 38 (Wales), and 21 (Northern Ireland) made formal applications. The names of successful applicants will be published when final decisions have been taken.

  Royal Society of Literature
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to meet the chairman of the Royal Society of Literature. [65574]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I will be meeting the Chairman of the Royal Society of Literature on 18 February.

DEFENCE

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the percentage of his Department's systems which might be affected by millennium compliance failure by other Departments, public or private companies and international Government and non-governmental systems. [66752]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 21 January 1999]: We are discussing this issue with our major suppliers, and are seeking assurances of continuity of supply from them and from their suppliers in turn.

  Defence systems have relatively little dependence on systems in other Departments. We are liaising closely with our allies to identify the many international inter-dependencies and are working with them to ensure that allied and joint operations will not be adversely affected by the millennium date-change. These dependencies range from individual components to linkage between systems. Information on the number of such dependencies is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on steps taken recently at the Vulcan Naval Reactor Test Establishment at Dounreay to enhance protection measures against earthquakes; and if he will estimate the cost of this work. [66424]

  Mr. Spellar
  Work is taking place at the Vulcan Naval Reactor Test Establishment at Dounreay to enhance protection against a number of potential hazards, including earthquakes, while preparing the facility for a further period of operation. Modifications are required to enable the facility to meet standards directly equivalent to those required by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate for modern civil nuclear facilities. The cost of work related to enhanced protection measures against earthquakes is estimated to be about £9 million.

  Infra-red Technology
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of investment by other Government departments into infra-red technology for use in the defence industry. [66670]

  Mr. Spellar
  None. Government investment in technology specifically intended for defence purposes would, however, be expected to fall primarily to the MOD.

  Royal Navy Personnel
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel, of which ranks, are currently attached to each Royal Navy vessel(a) mothballed and (b) awaiting refit. [66702]

  Ship/current role

  Rank

  Manning levels

  HMS Ark Royal (Preservation by Dehumidification)

  Commander

  1

  Junior Officers

  6

  Senior Rates

  26

  Junior Rates

  33

  66

  HMS Intrepid

  Standby (Preservation by Operation)

  Commander

  1

  Junior Officers

  4

  Senior Rates including 1 Royal Marine

  31

  Junior Rates including 2 Royal Marines

  41

  77

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual cost of the service personnel currently attached to(a) HMS Ark Royal and (b) HMS Intrepid. [66701]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The annual cost of the service personnel currently attached to HMS Ark Royal and HMS Intrepid is some £1.7 million and £1.9 million respectively.

  Trident
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library copies of the British equivalent of the US Department of the Navy SP10 Memo 4900 SP131522 relating to UK Trident purchases in the US from fiscal year 1984 to date. [67040]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I am assuming that the documents which my hon. Friend is seeking are the UK's responses to the US Department of the Navy's budget authorisation requests. Copies of UK budget authorisations going back to 1984 are not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. I have, however, arranged for the authorisations for the last six US fiscal years to be placed in the Library.

  More comprehensive estimates of UK Trident acquisitions and running costs were included in the Strategic Defence Review Supporting Essay Five.

  Nuclear Fuel
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions have taken place with United States Government officials concerning the possibility of Britain meeting future US tritium requirements. [67212]

  Mr. George Robertson
  There are regular contacts and exchanges of information between the United States and the United Kingdom on nuclear matters under the aegis of the 1958 Agreement between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States on "Co-operation in the Use of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defence Purposes" Command 537 as amended. These contacts have included discussions on tritium requirements.
  266
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  HMS Ark Royal is at present undergoing preservation by dehumidification and HMS Intrepid is currently on standby. Staffing levels of the two ships as at 1 January 1999 were as follows:

  Chapelcross Nuclear Reactors
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions his Department has had with the DETR regarding the implications of the OSPAR agreement for continued operation of the Chapelcross tritium production facility. [67211]

  Mr. Spellar
  The MOD has not yet held discussions with the Department of the Environment, Transport, and Regions (DETR) on this matter. However, nuclear operators are having to consider how to achieve the targets set by OSPAR in July 1998 for reductions in discharges. I understand that the DETR are shortly to start discussions with operators, including BNFL who operate Chapelcross, so that proposals and programmes can be produced for presentation to OSPAR in 2000.

SCOTLAND

  Children (Scotland) Act 1995
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to review the operation of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. [66634]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: The Children (Scotland) Act 1995 is already kept under review in a number of ways. It was identified as a research priority area in 1996 and a number of research studies have been commissioned across a wide range of the Act's provisions. Progress is reported through a series of research bulletins, copies of which are in the Library.

  The operation of the Act is also reviewed regularly through inspections by the Social Work Services Inspectorate, publication of statistical information and a joint Scottish Office/COSLA working group set up for that purpose. A further indication of the effectiveness of the 1995 Act will come from the regular review of local authority children's services plans, which were required

  267
  to be in place from April 1998. Taken together, the information from these sources allow effective oversight of the Act to be maintained.

  From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Adoption and Fostering
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to gather and publish information about adoption and fostering in Scotland to record the numbers of children being placed, their ages and their care history. [66635]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: Information on adoptions in Scotland is collected and published regularly. The next publication, for the year ending December 1998, is planned for March 1999 and will contain information on numbers of children adopted, their age distributions and whether the local authority was involved in the adoption.

  Information on the numbers of children looked after by foster carers is collected annually at an aggregate level. The latest data, for the year to March 1998, were published in December 1998. It is planned to publish an annual information note on the background of children who cease to be looked after during the year but without specifically identifying those children who were in foster care. There are no plans to collect or publish care histories on individual children.

  From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Care in the Community
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what sums his Department currently allocates to councils for each person provided with residential accommodation under Care in the Community. [66636]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: The allocations of resources to councils for their community care responsibilities are calculated with reference to a range of indicators, and not by allocating a sum per person. These indicators are agreed in consultation with COSLA.

  The resultant distribution forms part of each council's Grant Aided Expenditure assessment which individual authorities allocate to services on the basis of local need. The Grant Aided Expenditure allocations for councils' social work responsibilities announced in the recent local government settlement for 1999–2000 total £1.1 billion, an increase of £50 million on the current year.

  From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in each council area are provided with residential accommodation under Care in the Community. [66637]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: The number of adults cared for in local authority residential homes and the number in private or voluntary homes who are wholly or partially funded by local authorities in Scotland at 31 March 1997, are provided for each local authority in the table.
  268

  Local authority

  Residents in LA establishments

  Private/voluntary residents wholly or partially LA funded

  Total

  Aberdeen

  418

  437

  855

  Aberdeenshire

  344

  335

  679

  Angus

  189

  121

  310

  Argyll & Bute

  164

  174

  338

  Clackmannanshire

  69

  26

  95

  Dumfries & Galloway

  278

  228

  506

  Dundee

  399

  84

  483

  East Ayrshire

  122

  130

  252

  East Dunbartonshire

  42

  36

  78

  East Lothian

  145

  131

  276

  East Renfrewshire

  43

  92

  135

  Edinburgh

  669

  623

  1,292

  Falkirk

  189

  187

  376

  Fife

  419

  269

  688

  Glasgow

  1,160

  978

  2,138

  Highland

  346

  416

  762

  Inverclyde

  73

  178

  251

  Midlothian

  148

  81

  229

  Moray

  148

  113

  261

  North Ayrshire

  126

  167

  293

  North Lanarkshire

  418

  305

  723

  Orkney Islands

  68

  9

  77

  Perth & Kinross

  177

  259

  436

  Renfrewshire

  243

  223

  466

  Scottish Borders

  213

  257

  470

  Shetland Islands

  64

  39

  103

  South Ayrshire

  165

  176

  341

  South Lanarkshire

  437

  179

  616

  Stirling

  108

  162

  270

  West Dunbartonshire

  228

  47

  275

  West Lothian

  214

  94

  308

  Western Isles

  177

  18

  195

  Scotland

  8,003

  6,574

  14,577

  From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what figures his Department uses to determine the economic charge per room which housing associations and other providers under the Care in the Community scheme have to charge to meet the registration standards set for staffing, food and accommodation and their loan charges. [66638]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: We do not calculate charges per room. Supported accommodation is only one of a large range of care options available to councils to meet their community care responsibilities. The distribution of funding—which is undertaken in consultation with COSLA—is not based on the cost of any one option.

  From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  St. Patrick's Day Parades
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will collate and publish data from police authorities on(a) the number of towns in which St. Patrick's Day parades are held each year, (b) police estimates of the number of participants in parades of over 1,000 persons for each of the last 10 years and (c) the number of parades which raised public order concerns. [66962]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: The police have no record of any St. Patrick's Day parades taking place in Scotland.
  269
  There have been no parades involving more than 1,000 people in the Dumfries and Galloway, Fife, Grampian or Northern police force areas. The information in respect of the remaining areas is as follows:
  Central Scotland: One annual parade, of greatly variable size.
  Lothian and Borders: One annual parade averaging 1,000 participants.
  Strathclyde: (Information is available for the last 3 years only).
  1996–21 parades averaging 2,700 participants
  1997–28 parades averaging 3,530 participants
  1998–23 parades averaging 5,100 participants
  Tayside: One parade in 1993 involving approximately 7,500 participants.

  All large parades require to be effectively policed to ensure the safety of the participants involved and of the public. However, only the parade in Tayside gave rise to serious public order concerns.

  From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Saughton Prison
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the special segregation unit at Saughton prison was completed; how much it cost; how many prisoners it is designed to accommodate; how many staff will work there; when he expects it to be in operation; and if he will make a statement. [67497]

  Mr. McLeish
  The new Segregation Unit was completed in November 1998, at a cost of £1.3 million, excluding VAT. The Unit has been designed to hold a maximum of 14 prisoners. Staff on duty at any one time will comprise one Supervisor, 3 Residential Officers, and, when required, one Administrative Officer. The Unit will be brought into operation once current discussions with the Scottish Prison Officers' Association, about staffing levels for the establishment as a whole, have been satisfactorily concluded.

  From 1 July 1999, prison service issues will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Housing Partnership Funding
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the local authorities which have bid for new housing partnership funding for the period 1999–2002, detailing for each authority(a) if the bid is a feasibility study of stock transfers, how many dwellings are covered by the study and (b) if the bid is for actual transfers of homes, how many dwellings the authority plans to transfer, if funding requirements are met in full. [67499]

  Mr. Macdonald
  All local authorities except Angus Council have submitted bids for New Housing Partnership funding for the period 1999–2002. Bids are at present being assessed by the New Housing Partnerships Advisory Group which will be making recommendations to Ministers. An announcement on the successful bids, including those involving feasibility work for councils considering the possibility of housing transfer, is expected around the end of February.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Scottish Office Documents
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the documents published by the Scottish Office since May 1997 indicating which were sent unsolicited(a) to all Scottish hon. Members and (b) to selected hon. Members. [67496]

  Mr. Dewar
  The Scottish Office produces a large number of publications of different kinds. A list of items published between May 1997 and January 1998 was placed in the House Library in February 1998. A further list of items published in the year to January 1999 will be placed in the Library as soon as possible.

  Information about which publications were sent to hon. Members is not held centrally, and could be compiled only at disproportionate cost. In general, The Scottish Office seeks to ensure that key publications are brought to the attention of hon. Members by sending copies to the hon. Member for each Scottish constituency. In addition, Scottish Office publications are available on the Department's web site: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/.

  Social Exclusion Projects
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the social exclusion projects currently in operation in Scotland indicating for each(a) the number of people benefiting, (b) the Government's financial contribution and (c) the total cost. [67498]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The Government are taking forward a wide range of programmes and projects to promote social inclusion in Scotland. Over the next three years, the Government will invest £48 million in the new Social Inclusion Partnerships; £49 million in the National Childcare Strategy; £26 million in New Community Schools; £49 million in Early Intervention schemes; £24 million in Alternatives to Exclusion from School; and an additional £278 million in New Housing Partnerships. The Government have also pledged around £350 million over the lifetime of this Parliament to support the New Deals in Scotland, another key element of the Government's programme to promote inclusion. The Government's programme to promote social inclusion in Scotland will be set out in detail in the context of its "social inclusion strategy", to be published shortly.

  From 1 July 1999, action taken forward under the social inclusion strategy will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Education White Paper
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will publish the Government's Education White Paper; and if he will make a statement. [68124]

  Mr. Dewar
  I have today published our Education White Paper, entitled Targeting Excellence: Modernising Scotland's Schools. Copies have been sent to all Members with a Scottish constituency, and are also available in the Library of the House.

  It sets out a radical programme for improvement and an approach to modernisation to achieve our objective of a world class schools system founded on excellence. At its centre is a focus on the needs of the individual child.
  271
  The programme for improvement incorporates a wide range of proposals in the early years, throughout the work of schools and to support children in learning outside the classroom. Key policies include a strategy on literacy and numeracy, the National Grid for Learning, involvement of parents and the piloting of New Community Schools.

  Our approach to modernisation includes proposals on the teaching profession and organisation of schools to ensure that the framework within which schools and teachers operate empowers them to take responsibility for their own improvement. Many of these proposals are for further consideration and consultation.

  From 1 July 1999 education will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament, and it will be for them to consider how they wish to take forward the proposals outlined in the paper.

WALES

  National Assembly (EU Representation)
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he plans to establish representation for the National Assembly in Brussels which is separate from UK representation; and if he will make a statement. [66280]

  Mr. Michael
  Wales will continue to be represented formally in Brussels by the Office of the United Kingdom Permanent Representative. However, it will be for the Assembly itself to decide whether it wishes to establish a local presence in Brussels.

  Paediatric Heart Surgery
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to develop paediatric heart surgery in Wales. [66281]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The University Hospital of Wales is currently engaged in discussions with the Royal College of Surgeons over the best arrangements for delivering cardiac services for children following the departure of a key surgeon. The formal link between Cardiff's paediatric cardiac unit and Birmingham Children's Hospital ensures that children who need treatment are receiving it. The setting up of the associated paediatric intensive care unit at UHW, for which the Department is providing additional funding, will help to maintain and develop a viable high quality clinical service for the children of Wales.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Employment (South Wales Valleys)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of employment trends in the south Wales valleys. [66282]

  Mr. Michael
  The Welsh Office will be publishing "A Statistical Focus on Wales: Valleys" on 24 February 1999. It will contain a significant amount of information on the labour market in the Valleys, compared with the rest of Wales.
  272
  Addressing the needs of the Valleys and West Wales is one of my main priorities as set out in "Pathway to Prosperity".

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Nurses and Midwives
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) nurses and (b) midwives have undergone training in Wales in the current year. [66283]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  In Wales there were 2,300 nurses undertaking three year diploma or degree courses during 1998 and 63 nurses undertaking a four year degree course. Eighty four nurses have taken the 18 month post basic midwifery diploma course and 36 students are undertaking the three year direct entry midwifery diploma course. In addition 140 nurses were undertaking the Diploma in Community Health studies course.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many whole-time equivalent nurses are currently employed in Wales. [66289]

  Mr. Michael
  The NHS in Wales reported that there were 23,691 whole time equivalent staff employed in the nursing, midwifery and health visiting group in September 1998.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  NHS Beds
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to encourage the more effective use of beds in the NHS. [66284]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  It is important that all parts of the NHS operate effectively and efficiently. The decisions on trust reconfiguration will enable more effective use of facilities in co-operation with other organisations, and the work already underway on a Corporate Strategy for NHS Wales together with the performance framework set out in "Putting Patients First", will contribute to improved results.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Gwynedd County Council (Employment Policies)
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Welsh Language Board regarding the employment policies of Gwynedd county council. [66285]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  My right hon. Friend and I have held no such discussions with the Welsh Language Board.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding employment discrimination against non-Welsh speakers by Gwynedd county council; and if he will make a statement. [66288]
  273
  Mr. Michael
  I have not personally received any representations since coming to office. My Department has received one representation. The Welsh Office has no power to investigate or intervene in local authority recruitment matters. Accordingly, the correspondent was advised to bring any concerns he might have to the attention of Gwynedd Council's Monitoring Officer.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Livestock Industry
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the prospects for the Welsh livestock industry. [66286]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The Welsh Office is working with the Welsh Development Agency and the industry to develop an Action Plan for the lamb and beef sectors which will be published in the Spring. This, together with the promotional work being done by organisations such as Welsh Lamb and Beef Promotions to reopen our European markets, will provide a basis for the Welsh livestock industry to strengthen its competitiveness and adapt to meet the challenges facing it.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Education Funding
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the funding for education in Wales for 1999–2000. [66287]

  Mr. Michael
  I have announced an extra £117 million spending for education in 1999–2000. The main elements are £70 million in the local government revenue settlement for education; an additional £23.5 million for further education; and an additional £38.2 million for higher education. Further details will be announced shortly.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  National Assembly
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has in respect of the working hours of the Welsh Assembly and the provision of child care to support Welsh Assembly members and staff with children under 14 years of age. [66290]

  Mr. Michael
  It is for the Assembly itself to determine its working hours and its child care policy, having regard to the recommendations of the National Assembly Advisory Group (NAAG).

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much is planned to be spent on making ready a debating chamber for the National Assembly in Crickhowell House. [66291]

  Mr. Michael
  The estimated cost for providing a temporary chamber is £1 million.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.
  274
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes he is proposing for ministerial responsibilities within his Department consequent upon the establishment of the National Assembly. [66293]

  Mr. Michael
  This is a matter for consideration once the Assembly is established.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about how he proposes to handle appointments to public bodies which are due to be considered in the run-up to, and during the establishment of, the National Assembly for Wales. [68344]

  Mr. Michael
  In considering appointments which fall due in this period I have been mindful of the need to allow the Assembly to take over its responsibilities quickly and in an orderly way in relation to those public bodies for which it will be responsible. It has been necessary to give early consideration to such appointments because of the time required for the appointments process.

  I have now had the opportunity of considering appointments in detail and, generally, I propose to extend existing appointments for up to 12 months to allow the Assembly time to introduce its own policy and procedures. This is not suitable for all appointments and there is a need for some full term re-appointments and new appointments.

  Different public bodies have varying circumstances and each one has had to be considered individually. The factors which have been taken into account in each case have been the potential impact on the body concerned of short term extensions to existing appointments, the need for long term stability and continuity; the number of appointments becoming vacant at any one time; the need to retain specialist knowledge or a balance of skills on the body concerned; past difficulties in recruiting members; and the number of appointments held by candidates. In all cases, I have had full regard to the guidance and advice of the Commissioner for Public Appointments and I shall continue to do so.

  Decisions have now been taken on most of the appointments concerned and these will be announced in the coming weeks.

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about reform of European structural funds in relation to Wales. [66292]

  Mr. Michael
  It is important that reform of the Structural Funds provides an outcome that is affordable, durable and fair and my Department is fully involved in discussions at the UK level and in Brussels to secure an outcome consistent with these principles. For Wales this should ensure that Structural Funds support is targeted at the most needy areas of the country and it remains very likely that West Wales and the Valleys will benefit from an Objective 1 programme starting next year.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Road Safety, Croesyceiliog
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the danger to pedestrians crossing the A4042 at the pedestrian crossing at Croesyceiliog. [66294]

  Mr. Hain
  Pedestrian safety is of paramount importance to the Welsh Office. Since an at-grade crossing place was provided in late 1987, no reported injury accidents involving pedestrians have occurred at this point, and the situation is constantly monitored.

  During the design of the Llantarnam Bypass scheme and the subsequent Public Inquiry careful consideration was given to the issue of pedestrian safety.

  Additional signing was provided, advising pedestrians and motorists of the crossing point and to help encourage pedestrian use of the upgraded subway.

  Officials have recently agreed to meet with local residents for a discussion of their concerns in this matter.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  NHS Vacancies
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many vacancies for(a) nurses, (b) doctors and (c) midwives there are in the NHS in Wales. [66295]

  Mr. Michael
  Although this information is not collected centrally we do have some information regarding nurses and midwives but not doctors. The workforce plans produced by NHS Trusts identified at 30 September 1997, 442 vacancies for registered nurses in Wales out of 11,243 staff in post; 30 vacancies for community nurses out of a total 2,634 staff in post; and 24 vacancies for widwives out of 1,284 staff in post. The 1998 data will be available in May 1999. A nurse executive survey undertaken in June 1998, suggested that nursing vacancies had risen to 597.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he is taking to ensure that the Welsh Development Agency supports indigenous Welsh businesses as fully as it supports foreign investors. [66415]

  Mr. Michael
  Yesterday, on 26 January 1999,Official Report, column 172, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence), I announced that I had written to the Chairman of the Welsh Development Agency setting out Strategic Guidance for the period to March 2000. A copy of this letter is available in the Library of the House. I made it clear that the Agency, in addition to attracting foreign direct investment, must concentrate on supporting new businesses and encouraging small businesses to grow in all parts of Wales.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Schools (Funding)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the funding for schools in Wales for 1999–2000. [66279]

  Mr. Hain
  We have allocated an additional £70 million for education in 1999–2000 and I have made it clear that the bulk of this money should go into delegated school budgets to support teachers and promote higher standards in the classroom.

  An extra £13 million for capital works at local authority schools is available in 1999–2000. This on top of capital provision for local authorities through Basic Credit Approvals (BCAs). The notional provision for education BCAs is £42.939m.

  Further announcements covering the Grants for Education Support and Training (GEST) programme and for infant class size reduction will be made shortly.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Quangos
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many quango posts in Wales have become vacant since May 1997; in which newspapers advertisements for these posts have been published; and which of these posts were filled without having been publicly advertised. [67272]

  Mr. Michael
  Seventy one Public Appointment vacancies in NDPBs in Wales have arisen. Of these;Sixty vacancies have been advertised in local and national press.
  Three vacancies were not filled due to merger or abolition of the body or transfer of powers, these being one member position on the Welsh Health Common Services Agency, one member position on the Health Promotion Authority for Wales and one member position on the Development Board for Rural Wales.
  One member vacancy on the Ancient Monuments Board was not advertised as the appointment is made from a nominated source as laid down in statute.
  Two member vacancies on the Tai Cymru Board falling in May 1997 were not advertised because the appointments process began under the previous administration. The board has now ceased to exist.
  The appointments process has yet to begin for the five remaining vacancies. These are one member position on the Court and Council of the Museum and Galleries of Wales, one member position on the Arts Council for Wales, one member position on the Sports Council for Wales, one member position on the Gwent Agriculture Wages Committee and one member position on the Gwynedd Agriculture Wages Committee.

  The local and national press used to advertise these vacancies in varying combinations were: the Western Mail, the Liverpool Daily Post, The Guardian, The Times, The Times Educational Supplement, The Times Higher Education Supplement, The Sunday Times, "Golwg", "Y Cymro", Water Bulletin and the Library Association Record.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated cost, in each of the next three financial years, of the recently announced inducement
  277
  payments for students prepared to undertake teacher training courses; if these payments are to be made to students regardless of whether they are undertaking such courses in Wales or elsewhere; and if such grants will be made by his Department to students from outside Wales wishing to undertake such courses at colleges in Wales. [67104]

  Mr. Hain
  Payments of the bursaries for mathematics and science students will be made to those who undertake a PGCE course in mathematics or science in Wales, starting in September 1999. It will be paid as £2,500 during the PGCE course, and £2,500 to trainees entering the teaching profession. The full payment of the bursary will therefore be conditional on those students subsequently entering teaching within those subjects.

  It is estimated that based on current intake targets the scheme in Wales could cost £775,000 per annum in 1999–2000 and the following two financial years. Payments will be made to all students undertaking courses in Wales; similarly, payments will be made by the Department for Education and Employment to all students undertaking courses in England. The precise mechanism for making the payments will be finalised in the next few months.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Government Residential Property
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how his Department has performed against last year's targets for reducing empty Government residential property; and what new targets have been set for 1998–99. [68345]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  I am pleased to announce that the Welsh Office was largely successful in meeting the target set for disposal of empty government homes in 1997–98.

  We are continuing to set challenging targets for disposal or bringing back into use those properties which become empty and hope to be able to maintain our success over the coming year.

  Details of achievements against targets for 1997–98 and new targets for 1998–99 are set as follows.

  Empty government residential property

  Number

  Welsh Office achievements 1997–98

  Total stock 1 April 1997

  114

  Empty stock 1 April 1997

  33

  1997–98 Target for disposal or bringing back into use

  33

  Achievement against target

  28

  Welsh Office targets 1998–99

  Total stock 1 April 1998

  136

  Empty stock 1 April 1998

  117

  Target for disposal or bringing back into use

  9

  1 Includes 8 properties vandalised/derelict held for future road schemes and considered unsuitable for bringing back into use

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Concessionary Travel (Blind and Visually Impaired)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will introduce regulations to require local authorities in Wales to provide a mandatory concessionary travel scheme for blind and visually impaired people. [67448]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Under the Transport Act 1985 local authorities may provide travel concessions for people who are blind or partially sighted, although there is no requirement to do so. My priority with concessionary fares is to ensure that from April all authorities provide schemes for pensioners which meet the minimum standard of a £5 bus pass and half-fares, and then to move to free bus travel for pensioners over the next two to three years. This will of course benefit many blind and visually impaired people.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Tir Gofal Agri-environmental Scheme
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received since the meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee on 16 December 1998 concerning the Tir Gofal agri-environmental scheme. [66269]

  Mr. Michael
  No representations have been received about Tir Gofal since the Welsh Grand Committee met on 16 December 1998.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

  Environmental Projects
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the funding of projects to improve the environment of Wales for 1999–2000. [66277]

  Mr. Michael
  I have announced that I will be making provision of £12.4 million for Tir Gofal over the next three years. Continuing support will be available from the Environment Wales grant scheme, CCW and others such as the WDA.

  I will be making an announcement shortly about the £3 million I have earmarked for an Environment Development Fund. I thank my hon. Friend for her interest.

  In future this will become the responsibility of the National Assembly.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Aerosol Sprays
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what mechanisms exist to assess the toxicity of, and to approve the use of, the ingredients of aerosol spray products used in the domestic environment. [67910]

  Dr. Howells
  A number of chemicals are banned from use in consumer products by Directives agreed by all European Union Member States. Chemicals prohibited under the 'Classification, Packaging And Labelling Dangerous Substances Directive 67/548/EEC' and the
  279
  'Restrictions On the Marketing And Use Of Certain Dangerous Substances And Preparations Directive 76/769/EEC', are not available for use by aerosol, or other manufacturers. Dangerous chemicals are regularly reviewed under these Directives. The safety of chemicals not prohibited under these Directives and intended for use in domestic products, including aerosols, is regulated by the Chemicals (Hazard Information And Packaging For Supply) Regulations 1994 as amended.

  These Regulations require, amongst other things, that manufacturers must assess a chemical product for its health effects (toxicity, irritancy etc.). If dangerous the product must then be labelled with a warning symbol and with phrases indicating the dangers. The particular chemical(s) which cause the product to be classified must also be named on the label. The Regulations also require that all potentially dangerous chemicals supplied to the public must be in packaging which is properly labelled and contains warnings about the potential hazards and giving brief advice on suitable precautions.

  Casalee
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what investigations Her Majesty's Government have carried out into the affairs of Casalee; [65127]

  (2) what dealings representatives of Her Majesty's Government have had with Casalee. [65128]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: As far as the DTI is concerned, a search of the most potentially relevant sources of information has produced no evidence of any DTI dealings with—or investigations into the affairs of Casalee.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the role of Her Majesty's Government official was in(a) sponsoring and (b) participating in discussions between Mr. John Bredenkamp and Brigadier Julius in connection with the affairs of (i) Allivane and (ii) Casalee. [65129]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: As far as the DTI is concerned, a search of the most potentially relevant sources of information has produced no evidence of any role played by DTI officials in these matters.

  Stephen Kock
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) in what role Mr. Stephen Kock represented Her Majesty's Government in his dealings with Mr. Gerald Bull and the Space Research Corporation; [65149]

  (2) in what role Mr. Stephen Kock represented Her Majesty's Government when advising Societe Generale de Belge, GECHEM and Warburgs during the negotiations by Astra to purchase PRB. [65150]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: As far as the DTI is concerned, I am not aware that Mr. Kock has ever represented the Department.
  280
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which civil servants in his Department met Mr. Stephen Kock to discuss matters relating to defence contracts with Malaysia in the period from January 1985 to the end of December 1988. [65138]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: A search of the most potentially relevant sources of information has produced no evidence of any such meetings between DTI officials and Mr. Kock.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions took place between his Department's officials and representatives of the Scott inquiry on the advisability of calling upon Mr. Stephen Kock to give evidence to that inquiry(a) before, (b) during and (c) after the inquiry. [65131]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: All issues relating to whom to call to give evidence to the Scott inquiry were solely a matter for Sir Richard Scott and his inquiry team.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions have taken place since 1992 between representatives of Her Majesty's Government and Mr. Stephen Kock over the dealings of Messrs Allivane in defence contracting between 1989 and 1992. [65124]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: As far as the DTI is concerned, a search of the potentially most relevant sources of information has produced no evidence of any DTI involvement in such discussions.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what role was played by his Department in sponsoring dealings in defence matters between Mr. Stephen Kock and Sir Thomas Legg. [65142]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: I am not aware of any role played by the DTI in relation to dealings in defence matters between Mr. Stephen Kock and Sir Thomas Legg.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which Government-sponsored delegations to Russia between 1990 and 1995 included Mr. Stephen Kock. [65157]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: I am not aware of any Government-sponsored delegations to Russia between 1990 and 1995 which included Mr. Kock.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what role has been played by Mr. Stephen Kock in conjunction with representatives of Her Majesty's Government in arranging, promoting or negotiating arms supply to China. [65139]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: As far as the DTI is concerned, a search of the most potentially relevant sources of information has produced no evidence of any collaboration between Mr. Stephen Kock and the DTI in arranging, promoting or negotiating arms supply to China.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in what role Mr. Stephen Kock represented Her Majesty's Government when he negotiated credit for Iraq. [65151]
  281
  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: Mr. Kock did not represent the Export Credits Guarantee Department when credit facilities were negotiated for Iraq.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what role was played by his Department in sponsoring dealings on defence contracting matters between Mr. Stephen Kock, Mr. Roy Barber and Mr. Dennis Robertson of Stoy Hayward. [65141]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: A search of the most potentially relevant sources of information has produced no evidence of a role played by the DTI in any such matters.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consideration was made by his Department's inspectors of the advisability of bringing legal proceedings against Mr. Stephen Kock as a director of Astra. [65132]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: The Companies Act inspectors were appointed to investigate and report on the affairs of Astra and in particular the circumstances surrounding the acquisition of a Belgian company, PRB. However, when asked for their views on directors disqualification, the inspectors did not identify Stephen Kock as a candidate for such proceedings.

  Companies House
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his estimate of the increased income which will accrue to Companies House in 1999–2000 as a result of proposed changes to the level of fees to take effect on 1 March 1999. [67913]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: The increased income expected in 1999–2000 as a result of proposed changes to fees from 1 March 1999 is approximately £2 million. This figure includes both the direct effect of changed fees and the forecast impact on sales revenue as volumes adjust to changed fees and other market-place parameters.

  End-of-life Vehicles
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what is his Department's current estimate of the cost of implementation of the draft EC Directive on end-of-life vehicles; [67341]

  (2) if he will publish the results of the consultation exercise by his Department to assess the implications of the draft EC Directive on end-of-life vehicles. [67342]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government estimate that the cost of implementing this Directive will be £312 million per annum in 2005 and £388 million per annum in 2015. My Department submitted an Explanatory Memorandum and Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) on the Directive to the European Scrutiny Committee in December 1998, and the RIA was then updated in January 1999. These documents summarise the results of our consultation exercise and give further details on the costs and benefits of this Directive. Copies of the Explanatory Memorandum and the RIA are available from the Vote Office, and copies of the updated RIA have been placed in the Library of the House.
  282
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the effect of the End of Vehicle Life directive on vintage and classic cars; what is his Department's current cost compliance assessment; what voting arrangements apply to the directive; and if he will make a statement. [67392]

  Dr. Howells
  Vintage and classic vehicles will only be affected by this Directive if they become 'waste' as defined under existing legislation—in other words, when the owners have decided to discard them. My Department submitted an Explanatory Memorandum and Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) on this Directive to the European Scrutiny Committee in December 1998, and the RIA was then updated in January 1999. Copies of the Explanatory Memorandum and RIA are available from the Vote Office, and copies of the updated RIA have been placed in the Libraries of the House. This Directive is a qualified majority voting Directive made under Article 130s(1) of the Treaty of Rome. It has still to be finalised and decisions on the Council's Common Position are not expected until the next Environment Council in March.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he plans to implement the European Union Directive on End-of-Life Vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [67154]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: This Directive has still to be finalised. Decisions on the Council's Common Position will not be taken until the next Environment Council in March, and the Directive is not presently expected to come into force until the year 2000. We would then envisage that Member States would be given an appropriate period in which to implement the Directive.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of(a) chairmen and (b) wing members of industrial tribunals are women. [67742]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Act 1998 renamed industrial tribunals as employment tribunals from 1 August 1998.

  The current percentage of women who are (a) employment tribunal chairmen (including the Presidents) is 15.4 per cent. and (b) lay members is 29.5 per cent.

  British Aviation
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of British aviation. [66930]

  Mr. Battle
  The Prime Minister's statement with the Heads of Government of France and Germany of December 1997 made it clear that there is an urgent need to restructure the aerospace and defence industries in Europe, if our companies are to continue to compete successfully in world markets. That remains the case. However, as Ministers have made clear, it is for industry to make specific restructuring proposals.

  Any proposed merger would be considered by the relevant competition authorities. Each case would be considered on its own merits.

  Tourism
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of loans under the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme have been in the leisure, hospitality and tourism sectors; and what is the total value of such loans. [67400]

  Mr. Wills
  Loans under the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme are recorded under the Central Statistical Office's Standard Industrial Classification of economic activities. Leisure, hospitality and tourism are not recognised as separate sectors within this classification.

  Businesses in these areas are distributed within a range of industrial sectors and a manual collection of the data would incur disproportionate costs.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the percentage of electrical goods currently on sale in the United Kingdom which are not millennium compliant; what steps he is taking to ensure that goods which are not millennium compliant are clearly marked as such; and if he will make a statement. [66645]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 20 January 1999]: Only a small percentage of electrical goods on sale in the United Kingdom depend on date changes to function correctly. The 'Millennium Bug Homecheck!' brochure available from Action 2000 and major high street retailers contains a list of domestic electrical and transport equipment not affected by the date change and a list of those which are, mainly home computers, video recorders, burglar alarms, fax machines, digital cameras, answerphones, camcorders, videophones and watches. The Government have sought to make sure that suppliers of electrical goods are fully aware of their responsibilities for ensuring compliance of any such goods on sale that are affected by the date change. Many of the large retailers have tested their electrical goods and given written guarantees that they are millennium compliant.

  The application of false or misleading statements to products is a criminal offence under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. Any goods falsely described as millennium compliant would be subject to controls which already exist.

  Regional Aid
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give details of the proportion of EU structural funding proposed for rural areas under the European guidelines on regional aid published in March 1998. [66142]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: The Commission's draft regulation for the Structural and Cohesion Funds for post 1999 propose that rural areas could be eligible for funding under Objectives 1, 2 and 3. There is also a proposal for a Community Initiative for rural development. There are no details of proportions of funding available to rural or any other areas at a national level.
  284
  The Guidelines on Regional Aid, published by the Commission in March 1998, cover the review of Assisted Areas which is the subject of a separate exercise. No decisions have been yet made on areas which might be eligible after 1 January 2000.

  Unsolicited Faxes
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he plans to take to regulate the unsolicited sending of facsimile messages. [67456]

  Mr. Wills
  Further to my predecessor' s written answer on 16 November 1998,Official Report, column 434, the Government laid the Telecommunications (Data Protection and Privacy) (Direct Marketing) Regulations 1998 before Parliament on 17 December 1998. These Regulations will come into force on 1 May 1999.

  The Regulations will prohibit the sending of unsolicited direct marketing faxes to private individuals and sole traders in the UK, as well as to partnerships in England and Wales. The Regulations also establish an "opt-out" scheme for corporate subscribers who do not wish to receive such faxes. The Office of Telecommunications (OFTEL) is responsible for setting up the opt-out scheme. Details of how to register will be publicised in due course.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Al Shifa Factory, Khartoum
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response Her Majesty's Government gave to the letter of the Sudanese Minister of Foreign Affairs of 27 October 1998 asking for clarification of his comments, made on 23 October, to the effect that Her Majesty's Government had independent evidence that the Al Shifa factory in Khartoum was making chemical or biological weapons before the United States air strike. [67623]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did not make the comments to which my hon. Friend refers.

  Departmental Papers (Access for Visually Impaired)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for departmental(a) White and (b) Green Papers to be made available on floppy disk format in a form which facilitates access for the visually impaired. [67839]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Under current publishing arrangements FCO would make any White or Green papers available on its Web site—www.fco.gov.uk. Standard Web browsing software allows documents to be viewed online in large fonts, or downloaded for use in specialised computer systems for the visually impaired. There are no plans to supplement this by floppy disk distribution.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list by title the publications produced by his Department since 1 February 1998. [67385]
  285
  Mr. Fatchett
  A list of departmental publications from February to December 1998 has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Departmental Recruits (Human Rights Course)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the(a) instructors, (b) location and (c) subjects concerned in the one day human rights course for new Foreign Office recruits. [67368]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Human rights training courses are held in the FCO and are organised by the Human Rights Policy Department. They cover international law and institutions, UK policy, projects and case studies, as well as presentations by NGOs. In human rights training courses over the last six months, presentations have been given by Amnesty International; Save the Children Fund; Article 19; Penal Reform International; Medical Foundation for the Victims of Torture; and Minority Rights Group.

  Joint Consultative Committee
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with Liberal Democrat Members using the Joint Consultative Committee mechanism. [67056]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 25 January 1999]: I have attended several meetings of the Joint Consultative Committee since its inception.

  I have also had one bilateral meeting with the Liberal Democrat spokesman on foreign affairs and defence.

  Biological Weapons Convention
  Ms McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the Government will promote proposals for a strengthened Biological Weapons Convention by the year 2000 at the forthcoming negotiations in Geneva. [67158]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Strengthening the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) is a key Government objective in the field of arms control. The UK is playing a leading role in the negotiations on a legally-binding Protocol where we are chairing the sessions on compliance measures. This section will be at the heart of the future verification regime. With a total of 16 weeks of negotiations in 1999, the UK will be working closely with its EU partners, and all other countries actively seeking completion of a Protocol during 2000. Consistent with the importance we attach to this work, the UK has offered to host the Signing Ceremony of the Protocol in London.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times he or his junior ministers have paid official visits to(a) the Czech Republic, (b) Poland, (c) Hungary, (d) Slovenia, (e) Estonia and (f) Cyprus since May 1997; and what was the purpose of each visit. [67699]
  286
  Ms Quin
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary undertook visits to the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary in November 1997 and to Slovenia in November 1998.

  My predecessor as Minister of State for Europe, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), also undertook the following visits:
  Slovenia—October 1997
  Estonia—November 1997
  Poland—April 1998
  Czech Republic—April 1998.

  The purpose of each visit was to discuss matters of bilateral interest.

  No FCO Ministerial visits have been made to Cyprus since 1 May 1997.

  European Young Consumer Competition
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the running of the fifth European Young Consumer Competition, on the Single Currency, in the United Kingdom. [67463]

  Dr. Howells
  I have been asked to reply.

  I fully support the competition's objective of encouraging young people to become more enlightened consumers and communicators so that they can take full advantage of the benefits of the Single Market. That said, involvement in the competition is a matter for individual schools and teachers to consider.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Support
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate on the basis of current policy how many(a) men and (b) women, aged (i) 65 to 69, (ii) 70 to 79 and (iii) 80 years or above in 2050, will receive income support by that date. [65425]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested is not available. Such information as is available is as follows.

  Projections forward to the year 2050 are subject to a high degree of uncertainty, given the number of assumptions that need to be made in making these estimates. Estimates of the number of pensioners receiving Income Support in 2050 have been made by extrapolating results from the PENSIM model. These estimates can only give a broad indication of the likely order of magnitude of figures so far into the future, and are heavily rounded. Estimates of sub-groups of this caseload are not available.

  On the basis of existing policies, estimates suggest that 1 in 3 (3.5 million) pensioners in 2050 could rely on Income Support. Even if no behavioural changes are assumed, our proposals in our new insurance contract for pensions will mean that these estimates are reduced to approximately 1 in 4 (2.5 million) pensioners receiving income from the Minimum Income Guarantee in 2050, and a lower proportion in years after 2050.
  287
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how much it would cost to raise the upper threshold of income support for those in residential or nursing care to £40,000 with a lower limit of(a) £10,000, (b) £20,000, (c) £30,000 and (d) no lower limit; [67242]

  (2) how much it would cost to raise the upper threshold of income support for those in residential or nursing care to £50,000 with a lower limit of (a) £10,000, (b) £20,000, (c) £30,000, (d) £40,000 and (e) no lower limit; [67243]

  (3) how much it would cost to raise the upper threshold of income support for those in residential or nursing care to £60,000 with a lower limit of (a) £10,000, (b) £20,000, (c) £30,000, (d) £40,000, (e) £50,000 and (f) no lower limit; [67244]

  (4) how much it would cost to raise the upper threshold of income support for those in residential or nursing care to £70,000 with a lower limit of (a) £10,000, (b) £20,000, (c) £30,000, (d) £40,000, (e) £50,000, (f) £60,000 and (g) no lower limit. [67245]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Estimated costs to income support of changes to the capital limits for residential care

  £ million

  Upper limit £40k

  Upper limit £50k

  Upper limit £60k

  Upper limit £70k

  Lower limit—£ 10k

  25

  25

  25

  25

  Lower limit—£20k

  50

  50

  75

  75

  Lower limit—£30k

  50

  75

  100

  100

  Lower limit—£40k

  —

  100

  125

  125

  Lower limit—£50k

  —

  —

  150

  175

  Lower limit—£60k

  —

  —

  —

  200

  Lower limit—none

  75

  125

  175

  200

  Notes:

  1. The estimates of the costs to income support of raising the capital limits for residential care should be regarded as orders of magnitude only. They are for Great Britain at 1997–98 prices, rounded to the nearest £25 million. The analysis uses information from the 1996–97 Family Resources Survey on the income and assets of single very elderly people as a proxy for information on the income and assets of residents.

  2. The estimates relate to the impact on income support expenditure only—not to any linked changes that might occur to capital limits for local support in residential care.

  3. If they were matched in this way, the majority of the costs of raising the capital limits for residential care would fall to local authority social services rather than income support and have significant implications for local authority charging.

  4. A minority of the privately funded residents who float on to income support would be eligible for the higher preserved rights rates, by virtue of admission before April 1993.

  5. The estimates assume for illustrative purposes that one in eight would receive the higher rates of income support. In practice the proportion would depend on the date of implementation of the raised capital limits.

  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what provisions are to be made to ensure that recipients of the proposed higher level of severe disablement allowance will not be worse off as a result of paying non-dependent deductions as a consequence of losing their entitlement to income support. [66969]

  Mr. Bayley
  At present people severely disabled from birth or at an early age who are unable to work cannot earn the right to Incapacity Benefit. Under the proposals 288
  for reform of Severe Disablement Allowance, set out in the Consultation Paper "Support for Disabled People", people who become disabled early in life and claim benefit before the age of 20 will be entitled to Incapacity Benefit without having to satisfy the contribution conditions.

  Where a person who is claiming Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit, Income Support Mortgage Interest or Jobseeker' s Allowance Mortgage Interest has a nondependent adult living in their household, a deduction is normally made from their relevant benefit in respect of that non-dependant to reflect a reasonable contribution towards household costs. These deductions are made at standard rates according to the non-dependant's age and circumstances. No special provisions apply to non-dependants who are in receipt of Incapacity Benefit. It is, of course, for the individuals concerned to decide how much, if anything, a non-dependant actually contributes.

  People who become entitled to Incapacity Benefit under the new proposals will not be worse off as a result of paying an amount equivalent to non-dependent deductions as a consequence of losing their entitlement to Income Support.

  As an example:
  A single man aged 19 with severe learning difficulties lives with his parents who are claiming Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. As he currently receives Severe Disablement Allowance and Income Support of £61.30 a week no non-dependent deduction is made from his parents' Housing Benefit. Under our new proposals, he will receive Incapacity Benefit of £78.30 a week (at current rates) after a year on benefit which is £17.00 a week more than he currently gets. His parents will have a non-dependent deduction of £7.00 a week made from their Housing Benefit and a further deduction of £2.00 a week from their Council Tax Benefit. In this particular example, even if the young person contributes £9.00 a week towards his parents' household expenses he will still be better off by £8.00 a week.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate how much of the annual cost of implementing the proposed changes to severe disablement allowance will be offset as a result of taking claimants out of income support in respect of(a) nondependent deductions for claimants living with recipients of housing benefit, council tax benefit or housing costs allowance (b) claimants no longer receiving free prescriptions, dental or optical services and (c) claimants no longer being able to access Social Fund community care grants. [66997]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information on which to base an estimate is not available.

  Industrial Injury Benefit
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to extend industrial injury benefit to the self-employed; and if he will make a statement. [67122]

  Mr. Bayley
  There are no current plans to extend Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit to the self-employed. I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) on 20 January 1999,Official Report, column 474.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate is provided by his Department's Family Resources Survey of the number of non-taxpaying pensioners who have some dividend income and who have capital in excess of £8,000. [67001]

  Mr. Timms
  The number of non-taxpaying pensioner benefit units who have some dividend income and capital in excess of £8,000 for 1998–99 is 240,000.

  Notes:

  1. The estimate is rounded to the nearest 10,000 pensioner benefit units, although it is not necessarily accurate to that degree.

  2. The estimate should be treated with caution since taxpaying status is not directly measured by the Family Resources Survey, but has been modelled to the 1998–99 tax system based on reported income, and uprated to 1998–99 levels.

  3. Pensioner benefit units are defined as single people over State pension age (men aged 65 and over, women aged 60 and over) and couples (married or cohabiting) where at least one partner is above State pension age.

  4. Non-taxpaying pensioner benefit units are defined as those where no individual in the benefit unit is liable to tax.

  5. Dividend income is defined as dividends or interest received from stocks, shares, bonds, debentures, other securities, unit trusts, investment trusts, Personal Equity Plans (PEPs) and government gilt-edged stock.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 1995–96.

  Benefits
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion and what amount of the total welfare benefit bill for the past five years has been paid as(a) contributory and (b) non-contributory benefit. [67732]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the tables.

  Social Security benefits expenditure

  £ billion

  Year

  Contributory benefits

  Non-contributory benefits

  Total benefits expenditure

  1993–94

  39.5

  42.9

  82.4

  1994–95

  39.8

  45.0

  84.8

  1995–96

  40.7

  48.1

  88.8

  1996–97

  42.2

  50.1

  92.3

  1997–98

  43.2

  50.5

  93.7

  Contributory and non-contributory benefits as a percentage of Social Security

  Percentage

  Year

  Contributory benefits

  Non contributory

  1993–94

  48.0

  52.0

  1994–95

  46.9

  53.1

  1995–96

  45.9

  54.1

  1996–97

  45.7

  54.3

  1997–98

  46.1

  53.9

  Notes:

  1. The figures for 1997–98 are consistent with those published in the Pre-Budget Report of November 1998. Figures for the earlier years are derived from the Departmental Report 1998 (Cm 3913).

  2. Social Security Benefits expenditure includes additional local authority expenditure on Housing, Community Charge and Council Tax Benefits.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the total value of moneys collected from absent parents contributions to maintenance from prescribed social security benefits which have been retained by the Child Support Agency to cover the cost of assessment and collection fees in each year since the Child Support Agency was established; [66479]

  (2) what is the average time taken to recognise failure by a Child Support Agency enforcement officer to obtain payment of assessment from an absent parent and to issue court proceedings to recover outstanding arrears and establish regular payments. [66480]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Mr. Roy Beggs, dated 26 January 1999:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the collection of fees and enforcement in relation to child support.
  As there are elements of child support administration which cross the boundaries between the Northern Ireland Child Support Agency and the Great British Child Support Agency I have consulted with Mr. Gerry Keenan, the Chief Executive for the Child Support Agency (NI) and provided you with information on both Agencies. I am not able to provide all of the information in the precise format that you have requested, but have provided as much as is available.
  The Child Support Agency (GB) is divided into 6 front line Business Units; an application to maintenance is dealt with by the Business Unit dealing with the geographical area in which the parent with care lives. Where a parent with care resides in Northern Ireland the case is dealt with by the Child Support Agency (NI). Where the parent with care lives in Northern Ireland and the non-resident parent lives in Great Britain the case may be referred to one of the mainland Business Units to carry out a face to face interview or to take enforcement action.
  The Agencies charged fees until April 1995 when following a legislative change the charging of fees was suspended. Clients are liable to pay fees charged between April 1993 and April 1995 and they continue to be collected.
  Fees were charged for both the assessment and collection services, chargeable to both the non-resident parent and the parent with care. Various categories of non-resident parents and parents with care were exempt from the payment of fees.
  Contributions to maintenance are only collected from Income Support and Job Seekers Allowance (Income Based—introduced in October 1996); non-resident parents in receipt of Income Support were exempt from paying fees therefore neither the Child Support Agency (GB) or the Child Support Agency (NI) retain contributions to maintenance to cover the cost of fees.
  Where arrears of maintenance arise, the Agencies take a variety of actions to secure payments. If the non-resident parent cannot pay the full amount straightaway, we try to reach an agreement with them to pay the arrears in instalments, which is added to their weekly maintenance assessment amount.
  If a non-resident parent does not pay the agreed amount at the right time an Arrears Notice is sent; we will also try to contact the non-resident parent by telephone. If we reach an agreement, we would not ask the non-resident parent to pay more than 33% of their net income for child maintenance and arrears as long as they keep to the agreement. If a non-resident parent does not make or keep an agreement we can take up to 40% of their net income; if the non-resident parent is employed we will consider imposing a Deduction from Earnings Order. When a Deduction from Earnings Order is not suitable, for example where the non-resident parent is self employed and all voluntary methods have failed we then

  291
  consider legal action through the courts to secure payments of child maintenance. Very often the threat of such action is enough to ensure compliance.
  Throughout the debt management and enforcement process, non-resident parents are given every opportunity to make a voluntary arrangement to pay off their child maintenance debt. The majority do agree to make an arrangement and only in a very small minority of cases is legal action actually taken.
  The time taken between a breakdown in maintenance payments and taking legal proceedings is not measured. During 1997/98, the number of cases that were referred to Child Support Agency (GB) enforcement teams for litigation action was 17,833; it was only necessary to apply for 2,498 liability orders of which 1,353 were granted. In the first 9 months of this year the corresponding figures are 8,265, 2,911 and 1,424 respectively.
  The Child Support Agency (GB) measures its performance in securing maintenance against the target set by the Secretary of State; the target during 1997/98 was for £500 million of child maintenance to be collected or arranged for direct payment from the non-resident parent to the parent with care. The total achieved was £541 million—the portion that was collected by the Agency was £344 million.
  The Child Support Agency (NI) measures its performance in securing maintenance against the target set by the Minister for Northern Ireland; the target during 1997/98 was for £11.2 million of child maintenance to be collected or arranged for direct payment from the non-resident parent to the parent with care. The total achieved was £12.3 million—the portion that was collected by the Agency was £7.6 million.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Back to Work Bonus
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if there is a target time limit for the payment of the Back to Work Bonus. [66824]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of the Back To Work Bonus is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, Peter Mathison. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Miss Geraldine Smith, dated 26 January 1999:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if there is a target time limit for the payment of the Back To Work Bonus (BTWB).
  The Back To Work Bonus scheme was implemented by the Benefits Agency with the introduction of Jobseeker's Allowance. There is an internal target relating to the timing of the payment of the BTWB. We aim to pay 65 per cent. of claims in 2 days and 95 per cent. in 10 days. However the emphasis is on the accuracy of payments.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

TREASURY

  Local Deprivation Indicators
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which measures of local deprivation his Department and its agencies use in considering allocation of funds to local projects. [66722]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Departments for which the Chancellor is responsible are not in general involved in allocating funds to local projects.

  Exceptions to this are the funds allocated through the Invest to Save Budget and the Capital Modernisation Fund, announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review. These
  292
  funds are allocated by the Treasury on a competitive basis to projects proposed by departments, taking account of a range of published criteria. In addition, the Treasury Private Finance Initiative (PFI) Taskforce has a leading role in the Project Review Group that allocates support for local authority PFI projects.

  In each case, local deprivation is taken into account for appropriate types of project, but no specific measure of local deprivation is used.

  Building Societies
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his Department's responsibilities in relation to building societies; and which Ministers have dealt with those responsibilities during the period since 1 May 1997. [67330]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Treasury is responsible for policy relating to the Building Societies Acts. I and my predecessor as Economic Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), have dealt with this area since May 1997. Prudential supervision of societies is a matter for the Building Societies Commission.

  National Insurance Fund
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the size of the Treasury grant paid to the National Insurance Fund in each of the last five years. [67729]

  Mr. Timms
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information is in the table.

  Treasury grant payments into the National Insurance Fund 1993–94 to 1997–98

  £ million

  Year

  Amount

  1993–94

  7,589

  1994–95

  6,280

  1995–96

  3,575

  1996–97

  1,900

  1997–98

  940

  Source:

  Government Actuary Reports on the drafts of the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order and the Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Fund Payments) Order 1994 (Cm 2445), 1995 (Cm 2747), 1996 (Cm 3149), 1997 (Cm 3547), 1998 (Cm 3860).

  Estonia
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the Estonian contribution for participation in the(a) Kaleidoscope, (b) Ariane and (c) Raphael Programmes; what was the cost of negotiating the level of the contribution; and if he will make a statement on the nature of United Kingdom participation in these negotiations. [66348]

  Janet Anderson
  I have been asked to reply.

  I welcome the fact that Estonia will be participating in the EU' s cultural funding programmes for 1999 as part of its preparations for EU membership. Participation in these, and other, programmes is now open to the candidate countries in the context of the pre-accession strategy.
  293
  The precise level of Estonia's contribution for participation will be determined by the European Commission in consultation with the relevant programme management committees.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Local Management of Schools
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much was spent per student out of the Local Management of Schools allocations for primary and secondary students up to 16 years in each local education authority in the years(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99. [67298]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I have placed in the Library a table which gives, for each local education authority in England, for 1997–98 and 1998–99, the average of the budget share per pupil separately for primary, and for all pupils counted as being in secondary schools.

  Education Action Zones
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list those education action zones which have no school currently or previously in special measures. [67293]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  As of 20 January 1999, seven Education Action Zones have no school currently or previously in special measures. These are:

  Birmingham (Aston Nechells)

  Hereford

  Middlesbrough

  New Addington

  Newcastle

  North Somerset

  Leigh (Wigan).

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each education action zone the resources provided from other Government initiatives. [67290]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This information is not yet available. It will be provided in the audited financial statements which each zone is required to provide by the end of the year.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the total amount spent by his Department on central administration of education action zones; and what is this amount as a proportion of the total departmental expenditure on education action zones. [67292]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The running cost of the central administration team is budgeted at £500,000 for the financial year 1998–99. This represents 4 per cent. of the total Departmental programme budget over the same period for EAZs.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which of the first round of 25 education action zones have applied to vary any of the details of their original bids; and if he will set out the details of such variations. [67469]
  294
  Ms Estelle Morris
  None so far. The detailed action plans of each EAZ must be submitted to the Secretary of State by 31 March 1999.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what each education action zone is proposing to spend as a proportion of its total budget on(a) administration, (b) project co-ordination and management not included in (a) and (c) salaries not included in (a) or (b). [67291]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This information is not currently available. It will be included in the audited financial statement which each zone must produce by the end of the year.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each education action zone the amount of private sector contribution that has been given in(a) cash and (b) kind in each case, broken down (b) by type of help provided. [67294]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Each of the first 25 Education Action Zones must raise £250,000 from the private sector in the first year, whether in cash or kind. They are well on the way to achieving this. I will publish a complete set of information as soon as it is available.

  Literacy Hour
  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) carried out on the effect of the literacy hour on reading standards amongst primary school pupils. [66978]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Recently published evaluations of the pilot National Literacy Project, by OFSTED and the NFER, show that the Literacy Hour is effective in raising standards. Children's reading test scores improved by about 8 to 12 months above what would normally be expected, in less than two years.

  Schools began implementing the National Literacy Strategy in September 1998. The DfEE's formal evaluation of the strategy consists of visits by OFSTED to a representative national sample of schools, literacy tests developed by QCA for pupils attending these schools, and an overview evaluation by an international team led by Michael Fullan of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto.

  Millennium Volunteers Programme
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will make a statement on the millennium volunteers programme; [67236]

  (2) what plans he has to extend the millennium volunteers scheme to Leicester; [67237]

  (3) if he will list the (a) areas and (b) projects which have been involved in the millennium volunteers programme to date. [67238]

  Ms Hodge
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I launched Millennium Volunteers on 21 January. We announced that the programme will have a budget of £47.75 million; £12.75 from the windfall levy and an additional £35 million for the period 1999–2000 to
  295
  2001–02 which has been secured through the Comprehensive Spending Review. We have also published guidance inviting organisations to bid for funds to run Millennium Volunteers in England. It will be open to organisations in Leicester to make applications for

  Area

  Organisation

  Contracted/in discussion

  Inner city areas of Bradford and Shipley

  Bradford Council for Voluntary Service

  In discussion

  Cambridge

  Youth Action Cambridge

  Contracted

  Cambridgeshire

  Cambridgeshire Association of Youth Clubs

  Contracted

  Exeter

  British Trust for Conservation Volunteers

  Contracted

  Herefordshire

  Hereford and Worcester Rural Community Council

  Contracted

  Liverpool

  John Moores University

  Contracted

  London Borough of Southwark

  Community Service Volunteers

  Contracted

  London Borough of Tower Hamlets

  Voluntary Action Tower Hamlets

  Contracted

  Greater Manchester

  Prince's Trust Volunteers

  Contracted

  Newcastle

  The National Trust

  Contracted

  Nottingham

  City of Nottingham

  Contracted

  Sunderland

  Community Service Volunteers

  Contracted

  Hastings and Rother

  Sussex Police

  In discussion

  University Entrants
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what were the proportions of pupils from(a) comprehensive and (b) private schools who went on to university education in each of the last four years. [67141]

  Mr. Mudie
  [holding answer 25 January 1999]: The information is not available in the form requested. The table gives the prior educational establishment of students who accepted full-time and sandwich undergraduate places through the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS).

  Students accepting places in higher education through UCAS by previous education establishment

  Year of entry

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Previous establishment

  Independent

  29,441

  30,006

  31,342

  30,602

  Maintained

  90,074

  94,049

  100,226

  103,310

  Other/not known

  146,021

  144,234

  171,750

  164,308

  Total

  265,536

  268,289

  303,318

  298,220

  As percentage of total acceptances

  Independent

  11

  11

  10

  10

  Maintained

  34

  35

  33

  35

  Other/not known

  55

  54

  57

  55

  New Deal (Disabled People)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people have found work as a result of the New Deal for the Disabled. [67259]

  Ms Hodge
  Early results indicate that so far over 100 people with disabilities have found work as a result of the New Deal for Disabled People.
  296
  funding if they wish to. They are thirteen Millennium Voluntrees demonstration projects; eleven have already contracted with us and we are in discussion with two more. The areas and organizations managing the projects are:

CABINET OFFICE

  Departmental Papers (Access for Visually Impaired)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans he has for departmental(a) White and (b) Green Papers to be made available on floppy disk format in a form which facilitates access for the visually impaired. [67851]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Cabinet Office is about to issue revised guidance to departments on the arrangements for publishing White and Green Papers. This will highlight that, when considering the publishing arrangements for such documents, the information is accessible to people who might otherwise not be able to receive it in printed form. There are a number of options for making such documents available to those who are visually impaired, including braille, large print, audio formats and on floppy disk in plain text format. We will ensure that for all future White and Green Papers produced within the Cabinet Office that, when requested, we will be able to provide floppy disk versions to the visually impaired.

PRIME MINISTER

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will assess the impact of the statement of Archbishop O'Brien of the Archdiocese for US Military Services on moral law on the bombing of Iraq, a copy of which has been sent to him. [67624]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 25 January 1999]: I have read Archbishop O'Brien's statement with interest. I am satisfied that the military action against Iraq was necessary on this occasion, had a sound legal basis and achieved its objectives. I believe the region and the international community is safer as a result.

  Joint Cabinet Consultative Committee
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 20 January 1999,Official Report, columns 484–85, on the review of the work of the JCCC, when he expects the review to be completed. [67685]

  The Prime Minister
  No date has been set for completion of the review.

  European Commission (Censure Vote)
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 20 January 1999,Official Report, columns 907–08, on what basis he stated that half the Tory Group in Europe voted with his party in the censure vote on the European Commission in the European Parliament. [67902]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: On the basis that over half of the European People's Party (the group with which the Conservatives associate themselves) in the European Parliament voted with the Socialist Group against the motion of censure on 14 January.

  Fraud Prosecutions
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government's policy with regard to the prosecution of those who commit business and personal fraud. [67319]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have, for the first time, established overarching aims for the criminal justice system which include reducing crime and the fear of crime, and their social and economic costs. Individual Departments set their own aims and objectives within that framework, and that of the Serious Fraud Office is to contribute to the reduction of fraud and the cost of fraud and the maintenance of confidence in the United Kingdom's business and financial institutions. It seeks to achieve this through the investigation and prosecution of suitable cases as quickly as individual circumstances allow.

  Fraud takes many forms and other specialist agencies (e.g. Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue and the Benefits Agency) as well as the police devote a significant portion of their resources to combating it through investigation and prosecution.

  Ministerial Disputes
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the current procedures for resolving disputes between Ministers in his Government. [67321]

  The Prime Minister
  The Cabinet and its Committees provide a mechanism for reaching agreement between Ministers on issues which cannot otherwise be resolved.

  Engagements
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 27 January. [66296]

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 27 January. [67398]
  298
  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.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Prime Minister how many times he has paid official visits to Cyprus since May 1997; and what was the purpose of each visit. [67702]

  The Prime Minister
  I have not visited Cyprus since 1 May 1997.

  Chequers
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his policy on whom he invites to Chequers for official engagements. [67322]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 30 October 1997,Official Report, column 858.

  Ministerial Conduct
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement on his policy towards Ministers who are found to have misled the public; [67328]

  (2) if he will make a statement on his policy towards Ministers who are found to have misled him. [67329]

  The Prime Minister
  My policy on the conduct of Ministers is set out clearly in the Ministerial Code.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Organic Produce
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the percentage of food consumed in the United Kingdom which is organically grown; and what percentage of this food is grown(a) in the United Kingdom, (b) in the rest of the European Union and (c) in the rest of the world; and if he will make a statement. [67255]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: Sales of organic food accounted for 2 per cent. of UK food sales in 1997, the latest year for which data are available. It is estimated that imported organic produce accounted for around 70 per cent. of sales, of which the majority originated in the European Union.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister recently re-affirmed this Government's support for the organic sector in a speech at the Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester. Funding for research and development is set to increase from £1.5 to £2.1 million in 1999–2000. More resources will be given to the Organic Conversion Information Service and payments to farmers wishing to convert to organic production methods will be almost doubled.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he plans to respond to the
  299
  second report of the House of Lords European Communities Committee on EC Regulations of Genetic Modification in Agriculture [HL11]; and if he will make a statement on measures to improve information on GM food for consumers. [67397]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: The Government will respond to the second report of the House of Lords European Communities Committee on EC Regulations of Genetic Modification in Agriculture within the two months prescribed limit.

  The Government remain committed to providing clear information so that consumers can make an informed choice about genetically modified (GM) foods. EC legislation agreed last year requiring all food containing ingredients derived from GM soya or maize to be clearly labelled sets an important precedent for the labelling of all GM foods.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the maximum detectable percentage of GM material allowed in finished food produced which permits that food to be labelled as free from GMOs. [67590]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: There is no legal requirement for foods containing GM material below a certain limit to be labelled as free from GMOs. However, the EC Regulation on labelling of GM soya and maize (1139/98) does recognise the need to consider a de-minimis threshold to avoid the situation where low levels of accidental mixing would require a consignment otherwise free of GM material to be labelled as genetically modified. The Government will continue to press the European Commission to reach a conclusion on this issue.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what estimate he has made of the percentage of crops under cultivation which are genetically modified; [67589]

  (2) what is the current acreage of GM crops under cultivation. [67596]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: There are currently no GM crops being grown commercially in the UK.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much genetically modified(a) maize, (b) soya and (c) canola was imported for (i) seed, (ii) animal feed and (iii) human consumption in the last year for which figures are available. [67208]

  Mr. Rooker
  Import figures for maize, soya and canola can be found in H.M. Customs and Excise Business Monitors in the Library of the House. They do not, however, contain any separate breakdown for genetically modified crops.

  Individual import consignments of maize, soya and canola may be used for a variety of purposes, including directly as animal feed, for human consumption or for industrial use. For example, when crushing oilseeds for human consumption, by-products can be used for animal feed.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the potential effects of climate change on British agriculture. [67280]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 25 January 1999]: My Ministry has funded a substantial programme of research on Climate Change Impacts on Agriculture, which between 1990 and 1997 cost a total of £4.4 million. This work has provided the basis for a booklet aimed at the agricultural industry, which will be published later this year. The booklet will give an indication of how climatic and market conditions may change, and the areas in which farmers may need to consider adapting their activities, as well as providing practical pointers on how farmers might chose to adapt.

  The Government have recently established the UK Climate Impacts Programme to take a broader, integrated approach to research on the effects of climate change. MAFF is the major funder of a project being developed under the programme to look simultaneously at the effects of climate change on water resources, agriculture, coastal resources and wildlife in two regions, East Anglia and the north-west. MAFF is also funding a study into the timescale of farm level response and adaptation to climate change in England and Wales.

  Trade Balances
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the agricultural and horticultural trade balances(a) in the last year for which figures are available and (b) in the previous five years. [67772]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: The table shows the UK balance of trade for agricultural goods (food, feed and drink) and horticultural products (fruit and vegetables) for each year from 1994 to 1998. The values shown are at 1998 prices (deflated by the Retail Prices Index).

  £million

  Food, feed and drink

  Fruit and vegetables

  1994

  -6,543

  3,444

  1995

  -6,865

  -3,817

  1996

  -8,221

  -4,111

  1997

  -7,494

  -3,747

  1998 (forecast)

  -7,805

  -3,758

  Egg Production (Salmonella)
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of egg production was contaminated with salmonella in the last year for which figures are available.[67608]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 25 January 1999]: A Department of Health funded survey undertaken in 1995–96 indicated that, at retail level, about 1 in 600 UK-produced eggs (0.17 per cent.) were contaminated with salmonella.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what procedures his Department has for monitoring the use of pesticides in food produce entering the UK. [67554]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 25 January 1999]: The Government run a surveillance programme for the presence of pesticide residues in food. This is overseen by the Working Party on Pesticide Residues. Around 2,000 to 3,000 samples of both UK produced and imported produce are analysed for a wide range of pesticides. The results of this analysis are published in full in an annual report.

  Pesticides Tax
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the report on the impact of a pesticides tax from which the Minister of State quoted during his oral statement on horticulture on 20 January 1999,Official Report, columns 863–65. [67454]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 25 January 1999]: The report on the potential impact of a pesticides tax to which I referred was undertaken by ADAS for the British Agrochemicals Association and the National Farmers' Union. Publication is therefore a matter for these organisations.

  Meat Inspectors
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the proposed strike by meat inspectors and its effects on butchers and catering outlets in the UK. [67555]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 25 January 1999]: The decision by UNISON to consider strike action by its Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) members at the present time is very disappointing. MHS staff have a vital role to play in ensuring the highest hygiene and animal welfare standards are applied within plants. The MHS pay offer is fair and equitable.

  After negotiations, the MHS formally offered UNISON a pay offer with a total value of 4 per cent. in August 1998. Negotiations continued and UNISON requested an offer of 4.55 per cent. citing the total package settlement to core-MAFF staff of 4.7 per cent.

  In fact the actual cost of the core-MAFF pay aware to staff was 4.2 per cent, with 0.5 per cent. included for one-off structural changes. The range of awards was from 0 per cent. to 6.2 per cent. depending on performance. Unlike the rest of MAFF, performance related pay (PRP) structures do not apply in the MHS. The MHS's total value offer is on par with the current average civil service settlement of 4 per cent. It would not be possible to justify a higher offer for MHS staff, particularly with no PRP element.

  UNISON commenced a formal ballot of its members on industrial action on 6 January. The ballot involved 579 responses, with 352 votes for industrial action and 225 against, with 2 returns invalid. UNISON are now required to give the MHS 7 days' written notice of any industrial action.
  302
  Contingency Plans have been drawn up to minimise the effect of any industrial action and MHS managers are in contact with plant operators to make all necessary arrangements. The action taken by the MHS to minimise disruption should help to ensure an adequate supply of meat for butchers and catering outlets. Plant operators are being reminded of their obligations under the Food Safety Act 1990 and Meat Hygiene/Specified Risk Material and Animal Welfare Regulations.

  Future of Agriculture (Conference)
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the proceedings of his recent conference on the future of agriculture. [67279]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 25 January 1999]: The texts of speaking notes and speeches from the recent conferences on proposals to reform the Common Agricultural Policy have been made available on the Internet at the following address: http://www.maff.gov. uk/farm/agendtwo/agendtwo.htm.

  Veterinary Standards
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place a copy of the Bendixon/Dexter report on standards of veterinary services in the EU in the Library; and if he will make a statement on veterinary standards in the qualifying countries as proposed in the Kennedy report on quarantine and rabies. [67408]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 25 January 1999]: The Bendixon/Dexter report was produced for the European Commission between 1990 and 1992. A full report on the veterinary service in each Member State was produced, but sent only to the Member State concerned. A summary report was produced which presented a broad view of the findings and recommendations regarding the structure, resources and activities of veterinary services throughout the Community. Only a Synthesis Report was circulated to the Member States, and I will place photo-copies of this in the Libraries of the House, but it is, by now, out of date.

  Veterinary standards in EU and EEA countries have been assessed by the European Commission and found to be of an appropriate standard for the purposes of intra-Community trade in animals and animal products.

  My officials are examining which islands meet the definition of rabies freedom set by the Office International des Epizooties.

  Genetically Modified Material
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy on the traceability of GM material used in food production. [67481]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 25 January 1999]: Under World Trade Organisation rules it is not possible to require GM material used in food production to be segregated as a condition of import. However, the Government have encouraged the provision of consumer choice by publishing a list of 59 suppliers offering traceable non-GM material. All foods which contain GM ingredients must be clearly labelled under EC Regulations.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the relationship between agricultural incomes and incomes in the general economy. [67771]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: There is very little relationship in the short term between agricultural incomes and incomes in the rest of the UK economy. Although agriculture is subject to some of the influences which impact on the economy as a whole (eg productivity changes, world and domestic demand, and exchange rates), it is also subject to other influences which have a greater impact on the sector (eg the Common Agricultural Policy, weather and world commodity prices). As a single sector, agricultural income is more volatile than that of the UK economy as a whole. Agriculture currently accounts for about 1 per cent. of national GDP and about 2 per cent. of UK employment.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the present levels of income in(a) farming, (b) pig production and (c) other livestock production. [67770]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 January 1999]: Figures for 1998–99 will be published on 28 January. However, it is clear that net farm incomes for all farm types except general cropping are expected to fall substantially in 1998–99.

  Local Deprivation Indicator
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which measures of local deprivation his Department and its agencies use in considering allocation of funds to local projects. [66715]

  Mr. Morley
  MAFF funds local projects through the English Objective 1 and 5b Structural Funds Programmes and the English LEADER II Community Initiative Programme. The socio-economic parameters taken into account in designating Objective 1 and 5b areas included low levels of agricultural income, low population density and location in less favoured areas. Measures of local deprivation are not used by this Department or its Agencies when considering the allocation of funds to specific local projects within the Objective 1 and 5b areas.

  Young Farmers (Assistance)
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assistance is provided to young farmers to obtain their own farm holding. [66871]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government provide no specific assistance to help young farmers to obtain their own farm. However, in certain cases, loans can be guaranteed under the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme. In addition, the changes introduced by the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 will make it easier for young farmers to gain tenancies because landowners will be encouraged to enter the rented sector.

  Objective 5b Status
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the six areas designated to receive assistance under the English Objective 5b Structural Fund Programme. [66901]
  304
  Mr. Morley
  In England the six areas designated by the European Commission to receive assistance under the Objective 5b Structural Funds Programme are:The South West—Cornwall, the Isles of Scilly and parts of Devon and Somerset;
  The Marches—most of Shropshire and parts of Hereford and Worcester;
  The Northern Uplands—parts of Lancashire, North Yorks, Durham, Cumbria and Northumberland:
  Lincolnshire—excluding the City of Lincoln and other mainly urban areas;
  East Anglia—the Fens, rural Norfolk and the Waveney Valley; and
  Midlands Uplands—the Peak District of Staffordshire and Derbyshire.

  Tobacco (EU Subsidies)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much the total cost of the subsidy for tobacco producers is in the European Union in the current financial year. [66902]

  Mr. Rooker
  The amount provided for tobacco expenditure in the 1999 FEOGA budget year is 980 million euro (£687 million1).
  Note:
  1 Using an exchange rate of £1 = 1.4258 euro.?

  Distributed Food (Intervention Stocks)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the categories of persons eligible for distributed food, by country of distribution, sourced from intervention stocks designated for most deprived persons in the community according to 98/657/EC. [66346]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information requested by the right hon. Member is not available.

  Quarantine
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list(a) the organisations that have responded to the Kennedy report on the reform of quarantine and (b) the organisations and individuals he will be consulting before he announces his decisions on the new regime. [67201]

  Mr. Rooker
  The organisations that responded are set out in the list. I have no plans to launch a further consultation at this stage, but I will involve those affected as appropriate.

  Report on the Advisory Group on quarantine: List of organisations that have submitted evidence.

  Alley Cat Allies

  American Veterinary Medical Association

  Angus Council

  Animal Behaviour Centre

  Animal Concern, Cumbria

  Animal Protection Centre

  Animalcare Ltd.

  Animals Asia Foundation, Hong Kong

  Animals in Almeria

  Aquithie Boarding and Quarantine Kennels and Cattery

  Ards Borough Council

  305

  Army Families Federation

  Army Families Federation, Germany

  Association of Circus Proprietors

  Association of Port Health Authorities

  BAA Air Cargo

  Ballymoney Borough Council

  Bamford J. C., Excavators Ltd.

  Barking and Havering Health Authority

  Barnet Association of Responsible Dog Owners

  Bat Conservation Trust

  Birmingham City Council, Environmental Services Department

  Blue Cross

  Bristol Zoo Gardens

  British Airways World Cargo

  British and Commonwealth Women's Club of Brussels

  British Forces Animal Rehoming Centre

  British Medical Association

  British Ports Association

  British Rabbit Council

  British Shipping

  British Tourist Authority

  British Veterinary Association

  British Veterinary Zoological Society

  Buckinghamshire Health Authority

  Camden and Islington Health Authority

  Canadian Veterinary Medical Association

  Canine and Owner Education Centres

  Canine Partners for Independence

  Cat Association of Britain

  Cats Protection League

  Celtic Travel Connections

  Central Science Laboratory

  Centre for Tropical Medicine, Oxford University

  Chartered Institute of Environmental Health

  Clackmannanshire County Council

  Clayton and Cox

  Coleraine Borough Council

  Conservative Countryside Forum

  Corporation of London

  Daily Mail and General Trust plc

  Dansk Kennel Klub, Denmark

  Derbyshire County Council

  Dog Action Working Group, Scotland

  Dorset Health Authority

  Dover and Folkestone Quarantine Kennels

  Dundee City Council

  Durham County Health Authority

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove Health Authority

  École de Chiens Guides D'Aveugles de Paris

  Electric Veterinary Records Ltd.

  Equine DNA Register

  Eurocoils Ltd.

  European Blind Union

  Eurostar (UK) Ltd.

  Farmers Union of Wales

  Ferne Animal Sanctuary

  Fife Constabulary

  Firs International Quarantine

  306

  Foredown Kennels and Cattery

  Four in Hand Kennels

  Freight Transport Association

  Galley Hill International Kennels and Cattery

  German Shepherd Dog Club, Jersey

  Glasgow City Council

  Golden Retriever Breed Council

  Governing Council of the Cat Fancy

  Granda Group Plc

  Guernsey, States of, Agricultural and Milk Marketing Board

  Guide Dogs for the Blind Association

  Hampshire County Council

  Hearing Dogs for Deaf People

  Highland Council

  Home Office, Constitutional and Community Policy Directorate

  Constitutional Unit (replies for Jersey)

  Hull and Goole Port Health Authority

  Humane Society of the United States

  Independent Animal Health Alliance

  Institute of Trading Standards Administration

  International Zoo Veterinary Group

  Isle of Man Government

  Isle of Wight Council

  Jersey Animal's Shelter

  Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust

  Jersey, Health and Social Services

  Jersey, States of, Deputy Bailiff

  Joint Mobility Unit (service provided by RNIB and GDBA)

  Kennel Club

  Kennel Holckenhus

  Kent County Council, Strategic Planning

  Kingston Upon Hull City Council, Public Protection Division

  Knightwood Kennels

  Lambeth Southwark and Lewisham Health Authority

  Leeds Health Authority

  Local Authorities Coordinating Body on Food and Trading Standards

  Lothian and Borders Police

  Lowe Group

  Manchester City Council

  Merial Animal Health Ltd.

  Merton Sutton and Wandsworth Health Authority

  Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, New Zealand

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Finland

  Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Forestry, Bonn, Germany

  Moonwinds Quarantine and Boarding Kennels and Cattery

  National Canine Defence League

  National Dog Tattoo Register National Farmers Union of Scotland

  National Federation of the Blind of the United Kingdom

  National Gerbil Society

  National Institute of Mental Health, USA

  National Office of Animal Health Ltd.

  Netherlands Anti-Quarantine Action Group

  Norfolk County Council North Ayrshire Council

  North and East Devon Health Authority

  North Lanarkshire Council

  307

  North Lincolnshire Council

  North of Ireland Veterinary Association

  North Somerset Council

  North Yorkshire County Council

  North West Anglia Health Authority

  Northumberland Health Authority

  Oakenshaw Grange Kennels

  Old Golfhouse, Veterinary Hospital

  Orkney Islands Council

  Par Air Services (Livestock) Ltd.

  Passenger Shipping Association

  Passports for Pets

  Pembrokeshire County Council

  Pet Advisory Committee

  Pet Plan Group Ltd.

  Portland House Veterinary Group

  Public Health Laboratory Service

  Public Health Medicine Environmental Group

  Quarantine Abolition Fighting Fund

  Quarantine Association

  Quarantine Kennels Owners Association UK

  RAVC, Animal Defense Support Unit

  Royal College of General Practitioners

  Royal College of Pathologists

  Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons

  Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

  Royal Welsh Agricultural Society

  Scottish Consumer Council

  Scottish Landowners Federation

  Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

  Smithkline Beecham

  Smokey Klinic, Veterinary Surgery

  Sociedad Protectora Para Animales De Torrevieja, Spain

  Somerset County Council, Trading Standards Department

  South Ayrshire Council

  Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  St. Andrews Farm Kennels

  Starpaws Maine Coons

  Suffolk Health Authority

  Summerfold Property Management

  Unichem

  United Kingdom Major Ports Group Ltd.

  Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

  University of Aberdeen

  University of Bristol

  University of Edinburgh

  University of Glasgow

  University of Liverpool

  Vets in Support of Change

  Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council

  West Pennine Health Authority

  West Sussex County Council, Directorate of Property and Trading Standards

  Westland Golden Retrievers

  Westland Helicopters GKN

  Zeneca Ltd., Central Toxicology Laboratory.

  308
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which countries will qualify for privileged entry arrangements under the Kennedy report on the reform of quarantine; and how many pet animals were imported from these countries in(a) 1998, (b) 1997, (c) 1996. [67202]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Kennedy Group recommended that cats, dogs and non-carnivores from EU and EEA Member States and rabies-free islands should qualify for exemption from quarantine, subject to their meeting the conditions for exemption. My officials are examining which islands meet the definition of rabies freedom set by the Office International des Epizooties.

  Import figures from EU and EEA Member States were:

  Year

  No. of domestic animals imported into quarantine 1

  1996

  3,274

  1997

  2,968

  1998

  2,342

  1 Includes all carnivores (e.g. ferrets). Figures are for Great Britain.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department is currently funding into formulating a new TB vaccine for cattle. [67288]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Krebs report concluded that the development of a vaccine for cattle was the best long-term prospect for the control of bovine TB, but saw a badger vaccine as an alternative option if cattle vaccine requirements cannot be met. Following the publication of the report, we have reviewed our research requirements for bovine TB, and in April published a document inviting proposals. These included work to develop a cattle vaccine and to take forward work on a badger vaccine, which started in 1994. Contracts worth over £1.4 million per annum are being finalised on five projects relating to vaccine development. Nearly all of this expenditure is directed at projects relating to the development and testing of cattle vaccines.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce routine testing for TB in all cattle. [67271]

  Mr. Rooker
  Routine testing of the National Herd is undertaken in accordance with Directive 64/432, as amended, and normally exempts certain groups of cattle, mainly young stock or fattening herds in which no breeding takes place. When it is considered necessary, on animal or public health grounds, all cattle are included in routine tests.

  Food Standards
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will publish(a) the draft Food Standards Bill and (b) his proposals for funding the Food Standards Agency. [68082]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I have today published the draft Food Standards Bill for public consultation, along with a consultation paper setting out our proposals for meeting
  309
  by new costs of the Food Standards Agency through a levy on certain food premises. I have placed copies of both documents in the library of the House.

  The draft Bill moves us closer to fulfilling another important manifesto commitment—the setting up of an independent Food Standards Agency with the aim of protecting public health in relation to food. The Agency will play a major role in strengthening consumer confidence.

  It provides for a responsible, open and authoritative body charged with protecting public health in relation to food and with powers to act throughout the food chain. The Agency will work with all interested parties to develop soundly based, balanced policies that command the public's confidence. It will discharge a range of important functions in support of its goal, advising Ministers and the new devolved authorities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and helping all its stakeholders to meet the challenge of safe food.

  The Bill provides for the Food Standards Agency to be a UK body. The Government will consult with the new devolved authorities to establish whether they are content to proceed with legislation on a UK basis in the way proposed in the draft Bill.
  310
  We want our proposals to be subject to full scrutiny, so that we can get it right from the start. The consultation that begins today seeks comments from all interested parties over the next eight weeks. The draft Bill will also be scrutinised by a Select Committee of Members of this House constituted for this purpose. We will refine our proposals in the light of the comments we have invited. If legislative time permits, we hope to be in a position to introduce the Bill during this session of Parliament.

  We have already made considerable progress in strengthening the present arrangements in preparation for the Agency. The challenge now is to ensure that the changes we propose meet the robust standard that consumers and businesses alike can expect.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he will take to protect organic farming from possible effects of biotechnology. [66681]

  Mr. Rooker
  Our approach is to ensure that all justified concerns about genetically modified (GM) crops are properly addressed. This applies particularly to the concerns raised by the organic farming sector. We have made clear to the industry group SCIMAC, which is drawing up guidelines on the use of GM crops that they need to ensure that these contain adequate safeguards to protect organic farming.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Western Sahara: Referendum
  Western Sahara: Referendum
  Nuclear Disarmament
  Nuclear Disarmament
  Iraq
  Iraq
  Turkey: Newspaper Ban
  Turkey: Newspaper Ban
  Sudan
  Sudan
  General Pinochet
  General Pinochet
  Arms Sales to Indonesia
  Arms Sales to Indonesia
  UK Consulate-General, Jerusalem: Staff's Cars
  UK Consulate-General, Jerusalem: Staff's Cars
  Public Interest Immunity
  Public Interest Immunity
  UN Human Rights Commission: EU Initiatives
  UN Human Rights Commission: EU Initiatives
  Home Detention Curfew Scheme
  Home Detention Curfew Scheme
  Channel Islands and Isle of Man: Payments to UK
  Channel Islands and Isle of Man: Payments to UK
  The Channel Islands: Financial Regulation
  The Channel Islands: Financial Regulation
  Wheelclamping
  Wheelclamping
  Carriers' Liability
  Carriers' Liability
  TWH Management Ltd
  TWH Management Ltd
  Equality of Economic Opportunity
  Equality of Economic Opportunity
  Territorial Army: All Arms Watchkeeper Pool
  Territorial Army: All Arms Watchkeeper Pool
  HMS "Intrepid"
  HMS "Intrepid"
  Scottish Courts: Human Rights Materials
  Scottish Courts: Human Rights Materials
  National Parks Authorities: Members' Qualifications
  National Parks Authorities: Members' Qualifications
  Deaths: Investigation Costs
  Deaths: Investigation Costs
  Disruptive Airline Passengers
  Disruptive Airline Passengers
  Parents' Rights and Responsibilities
  Parents' Rights and Responsibilities
  Health Action Zones: Evaluation
  Health Action Zones: Evaluation
  District Nurse Numbers
  District Nurse Numbers