Sitting of 5 May 1999

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

Tourism
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
9.33 am
Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of the British tourism industry. This is not the first time that the industry has been debated in this Parliament, but there has not been a debate on the issue in Government time. It has fallen to the Opposition and to Back Benchers to seek to bring the importance of the industry and its circumstances to the attention of the House.
The debate is timely and necessary, not least because of the publication in February of the Government's document "Tomorrow's Tourism", which sets out the Government's view of the strategy for tourism. Last Tuesday, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport announced the conversion of the English tourist board into the English Tourism Council, so it is entirely right that we should debate tourism at this time.
We should keep the interests of the tourism industry at the forefront of our deliberations because of the industry's importance. The industry generates expenditure of £53 billion a year, and accounts for up to 5 per cent. of our gross domestic product. It is our largest invisible export, and provides employment for 1.75 million people. It has been responsible for one in five of the new jobs created in this country over the past decade. The industry is managed by some 200,000 businesses around the country, the great majority of which are small businesses. In my constituency—as in all others—tourism bulks large as a provider of employment and expenditure, and as a generator of enterprise.
In that context, I should like to reflect on the fact that restaurants, bars and shops, as part of the hospitality and leisure sector, are at the heart of many high streets and city centres, including the city centre of Cambridge, part of which I have the honour to represent. In London, our thoughts must go to those who run the restaurants, bars and shops of Soho, who were providing hospitality and leisure last Friday when the area was bombed. Yesterday, they set about "business as usual". Our thoughts and congratulations should go to them for the way in which they have responded to those challenging circumstances.
Not all is well in the tourism industry. The latest statistics on overseas travel and tourism show that, in the year to February 1999—as compared with the year to February 1998—the deficit on the travel account of our balance of payments grew from £5 billion to £7 billion.
858
In Cambridge, an effective strategy was put in place in 1996. It was set up on the basis of the then figure of 3.6 million visitors to Cambridge, and on the expectation that, by 2001, the city would be dealing with 4.2 million visitors. In 1998, the numbers fell to 3.2 million visitors. What was essentially a strategy devised around the dispersal and management of a growth in visitor numbers is now being adapted to one that emphasises the enhancement of the visitor experience and the opportunities to visit Cambridge.
The strategy also makes sure that visitors have ample opportunity to take in attractions outside Cambridge, of which the imperial war museum at Duxford, with the American air museum—opened recently with lottery support and following considerable fundraising in my constituency—is an example.
In the past few days, the English tourist board has published its summary statistics on visits to tourist attractions, which show an overall drop of 2 per cent. in such visits. We are not simply managing long-term growth, and it is clear that we are working with an industry that is not maintaining its share of world markets, and is in continuing need of a strategy.
The Government's document "Tomorrow's Tourism" is an aspirational document, as is often the case. However, as is equally often the case with Government documents, the aspirations look fine, but the actions set out are more of a work in progress than an attempt to match up to the strategy. I share the concern of the industry—expressed not least by the British Incoming Tour Operators Association—that it is necessary to determine strategy first, and then to move to structure. However, the Government seem to be changing the structure and letting the strategy flow from it. That is the wrong way round. I would rather that we concentrated on purposes than processes in the first instance.
Sir Peter Emery: My hon. Friend will recall that Mr. Rodgers of the Labour party, who later became Lord Rodgers of the Social Democratic party, signed 35 of my amendments to set up the English tourist board, which was not in the original Bill that became the Development of Tourism Act 1969. The idea was to try to ensure that England was helped equally with Scotland and Wales, which had never previously been the case, and has never been the case since. I hope that my hon. Friend will urge the Government to ensure that there is equality.
Mr. Lansley: My right hon. Friend brings a great wealth of experience to the subject, and he is absolutely right. The grant in aid to the various tourist bodies in England is about 20p per head, whereas it is £3.76 in Scotland and £4.99 in Wales.
The British Incoming Tour Operators Association said that it is clear that Ministers in Scotland and Wales, and indeed Northern Ireland, have understood that investment in the tourism industry can have high rates of return, whereas in England the message has not been understood. Joined-up government, as the buzz phrase has it, does not seem to work in the tourism industry.
Mr. John Butterfill: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the situation is worse in real terms than in per capita terms, because the English tourist board last year received £9.9 million, whereas the Scottish

859
tourist board received £19.3 million? There is double the spending in Scotland in absolute, let alone per capita, terms.
Mr. Lansley: My hon. Friend is right. Comparisons are odious, and I am not suggesting that the Scottish tourist board is acting in anything but an effective manner, but that effectiveness shows how much of the potential for action in England remains unrealised.
I am worried that there may be even further division within England of the way in which marketing is carried out. London is to have a mayor and its own direct marketing budget. Where does that leave other parts of England, such as South Cambridgeshire, which are considerable visitor attractions but receive little support?
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the deeply frustrating question of the differential funding of tourist boards, the steps that the Government have taken have further disintegrated the joint approach to promoting Britain around the world? Scotland and Wales, being so much more generously funded than England, inevitably have much more affluent teams of people selling their part of the United Kingdom. There is a disintegration into different tribes promoting their own separate areas.
Mr. Lansley: If the Government intend that there should be a strategy, what more obvious example of joined-up thinking—to use their parlance—could there be than for overseas marketing to be conducted in a co-ordinated way on behalf of all the countries of the United Kingdom? There is some scope for the Scottish and Welsh boards to undertake their overseas marketing through the British Tourist Authority, but that is not true across the board.
I fear that there will be further fracturing, with London undertaking its own promotion. I applaud the idea of the mayor taking an activist stance in promoting London, because our tourist industry as a whole depends more on the role of London as a gateway than on any other single factor, but that should not be done in isolation from the promotion of other destinations—Scotland is a prime example—to which visitors can be drawn.
We need a strategy rather than simply work in progress. "Tomorrow's Tourism" contains references to transport, but they amount to no more than an assertion that tourism must be part of the integrated transport policy announced in the transport White Paper. There is a very close relationship between the way in which transport is managed locally and the volume of visitors to a location such as Cambridge, for example.
In 2000, local authorities will produce local transport plans for the first time. It should be incumbent on those authorities to prepare the plans in co-operation with other local authorities, the private sector and the tourist industry, so that we can see that they are consistent with local visitor management plans. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions should take explicit account of the impact on the local economy when considering transport policies and programmes bids.
Positive planning is important. Because it is mostly small businesses, rather than the big battalions, that are involved, tourism is often at the behest of planning rather
860
than being able to influence it directly. We must view tourism as a positive part of the planning process, not least because, as is evident in Cambridge and many other places, bringing in visitors can generate money that can regenerate an area if it is spent well.
Our heritage, with all our historic buildings, is the principal reason that visitors come to this country. We can use tourism as a positive agency for conserving our heritage. It brings in a lot of money, and we can use the tourist dollar in the planning process—through the preparation of conservation plans for historic assets, for example—to achieve broader environmental and planning objectives.
Planning policy guidance 21 is several years old. When, in the plethora of PPG reviews, do the Government intend to review it, in the light of, for example, the discussion on sustainable tourism? Tourism can be better managed so that it does not degrade the environment and, just as historic assets can be improved by tourism resources, it can make a positive impact on sustaining our environment.
Historic buildings brought back into use for tourism purposes can be better preserved as well as enhancing the visitor experience. For example, in the cities of New England there are buildings from the industrial revolution which have been preserved simply because they are being used as a visitor attraction.
In the range of joined-up government, what thought have the Government given to taxation in this context? I know that the British Tourist Authority has considered the impact of VAT on the competitive position of the United Kingdom economy in comparison with other European economies. Will the Minister respond to that? What scope is there, for example, for considering zero rating for the repair and adaptive reuse of historic buildings, which, as I explained in respect of the promotion of environmental sustainability, would certainly be a considerable incentive for the undertaking such work?
As for joined-up government, the principal failing at the moment—I am afraid that "Tomorrow's Tourism" neglects this altogether—is the impact of Government regulation on the industry. From talking to representatives of many businesses, I have found that most staff in my area are already paid more than £3.60 an hour. That is not entirely true across the country. The wages of many employees in restaurants, bars and shops, for example, have been raised to the minimum level.
Bearing in mind the experience of my area, the Government might take the view that the minimum wage and the working time directive do not cause businesses problems because they do not impose a direct cost on them. However, the compliance costs falling on businesses are substantial. For example, the working time directive is having a considerable impact on the way in which businesses can manage shift patterns for employees such as night porters in hotels. In a very flexible industry of many small businesses that do not benefit from a large administrative infrastructure, and in which staff come and go reasonably frequently, the minimum wage and the working time directive impose a burden of compliance that is out of all proportion to the benefits either to the employee or—certainly—the business.
One hotelier to whom I have spoken—he knows that it is true for many of his colleagues—has had to employ one person virtually full-time to manage the requirements of

861
the minimum wage and the working time directive, given the presumption that an employer is not paying the minimum wage unless he can prove the contrary.
One obvious further example of the need for co-ordination is in accommodation grading. One of the things trumpeted in "Tomorrow's Tourism" is that there is to be a new unified accommodation grading system, but it will harmonised, not unified. We will still be dealing with three organisations—the English tourist board, the Automobile Association and the Royal Automobile Club will be working together—and there will still be different systems in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Sir Peter Emery: It is a nonsense.
Mr. Lansley: As my right hon. Friend rightly says, it is a nonsense, especially because people do not have to visit the United Kingdom. We must encourage them to come here, and make it easier and pleasurable for them to do so. If they find that the accommodation is not what they expected or they cannot anticipate what it will be like, they will not be attracted to this country. That is a further example of why we need to make things connect.
I was very disappointed by the response in "Tomorrow's Tourism" on training. From the very beginning, the document says that people are the key to how we can provide quality in the service industry. Although that is true, the document's exploration of training is weak. It is perfectly clear that, for the industry to be able to make its impact on, for example, training and enterprise councils and local training activity, there ought to be a national tourism training organisation. That is the only way in which sectors can have a strong voice and make the appropriate impact on local training decisions.
As a great devotee of and former incumbent of the British Chambers of Commerce, I should say that "Tomorrow's Tourism" pays far too little attention to the strategic desire for local partnerships to promote tourism activities. In America, for example, chambers of commerce and municipalities work very closely together on managing tourism activity.
Mr. Lawrie Quinn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for referring to partnership; I was waiting for that word to come up. To me and to the people who work in tourism and the hospitality industry in Scarborough and Whitby, partnership is the key word. In "Tomorrow's Tourism", the hon. Gentleman will find a clear example of effective partnership in my part of the world, which is developing hospitality in particular. We are looking at matters such as training, too. I urge him to look very carefully at our example. Does he agree that the industry will develop and be far better in the future as a result of such partnership?
Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I saw the reference to Scarborough and Whitby. There are several very good examples of local partnership in the document, as there often are in tourism. The partnership between the Cambridge tourism group and Cambridge city council is another good example. That reinforces my point.
If one works towards a strategy that is based on good practice, one often finds that, valuable though the work of, for example, the East Anglian regional tourist board
862
may be, the focus of action must be complementary to the visitor's view of the area. The Cambridge sub-region and Cambridge might therefore connect with Huntingdon, Cromwell and Constable country and the imperial war museum in my area. By and large, visitors do not visit East Anglia as a whole. Although seaside resorts such as Yarmouth are important, their marketing must be different from that for Cambridge.
Mr. Quinn: I agree with the hon. Gentleman up to a point. The people in the industry whom I represent have struggled for many years under Governments of both parties, and have concluded that establishing partnerships with local authorities and others in the area is the way to ensure that tourism thrives. Where did the industry in my part of the world go wrong over the past 18 years under the hon. Gentleman's Government? People in my area did not see an approach such as that suggested in "Tomorrow's Tourism". We did not receive any national help or hear of any national strategy, as he seems to be saying we did.
Mr. Lansley: The hon. Gentleman is asking me to revisit the past; I am talking about a strategy for the future. It is important that we focus on the future. It seems perfectly clear that if we built a strategy on examples of good practice and first principles, we would be putting more effort and power into the ability to create local partnerships, so that visitors are managed, and businesses—often small ones—can feel that they have an influence. A national body should provide a strategy and, through the BTA, marketing in England in order to attract visitors to local areas.
The Government have gone in the wrong direction. They are trying to shift the national role to regional tourist boards—the relationship between the ETB and the consumer and marketing is to disappear completely, for example—but such boards should be responsive to local action and be drawing their role from local communities and partnerships. The role should not be set from the top down.
The Government are obsessed with regionalism, but pursuing it for tourism is not what the industry is looking for—it is looking for effective overseas marketing co-ordinated by the BTA, for national champions to market and promote harmonised national products, and for power and resources to get behind local partnerships so that they can provide the visitor experience, visitor management plans and destination management systems which are able to work successfully at a local level.
It is right that the Government should publish a strategy document, but it is a pity that they have not sought to expose it to debate in the House. I therefore hope that this debate serves some purpose. I hope that Members on both sides of the House will propose further ideas on how to create a strategy where, at the moment, there is none.
10 am
Mr. John Butterfill: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) introducing this debate on a matter that, as he rightly says, is of considerable national importance, given that the tourism industry contributes nearly 5 per cent. to our gross domestic product. Indeed, if one also takes into account the leisure industry, the contribution is probably considerably greater.

863
I shall make one or two brief comments, the first of which has to do with the principle of joined-up Government. I very much supported the idea that responsibility for tourism should be moved from the Department of Employment, as it was at the time—it is now under the control of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire has pointed out, a great many of the visitors to this country come for our cultural heritage, historic buildings and royal palaces, and to experience many of our cultural activities.
That leaves me rather puzzled at the arrangement of responsibilities within the Department. For example, the Minister for the Arts is responsible for arts, crafts, music and the Government's art collection; for museums, galleries and libraries; for the built heritage, the royal estate and architecture and design; and also for the Department's interests in information technology, training and education. Training and education also play a big part in the tourism industry, but, as all those responsibilities tie in closely with that industry, one would expect that Minister's role to include tourism.
I mean no criticism of the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, but her responsibilities, in addition to tourism, include broadcasting, film and the press, and the creative industries. She supports the Secretary of State on the millennium project and she is responsible for international, European, regional and local authority policy issues. However, those issues do not tie in very closely with tourism. Given that tourism, appropriately, is allied with her Department, why is it that that alliance is not reflected in the allocation of ministerial responsibilities?
My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire referred to the importance of tourism to the nation, but tourism's local importance varies greatly between areas. More than one third of the local economy in my constituency is derived from tourism. If one adds in the associated leisure activities, the figure could be around 50 per cent. Those proportions apply equally to many other towns and cities in the United Kingdom, where tourism is the lifeblood of the local economy, and not just an ancillary industry.
Therefore, it is important that the industry be encouraged in a way that is dynamic and creative. I am afraid that not many examples of dynamism and creativity are evident at present. My hon. Friend mentioned the funding given to the English tourist board, but British Tourist Authority funding is also vital when it comes to attracting visitors, and it has been cut under this Government. That is extraordinary, given that, for every pound that it spends, the BTA returns about £27 to the Exchequer. Britain is the fifth largest recipient of overseas visitors in the world, but the numbers coming here are well below those visiting Spain, France and Italy. Given our heritage—and how important that is for international tourism—that is not very satisfactory.
The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): I apologise for intervening on what I recognise is Back-Bench time, but I must correct the hon. Gentleman. Is he aware that my right hon. Friend the
864
Secretary of State recently announced an additional £5 million for the British Tourist Authority over the next three years?
Mr. Butterfill: I am aware of that, but Library figures show that the amount available to the BTA went down last year, and that the increase, which is spread over three years, will do little more than keep up with inflation—so there will probably still be a real-terms cut in the amount being spent. The Government's approach is timorous where it needs to be much more dynamic. Last year's cut in the money for the BTA caused much anxiety across the industry, not least in the BTA itself.
The disparity between England on the one hand, and Scotland and Wales on the other was mentioned earlier. The ETB receives £9.9 million, but its counterpart in Scotland gets twice that, and that in Wales receives nearly £15 million. It is extraordinary that so small a country as Wales should be spending so much more on tourism than England.
I want now to deal with the question of value added tax. The Government have said that they are keen to harmonise VAT rates across the European Union, but VAT rates for hotels in this country are the second highest in Europe, which puts our hotels at a substantial disadvantage. In addition, air passenger duty means that visitors to the United Kingdom from outside the EU pay £20 to enter the country, while visitors from the EU pay £10. The Government doubled the air passenger duty last year: surely that is the wrong signal to give to visitors.
Mr. Quinn: What is the hon. Gentleman's opinion of the proposed reduction in value added tax for tourism and hospitality? Does he support that proposal? I do, as I believe that it will free up resources for reinvestment at the grass roots of our tourism industry.
Mr. Butterfill: As I have made clear, the present disparity between our VAT rates and those of other countries is not sustainable in the long term. In a moment, I shall describe the other ways in which we ought to invest in the industry, especially at a local level.
The question of raising standards has been discussed already, as has the extraordinary nature of the so-called semi-official classification. That helps neither overseas visitors nor domestic tourists. We need to work to some internationally agreed standard, so that people travelling here from around the world will have some idea of what they will encounter.
An even more difficult problem is posed by the cowboys in the industry—the small unregistered establishments that I believe ought to be registered. Some of them get away with murder: they do not pay their proper contribution in taxes, they offer substandard accommodation, and they gain all sorts of other advantages. For example, landlords of holiday flats in my constituency came to me recently to query the requirement—imposed on them because they are registered—that water meters be installed in the flats. In contrast, the cowboys in that industry, who are not registered, do not have to install water meters. The landlords to whom I spoke therefore have to bear an additional cost as a result of being registered. I urge the Government to clamp down, through local authorities, on those who often give the industry a bad reputation.

865
Other legislation has also had an impact. For example, there is no doubt that the minimum wage is causing job losses in my constituency. An hotelier with three establishments in Bournemouth told me that the minimum wage will cause about seven full-time-equivalent jobs in his business to be lost. That is a great worry for him, as for many others in the same line of business.
Even more difficult is the working time directive. Very often it concentrates merely on the 48-hour maximum, but the real problem lies in the rigid shift patterns and break requirements that the directive imposes. All that sits uneasily with an industry that often operates on a 24-hour basis and must provide service to people who stay in hotels or visit clubs and restaurants. The industry works huge hours, and its shift patterns have been severely disrupted by the working time directive.
Bournemouth is one of the most successful seaside towns, and rightly so. Successive local authorities have invested in the town's future, building premises such as the Bournemouth International Centre, which can encourage different types of visitors from conference tourism. All local authorities must invest in the future if they want to survive and succeed. The country is littered with resorts that have not invested and have declined as a result.
At present, there is no real incentive for authorities to invest. There is no Government encouragement and there is no benefit. Authorities that do invest often face a disbenefit because the national non-domestic rate is clawed back in its entirety by the Government. Authorities end up paying for their investment, getting little or nothing back in return.
The Government might consider a mechanism under which local authorities could be rewarded for investment by being allowed to keep part of their national non-domestic rate, hypothecated for tourism. I appreciate that that idea falls outside the Minister's direct departmental responsibilities, but she may wish to consider it and to make representations to the appropriate Department.
The Government are obsessed with regionalism, but the existing regions unfortunately fail to reflect the true economic boundaries within which we operate. Bournemouth and Dorset are in the south-west region. We were moved there by a previous Conservative Government in an appalling act of vandalism. Bournemouth was snatched from Hampshire and thrust into Dorset.
We have no particular connection with the south-west. The road links from Dorset to the south-west are virtually non-existent, and the rail links are totally non-existent. All our connections are towards London and the central south coast region. My local authority and others along the south coast have developed the South Coast Metropole, which works together to market attractions and economic development. That is sensible, and we should have a central southern region that incorporates all the areas that sit together naturally.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that the same problem exists in other parts of the country. For example, Gloucestershire has far more in common with Hereford and Worcester than with what is termed the south-west, for which Cornwall and Devon are given priority and Gloucestershire loses out.
Mr. Butterfill: My hon. Friend makes precisely the point that I sought to make, although I was concentrating on my own constituency. Areas throughout the country feel that they do not properly belong to the region into which a Department of Government has thrust them. If the Government intend to pursue a regional policy, I hope that they will re-examine the regional boundaries to try to fix them on the basis of economic cohesion rather than by drawing inappropriate lines on a map.
10.14 am
Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I am pleased that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) has given us another opportunity to debate tourism. At one time, I thought that tourism debates were taboo, but we have had three of them since then.
The Government's long-awaited strategy for tourism has been published. I welcomed the establishment of a tourism forum that included many sectors of the industry and employee representatives, because only through consultation with the industry can we progress. The forum sets high goals. I agree that standards must be raised, so we must invest in the people who work in the industry and in our attractions. We must market effectively at home and abroad.
If we are to increase the tourism yield without damaging the environment, quality must be the name of the game. I make no bones about congratulating the Government on their decision to make the tourism forum a permanent fixture. The forum and the Government will together monitor the progress and assess the annual achievement of goals at a tourism summit. Continued monitoring by those who have real enthusiasm for the industry, and a great deal of expertise, is essential if we are to achieve our goals.
A national body is the only group that can effectively monitor international developments, despite changes in Scotland and Wales. The forum must take care to assess the best achievements of our competitors abroad. I do not mean that we should duplicate what they provide, but we should learn from them and match the quality of their facilities and service.
Both the tourist and the business traveller are becoming ever more discerning, and they demand good standards. Many of our hotel prices—especially in London—are high in comparison with those of Europe, the United States and Asia. We must ensure, therefore, that our standards of service and the quality of our facilities are improved and kept high.
Visitors should also be entitled to clarity and ease of understanding. The new national grading system for hotels and guest houses must achieve that. It should be simple to understand, and it should be implemented without delay. Perhaps the Minister will tell the House when she expects the programme to be achieved.
The tourism forum is very much in line with the Liberal Democrat call for a permanent tourism commission. Nine months ahead of the Government's strategy, we called for a joint Government and industry body, headed by the Tourism Minister. Its role would be to propose strategy, set standards and monitor achievements.
It is of paramount importance that the tourism forum and summits do not disintegrate into talking shops. I seek assurances from the Minister that agendas for the summits

867
will be wide reaching and that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will give priority and vigour to implementing recommendations.
For many years, successive Governments neglected to recognise how much tourism contributes to the economy. Governments must never forget that the industry is worth £53 billion a year, employing 1.75 million people, or 7 per cent. of the work force. It is more important, economically, point of view, than all the Department's other functions put together.
I cannot join those who oppose the minimum wage. I recognise that the cost of living is much higher in London than in, for example, the north-west, and I should prefer a regional minimum wage. However, I also accept that the minimum wage has, for the time being, been set fairly. For far too long, businesses in the tourism industry have suffered excessively high staff turnover because of low wages and poor prospects for training. There has been a vicious circle. Many businesses have traditionally paid low wages not because they wanted to, or because they thought it right, but because they felt compelled to do so because their competitors did so. Now, forward-thinking businesses will be able to retain and train their staff. Training and skill retention are the key to much of the Government's strategy to raise standards and quality.
I suggest that the Government go further by considering a proposal that businesses should give training to their staff—an investment in education and training—through the introduction of a 2 per cent. levy on payrolls. The training could be provided in-house, or by approved training providers. Small and new businesses would be exempt. Some pioneering businesses already provide in-house training above that level, and their success shows how advantageous it is in the long term.
In other areas, Government policy remains sadly lacking. Transport is a major component in the tourism product, and the tourism document suggests that hotels, shops and restaurants should be built near main transport routes. Does the Minister intend to have Stonehenge and the lake district moved? The very nature of tourism is that tourism-related facilities must be placed very close to attractions if they are to be used and so be viable. Much of our tourism product is based on our landscape and existing heritage sites, many of which are located in areas that receive little publicity and have few public transport facilities.
One of the greatest problems facing our domestic tourist industry is that our traditional resorts are declining. Through funding from the lottery, special regeneration budgets and European grants, it is gradually becoming possible to preserve and upgrade some existing attractions and to create new ones at those resorts. The funding is currently only a trickle, but I hope that the regional development agencies will concentrate on meeting the pressing need for funds.
Mr. Adrian Sanders: My hon. Friend raises an important point about the regeneration of some of our traditional seaside resorts, which currently have to cope with crumbling infrastructure and with being on the periphery, both geographically and economically. The danger is that many of them will become fixed-income economies unless more is done to boost economic
868
activity. The debate has concentrated on foreign tourism, but less than 10 per cent. of tourists come from overseas. The problem for our seaside resorts is that most people in this country live within an hour of their regional airport, rather than their seaside resort. Will my hon. Friend urge the Government to do more to regenerate seaside economies?
Mr. Fearn: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. The improvements that we have mentioned will be of no value if potential customers are prevented from having access to the resorts, most of which are located around the coast. Since the election, the Government's refusal to upgrade roads to the resorts has been a continuing problem. It would be an acceptable and even laudable policy if only public transport access to those towns were increased; sadly, no such improvements have materialised. It really is a case of putting the cart before the horse.
In my constituency, there is continued investment in infrastructure and in old and new attractions through the construction of the attractive new promenade, grants for the restoration of the pier and the new modern tourist entertainment site that is soon to be developed on the seafront. However, there has been no improvement in rail services or roads feeding into the area, despite our receiving more than 4 million day visitors per year. The story is the same throughout the country: even if resorts are developed, the congestion involving in getting to them and going home, which causes irritation and pollution, deters visitors from returning. Does that help or encourage the 40 per cent. of the population who do not even take holidays to visit our coast, or our attractive inland resorts and countryside?
I urge the Minister to ask her colleagues at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to rethink their current policies. I do not mean that they should tarmac everything in sight, but they should invest more in public transport that is geared to tourism areas and occasionally allow the placing of a strategic route to an unserved area whose economy depends on it. Reopening some of the excellent tourist rail routes closed by Beeching, such as the one that ran from Preston to Southport via the Burscough Curves, would be a real step towards making our railways a public asset once more; many such lines are still available for redevelopment.
The Government must do more to create the right economic climate for tourism to flourish. I have asked time and again what progress has been made in investigating the proposal to reduce value added tax on hotel accommodation to average European levels. That question has not been answered in the tourism document, or by the Minister.
Will the Minister vigorously fight the threat to impose air passenger duty both ways on internal flights in the United Kingdom? Tourism is the largest industry in Scotland and is essential to the economic future of Northern Ireland. As the great majority of international visitors to the UK arrive in London and then travel on within the UK, is not that tax an incentive to the tourist to stay in the London area, which already teems with tourists in summer? Surely, sustainable tourism involves encouraging visitors to spread throughout the country, rather than deterring them from doing so. The BTA and the BITOA are especially alarmed by that development and I ask the Minister to take the matter seriously.

869
It cannot be handled by the new Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly, but must be dealt with here in Westminster; I urge her to support Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.
Finally, may I remind the Minister that, in spite of promises to do so, she has yet to visit Southport?
10.26 am
Sir Peter Emery: I shall be brief and raise only three points, as I know that other hon. Members want to speak.
The first point follows from the remarks about the south-west by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill). Although there are indeed concerns about the borders of the south-west, even as they stand, it is worth pointing out to the Minister that the south-west, with its infinitesimal amount of grant per head compared with that of Wales and Scotland, takes nearly double the number of tourists as Wales and Scotland combined. That cannot make sense. Along the whole Devon coast, tourism is almost, if not outright, the largest employer and biggest industry in seaside towns. Without tourism, there would be a major collapse of infrastructure in those areas, so it is essential that the Government pay greater attention to the creation of jobs in the tourist industry. We have not heard about job creation so far in the debate, and I urge the Minister to take that into consideration.
My other two points relate to upgrading. We must take positive steps to upgrade the standing of those who work in the catering and hotel industries. A chef in France is a person of considerable standing, but a chef in a hotel in Sidmouth is just a chef, because those who work in the tourist industry have no standing in their community. Many people come from Italy and France to work in hotels in this country, but I should prefer that we raise the standing in the community of such work, so that English people can take pride in working in the catering and hotel industry.
Mr. Quinn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many young people perceive a career in hospitality and catering—especially the culinary crafts—as being an attractive prospect? That enthusiasm is owed in part to the phenomenon of the television chef. As well as good English people, we have good Scottish, Irish and Welsh people, some of whom serve up fantastic dishes in Scarborough and Whitby in Yorkshire—I urge the right hon. Gentleman to come and try them.
Sir Peter Emery: We are doing better—no one would suggest that we are not on the up slope—but in most of the seaside resorts the number of people with good qualifications is extremely limited, so I want the Government to do more to upgrade in that area of work.
My last point relates to the upgrading of the standard of food and food preparation. One of the great features of France is the Michelin guide and the fact that one can go to nearly any town or village within France—the same applies to Italy—and enjoy food of the very highest standard. Unfortunately, that is not the position in Britain. However, Egon Ronay, with great ability, has raised the standard of cooking and the status of the chef, and amazingly in London we have two three-star Michelin restaurants. That would not have been thought possible a few years ago.
870
One of the great pleasures for a tourist or a holidaymaker is to go to a restaurant and have a special meal of a high standard. The Government should pay much greater attention to upgrading the standard of food and the standard of restaurants throughout the tourist industry. If the Minister were to pay some attention to that, she would do well. I apologise to the hon. Lady because I may not be able to remain in the Chamber to hear her entire speech. Madam Speaker has a ceremony at 11 o'clock in the Royal Gallery and I have to be in attendance. I thank the Minister for paying attention to what I have had to say.
10.31 am
Mr. Paul Tyler: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief contribution to an extremely important debate about an extremely important industry. Indeed, it is the growth industry, as the Organisation for Co-operation and Development has indicated on many occasions. That applies not only to my area, the west country and especially Cornwall, but to the entire United Kingdom.
The trend towards a widening gap between support for the tourist industry in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on the one hand and for England on the other has been apparent for a long time. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) may be forgiven for not recollecting what happened in the previous Parliament because he was not then a Member of this place. However, I thought I saw just now the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) in her place. Indeed, I thought that she got to her feet. I thought she said that she found this "deeply frustrating … differential funding" something to complain about and deplore.
I thought that the right hon. Lady was the Minister with responsibilities for tourism in the previous Government. I do not recall her making such a comment when I and many other hon. Members from other holiday industry areas complained about the widening gap. Indeed, the per capita figure, to which hon. Members have referred, widened dramatically during the period of the Conservative Government, to a point where mere pence were being used to promote the industry in important areas of England, while the pounds were increasing in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. During the right hon. Lady's period in office—if it was she who was here and not her ghost—the gap widened drastically.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the development of the Government's devolution policies have added a new dimension to the debate about the disparity in funding between the various parts of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Tyler: I do indeed. I hope that the Government will respond by expressing a clear view. I welcome sinners who repent; if the hon. Gentleman is saying that the previous Conservative Government were deplorable in this regard, I entirely agree with him. I hope that we can redress the balance.
In Cornwall, which is the holiday destination par excellence in the United Kingdom after London, we have had very little tourism promotion and we still have, as has been accepted in our bid for objective 1 status under European Union regional funds, the lowest household

871
incomes in the country. We still have high levels of unemployment. Therefore, the promotion of the industry is extremely important.
I take up a specific point that was referred to briefly by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), and that is what he described as cowboys. I prefer to refer to them as pirates. I am talking about the differential in terms of costs and controls between legitimate real businesses and those who by various means escape costs and controls. This differential is widening dramatically. I know that the hon. Gentleman will agree—he made the point himself—that that is largely the result of controls and regulations introduced by the previous Conservative Government rather than since the general election.
For example, fire regulations dramatically ratcheted up costs. I do not understand why it is better for a visitor to be burnt in his or her bed when there are five bed places in the establishment than to be burnt if there are six or more. There must come a point where that differential does not make sense. As for health and hygiene, why is it better to contract food poisoning in a small establishment than in a large one? Surely that is something that we need to redress.
Trade refuse charges have been introduced throughout holiday areas as a means of trying to maintain a healthy local authority economy. Those charges impinge so much more heavily on legitimate businesses than on pirates. The uniform business rate brings about a dramatic difference between those who are registered as businesses and those that are not. As for value added tax, throughout the previous Parliament those of us who represented holiday areas were complaining about the lack of harmony, not only in terms of accommodation but in respect of all facilities. Having failed miserably to persuade the Conservative Government to take the issue seriously, I hope that the Labour Government will reconsider the matter.
All these matters differentiate between two separate groups. The pirates, as I describe them, evade extra costs. For example, they have more bed spaces than is legitimate and they manage to escape detection. They must be effectively monitored and then brought within the system.
However, now that the cost differential is so very great, we must find a way of bringing those who run perfectly reasonable, good small businesses, offering a welcome to their visitors, for example, within the system.
I think that there is genuine unanimity about the importance of the industry. I believe that all three parties are taking it a great deal more seriously than they did 10 years ago, for example. However, let us not forget that the trend has been against us for many years. Reversing that trend will require all the Minister's energies and enthusiasm, and those of many other Departments of government.
10.37 am
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on securing this brief but important debate on the tourism industry. I congratulate him also on the characteristically thoughtful and articulate way in which he introduced the debate. He spoke of the things that really matter to those who are involved in
872
the industry. He referred to its economic importance, which is not in doubt. He spoke of issues relating to transport, planning, sustainable development and regulation. These are the things which those in the tourism industry want to hear discussed in this place.
I thank my other right hon. and hon. Friends who have participated in the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) both made immensely worthwhile contributions based on long experience and knowledge of the tourism industry. I was particularly struck by the points that they made about the local importance of tourism to their constituents as well as the national importance of tourism, with which we are all familiar.
It is pleasant to see the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn), who alone represents Labour interests on the Government Back Benches. It is a pity that not more of his colleagues came into the Chamber to join in the debate. I had the opportunity of visiting Scarborough not long ago. I know how much work is going on in that town to support the tourism industry. I know, for example, of the transport problems that it faces. I will not embarrass the hon. Gentleman by reminding him of the Deputy Prime Minister's visit and the story of the bogus train ride.
Mr. Quinn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ainsworth: No. I do not have time to give way. We can talk about the matter afterwards, if the hon. Gentleman wishes.
Everyone in this place agrees about the huge economic significance of tourism. Since taking up her office, the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting has tried quite hard. She has a warm personality, but, unfortunately, that and warm words are not enough. I feel that there is growing frustration in the tourism industry. It is not only that the Department's budget for tourism is being cut by ¢2 million in real terms; there are growing concerns that most of the major issues that confront tourism are not being addressed.
We looked forward to the publication of the tourism strategy. Ten months overdue, and boasting the fatuous new logo of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, it appeared. However, it is not a strategy at all. Like so much else that emanates from the Government, it is designed to give the impression of busy activity, without committing Ministers to doing anything much, except attending the occasional summit. Publicly, the industry was lukewarm about the document, though others were more critical. Privately, those in the industry are angry at the wasted opportunity. They are angry that the document was bereft of useful national data and failed utterly to address their key concerns.
What are those concerns? The Minister may be told and may even believe that all is well. It is not. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire about the trade deficit. We heard about falling visitor numbers to the main attractions and our declining position in world markets. There are other problems—regulation, bureaucracy, planning constraints, licensing problems and transport gridlock. Those are the issues which we hear about when we listen to the tourism industry. Nowhere does the Government's tourism strategy document offer any hope or practical suggestions on those matters.

873
The tourism industry is defending the front line against the Government's remorseless extension of bureaucracy and new taxes. Since I May 1997, the Government have introduced no fewer than 2,400 new regulations, many of which bear hardest on the tourism industry—for example, the national minimum wage. The problem for decent, hard-working people in smaller businesses is not the cost of paying the national minimum wage, as the overwhelming proportion of them do anyway, but the cost of administering it—the extra paperwork, the extra systems, the extra associated costs and the consequent lower profits, leading to less investment and fewer jobs.
For some, like members of the British Activity Holiday Association, who employ large numbers of younger people away from home on short contracts, the minimum wage spells possible disaster. I know that strong representations have been made to the Minister about the adequacy of the £20 accommodation off-set, and whether it will be increased or even maintained. I hope that those representations have not fallen on deaf ears, and I look forward to the Minister's comments on that in her reply. The activity holiday industry will be listening carefully, too.
Let us consider the working time directive. The tourist industry, more than any other, needs flexibility in its labour force. It is true that the majority of large corporations in this sector can absorb the extra costs of such measures. They do not want to do so, it will cost them many millions of pounds and it will mean fewer jobs, but they can do it. However, the majority of the industry is made up of small businesses, which can ill afford the extra costs of bureaucracy. The fixed on-costs of compliance in terms of extra clerical work, computer systems and so on are much the same whether a business is turning over £50 million or £500,000, but the burden is greater on smaller businesses.
The parental leave directive, the part-time workers directive, the working families tax credit and the child care credit all pile further costs on to an industry that the Minister claims to support. Then there is the Government's policy of fairness at work in the Employment Relations Bill currently under consideration. I wonder how many people running small hotels or restaurants are aware of what the Government have up their sleeve for them, such as compulsory trade union recognition for companies employing as few as 21 people, and parental leave proposals whose only social and economic effect will be to make it harder for women to get jobs in an industry that has traditionally led the way in providing employment opportunities for women, training them and promoting them.
Each and all of those measures are bad for the tourist industry, but the cumulative effect could be crippling. In the short term, it could drive many businesses out, and in the long run the Government are erecting enormous barriers to new entrants to the market. Does the Minister know that, while she goes around heaping praise on the tourism industry, her Government are busily erecting barriers to those dynamic new entrants who want to make it grow? In doing so, the Government are creating an underlying structural weakness in the entire industry, which it will take years to put right.
I have dwelt on the sins of omission perpetrated by the so-called tourism strategy. There is one sin of commission that cannot go unmentioned. It was touched on earlier. The Government's original intention was to abolish the
874
English tourist board. No one asked for that. It was proposed as part of the Government's overall political agenda to do with the federalisation of England. Faced with enormous hostility from the industry, the Government at first dithered, then fudged. We are now to have an English tourism council.
The most striking feature of this new body is that, unlike its counterparts in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, it will have no remit to market the country that it purports to represent. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that there will be no one to handle the 300 or so consumer and media calls each month that are taken at present by the English tourist board, and that there will be no one to answer questions about tourism in England. Does she expect that work to be undertaken by the British Tourist Authority? If so, will the BTA be remunerated for that? It is already closing offices around the world because it cannot afford to keep them open. Incidentally, it does an excellent job, as do the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland tourist boards, and many of the regional tourist boards.
The replacement of the English tourist board by a neutered central bureaucracy is a slap in the face for England. As the Minister knows, the chief executive of the English tourist board has resigned. He was a marketing man, who was brought in to do a marketing job. That job has been removed and he has gone. There is no chairman at present, either, so matters are being allowed to drift.
I say that England needs a voice. It is not surprising, but it is depressing none the less, that I increasingly hear people in the industry questioning whether they would be better off if they were sponsored by another Department. The answer to that, in my view, is that they would not. It is not a different Department that they need, but a different Government. They need a Department that will believe in them, that will act for them and that can carry clout across Whitehall. It is already abundantly clear that they will not get that from Labour.
10.48 am
The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on securing the debate on an extremely important industry, as he rightly said. That is why the Government produced the strategy that has been referred to frequently in the debate, and which I shall deal with later.
Tourism is the fastest-growing industry in the world. As has already been said, one in five new jobs that have been created in the past 10 years have been in the industry. The Government estimate that it is worth £53 billion a year to the economy, and as we know, it employs 1,750,000 people.
Hon. Members have touched on various issues that are the responsibility of other Government Departments, such as VAT on accommodation—
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: What about joined-up government?
Janet Anderson: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government's strategy contains a proposal to do with joined-up government. For the first time ever, we shall have a tourism summit that will bring together Ministers

875
from all Government Departments to discuss the needs of the industry. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me what his Government did to support the industry? I remind him that for the first time ever, this Government have a Minister with the word "Tourism" in her title. The previous Government were not prepared to give the industry such acknowledgement.
I see that the Opposition have belatedly set up a forum to consult the industry. In the course of producing our strategy, we consulted no fewer than 200 representatives of the industry. That is a record which the hon. Gentleman quite simply cannot match.
Many hon. Members have referred to funding and the disparities between England and Scotland and Wales. I am sorry, but I have to say yet again that the previous Government reduced funding for the English tourist board from £25.8 million in 1988–89 to less than £10 million when they left office. It is relevant to remind the House that the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) was parliamentary private secretary to the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) when she was Secretary of State.
We have heard much criticism and, first, the national minimum wage and the great burdens that it is putting on the industry was mentioned.
Mr. Butterfill: Although it is absolutely true, as the Minister says, that funding was reduced under the previous Government, this Government have continued that process. Funding for the English tourist board was £10.3 million when they came to power; they reduced it to £9.9 million. Funding for the British Tourist Authority was reduced from £36.5 million to £35 million. Even if the much-vaunted £5 million over three years is included, that comes to £40 million for the BTA by the end of that period. If the Government had simply put funding up by 3 per cent. on the figure that they inherited, the total would have been £41.08 million.
Janet Anderson: We would all like there to be more money, but what we do with what we have available is the important issue. There has been an increase in funding to the BTA, the ETB has been restructured and the new English tourism council has been set up. One reason for that—I will come to this later, if I have time—is to release more money into the regions. Would Conservative Members prefer that money not to go to the regions?
Mr. Ainsworth: Before the Minister moves on—and, I hope, moves away from her trip down memory lane—will she confirm that the departmental budget for tourism is being cut?
Janet Anderson: I do not want to repeat things over and over again, because we do not have that much time, but the hon. Gentleman knows that funding to support tourism has been increased for the first time in many years. Through our restructuring, we have made sure that there will be more money to go into the regions, and that has been widely welcomed by the regions.
May I quickly counter some of the criticism that we have heard this morning by quoting some of the
876
comments that we have received about our strategy? The British Casino Association said:
"I write to congratulate you on the publication of 'Tomorrow's Tourism' which shows a cohesive approach to improving Britain's competitiveness as a world class tourism destination."
The Holiday Care Service said:
"I was very pleased to see that the new Tourism Strategy which your Department published a couple of weeks ago highlights the way in which the industry can play its part in helping to create a fully inclusive society."
CenterParcs wrote:
"Firstly, I don't want the launch of 'Tomorrow's Tourism' to go by without congratulating you again on the very considerable feat of having managed to get a very clear and focused strategy document from the many and quite disparate views held within the tourism industry."
There are many more
Mr. Ainsworth: Will the Minister give way?
Janet Anderson: No, I will not give way again; I have given way several times and I want to get on with what I have to say.
Conservative Members have referred to the national minimum wage. I do not know whether they are aware that, on the day that the pay of 2 million employees increased as a result of the national minimum wage, a new independent report showed that companies in the sector most affected—the service sector—are experiencing expansion, not job losses as some predicted. I suggest that Conservative Members refer to the report of the Low Pay Commission and study it with care.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) has been helpful to me in my post as Tourism Minister and I compliment him on what has been happening in his constituency. Reference was made to lack of partnership, but, as my hon. Friend said, partnership is very much in evidence in Scarborough and Whitby and previously declining seaside resorts are going through a substantial period of regeneration. I congratulate him on his contribution to that.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) said that he did not understand the division of ministerial responsibilities in the Department. We have not only joined-up government, but a joined up Department as well. We speak to each other.
The hon. Gentleman referred in particular to cowboys in the industry; we want to deal with them. We also want to do something about quality in the industry. Only yesterday, I was consulting a group of hoteliers to see what we can do.
The reputation of the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) is well known and he knows the problems of the industry only too well. I will do my best to visit Southport soon. He referred to transport routes and to the lake district in particular. I invite him to keep a close eye on developments because, before too long and following consultations with my colleagues in other Departments, we will be making announcements to do with the lake district. The Cumbria tourist board has already put together its own business plan based on our strategy, "Tomorrow's Tourism".
"Tomorrow's Tourism", the Government's new strategy for the development of tourism in England, was developed with the help of Departments across Whitehall

877
and with the co-operation of nearly 200 representatives of the industry. I will not set out the raft of initiatives detailed in the strategy, because we do not have time, but all are a first for any Government and such problems have never before been addressed by any Government. I say to Conservative Members that "Tomorrow's Tourism" will not be a "here today, forgotten tomorrow" strategy. It contains well-thought-out, genuine commitments to action and is a springboard to the future. It will remain the basis of our agenda for years to come. Unlike the hon. Member for East Surrey, we set up a tourism forum—some considerable time ago—which will continue and will be followed by a ministerial summit with Ministers from all Departments.
The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, who initiated the debate, said that there is no national training organisation for the industry. I reassure him that the Hospitality Training Foundation is the NTO for those in hospitality-related occupations. There is widespread recognition that the quality of customer service provided by the people employed by the tourism, hospitality and leisure businesses is crucial to success. That is why a working group of our tourism forum considered how the industry could improve the way in which it recruits, manages, motivates and equips its people with the skills that they need to provide excellent customer service. The objective is to build a more stable, appropriately-skilled work force for the future.
I invite hon. Members on both sides of the House to join in national hospitality week in June, and to initiate events in their areas to highlight the importance of the industry and the career opportunities it can provide for our young people.
Particular reference has been made to planning. As reported in "Tomorrow's Tourism"—I wonder whether some of the hon. Members who spoke in the debate have bothered to read it—the Government are researching how planning policy guidance for England can best facilitate leisure and tourism developments while achieving more sustainable patterns of development in travel. That research will be completed this year.
Concern, of which we are aware, has rightly been expressed about the burden of regulations on the industry. The forum and the summit will be considering that issue. There has also been much criticism of regionalism. We are creating the English tourism council—which will be a more effective, leaner national body for tourism in England—to focus on the national strategic framework rather than on provision of direct services.
Reference was made to the lack of national data; that will be one of the functions for the new strategic body. We will also ensure that all the regions of England can benefit from the future growth of tourism. A greater proportion of funding will directly support tourism in the regions and the new regional development associations will make tourism a key part of their economic development strategies.
Finally, I say again that the Government take the industry very seriously.

Kosovo
11 am
Mr. Tony Worthington: The immediate impetus for this Adjournment debate is last week's visit by the International Development Committee to Macedonia and Albania. It was, of course, a very moving visit, on which we saw the full scale of Milosevic's barbarity towards Kosovo. It was also a useful visit, in that a Committee of this House is now in close touch with that immensely important area and will be able to help the House, through first-hand knowledge, in its important deliberations on this matter. I hope that some of my colleagues who were on that visit will be able to catch your eye in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We had access to all the major players in the area and I should like to thank them for their co-operation. One issue about which we were concerned—we made this clear on our return to Britain—was the number of refugees to be allowed into this country. I was disturbed that this country, which is risking so much to combat Milosevic's fascism, should be attracting criticism for seeming to do so little to accept refugees. While we were in the region, Britain was certainly not an option available to refugees, whereas other countries were being much more open. I am delighted that, following the Prime Minister's visit, that has been put right. It was uncomfortable to be urging the Macedonians to honour their international obligations when we were not clearly willing to pick up our own.
Mr. Alan Clark: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should be most grateful for your guidance on this matter. The title of the debate on the Order Paper refers only to neighbouring countries, but the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) has introduced into his dissertation the general subject of refugees and their admission to this country. I am sure that he is right so to do, and it is central to our discussion of the issue, but I should be grateful for your ruling on whether, in this context, Britain counts as a neighbouring country of Kosovo.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): It is clear to everyone that Britain is certainly not a neighbouring country. However, I would say that the two issues go together and the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) has been perfectly in order so far.
Mr. Worthington: I thank you for your predictable ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
If my speech appears to dwell more on Macedonia than Albania, it is not because Albania is unimportant. It is facing the greatest challenge in terms of numbers and is the poorest country in the region. Some of the challenges are common to both Albania and Macedonia, but there are some extra dimensions to the Macedonian position and I hope that other hon. Members will speak about Albania more fully than I shall.
It is absolutely clear that Milosevic's war game is to destabilise Macedonia. By far the most important political issue in Macedonia is the relationship between the numerically dominant Slays and the more rapidly growing Albanian population. There is a visceral fear among the

879
Slavs that they will lose their dominance. After all, the refugee issue is not just one of the past few weeks. When I first went to Macedonia a few years ago, we were praising the Macedonians for their hospitality to Muslims fleeing from the Milosevic-inspired outrages in Bosnia. Now, nearly 200,000 Albanians have been pushed callously out of Kosovo into Macedonia. It is absolutely essential that Macedonia is stabilised if we are to ensure success in the conflict with Milosevic over Kosovo.
Unfortunately, during the Select Committee's visit to Macedonia and Albania, I found that not enough was being done internationally to focus on the issue. It is essential to military success in the Kosovo campaign that humanitarian, economic and political support for Macedonia is augmented. For example, if there is to be a ground approach by NATO troops, the Macedonian entry—which is linked to the Greek port of Thessaloniki—is a key matter. For years, the relationship between Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has been fraught—the very name indicates that—and it must be harmonised.
What should be done? Milosevic regards the destabilisation of Macedonia as a major prize, which is why he shoves Kosovars towards Macedonia. While we were there, trainloads were coming in—far more than the overfull camps could cope with. According to UNICEF, there are now nearly 200,000 refugees in Macedonia and, unbelievably, more than 90,000 are staying with Macedonian families while a similar number are in camps. When we were planning our trip the week before, the number was not 200,000, but 130,000 to 140,000. The number has soared in recent days as Milosevic has turned on the taps.
It has been argued that if the refugees were taken out of the region, that would be doing Milosevic's job for him. That argument lacks conviction; it is an arid argument. Such are the numbers that many refugees will remain in Macedonia anyway. It is not a case of either Macedonia or elsewhere; it is both. While I was there last week, an increasing number of refugee-bearing planes were flying out, but they were heavily outnumbered by Milosevic's new victims coming in.
Taking our full share of refugees is not the only reassurance that we can give Macedonia as an aid to winning this conflict. We must immensely strengthen the performance of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in coping with the refugees in Macedonia. Frankly, the day was saved at the start by the British-inspired NATO forces putting up the camps in Macedonia. However, the refugee programme cannot be militarised other than in the short term. The other UN organisations and non-governmental organisations yearn for the UNHCR to be powered up for that huge job which, whatever happens in respect of the military effort, will be needed for at least many months. I saw no sign on the ground that the UNHCR had anywhere near the horsepower that it needed to cope with this huge challenge in the Balkans. Can the Minister give any reassurance on that?
We must also help out the Macedonian economy. At the outset of the crisis, Macedonia had 40 per cent. unemployment. Because of the crisis, it has now lost its export trade in food and textiles, which has to go through Serbia. Unemployment is now much higher. Huge
880
numbers of refugees are now in Macedonian homes with no extra resources to sustain them. It is worth pointing out that, if one uses the index of 100, the Macedonian GDP was 100 in 1989 when Yugoslavia broke up, whereas it is now 60. The country is having to bear the cost of the transport, policing and many other aspects of the refugee crisis, yet it has less income than before the crisis.
Other problems loom—I was told that the biggest threat was that the sanitation system was incapable, in the long term, of coping with the extraordinary pressures put on it by the refugees. Life for the ordinary Macedonian is getting worse because of the huge influx by a feared minority. For how long will the Macedonians blame Milosevic rather than the Albanians? They need help in bearing the cost of that influx.
Recently, the European Union distributed aid to Albania and Montenegro, but Macedonia was left out because its books were not in order. To be told by the EU that one's books are not in order is a sick joke. Get the money out and monitor it scrupulously, but do not make a tragedy into a catastrophe by accountancy. Countries such as Macedonia and Albania need money now. Poor government capacity is an indication of the scale of the problem, not an excuse for inaction. Will the Government ensure that Macedonia, like Albania and Montenegro, will receive immediate budgetary support from the EU?
May I ask the Minister a more general question? Does he believe that the EU can play an active part at present, in the light of the collapse of the Commission? The Commission staff must feel so shell shocked by the revelations of poor behaviour that they are afraid to act decisively. Is there not a case for Heads of Government to agree on extra special measures to shift committed money out of Brussels and to get it working to good effect in the Balkans? I gather that a meeting will take place today in Paris with the World bank, the European Union and others to look at the structural support that will be needed for those countries.
The size of the camps—Kukes in Albania has about 1,000 residents—is putting an unreasonable strain on the infrastructure of these poor countries. It is not that the camps around Tirana are testing its sewerage system to the limit, because Tirana does not have a sewerage system. The health threats in the summer are considerable. We cannot expect NGOs and United Nations organisations to deal with major civil engineering and governmental tasks. NATO stepped in early to rescue the situation in the camps, but development should not be militarised. I should be grateful to hear from the Minister how these structural issues are to be tackled.
These countries cannot be asked to cope with a million refugees by providing new roads, power, water, sewerage and other systems that are not linked into the infrastructure for the whole population. It is inevitable and right that the host population should benefit from the development of the infrastructure that will be necessary for the refugees.
We all hope that the war will be rapidly resolved, and that the refugees will be able to return home. However, we shall not be forgiven if we do not plan for the worst. At the moment, we cannot produce enough tents or sites to house the ever-growing number of refugees. The refugees will not be able to live in tents in the Balkan winter, and we have seen that some of the sites are

881
already unsuitable. They are in the wrong location, have poor water facilities and inadequate sanitation, and places for latrines are already running out.
Long-term camps require education facilities, better health services, including reproductive health services, and attention for people's psychosocial needs. We are desperately trying to provide primitive accommodation for those expelled from Kosovo, but we may soon have to start again. Hundreds of thousands of refugees may have to be rehoused in winter quarters that do not yet exist, either in fact or even on paper.
Mr. Roger Casale: Does my hon. Friend welcome the doubling of funds by the British Government to help to meet the costs of the refugee crisis? Does he accept that a further doubling of funds may be necessary very soon? Will he give the House some assessment of the resources that should be made available immediately and in the longer term for the management of the refugee crisis and the eventual rebuilding of Kosovo?
Mr. Worthington: Of course I welcome the doubling of the funds. What I am trying to get across in my speech is the fact that we cannot approach this matter only on the military and the humanitarian front. A major improvement of the infrastructure is required, and that cannot be organised by NGOs. It must be done by major international organisations, such as the World bank and the European Union, but I need convincing that they are geared up for what will happen not in the coming months, but in the coming weeks so that they can provide what is needed for the Balkan winter.
I came back from the Balkans with mixed emotions: anger at the despicable actions of Milosevic; admiration for the courage of the refugees; intense respect for the humanitarian work of UN organisations, such as the World Food Programme; pride in the work being done by the British NGOs; and admiration for the organisational skills of NATO in rescuing the humanitarian situation. I came back utterly determined that we should recognise and respond to all the dimensions of this problem, and not merely restrict ourselves to the humanitarian and military aspects. Much more is needed.
11.14 am
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I was not on the Select Committee visit to the Balkans at the beginning of last week, because I had already accepted an invitation to visit Tirana in Albania, sponsored by the European Children's Trust. After consultation with the Chairman of the Select Committee, I felt that that would add an extra dimension and provide a different view of what is going on out there, so I went on my own to Tirana.
In passing, I should like to mention the European Children's Trust, which gave me the only good news of my visit. It has been working in Romania since the problems there began, and it is now closing orphanages because it has found good foster homes for the children. Many of their natural parents who abandoned them have come back to claim them. I wanted to begin on a bright note to show that there is a little light at the end of some of these tunnels.
Tirana was away from the front line, which was interesting because the refugees there had had an opportunity to reflect on their future and had recovered a
882
little from the initial shock, although they were still pretty dazed. The city council in Tirana was assessing what was needed for its own people and for the refugees. In 1997, the population of Tirana was 250,000, and it had the infrastructure—social services, education and health services—that more or less catered for that number. By 1999, the population had almost doubled to 450,000, and in the past month, 43,000 refugees have come into Tirana city-—25 per cent. of the population have come to Tirana in a few weeks. Of those refugees, 33 per cent. are in host families—they are staying with anyone who will have them.
Host families in Albania have an average income of £15 a month, and some of them are catering for two or three families. I visited the Sipri family, who are a family of three. They are unemployed, because there is very little work in Tirana. They live in a tiny, two-roomed flat, and because of their son's long-standing link with a family of six, including two children, they welcomed them into their tiny flat and were feeding and coping with them on £15 a month.
I also visited what was described to me as a model refugee camp. It was a small camp on the site of the old Tirana municipal swimming pool, which no longer had any water in it. It was built for 2,000 by UNHCR, but it already had 3,000 refugees in it and others were moving in every day. When I visited, the mud was drying up and the sun was coming out, so it was looking a little better, but there were 20 latrines for more than 3,000 people which, as the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) reminded us, could cause infections and other problems in the summer months. It was desperately overcrowded, and there were no cooking facilities and no hot water. I think that the Select Committee saw a better refugee camp in Rwanda when we visited that country last year. The camp I saw in Tirana was appalling, yet it was described as a model camp.
The men in the camp were unanimous: they wanted to have guns and to join the Kosovo Liberation Army so that they could get back to Kosovo to fight for freedom. On the whole, the women wanted to stay in Albania, because they had small children. They were also worried about their families, and they wanted to stay put until they knew what had happened to them.
I visited a women's hospital with its director, Dr. Kallajxhi. It was one of the worst places I have ever seen; Florence Nightingale would have been ashamed. It is the main women's hospital for Tirana, the capital city of Albania. It was dirty, there were building works all over the place—even above and below the wards where women were giving birth—and very few painkillers were available, so the women who had suffered so much coming out of Kosovo were not getting any relief in childbirth. Most of the equipment was 20 years old.
The hospital was catering for the people of Tirana as well as for the refugees, which made it difficult because it did not have the staff. Many of the women were having abortions: many were having to have extensive gynaecological repairs and some were having hysterectomies because of the damage they had suffered after having been raped by Serbian soldiers. It was a distressing visit, and quite honestly the conditions in that hospital beggared belief.
At the end of my visit, I met Mr. Orhan Sakiqi, who is the head of the Tirana municipal council, and together we came to some conclusions. I appreciate that this is a small

883
area of the whole problem, but I felt that it would be useful to list the things that we believed were needed, especially in the medium and long term.
According to all those to whom I spoke, registration is a problem. As has been said, the UNHCR is not considered to be performing terribly well in Albania. Most of the refugees whom I met in Tirana had no papers, because they were not being processed—as we were told that they were—as the refugees crossed the border. The refugees were stuck with host families, with no identity and no papers. Some would like to come to the United Kingdom, but not many, because few of their friends and families are here owing to the United Kingdom's asylum and immigration policies over the past 10 years. That is one of the reasons why a number of them want to go to Germany. That is our fault, and we should be doing something about it.
The Sipri family, whom I visited, would like to go to Germany, where they have relatives, but they cannot do so because they have no papers. No one seemed to know how to remedy the problem, even the people in the municipality.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: There is no substitute for direct evidence. Let me ask a question, without any overtones. The hon. Lady spoke of rapes committed by Serbian soldiers. There seems to be considerable dispute about that, and I do not know the truth. Doubtless some rapes have taken place, but did the hon. Lady have direct evidence of rape committed by Serbian soldiers on a significant scale?
Dr. Tonge: I appreciate that it is a difficult question. Before I came to the House, I worked in gynaecology and family planning, and I know that it is sometimes difficult to assess the truth of what people say. Because I was in the area for only a short time, I heard the story directly from only a few people, but the evidence is that the same story is being told all over the place by all sorts of women who have had no contact with each other. A fortnight ago, some of us met two professionals, a paediatrician and a journalist, who had come from Kosovo. They had a good deal of evidence. There is certainly medical evidence in the hospital to which I referred that women have been brutalised, raped and then mutilated, and it was alleged that the Serbs had done it. That is all that I can say in answer to the hon. Gentleman.
Let me return to the problem of identity. The Government must put pressure on the UNHCR to get its act together and ensure that those people are registered.
Mr. David Heath: What my hon. Friend has said about the camps in Albania coincides with my experience in Macedonia. Record keeping and being able to trace refugees and record their stories are indeed problems, but, now that the necessary information technology is available, could that not be done largely out of country? Should not western countries be employing people to maintain databases, and relieve some of the pressure on the Albanians, the Macedonians and the relief agencies?
Dr. Tonge: The thought crossed my mind as well. I cannot see why the details of people's past lives,
884
homes and businesses cannot be recorded in England or Germany as easily as in Tirana or somewhere in Macedonia. I agree with my hon. Friend: surely computer technology could help. This is one of the most urgent problems for the refugees, who do not know where to turn, and are forced to remain non-people. They do not exist, and it is not possible to help people who do not exist.
As I have said, I was appalled by the state of the refugee camps. I am sure that our Government are putting pressure on the UNHCR to improve them, but I was interested by the Albanians' suggestion that smaller camps should be built to reflect the village communities that existed in Kosovo, and to keep people together so that they could give each other support.
One of my main worries is the lack of help for the tens of thousands of host families in Albania who are trying to manage on meagre incomes and looking after all the refugees. I do not know how long their patience will last. The European Children's Trust has developed a scheme whereby families' needs are assessed and a recommendation is made; they are then given direct financial help to buy food which is available in Albania, and any other supplies that they need. I urge our Government in particular to consider schemes that would enable us to help host families directly to support the refugees.
As for education, health and social services, there is a network—in other countries that we visited, there is no such network—but it is entirely inadequate. There are thousands of refugee doctors, nurses and teachers who can work and want to help their own people, but there is the matter of paying them a little to do so. Pressure should be put on all the authorities to mobilise the professionals in the refugee group to help with social services in Albania.
There is also an urgent need for medical equipment and medicines. I hope that our constituencies, including mine, will want to do something identifiable, rather than just giving money to an anonymous appeal. They could, for instance, focus on a hospital that badly needs updating, and some decent equipment and medicines. Europe, and our Government, could help with that as well.
Mr. Casale: The hon. Lady has told us about the present arrangements for the accommodation of refugees in Albanian host families and elsewhere. Given the state of the camps and the difficulties experienced by the host families, is there any prospect of accommodation being arranged there for refugees in the medium and longer term, or is the UNHCR right in saying that such accommodation can only be temporary and provisional, and that it will soon be necessary to move many of the refugees to other countries in western Europe?
Dr. Tonge: There are two aspects to the question. Some refugees, having reflected, are beginning to think that they would be better off in another country; but it was emphasised to me—although I spoke to only a small sample—that they wanted that to be on a temporary basis, especially the women and children.
As I said, the Albanians have suggested the establishment of medium to long-term villages, providing slightly better accommodation than tents—perhaps prefabricated buildings such as those that we had just after the war—so that people could live in village communities.

885
They would then be able to stay in the area among people they knew, and to return to Kosovo that much more quickly.
The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie said that the Albanians, and indeed the Macedonians, would not tolerate the influx of people even poorer than themselves indefinitely. They are responding magnificently now, but that may not last for ever, and there could be civil unrest. One of the most moving things said to me during my short visit was said by Mr. Sakiqi, the leader of Tirana council. He said, "Whatever Europe does, the Kosovars are our brothers, and we welcome them." The Albanian people have set us an example with their generosity and kindness, but we must realise that there is a huge financial implication for the future, and we must know where the money will come from. I trust that the Government will not make the Department for International Development contingency reserve meet the cost in the medium and long term. The money must come from the Treasury reserves; it cannot come out of the development budget. One thing is certain: we need to plan for the long term, and we need to plan quickly.
11.29 am
Ann Clwyd: I am sure that all hon. Members wish that the war had never been necessary. For a long time, we tried to negotiate with Milosevic and the Yugoslav Government in an attempt to reach some accommodation that would ensure that the ethnic cleansing that we are witnessing would not continue, but it was anticipated as far back as July 1995 that there would be refugees. One of the interesting things that we learned during our latest visit was that a disaster contingency plan had been drawn up as far back as July 1995 for 300,000 refugees from Kosovo to Albania and Macedonia. Hon. Members may well ask what happened to that plan.
The plan was jointly organised by the World Food Programme and the UNHCR. The programme has done its job in relation to the plan because there is no shortage of food and it is preparing to feed many thousands of refugees for months ahead, not only if they remain in Albania and Macedonia, but if, by some good chance, the war ends and they are able to return to their country.
Even if the war were to finish tomorrow, the refugees would have to be fed in Kosovo for about 16 months after their return because they have missed the planting season. Before they are able to plant again, obviously, they will need to be fed by the World Food Programme.
I wonder what happened to the plan. The meetings between the World Food Programme, the UNHCR and various other agencies were supposed to continue every three months. One of the things that are obvious to us after visiting the region twice in the past two weeks is that The UNHCR, for various reasons, has been caught short.
As some of my hon. Friends have mentioned, there is a shortage of tents in Albania. When we were there last week, 9,000 people were out in the open without cover. The UNHCR told us that there was a shortage of tents. There are other shortages. Refugees in both Macedonia and Albania are in overcrowded conditions. In Macedonia, the population in the camps is three times the density that the UNHCR considers acceptable.
Last week, I went to some of the camps for the second time in 10 days. What is clear is that, with the present numbers that are flooding across the border, it is
886
impossible for the existing camps to contain such numbers of people. Aid workers were saying to me that they wanted us to know that refugees had been threatening hunger strikes, or to burn some of the tents down unless things improved in the camps.
As the NATO commander made clear to us, there is a small window of opportunity. Only a few months are left to get people out of the camps before the winter comes. Unless they get out, when the winter comes, they will freeze to death. At the end of August, there will be the short-term problem of making arrangements for the winter.
On my first visit to the camps, people told me that their choice of country would have been the United Kingdom if that choice had been available to them, but that they had chosen other countries. In one case, a university professor and his family of three had been forced out of their home. He was forced out of his job at a museum by the Serbs, who brought a letter to him one day and said that he had no job. He went back to his home village and lived in a house with his family. One day, the paramilitaries came and burnt it down.
The professor then hid in a basement for two months. The paramilitaries came down that street as well and he had to flee. He and his family spent three nights on the road and in a forest, and many other nights in the open on the border. He said that he had been separated from his 90-year-old mother.
As hon. Members know, it is a story that many other people in the camps can tell: a story of separations and losses. They do not know where their children or elderly parents are. In some cases, their husbands were kept behind; they believe that they are now dead. All those refugees have stories of tragedy.
The refugees go to the camps and are asked which third country they would be ready to go to. That professor told me that he had been given a form and had put down Norway as his first choice because, as he said, although not in an accusatory way, the refugees understood that Britain did not want them. I met a man who was in another camp with his family, who put down Germany as his first choice. He was told that Britain was not an option. I asked the UNHCR people on the spot, who said that they had put down countries as options only if those countries had specified a quota.
Going there the second time, I picked up a form in one of the UNHCR tents where refugees were filling in their details. Of course, the vast majority have no papers at all: no passports, no identity cards—nothing to prove their identity. They were filling in forms for UNHCR.
I turned over one form. Again, it had the same list of countries on the back, and someone had written in biro—I presume that it must have been a refugee-"England." I have said many times how ashamed I was that the refugees thought that the United Kingdom did not want them, so I am delighted that the Prime Minister has stated that we are ready to take several thousand refugees, without specifying a quota. That is good news. I am pleased that he saw for himself the needs of those refugees and how impossible it is for countries such as Macedonia, which has 2.2 million people, to absorb such numbers.
Sixty per cent. of refugees are already in private homes in Macedonia. Again, the hospitality of the people who have taken refugees into their homes, in both Macedonia and Albania, has to be commended. However, it puts

887
enormous strains on families. Twenty-seven refugees were living in one home with two bedrooms. Obviously, that cannot go on because it strains the host family. They do not have the money to support those people. Some of my hon. Friends have talked about the low incomes in both Macedonia and Albania. We are now saying that we will be generous to the refugees who want to come to Britain. I am pleased about that.
In Albania, I was told by our embassy that we were giving no visas. Indeed, people who approach the embassy for visas are told to go to Istanbul. I hope that that is something that my hon. Friend the Minister will look into. It seems utter nonsense that we are sending people to Istanbul to apply for visas.
Last week, people were telephoning me from Manchester, including the wife of a man from Kosovo who has lived in this country for more than 10 years. He went to Albania to get his elderly parents who, two months ago, had come across from Kosovo. He was told that he could not get a visa to bring them back to Britain. Again, such incidents have to be investigated.
The strain on the Macedonian Government cannot be over-emphasised. As I have said, it is a small country of 2.2 million people. It is very poor, with 40 per cent. unemployment. It is having to pay for the transport of refugees to the camps and for the policing of those camps. The Deputy Foreign Minister, who spoke to us, mentioned the extra man hours for policing and the hospital treatment for refugees that Macedonia had to pay for. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) said, it is no longer able to export many of its goods to other countries.
In Macedonia, 87 contracts with EU countries have been cancelled. The Minister told us that he was afraid for the political stability of his country. It is right that we give countries such as Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania as much economic aid as possible. They must be assisted in dealing with the vast numbers of refugees who are flooding into their countries.
The UNHCR has a problem, although I do not know quite what it is; it may be understaffing. I have the greatest respect for UN agencies, as do my hon. Friends, but the UNHCR's role in this and what happened to the disaster preparedness plan must be investigated in the future.
I have been to many refugee camps and I have seen much worse; I can be realistic about the situation in which the Kosovars now find themselves. Many of the Kurds who fled across the mountains from Iraq into Iran 10 years ago are still in refugee camps in Iran. It is unlikely that Kosovars will return home in vast numbers before Kosovo is rebuilt.
Obviously, I hope that the war will soon be over, although I still consider that ground troops are essential. I said so on 14 January in the House and I have not changed my mind. I am sure that were the Prime Minister to obtain the backing of other EU countries, he would be ready to use those ground troops. The Americans' attitude is amazingly ambivalent. This is not the first time that they have been enthusiastic for a particular war, only to back off. Our Prime Minister is resolute. He completely opposes the hideous ethnic cleansing in which Milosevic is engaged.
888
I agree with the Government line that Milosevic must be defeated, that Kosovo must be a safe place to which the Kosovars can return, and that we must give Kosovo, and possibly Serbia when the war is over, as much economic aid as possible. In the meantime, we must persist in defeating what we all know, at the end of the 20th century, is no longer acceptable in Europe.
11.43 am
Mr. Alan Clark: The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) refers, in the long title of his debate, to "Humanitarian and economic effects". I subsume those broadly into the social consequences of a huge tide of refugees. I understood you to rule, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it would be within order to discuss the impact that that may have on the United Kingdom.
Hon. Members may recall a rather peculiar incident that took place on the quayside at Calais some three months ago involving an exchange of fire between people whom the French police later identified as Kosovars, as a result of which some British tourists were injured. That gave rise to various questions, such as how they got there, what were they doing and how they had managed to come as far as the English channel carrying firearms.
Further inquiries disclosed that it was quite normal for British tourists returning home and lorry drivers with British registered vehicles to be intimidated, sometimes at gunpoint, by Kosovar refugees who want to enter the United Kingdom in their vehicles. That was before any announcement had been made on the acceptance of refugees.
That brings me to a subject to which the House must continue to direct its attention. I see from today's papers that MI6 and the other intelligence services are also involved. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has already reminded the House of certain findings of the German police authorities and Interpol regarding the high level of criminal infiltration in the KLA by Balkan criminal elements mainly concerned with drugs, immigration rackets and prostitution.
We know that a high criminal infiltration in any body results in a breakdown into gang warfare. The events on the quayside at Calais had every appearance of gang or factional warfare. For that reason, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, for whom I have huge respect, will not take it personally when I say that I wish that a Home Office Minister was present beside him who could pay some regard to my points. In the fullness of time, the criminality that pervades the KLA will be a matter of prime importance for consideration by the Government and the House of Commons.
Mr. Dalyell: It might be unreasonable to ask the Minister to comment in any kind of detail, but some of us do ask the Government for a statement on Tim Butcher's report in The Daily Telegraph today on MI6, and on the recurring reports that there is an investigation by Interpol and the Bundeskriminalamt Verfassungschutz. At least we should have the assurance that the Government take the matter seriously.
Mr. Clark: I hope that the Minister will infer from what I have said that that would be welcome.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): All I want to say at this stage is that Ministers in my Department are in close touch with Home Office Ministers about all the issues, and Home Office Ministers will take account of all that is said in this debate relating to their responsibilities.
Mr. Clark: I am grateful to the Minister for responding at this stage.
I listened with great concern to the first-hand accounts of visiting the camps by the hon. Members for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), and for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). The hon. Members for Richmond Park and for Cynon Valley spoke movingly and I would in no way impugn their testimony to the House. However, did not the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie have any intimation of the degree of intimidation and gang dominance within the camps?
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley said that she had heard from the Macedonian authorities that there was a threat of a hunger strike or of burning down the tents. Who is organising that threat? Why should perfectly ordinary decent people in a high level of distress consider starving themselves and their children and burning down the accommodation that has been provided by the great generosity of the west? I suggest that it is because they have been threatened and told that that is what they must do if they want to get into line and stay safe.
My evidence is anecdotal. I have not visited the camps myself. One of my sons is a soldier and, as the House knows, there is general gossip and an exchange of information among the services. He has given me anecdotal evidence of drug trafficking, violence and intimidation, and, in particular, the trawling of camps and the removal of likely candidates for prostitution rackets. Such things are habitual and recognised. I see the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie shifting in his seat. I hope that he will feel able to comment briefly on that.
Mr. Worthington: The camps are ripe for the kind of activity to which the right hon. Gentleman refers if we do not get the situation there right. If we simply allow things to go on as they are, they will become recruiting grounds for the KLA. Something similar happened in Rwanda and elsewhere. That is why I was emphasising the much more important point—rather than the issue that the right hon. Gentleman is stressing—that the vast majority of people in the camps are destitute and that appalling things have been done to them. We should concentrate on that point.
Mr. Clark: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and should not for a moment dispute the tenor of his comments. However, I feel that the House should be aware of the very high level and very wide diffusion of criminality within the camps and within the itinerant refugee bodies themselves.
When the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie says that we have to "get it right", I assume that he means that provision of direct aid to those bodies is not of itself sufficient, but that there will have to be a level of policing. There is no doubt that the flow, when it comes, of those people into equable and democratic western societies will cause enormous trouble, as it contains within it many people who are simply taking advantage of the situation to operate drug trafficking.
890
There has always been a very close link between the Albanian mafia, the Calabrian mafia in southern Italy, and drugs are the most portable and easily traded form of wealth. The moment that people get into that type of racketeering, violence, murder and intimidation follow. We have to be extremely careful to guard against such developments.
Magistrates in my constituency are already going out of their way to tell me of their experience in the London courts with Albanians affecting to claim refugee status. Those Albanians are being indoctrinated and told what to say by one or two groups of solicitors in the capital, who are clearly retained by criminal elements that are a part of the overall structure. They know how to ask for interpreters, to claim that they are below the appropriate age and to assert totally unjustified charges of racism, although they have been apprehended for genuinely criminal acts.
The House should be aware that the current situation is as good an opportunity as any for those groups. If we are not careful in our generous impulses—which are always one of the Chamber's most valuable responses to particularly objectionable crises; and first-hand testimony of which we have heard from hon. Members today—we shall be making ourselves vulnerable to a very great criminal influx.
I am glad that the Minister has said that the matter will be properly reported and that proper liaison on it will be made with the Home Office. It is an aspect of the whole tragic affair that—because it is so widely diffused, and the element of violence is so overt—our Government should be considering very seriously as they approach it.
11.53 am
Ms Tess Kingham: This is one of those rare occasions when I decide—halfway through a debate, after hearing hon. Members' speeches—to make a completely different speech from the one that I had planned on making. I should like very briefly to address the issue of psychosocial support, mental health and psychological support for refugees in camps and in host families in Macedonia and Albania. The issue may not seem relevant to the debate, but it is, and I hope that you will be patient with me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and allow me to develop the argument.
Early in the NATO military campaign, I asked in the House whether psychosocial support would be provided very early for refugees, to ensure stability in the camps and in the surrounding areas, and when the refugees have returned to their homes in Kosovo. After visiting the camps and surrounding areas in Macedonia and Albania, and after speaking to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Red Cross, the World Health Organisation and refugees themselves, I am more convinced than ever that we have to co-ordinate psychosocial support and ensure that refugees receive at a very early stage the mental health support and counselling that they need.
The refugees have witnessed, or been victims of, a series of acts of terror. They have seen massacres. When we were at the Blace border crossing, we spoke to people who had seen piles of dead bodies by the roadside in villages around Lipjan. They have also witnessed beatings and threats. We spoke to refugees who said that the Serbs had daily entered their homes, holding guns to their

891
children's heads and saying, "Shall I shoot them today, mother? No—not today, but maybe tomorrow." After a few days of that type of intimidation, they left their homes.
The refugees have experienced rape. I was quite shocked to hear some of the comments on rape and intimidation made earlier in the debate. It is well known that women, particularly from the Muslim community and in a culture in which rape is deeply shaming, will not just come out and tell all and sundry that they have been raped. Rape is therefore very difficult to verify in such societies. Sometimes, the truth comes out only after months or years.
We spoke also to refugees whose homes were burnt, who saw their animals being killed, and who had been separated from their families. One of the most moving moments was seeing the long list of lost children, aged two to 18, posted outside the International Committee of the Red Cross building.
The refugees are in a state of shock and suffering from acute anxiety. Those are symptoms of the first stage of being terrorised, and become apparent particularly when one speaks to the old men in the camps or in host families—halfway through a logical conversation, tears start streaming down their faces. That happened with almost everyone with whom I spoke in the camps. At some point in the conversation, they cried uncontrollably. It was not sobbing, but uncontrollable tears.
We have been told by the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture that the refugees are suffering acute anxiety, and that they need psychosocial help and mental health counselling and support. They need that help now, and they need it to be delivered in an organised and co-ordinated manner. The refugees will continue to suffer anxiety, panic attacks and flashbacks, and possibly ill health.
We have already heard about the camps destabilising economic and social effects in Macedonia. The camps that we visited were surrounded by fences. The Macedonian authorities tried to keep the camps as far away as possible from the rest of the population. People are not allowed at will out of the camps, which are quite tense places. Because of the volatility of the situation in Macedonia and the effects of the refugee influx on the local population, the Macedonian Government move most refugee convoys and equipment at night.
If mental health support is not provided to refugees now, there will be many and various severe consequences. Organisations such as the Red Cross, the World Health Organisation and the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture have stated that the consequences of not providing help now will be manifested in several ways, such as in violent outbursts. The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) was perhaps right to say that there are violent outbursts in the camps; but many of those may be caused by pent-up trauma and lack of psychological support.
Dr. Tonge: I appreciate the hon. Lady's comments, and certainly it would be valuable for people to receive such support and counselling. However, does she not think that, in times like these, the closeness of people's own families and communities is of overriding importance and would
892
provide far more support to them? The Albanian Government's suggestion of trying to gather people in camps into their natural communities, reflecting the old villages of Kosovo, is therefore a very good one.
Ms Kingham: I agree partly with the hon. Lady's comments. However, organisations that have worked with victims of oppression, torture and rape and with those who have witnessed tragic events have made it clear that close family members are not always those who are able to provide the necessary support to victims—who need long-term counselling by external counsellors and advisers—and that families break down if the right support is not available. Families cannot always provide their members with the support they need.
If victims cannot speak to an external counsellor and gain that support, the possible eventual consequences are tension within the family, domestic violence and outbreaks of—sometimes physical—abuse of children, all of which lead not only to dysfunctional families but to dysfunctional communities and communities in crisis.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: My hon. Friend is developing an important and interesting argument. She is obviously aware of the work of the Medical Foundation, which agrees that someone other than a family member is often needed. A Muslim woman who has been raped might find it very difficult to talk to someone whom she knows. Being in a camp surrounded by armed guards is similar to detention. My hon. Friend may be aware of the work of Dr Christina Pourgourides on the mental health effects of detention on asylum seekers in this country, who are held in much better conditions than those in the camps in Macedonia.
Ms Kingham: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. I have spoken to several organisations in the camps, including the UNHCR and the Red Cross. The World Health Organisation is considering providing services for psychological support. However, there is a clear lack of co-ordination. In Bosnia, support was not provided in the early stages of humanitarian assistance and it was not followed through. Dozens of small non-governmental organisations turned up in Bosnia to give quick-fix counselling and psychological support and then pulled out. Unfortunately, that sometimes did more harm than good. The effort was not sustained and people did not get the support that they needed.
The Medical Foundation and others have pointed out to me that, after six months, refugees go to the intermediate phase of mental crisis, when self-denial is no longer possible and the true force of the effects of the terror that they have experienced will come out. It is crucial that they have long-term support at that time. They will also need support when they return to their homes in Kosovo. It will be no utopia. Their homes will be devastated and their villages will be burned. They will face yet another phase of crisis.
Support for the refugees is necessary immediately, after six months and on their return home. There must be an integrated programme in the humanitarian assistance effort to ensure that they are given support from the beginning until they return home. I do not feel reassured that such help is being provided. The consequences of that could be grim. There could be outbreaks of violence in

893
the camps, families may break down, communities will not be functional and, when people return home, they will not be able to rebuild their lives in the way that they need.
I urge the Government to ask the UNHCR to ensure that a programme of care for the refugees is bolted into the planning for the coming months. It is not an optional extra. There is no point in feeding people and giving them shelter and medical care if we end up with appalling scenes such as the horrible picture that I am sure that we all remember emblazoned over the front of the newspapers during the Bosnia crisis featuring a 19-year-old girl who had been raped and had hanged herself from a tree because she could no longer live with the trauma and felt that she had nobody to turn to.
12.3 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I ask a question of which I have given the Department notice? It concerns the nuclear power station at Kosledoj in Bulgaria, which, before the crisis, was perhaps the most worrying of the eastern bloc nuclear power stations. There is a real problem of oil pollution in the Danube, which could foul up the coolant system. If the coolant system were injured in any way, there could be a catastrophe along Chernobyl lines. I am not saying that that would happen, but it is possible. I have contacted Scottish Nuclear and British Energy about the issue and told the Department about my worries. There is a similar problem with the Romanian Cernavoda No. 1 power station.
The environmental consequences of bombing know no borders. Large quantities of chlorine and other noxious gases have been released into the air after the bombing of the refinery and petrochemical plant at Pancevo. I understand that the rain that has fallen in the past few days on Pancevo, Novi Sad and Belgrade, as well as over the Hungarian border, is grey-black. That has been detected by ordinary people striving to save water and by meteorologists and other experts. That water will seep into the soil and poison the crops. The Danube and the Sava are so polluted that people are forbidden to eat fish from them. The destroyed chemical plants and the oil storage drums have leaked into the rivers. Fertiliser and chemical plants have been spawning black fumes.
I make a plea to the Government to reconsider yet again whether the strategy of bombing helps this awful situation. Sometimes, doing the right thing may involve loss of face, but history will judge us kindly for choosing such an option. There is still scope for diplomatic activity to negotiate a settlement under the auspices of the United Nations to protect the people of Kosovo and elsewhere. We have to stop our policy of capitulation or else.
After the conflict with NATO is over, Yugoslavia and the area around it will depend on imported oil and will be unable to rebuild its industrial sector, let alone bridges, without huge amounts of aid from the countries that are now bombing it. Can we not reconsider the policy of bombing?
12.6 pm
Mr. Gary Streeter: The House is indebted to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) for initiating this important debate and to the members of the Select Committee, who have brought back their testimony of what they have seen in the past few days of this dreadful crisis. The House
894
would also be wise to listen carefully to the words of warning from my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark). Hon. Members are entitled to speak about different aspects of the issue in this Chamber.
I am sure that many hon. Members feel, as I do, that it is almost too painful to open a newspaper, turn on the television or listen to the radio, only to hear yet more distressing tales of what is going on in Kosovo. The suffering of the Kosovar Albanians is distressing for us all. Perhaps it is not easy to focus on anything more than supporting the refugees through the crisis and bringing the conflict to a successful conclusion so that peace and security can be established in the region once again and people can go back to their homes and begin to rebuild their lives, which is what they want.
However, we would fail the people of the region if, in addition to soft hearts, we did not also bring clear minds to the debate. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie is right to cause us to look at the wider implications for neighbouring states and the longer-term implications for the region. The decisions that we make in the west continue to have a significant effect on the people of the region.
I intend to be brief, because I want the Minister to have as long as possible to answer as many points as he can. However, it is worth repeating what we all believe: that the responsibility for the situation lies with President Milosevic and a tiny minority of Serb enforcers. He is a brutal dictator who has no part to play in the Europe of the 21st century. I have a friend living in Belgrade who still e-mails me about once a week. He is an intelligent and reasonable man, but he cannot understand what NATO is doing and does not believe that ethnic cleansing is taking place in Kosovo. That shows the scale of the challenge that the Serbian people will face when all this is over to come to terms with the reality of what has happened in their country.
We will always support our troops in action overseas. We pay tribute again to their courage and dedication. However, I must take this opportunity to make it clear again that when the armed conflict finally comes to an end, we shall require some answers to the many searching questions that we have asked about how we found ourselves in this position. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) made a similar point. It is in the interests of the region that lessons should be learned from the situation. It will be necessary to revisit the failure of the diplomatic efforts of the past two years. We shall have to examine the consequences of so many threats but so little action in 1998. We must examine carefully the lack of preparedness of the relevant agencies in terms of coping with an exodus of refugees that was breathtaking, but inevitable once air strikes started. We will be right to probe the initial lack of co-ordination between NATO, the EU and the UN.
I feel strongly—perhaps the Minister will not agree—that we should consider whether some of the intergalactic rhetoric of some Government Ministers in the past few weeks has helped or hindered the cause. Many lessons must be learned from the conflict, and it is our job, as Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, to try to make sure that that happens. Having started down the road, there is no alternative but to press on to a successful conclusion for the people of Kosovo, NATO and the region as a whole.

895
There are implications for neighbouring states. Albania and Macedonia are poor and have internal problems of their own, and they have been all but overwhelmed by the influx of refugees. The testimony that we have heard today makes that point eloquently. The strains on their social structures and economies are significant.
There has been a severe impact on the economies of other neighbouring states such as Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania as a result of the loss of transport routes through Serbia for exports and the lack of investor confidence in the region generally. I was in Kosovo in December and in Bosnia earlier in the year. The region is staggeringly beautiful, but it is not hard to see that tourism this year is unlikely to be substantial. Milosevic has many victims, not all of whom live in Kosovo.
Our response must be in the short, medium and long term. However, our commitment to the region must be absolute. This is Europe; we have a strategic national interest in long-term European stability. I believe that we have a moral responsibility also to see the matter through.
In the short term, we must pay the costs of supporting the refugees in the region. We must be both compassionate and efficient. The magnificent record- breaking response of the great British public—in giving over £30 million to the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal—demonstrates how the crisis has been taken to the hearts of the people of this country.
I welcome the increase in our aid from £20 million to —40 million, announced by the Prime Minister on Monday. It would be helpful if the Minister could specify where that money is coming from. Which part of the Government's coffers will it be taken from? What specific use will be made of the money? What are the implications for the balance of the Department's budget? I agree with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) that the money should come out of Treasury contingencies, rather than those of the Department for International Development.
I welcome the decision by the EU to make £168 million available to aid agencies and to the Governments of Macedonia, of Montenegro and of Albania. It is vital that we support those Governments at this time. However, I am concerned at the reports, to which the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie alluded, that the money is still not getting through on the ground. I did not understand the reference to the books of Macedonia not being in order, and I hope that the Minister will clarify that matter. What must be done to get the money through? How much longer will the Macedonian Government be kept waiting for this vital aid? Will the Minister keep an eye on the Brussels money to ensure that it is not bogged down by long-term Brussels red tape, as so often has happened in the past?
The Home Secretary announced yesterday that this country will take 1,000 refugees per week. Before that, the Government's clear policy had been to provide for the refugees on the ground. Can the Minister explain the change of policy? Does he agree that such an important policy change should have been made by a statement to the House of Commons? Can he confirm that there will be such a statement by the Home Secretary this afternoon, so that we can question him on the matter? It will
896
be difficult to decide on the proper response to the announcement until we know the detailed facts and figures.
It remains our preference to care for people in the region, so that they can go back to their homes as soon as possible, as that is what they want. We look forward to a statement in the House this afternoon so that we can make a proper assessment of the decision.
In the medium term, it is vital that aid for the region is co-ordinated. People are talking about a Marshall plan, and we would support a significant reconstruction plan for the region. It is in the long-term interests of all of us that European stability is achieved. Obviously, the EU has a vital role, and perhaps the Minister can say a little about its plans.
In the long term—with the goal being the stability of the region—I feel strongly that the EU has an historic opportunity to underpin long-term stability by proceeding with enlargement at a realistic and reasonable pace. Enlargement can bring to the region the benefits of stable democracies, market-based economies, strong, civil societies and respect for the rule of law and human rights; perhaps for the first time in history. Will the Minister confirm the Government's commitment to that process?
Perhaps some lateral thinking is required by the EU to create some special status for some of those countries that clearly are not ready—or anything like ready—for accession to the EU. That would help those countries through the next few years as they prepare for accession. Does he agree that a wider Europe, rather than a deeper Europe, will bring peace, stability and ultimately prosperity to that needy region?
12.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): I am deeply indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) for initiating this debate, which the Government welcome. In the time that the House has generously provided for me, I will try to provide answers to all the questions. If I am unable to do so, I undertake that either I or one of my colleagues from another Department will write to the hon. Members concerned. That will include the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in relation to nuclear power plants. I should have liked to answer that question but, in the time available, I was unable to do so. I can assure my hon. Friend that someone will write to him.
As the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) rightly said, we are facing the most acute crisis in Europe since 1945. More than 1 million people have been evicted from their homes. Thousands have been killed, and hundreds of women raped. I am surprised that anyone has questioned those figures, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham) and to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) for confirming them. Thousands of people have been separated from their families.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow that, for more than a year, we tried to find a diplomatic solution. We called on Milosevic to stop attacking and persecuting his own people. He refused. At the end of the day, we had a duty to act to help those people who were being persecuted, killed and maimed. We have acted on

897
that duty, and none of us in the Government apologises for that. The scale of the resulting crisis is clear, but let there be no doubt in the House; Milosevic is responsible for the crisis and the suffering.
I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie that this is a timely debate. As he and others have said, a donors' conference is taking place today in Paris, considering specifically the needs of Macedonia. I expect that there will be a similar conference on Albania soon.
The UK has an important role in the conference, as well as in the medium and long-term support for the region. However, that is along with other donors. We must not forget that, as well as the bilateral donors, the EU and the international financial institutions have a responsibility. The UK should not take it all upon ourselves in dealing with the problem. At the donors' conference, we will pledge a further £5 million from the know-how fund to improve the administration within Macedonia and to make the country more able to cope with the problems to which the hon. Member for South-West Devon referred.
Mr. Gerrard: We all appreciate that aid is needed and, after the conference, we may have a clearer idea of the scale of the money to be given. However, I am concerned about the comparison of what is being given with the costs. The Home Office has said that this country will spend more than £600 million this year on support for asylum seekers; and that is supporting maybe 50,000 people. When we compare that figure with the problems in Macedonia and Albania, it suggests the scale of aid that might be needed.
Mr. Foulkes: I will deal with that point, but it is important to deal first with the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and others about our position on taking in refugees. There has been some misunderstanding of the Government's position. There has been no policy change. Not having a quota does not mean an unwillingness to take refugees; indeed, quotas can easily be used as an upper limit.
We have said all along that the vast majority of refugees should remain in the region, as is their own wish—they said that to members of the Select Committee and to the Prime Minister—ready to return when the NATO campaign has succeeded. We in Britain have given more help on the ground than most other countries. We recognise that some refugees need to be airlifted out: especially the vulnerable, those with particular medical conditions and those with family connections in the United Kingdom. Above all, only those who want to come here must be brought; it must be voluntary. We were concerned that some people were being shipped out against their will. That certainly must not happen.
That humanitarian response has always been our intention. Two planes came in last week, to Leeds-Bradford airport and to East Midlands airport. I want to thank all those involved in receiving the refugees, including the Refugee Council, local authorities and local Members of Parliament. We are now able to increase the pace of our humanitarian response because the UNHCR and the International Organisation for Migration have been able to process more requests.
898
Departments, local authorities and voluntary organisations are now ready to receive more people, so we can go up from two planes a week to four a week, and ultimately one a day over the next few weeks.
Mr. Alan Clark: If, as is proper, the Minister is consulting local authorities and others and getting their consent, will he not also feel obliged, for reasons of both practicality and honour, to assure those authorities that a proper screening process will be set in train, to prevent infiltration by criminal elements and by those who, as I have warned the House, will be intimidating refugees, and whom their own people will obviously be reluctant to reveal?
Mr. Foulkes: A Home Office team will go to the region—this weekend, I expect—to help with the screening, working with the UNHCR and the International Organisation for Migration.
Those who come will get exceptional leave to stay and will be able to receive social security and to work. The next two plane loads will arrive at Prestwick airport on Sunday and will then go to Clydebank and to Glasgow.
Let me assure my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley that the fact that Britain was not on the list at the beginning and had to be added in biro was an administrative oversight on the ground in Macedonia—I apportion no blame—which, I am glad to say, has now been rectified.
I was asked about the level of assistance that we are giving. The Prime Minister announced a further £20 million, which several hon. Members have welcomed today, bringing the total since the conflict started to £40 million. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) that we are willing to consider further requests for funds as the need arises.
I can confirm for the hon. Members for Richmond Park and for South-West Devon that the latest funds do not come out of my Department's budget. We are not taking away help that should rightly continue to go to those in poverty in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. We try to ensure that the help that we give on the ground helps host families and the host countries as much as possible.
I join the hon. Member for South-West Devon in congratulating the British people on contributing £28 million through the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal. That, in a matter of days, is a phenomenal response, and shows their concern for the plight of refugees; indeed, they have contributed to other appeals, too. I know that many people want to give medicine or gifts, but money is what is needed. They would do better to sell what they might otherwise give and raise money so that what is needed can be procured locally, wherever possible.
We have an unparalleled record of providing help on the ground. We have flown 40 airlifts so far, providing tents, blankets, food, and medical and emergency supplies, with more on the way. I am proud to say, in this Red Cross week, that we have given £2.5 million to the Red Cross for relief and for family tracing, to get families back together. Scores of families have already been reunited, and more will be.
We are providing an airport logistics cell at Tirana, an aircraft handling package at Skopje, and a convoy of five trucks. We have helped to set up two camps in Macedonia

899
and we are setting one up in Albania. We are establishing contingency stockpiles of food, tents and blankets. There are scores of Department for International Development staff on the ground.
We are providing funds to the World Food Programme, to UNICEF and to international voluntary organisations. We are helping with radio programmes to give information to the refugees and providing free radios. Hon. Members can be proud of what the Government are doing in this very difficult situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie urged us to give additional help to the UNHCR. There have been some criticisms of the UNHCR, and Mrs. Ogata, its head, has accepted that it is not perfect, but we should recognise that we are dealing with an unprecedented exodus. I can confirm today that, following the Prime Minister's visit, substantial further funds will be made available for the UNHCR. He hopes to talk to Mrs. Ogata about that. We are keen to help the organisation to overcome any weaknesses that have been identified and to provide the psychosocial help to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester referred.
I have been asked about European Union funds. Our officials are today working on a specific remit to unblock the 25 million euros for Macedonia. It is important to remove the blockage as quickly as possible. I am sure that the hon. Member for South-West Devon will be pleased that the Adam Smith Institute is providing the help to try to get the Macedonian Government's books in some kind of order.
We recognise that the conflict affects not only Macedonia and Albania but the other front-line states, as the hon. Member for South-West Devon said. We recognise the need for long-term assistance, and we have already started discussions on that. The countries concerned are European countries and need to be integrated into the wider European and global framework, with political and economic stability in the long term. Membership of European and international organisations is vital to that end.
In the longer term, it is important to have a stability pact in south-east Europe. Proposals for such a pact will be discussed at a meeting of senior officials in Bonn on 27 May.
No one, and least of all Milosevic, should be in any doubt that we will continue our campaign until the Serb troops are withdrawn, there is an international force in place and the Kosovars can return in safety to rebuild their shattered lives. Meanwhile, we will continue to play our full part in helping the refugees on the ground and in the United Kingdom. They want NATO to succeed, above all, as they want to return to their homes. We will continue until they can do so in safety.

Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): The next debate is on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies.
12.30 pm
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: If, like me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have had to practise saying "encephalopathies", you did extremely well.
The purpose of this debate is not to discuss the general issue of the spread of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, but to raise a particular case in which the rules to prevent it have been misapplied.
My constituent, Mr. R. Lennox of R. Lennox and Son of Layer de la Haye in my constituency, agreed to the sale of three loads of lambs to an Italian company, ILCO, in June 1997. I should say at the outset that I dislike the trade in live animals, and would much prefer United Kingdom-reared stock to be slaughtered before export—but that is another subject for debate and not one that I intend to raise now. My duty is to make representations on behalf of my constituent, who has suffered an injustice. Incidentally, not only Mr. Lennox but everyone in the supply chain has suffered—including those on hill farms in north Wales, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), who cannot be present but has written to me about the problem.
The livestock were shipped on 4 July 1997 with all appropriate health records and veterinary certificates, as required by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. They arrived in Italy on 7 July, and a certificate was issued confirming that their arrival in good condition. Mr. Lennox thereafter expected payment of £57,000.
As background, to cut a long story short, the Italian Government, acting under an ordinance dated 24 December 1996 on the prevention of the spread of TSEs, claimed that the MAFF certification was inadequate, and refused to accept the import of the lambs.
Incidentally, a similar shipment of lambs, which was sent to southern Italy, was accepted until the Rome branch of the Italian veterinary service contacted its representatives in the south. By that time, the consignment had been paid for. To be consistent, the Italian Government should have impounded those sheep, but the sheep had mysteriously disappeared. That consignment was paid for and disappeared, but Mr. Lennox's lambs have never been paid for.
After several days of exchanged faxes, during which time the condition of the lambs deteriorated, all 1,700 were slaughtered for non-food use on the order of the Italian Government. During that exchange, the UK Government made it clear that they considered that the Italian Government were acting illegally. On 14 July, Liana Smith, assistant to the first secretary at the British embassy in Rome, faxed the Italian Ministry of Health, apparently on the instruction of MAFF, stating that MAFF did not accept that the ministerial ordinance of 24 December 1996 was a lawful restriction on trade. Moreover, the fax made it clear that MAFF would write to the European Commission asking it to take legal action against the Italian Government.
In summary, Mr. Lennox is owed £57,000, but ILCO is refusing to pay. Mr. Lennox has therefore issued proceedings in the High Court, but ILCO has filed a

901
defence, which, in effect, blames the Italian Government for what occurred. The substance of the High Court action is not the subject of this debate. I question the UK Government's conduct in this matter, which is not sub judice. What have the Government done to help to remedy the loss suffered by UK businesses—notably that of my constituent—as a result of the Italian Government's legal action?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Donoughue, wrote to me on 20 July last year, saying that the Italian authorities were shortly to amend their ordinance. He confidently predicted:
"Mr. Lennox will be in a stronger position with regard to pursuing the matter of compensation from the Italian authorities once the Commission has given an opinion on these legal matters."
A new ordinance was brought into force by the Italian Government on 24 August 1998, which replaces the previous one and conforms with Italy's treaty obligations. According to Lord Donoughue, Mr. Lennox is now in that "stronger position" to which his letter referred.
In February, I again wrote to the Parliamentary Secretary, asking his Department to raise the issue with its counterparts in the Italian Government, and to press them to ensure that compensation is paid. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food himself replied. Although he acknowledged that the Government had made representations on the illegality of the now-defunct ordinance, he refused to assist my constituent. The purpose of this debate is simply to ask why.
My constituent has lost a large sum of money through the illegal actions of another Government. Why do the UK Government refuse to help to rectify that injustice? It has had a devastating effect on the viability of Mr. Lennox's business. He has no working capital; he cannot run his business. The suppliers whom he owes in turn are threatening bankruptcy proceedings. Mr. Lennox has had to put his farm on the market. Is that what the Government want?
The High Court action against ILCO will take a considerable time to resolve and may finish up in the European Court of Justice, which would take years. The sum in question is dwarfed by the legal costs. Is such a route the only recourse open to British businesses when other Governments flout their obligations under the single market, or does the Minister seriously expect an ordinary Essex farmer to be able to sue the Italian Government without any support from his own Government?
I urge the Government to write to the Italian Government, pressing them to take action to ensure that compensation is paid to Mr. Lennox, and thereby to his suppliers. If that is refused, the UK Government should seek meetings on the matter, ultimately at ministerial level and in the Council of Ministers, involving the Commission, until it is resolved. At the same time, the Government should take a policy decision in support of Mr. Lennox's legal action, with such financial and other help as may be necessary.
The Government cannot dismiss this matter as though it were a private contractual dispute, as the Minister did in his letter of 18 February. This is a matter between Governments. Failure to act one way or the other will mean that the Government are opting for the interests of their political horse trading, rather than for the real trade for which European Community rules were ostensibly established.
12.37 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I congratulate the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on finding a means by which to describe on the Floor of the House his constituent's important case and the circumstances in which he finds himself. As the hon. Gentleman knows from our discussion a few minutes ago, I was hitherto unaware of the specific nature of the issue. In fact, I have come to this debate armed with 1.5 in of briefing material on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies—one can say it if one does not think about it, by the way—in order to explain what is happening in respect of cattle and sheep. To reply with such information would be beyond the bounds of the subject that the hon. Gentleman has raised, and discourteous to him.
I recall the issue of what I call Italian sheep from the middle of 1997, just after we came into government. I remember seeing notes about delays concerning exports of sheep to Italy over which there was an argument. As the hon. Member for North Essex said, he has corresponded with two of my colleagues—Lord Donoughue and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
The way in which Mr. Lennox has been treated is very unfair. I do not know how many similar cases there are, although the hon. Gentleman referred to the disappearance of a consignment following payment. As the Government, we took a view that the Italians' actions were unlawful, and made very strong representations to them. The Italians changed their law in December 1996. That went well beyond the Community rules at the time. Indeed, the chief veterinary officer of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food complained to the Italians about it.
The way in which the matter has been left is clearly unsatisfactory. I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that further inquiries about this case will be made. I will see whether anything can be done. It does not make sense that a fellow European Union member state can bring in an illegal order that causes British companies to suffer. I suspect that things would be different were matters the other way around. I do not know of other cases, but, although I cannot state that the Government will pay the bill or initiate court action against the Italian Government, the events that the hon. Gentleman described send an unsatisfactory signal to other traders, in all walks of life, who could find themselves in the same difficulties as Mr. Lennox.
Clearly, the Government cannot intervene in the High Court proceedings against the importer of the sheep into Italy. It would not be satisfactory for me simply to tell the hon. Gentleman that we succeeded in persuading the Italian Government to withdraw the relevant order last August, and to imply that the problem has been solved for the future. Mr. Lennox has been left high and dry: although I do not know what the answer is, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government's collective view is that the case is one of very unfair treatment of a British trader by another EU member state, which has led to court action.
I accept the hon. Gentleman's caveat about the trade involved, but in fact the nature of the trade is irrelevant. It does not matter whether sheep or car radios were involved: a British exporter has suffered because of the illegal activities of another EU member state Government.

903
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Ministry will look into the matter further. If need be, I shall advise my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make the strongest possible representations to the Italian Government and indeed to raise the matter face-to-face with them. I shall, of course, report back to the hon. Gentleman on the progress being made.
Mr. Jenkin: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to say that I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance. I undertake to furnish whatever additional information might be relevant. However, I fear that more than just the Ministry will be involved, as this is a matter between Governments.
Given the embarrassment that the matter has caused between two member states, some members of the Administration—such individuals are present in all Administrations—will wish to bury the issue and hope that it drifts into the past without becoming a stone in the shoe in the relationship between the British and Italian Governments. I wish to re-emphasise the devastating effect that the problem is having on the livelihoods of Mr. Lennox and his family, and on the north Wales farmers who are affected by it.
It is potentially a tragic case, but it is also unnecessary. I urge the Government, as a matter of policy, to consider giving financial assistance to companies and individuals who have been wronged in the way that I described. The Government should assist in the development of the EU law, because we are in a grey area. If we are to be good Europeans—as I believe that we should—we should encourage speedy mechanisms for the resolution of such disputes. Establishing the necessary legal precedents will require far more impetus than can be provided by a small farmer in Essex taking on the whole EU machinery himself.
I hope that the Minister of State will take action on the policy issues involved around Whitehall and ensure that those who would prefer inconvenient and embarrassing problems such as this simply to go away will not prevail.
Mr. Rooker: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the circumstances that he envisaged as a possibility will not arise. There is a policy issue at stake, and I will ensure that it is addressed. I shall report back to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible.

Patrick Finucane
12.44 pm
Mr. John McDonnell: I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) for the additional time that has become available for this debate.
On 12 February 1989, two masked men entered the home of Patrick Finucane and shot him 14 times. He died in front of his three children. His wife Geraldine was also injured, and the Ulster Freedom Fighters claimed responsibility for his murder. It was another brutal atrocity in the saga of killings and violence that has scarred the Six Counties of Northern Ireland for the past 30 years.
However, what is different about Patrick' s murder is that a catalogue of evidence has been amassed that points towards its being the result of collusion between British security and intelligence forces and loyalist terrorist organisations.
The background to the murder appeared to be straightforward. Patrick Finucane was born in 1949, in the Falls road in Belfast. He came from within the Six Counties' Catholic and nationalist tradition. After his family were forced out of their home by loyalists at the start of the troubles, he became a student at Trinity college, Dublin. After completing his degree, he returned to Belfast to study law and eventually qualified as a solicitor. He commenced his practice in 1979.
As a solicitor, he represented Catholic and Protestant alike. However, there is no doubt that he gained a reputation for his highly professional competence in representing members of the nationalist community seeking protection in law from human rights abuses; nor is there any doubt that Patrick and fellow lawyers representing clients seeking to secure their rights in law were resented by certain groups among the authorities.
Less than four weeks before Patrick's murder, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), then an Under-Secretary at the Home Office, said that, in Northern Ireland, there were "a number of solicitors" who were "unduly sympathetic" to the cause of the IRA. He added that that statement was made on the basis of "advice" and "guidance" from people "dealing with the matters".
I do not say this lightly, but I know of no more dangerous a statement to the House from a Minister of the Crown. The statement, in effect, was a declaration to some elements in the loyalist organisations that human rights lawyers in Northern Ireland were legitimate targets. For Patrick Finucane, it was the pronouncement of a sentence of death.
Of course, the statement outraged the nationalist community and the legal profession in Northern Ireland. On the very best interpretation, it was an act of such reckless misjudgment that it put in danger the lives and safety of many brave men and women who were upholding the best traditions of the legal profession in the most adverse conditions.
However, the charges of British state collusion in the murder of Patrick Finucane do not rest on the culpability of a Minister. They rest on a series of disclosures about the British security forces in Northern Ireland that have come to light in recent years.

905
The first such disclosure came with the arrest and conviction of Brian Nelson for conspiracy to murder in the early 1990s, following an inquiry by John Stevens, a Metropolitan police officer. John Stevens was brought into Northern Ireland by the then Government to investigate the release to loyalist paramilitaries of Royal Ulster Constabulary files on supposed suspects, and following the outcry after the murder of Loughlin Maginn.
A summary of the report by Mr. Stevens was released in May 1990, but the full report has never been published. In fact, it is a near-miracle that the report was completed at all. A fire gutted the office of the investigation team, which was sited in heavily guarded RUC barracks outside Carrickfergus. All the files that Stevens had accumulated relating to Brian Nelson were destroyed. Although the Stevens team later stated that they had arranged for the back-up storage of some material before the fire, I believe that not all the files have been fully identified.
Stevens discovered that military intelligence agents were being used in the Ulster Defence Association. Senior British Army officers at first denied that the Army ran any agents at all, but for the first four months of the inquiry they concealed 1,100 documents from the inquiry team. They handed them over only when Brian Nelson revealed their existence to the Stevens team. As a result of the inquiry, two Ulster Defence Regiment members were convicted in relation to the killing of Loughlin Maginn. However, no one was charged with conspiracy to murder—except Brian Nelson, whose central role in the wider picture as an agent of British intelligence was exposed.
The Stevens inquiry exposed Brian Nelson's role as an agent of British military intelligence. He was placed as a senior intelligence officer in the UDA. The Stevens inquiry did not look fully into collusion, as it was restricted to considering the leaking or release of RUC documents to terrorist squads.
Nelson described his role as a British military intelligence agent in his journal, which was exposed on BBC's "Panorama" in June 1992. The information contained in the journal was largely confirmed when classified Army files were brought to light by a journalist, John Ware, in an article in the New Statesman in 1998. It is clear that Nelson served as a chief intelligence officer of the UDA. He infiltrated the UDA through the actions of the British security forces.
According to a British colonel—Colonel J—who gave evidence at Nelson's trial, the UDA had been persuaded to centralise its targeting of IRA suspects, as they were described, through Nelson. It was persuaded to concentrate on known IRA activists. John Ware, in the New Statesman, described how Nelson operated. He said that Nelson assisted the targeting of IRA activists by compiling personality cards—P cards, as they were called. Those cards listed the target's address, associates and identification details, and they included a photograph.
When a target was selected for assassination—often by Nelson himself—Nelson passed the P card to the hit squad. Nelson, however, often did not know precisely when the assassin would strike. From the moment he passed on the P card, he and the British security handlers had lost control of the exercise.
In the case of Patrick Finucane, Nelson was asked to gather information weeks before the murder. He informed British intelligence officers—his handlers—of the request
906
He passed a photograph of Patrick Finucane to a UDA member, Eric McKee, a few days before the killing. Loyalist sources claim that Nelson reconnoitred the Finucane home with the killers before the attack.
Despite the warning given by Brian Nelson to the British intelligence services, Patrick Finucane was not informed of the threat to his life. A similar and simultaneous threat against another prominent lawyer, Paddy McGrory, was not relayed until two months after Patrick Finucane's death. Nelson was never charged in connection with the killing. His claims have never been examined in open court. No one has been prosecuted for the murder of Patrick Finucane. No one has been charged in connection with the murder, but three men were charged with possession of the murder weapon.
According to Ed Maloney, a journalist, in The Sunday Tribune, the man who asked Nelson for the photograph of Pat Finucane, and who was subsequently taken to the Finucane home by Nelson, was the head of the UDA's murder gangs. That man served a sentence for possession of scores of leaked documents, along with four others. One of the four was the UDA leader, Tommy Lyttle. All were arrested by the Stevens inquiry team. As at the Nelson trial, a deal was struck preventing full details of collusion between British forces and loyalist murder gangs from coming out in open court.
The Stevens inquiry did not, unfortunately, interview Patrick Finucane's widow, his partner, Peter Madden of the Madden and Finucane legal team, or any of the clients to whom threats had been made against Patrick Finucane. Since the original Stevens investigation, there have been many calls for a further inquiry based on the examination of the available evidence by various bodies.
In April 1998, Param Cumaraswamy, the United Nations special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, set out a special review of the Patrick Finucane murder in his report on Northern Ireland. He stated:
"Although some pointed out that this was only one of hundreds of unresolved murders, the murder of Patrick Finucane is of a different nature. As a high profile lawyer who had tremendous success representing his clients, both before domestic courts and the European Court of Human Rights, his murder had a chilling effect on the profession and further undermined public confidence in the judicial system. Solicitors informed the Special Rapporteur that the murder led them either to give up criminal practice entirely or to alter the manner in which they handled terrorist related cases. Thus, the defendant's right to counsel was compromised. It was also learnt that several lawyers armed themselves for self-defence and their houses were equipped with security devices.
Principle 17 of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers provides, 'where the security of lawyers is threatened as a result of discharging their functions, they shall be adequately safeguarded by the authorities.' If it is true that Brian Nelson informed military intelligence of the UDA's intent to murder Patrick Finucane, as Nelson claims in his prison diary and which seems to be corroborated by the testimony of Colonel J at Nelson's trial, then the Government has violated its duty to safeguard Patrick Finucane. Further, this omission would constitute a violation of article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The outstanding questions surrounding the murder of Patrick Finucane demonstrate the need for an independent judicial inquiry. So long as this murder is unresolved, many in the community will continue to lack confidence in the ability of the Government to dispense justice in a fair and equitable manner."
The rapporteur also revealed that, before Patrick Finucane's murder, Patrick had received a number of death threats from RUC officers, mainly delivered

907
through his clients. One client, Brian Gillen, who received compensation for ill-treatment suffered while in detention, has testified that he was told by an RUC officer, following the filing of a habeas corpus petition by Patrick Finucane, that
"it would be better if he were dead than defending the likes of you."
The RUC threatened to give details of the solicitor and his client to loyalist paramilitaries.
Following Patrick Finucane's defence of Gillen, other clients have testified, numerous death threats were made against him by the RUC. He is reported to have received threatening phone calls at home. On 5 January 1989, five weeks before his death, one client alleged that an RUC officer
"informed me that my solicitor was working for the IRA, and would meet his end also … He asked me to give Mr. Finucane a message from him … He told me to tell him he is a thug in a suit, a person trying to let on he is doing his job and that he, like every other fenian… bastard, would meet his end."
In January 1999, Mr. Cumaraswamy reiterated his call for a public inquiry. In a further report, the UN rapporteur made clear his view that the Government might have misunderstood the reason for his call for an inquiry. His concern over the murder was over doubts about state collusion—that is, military or RUC collusion. In materials that he had seen, he said, there was at least prima facie evidence of such collusion.
Mr. Cumaraswamy reiterated his earlier call for a royal commission of inquiry into the murder. In his view, on behalf of the UN,
"Only such an inquiry could finally lay to rest the lingering doubts about this brutal murder, which has had a chilling effect on the independence of the legal profession in Northern Ireland."
The Finucane family has submitted papers to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland listing further information on Patrick Finucane's murder. The Irish Government have examined those papers, and, according to David McKittrick in The Independent on Monday, in a letter to the British Government, enclosing documentary evidence, the Irish Foreign Affairs Minister said:
"I believe the case for a public inquiry is compelling. The allegations serve to undermine confidence in the rule of law. In my view, they can only be answered with confidence — one way or the other—through the mechanism of a public inquiry."
The evidence is building, as is pressure for a public inquiry. There is support for the UN call for an independent judicial inquiry from, among others, Amnesty International, the International Commission of Jurists, Human Rights Watch, the International Federation of Human Rights, the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, the Committee on Administration of Justice, British Irish Rights Watch and the Law Society of England and Wales.
We are aware that John Stevens has reopened his inquiry and we welcome that, but there is a general view that confidence can be restored only by a full public inquiry. The breadth of the evidence of intelligence collusion between British forces, the RUC and loyalist terrorist squads in the murder of Patrick Finucane demands that sort of public inquiry, but the evidence goes further: it demonstrates that while he was an agent for military intelligence sources Brian Nelson played a role in the supply of arms from South Africa to loyalist
908
murder squads; that he informed his intelligence handlers two years in advance of the supply of the arms; and that, although there was a sweep to obtain those arms, only some were obtained by the security forces and others are being used even today by loyalist murder squads.
Our view is that all the allegations of collusion between the British state and loyalist murder squads warrant inquiry, but I am using today's debate to call for an inquiry specifically into the death of Patrick Finucane. We believe that the Stevens inquiry would be usefully supplemented by a public inquiry summoned by invoking the Tribunals of Inquiry Act 1921, as we had in respect of the investigation of Bloody Sunday.
We all believe that peace requires confidence building. The nationalist community and all those who are searching for a just peace have been battered by the deaths of so many of those who stood up for human rights, including Patrick Finucane and, more recently, Rosemary Nelson. The Irish community in this country and in Ireland have been offended by last week's failure to prosecute anyone for the killing Diarmuid O'Neill and by the long-standing refusal to reach for truth in the case of Patrick Finucane by way of a full public inquiry. Today, I urge the Government to act, not only to secure prosecutions, but to ensure that we arrive at a full and thorough understanding of what happened to Patrick Finucane. If, as we suspect, his death came as a result of collusion between security forces and loyalist murder gangs, that should be exposed, because that exposure will enable us to build the confidence that we need for peace.
Just as a truth commission was established in South Africa, perhaps the search for peace in Northern Ireland will require the establishment of a series of truth commissions to investigate different cases and different issues that affect the whole community. We have appealed for all terrorist organisations to identify the location of the graves of all those who disappeared, so that their families know what happened to them and their minds can be put at rest. If the Lawrence inquiry taught us any lessons, it must be the prime importance of listening to the families of those who have been lost; that is the wish of the Finucane family.
I hope that the Minister will offer a constructive response to the debate. I have seen today's reports in The Independent that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is trying to secure the fullest possible inquiry into the case and that she seeks prosecutions of those who murdered Patrick Finucane. However, I hope that we have not closed our minds to the potential of a full public inquiry, for in that way we may be able to expose the range of collusion that went on.
Let me give one further example. The supply of arms from South Africa to loyalist groups increased the number of assassinations; that was one of the roles played by Brian Nelson. In the six years before the arrival of the South African arms, between 1982 and 1987, 71 people were killed by loyalist murder groups; in the following six years, between 1988 and 1994, 229 people were killed—an increase of more than 300 per cent. Yet British intelligence were given two years' notice of the supply of those arms by Brian Nelson. I believe that there was a degree of collusion involved in the murder of Patrick Finucane that must be exposed, and that doing so might expose a level of collusion that we never dared to expect from the British security services, serving in the name of the British Crown.
1.4 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) has spoken of a tragic event—the murder 10 years ago of Patrick Finucane in front of his family. As he says, a further police inquiry into the murder of Mr. Finucane was announced last week. I shall say more about the background to that investigation in a moment, but the point I need to stress is that I shall not be able to comment on the substance of the issues that are being investigated, as I have to ensure that I say or do nothing that would impede the police inquiry, or any possible future prosecutions. In addition, in relation to the murder, there are on-going civil proceedings in the courts in Northern Ireland, which severely limit how much the Government can say; and there is an on-going case in Strasbourg under the European convention on human rights. Because of that, my hon. Friend will understand why I have to be circumspect in my comments in this debate.
The Government unreservedly condemn the brutal murder of Mr. Finucane, and we are determined that all necessary steps should be taken to ensure that those responsible are brought to justice. Certain allegations have been made against the security forces in relation to the murder; likewise, we are determined to ensure that all the allegations are fully and fairly investigated and are seen to be so. As I have mentioned, a police investigation into the murder and related issues is under way, but that does not mean that the Government have closed their mind on what additional action, if any, is necessary in relation to the case. All options remain open. Nothing has been ruled out.
It might be helpful if I were to outline in more detail the background to the recent developments in respect of the murder of Mr. Finucane.
Mr. McDonnell: When my right hon. Friend says that no option has been ruled out, he is explicitly stating that the option of holding a full public inquiry has not been ruled out at this stage.
Mr. Ingram: That is correct, and I shall stress that again later in my speech.
To return to the background of the case, Patrick Finucane, a Belfast solicitor, was murdered in February 1989. The murder was investigated by the police at the time and, although the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland decided that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute anyone for murder, three people were charged with and convicted of possession of one of the weapons used in the attack and received sentences of two, three and four years respectively. As my hon. Friend says, unease about the background to the murder has not gone away, and it has been the focus of an on-going campaign over the years.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met Mr. Finucane's widow, Geraldine, on 12 February 1999 and took receipt of a document that contained alleged new evidence prepared by British Irish Rights Watch about the murder of Mr. Finucane. My right hon. Friend gave an assurance that the document would be examined fully, and that is now being done. The Irish Government have now written to us with their assessment of the document—an assessment that has now been widely published, although
910
it would have been inappropriate to discuss the content of that assessment during this debate. My right hon. Friend met Mrs. Finucane again this morning; she also plans to meet the Irish Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs to discuss the Irish Government's representation. As my right hon. Friend said yesterday:
"I take the situation very, very seriously. I am determined that no option will be excluded. Be assured, I am not going to leave the issue alone… I am not going to let this drop."
Let me now explain the process involved in the examination of the material. After receiving the document, the Government sent it to the RUC and to Mr. John Stevens, assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan police, asking for their views on the significance of the material. Because the material contained allegations of criminal offences having taken place, we also passed it to the Law Officers. The Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland in turn received a copy of the report from the Law Officers.
The Director wrote to the Chief Constable of the RUC on 16 March in regard to the report, asking the Chief Constable to inform him whether it contained facts and information in respect of offences alleged to have been committed against the law of Northern Ireland, which had not been the subject of investigation and report to him, whether by Mr. Stevens or any member of the RUC, and which required investigation by the police. The Director also asked to be informed whether the report contained additional facts and information in regard to offences alleged to have been committed against the law of Northern Ireland which had been the subject of investigation and report to him, whether by Mr. Stevens or any member of the RUC, and which required further investigation by the police.
I recognise that some have criticised the Government for referring the paper to the RUC and Mr. Stevens. However, in doing so, we were not only following up the most effective lines of inquiry to assess the material, but we were legally obliged—I want to stress this —to pass to the police any evidence of criminal offences having been committed. Practical and legal imperatives therefore required us to act in this way. The way in which the RUC then carries out its own criminal investigations is for the Chief Constable to decide, and it would not be appropriate for the Government to interfere in that process. That does not mean that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has ruled out the option of an independent public inquiry.
As I stated earlier in response to an intervention, that option remains open. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is determined to keep developments under review and will not hesitate to act if she concludes that the public interest and the interests of justice require her to do so. For now, however, it is right that the possibility of bringing those responsible to justice in the courts should be pursued.
The Chief Constable announced on 19 March that the British Irish Rights Watch paper had been referred by him to Mr. Stevens for investigation. Mr. Stevens then made an announcement on 28 April about his remit. He said that he would be investigating the murder of Mr. Finucane and associated matters raised by the British Irish Rights Watch report and the report of the United Nations special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Mr. Param Cumaraswamy.
In order to progress his investigation, Mr. Stevens has set up an independent team of investigators, with current and former officers from the Metropolitan police service

911
and the Northumbria constabulary. He has called for anyone who can provide information to get in touch. I reiterate and re-emphasise that call today. If people want this investigation brought to a successful conclusion, they should co-operate fully with those responsible for carrying out the investigation.
While there are no RUC officers on his team—
Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the Minister think that it would be better if Mrs. Finucane also spoke to Mr. Stevens?
Mr. Ingram: I think that I have made things clear. I have said that anyone who has any information—it is not for me to assess whether someone has information—or who thinks that he or she can help Mr. Stevens in his inquiry, from whatever quarter, should do so. That will help in bringing to justice those responsible for the murder.
I was about to comment on the fact that while there are no RUC officers on Mr. Stevens's team, Mr. Stevens explained that it would have access to RUC information and resources as necessary to support the investigation.
In September 1989, Mr. Stevens, then deputy chief constable of Cambridgeshire, had been appointed by the then RUC Chief Constable, Sir Hugh Annesley, to inquire into allegations of breaches of security by the security forces in Northern Ireland. Mr. Stevens's team had not previously investigated the murder of Mr. Finucane itself, but information emerging from the previous investigations had linked individuals involved in those investigations to the murder.
Mr. Stevens's first investigation had begun after the theft of photo-montages from a Belfast police station. It resulted in 43 convictions and more than 800 years of imprisonment for those convicted. The report of that investigation contained more than 100 recommendations for the handling of security documents and information. All were accepted and they have now been implemented. To quote from the published summary of Mr. Stevens's report, the analysis of the evidence
"makes it clear that the passing of information to paramilitaries by security force members has been restricted to a small number of individuals. It is neither widespread nor institutionalised."
Mr. McDonnell: I would ask my right hon. Friend to take back to the Government and the Law Officers who would be involved in the decision on this matter the message that part of the restoration of confidence in the overall investigatory processes in Northern Ireland would be assisted by the publication of the full Stevens report rather than just the summary.
Mr. Ingram: That predates this Government taking office. In any event, the documents refer to highly sensitive intelligence material. If they had been put in the public domain, they could have put at risk the lives of those who are acting in the interests of us all in the defence of democracy. Very difficult decisions have to be taken by Governments in the pursuit of democracy and in the defence of it against determined paramilitary and terrorist forces. However, if there is some form of inquiry, public or otherwise—as I have said, nothing is ruled out—
912
it becomes a matter of deciding at that time what is published and what goes into the public domain. I am not at liberty at this stage to say that that should or could happen. It remains a matter for the authorities at that time.
In 1993, following further allegations that had been made, Mr. Stevens was again asked by the then Chief Constable to investigate further matters which related solely to the initial inquiry. Mr. Stevens's second report to the Chief Constable was considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland, who concluded that the evidence was insufficient for any further prosecutions to be brought. As I have said, the fact that the new investigation has been established very much limits what I can say about the substance of the recent allegations surrounding the murder of Mr. Finucane. I hope that the current police investigation will leave us in a better position to assess what further action, if any, we need to take.
I emphasise again that no options have been ruled out. That means that a public inquiry has not been excluded as a possible outcome. It is important that every support and encouragement is given to the police in carrying out the current investigation to bring to justice those who murdered Mr. Finucane.
Mr. McDonnell: One of the issues raised in discussions about the potential for an inquiry is the nature of that inquiry. The United Nations rapporteur has made it clear that he would welcome a judicial inquiry. Are there any plans to meet the UN representatives to discuss the potential of an inquiry as an option, and the nature of the inquiry—for example, whether the inquiry should be judicial, whether it should have an international element or whether any other steps should be taken that would at least move the process on in reassuring the UN rapporteur that the Government have taken this matter seriously?
Mr. Ingram: I know of no plans at present to do so. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met Mr. Cumaraswamy. He was very satisfied with the way in which the Government were dealing with the issues that he raised at that time. I have probably said about three times that nothing has been ruled out. I do not think I can say that more clearly. Therefore, further meetings with those who have expressed an interest in this matter may prove beneficial if we move into that phase in dealing with the issue.
Mr. John D. Taylor: The Minister says that nothing has been ruled out. As everyone in Northern Ireland knows, the Finucane family is a strong republican family. Mrs. Finucane has made it clear that she will not work with the RUC. She has now rejected the English police as well. She refuses to speak to Mr. Stevens. Has the Minister not destroyed Mr. Stevens's inquiry already by saying that nothing else is ruled out? There is no need to speak to Mr. Stevens now because the Minister has already said that he is going to go ahead beyond that.
Mr. Ingram: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to put words into my mouth. Clearly, we do not know what Mr. Stevens will report on. I think that it is appropriate, therefore, to say that nothing has been ruled out. It may lead to a requirement to proceed in the way that has been suggested during the debate or in another way, which would then be defined, based on what information was available.

913
The statement that Mr. Finucane's family are a well-known republican family does not justify the murder of a member of that family. When we put labels on people, we must be careful about the possible consequences.
Mr. Taylor: In no way am I saying that that is an excuse for a murder. I deplore all murders. I was nearly murdered myself, as the Minister may know. What I am saying is that the family are one of the strongest republican families in Northern Ireland, who despise all police, whether they are RUC or English police. They have now said that they will not co-operate with Mr. Stevens. By saying that he will look beyond to an independent inquiry, the Minister has cut away the credibility of the Stevens inquiry, and people will no longer co-operate with it.
Mr. McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A statement has been made in the House about a certain family despising the police, but no evidence has been presented in the Chamber. When statements were made about the Finucane family 10 years ago, Patrick Finucane's life was put at risk and he eventually lost it. I believe that we should caution right hon. and hon. Members to be careful with their words when we are dealing with such matters. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) should know that full well, with his wealth of experience.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): That is not a point of order for the Chair, but all hon. Members should take care about the language that they use in debates such as this.
Mr. Taylor: All I am saying is that Mrs. Finucane herself has said that she will not co-operate with Mr. Stevens.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has made his point.
Mr. Ingram: The right hon. Gentleman has indeed made his point, and I am glad that he was able to correct any false impression that may have arisen from the way in which he phrased his remarks. I am not suggesting that he set out to create a particular impression, but it is important to put on record that, in a democracy, the fact that someone has certain labels put on him and takes a view on the institutions of the state does not justify action by paramilitaries to murder any member of our society. We have a duty of care for all members of our society, irrespective of how they view that society. That is the strength of the democracy that we seek to uphold in the House.
Before that exchange, I was about to conclude my remarks. It is important that we give every support and encouragement to the police. The best way that anyone who has information can bring people to justice is to co-operate with the police. It does not undermine Mr. Stevens's inquiry one iota to say that we must consider the possible consequences of his report. It would be wrong to rule anything out, as we do not yet know the contents of his report.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington for initiating the debate. It has allowed me the opportunity to put on record the thoroughness with which the issue has been tackled by the Government and the RUC. We owe that to the Finucane family and to the rule of law.
1.23 pm
Sitting suspended.

Orange Badges
1.30 pm
Dr. Vincent Cable: I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate an Adjournment debate on a subject which, through their case work, affects a large number of hon. Members. I appreciate the Minister for Transport in London replying to the debate. I have consulted several disablement groups, and all were positive about and appreciative of the knowledge and understanding of their transport problems that she has shown.
The angle from which I shall approach this issue is in one sense narrow. I am concerned, as are most hon. Members, with cases that fall just outside the eligibility criteria, but I do not want to lose sight of the bigger picture as I discuss the specifics. Orange badges are important because access for disabled people is crucial for employment, for shopping and for living a normal life. Access means mobility—and mobility, for almost all of them, means a private car, because the public transport system has not yet adapted to the problems of disablement.
I believe that the regulations applying to buses and to taxis will not fully come into effect until 2017 and 2012 respectively. Even for disabled people who can reach access points, buses and taxis are not practical options. The private car is the key to access and mobility and, in the urban and suburban environments that I represent, that means access to parking, so the orange badge concept is absolutely crucial.
Although I shall discuss a particular aspect of this issue, I hope that the Minister will be able to say a little about the Government's broad approach to the orange badge scheme. It was reviewed in 1989—which led to changes being made in 1991—and again in 1996, specifically in relation to enforcement. Perhaps she will bring us up to date on the Government's thinking. To the best of my knowledge, the orange badge scheme has not been discussed in this Parliament; I may have been inadequately briefed, but that is my understanding.
Although I shall argue for some broadening of the eligibility criteria in one or two cases, I recognise the dilemma—the tension—in this whole problem; it was brought home strongly to me by the disablement groups. Some cases, such as those of which I am aware, fall just outside the eligibility rules. They are hard cases, and my instincts are to seek a widening of the scheme for the benefit of those individuals. However, I recognise that the authorities, the Government and the disablement organisations are concerned, above all, with the integrity of the scheme. That is an important objective in itself.
Fears have been expressed about the proliferation of badges, abuse of the scheme and the system falling into disrepute if it is widened too much. I understand and sympathise with those fears; I certainly do not want to propose anything that would undermine the integrity of the scheme and thereby affect the seriously disabled badge users who take full advantage of it.
As I move to a discussion of the specific categories that I want to raise, it may be useful to hit upon a few of the key trends, which bring the conflict between the broadening of the scheme and its integrity into sharper relief. The first trend, as the Minister well knows, is the
916
considerable increase in the number of badges. I tabled a parliamentary question to her a few weeks ago and the answer suggested that the number had increased from slightly under 1 million in 1989 to about 1.7 million.
I understand that that figure may now have reached 2 million, so it has doubled over a decade and a substantial number of vehicles—probably one in 10 of those on the road — have orange badge specification. My question, to which I do not know the answer, is whether that number is appropriate and whether research has been carried out into whether the disabled community as a whole is fully utilising the scheme.
My research suggests that about 4.5 million people are seriously physically disabled, and they obviously fall into the category of being eligible for the orange badge scheme, so slightly less than 50 per cent. of disabled people are covered. A lot of disabled people are old, live in rural areas or do not have cars, and they would not want to take advantage of the scheme. However, it would be useful to know whether the number of people taking up badges is appropriate, given the incidence of serious physical disability.
Some estimates of the number of disabled people go way beyond 4.5 million and it would be interesting to know whether sample surveys have been carried out in particular areas in respect of supply and demand for facilities for the disabled.
The second trend is abuse. I hear and read in the press apocryphal stories—and also real examples—of abuse of the scheme. I understand that a key objective must be the prevention of abuse and that any fresh look at eligibility criteria, if there is to be one, must not open the scheme to more abuse than already occurs.
I appreciate that abuse can occur in several ways. For example, general practitioners may be excessively liberal in their approach. It is difficult for doctors to say no, just as it is difficult for Members of Parliament to say no, when people ask for help. Perhaps the GP system is excessively liberal, but I find that difficult to believe as I have come across many cases of doctors refusing what seem to be plausible requests for orange badges.
Similarly, it is alleged that many local councils find it difficult to say no and award orange badges too freely. Again, from my experience, I find that a little difficult to believe —certainly of the area for which I am the Member of Parliament. The local authority is quite tough in its issuing policy and many cases of what seem, at first sight, to be unreasonable refusals come to me. Local citizens advice bureaux and other agencies—not only in my area, but in others—report how difficult it often is for those who fall within the eligibility criteria to get orange badges. There may be abuse, but it is certainly tempered by severe application of the rules elsewhere.
There may be abuse by disabled people themselves. We all hear stories of cars with orange badges pulling into parking bays and fit young people bounding out. No doubt some disabled people give their badges to relatives, but such incidents occur simply because many disabilities are episodic. People who have rheumatoid arthritis are more active in some periods than in others. I am sceptical about many of the claims of abuse, and I should be interested to know the Government's assessment of the scale of the problem and of how seriously we need to take it when we consider eligibility criteria.

917
The next broad trend that I want to sketch as background to particular cases is what appears to be—and what the disabled associations believe to be—a breakdown of the national scheme. Implementation of the disabled orange badge scheme locally appears, in some cases, to be resulting in different councils adopting radically different philosophies in their approach to it. We know that green badges are being issued in some local authority areas, for the benefit of local residents as opposed to orange badge holders from elsewhere. A tougher regime is being applied and the scheme has never applied at all in other areas, such as central London.
It is not immediately obvious to me why Kensington and Chelsea, for example, should be exempt from the scheme; its parking problems are quite serious, but so are those in my part of suburban London. I am sure that there are serious problems in Hampstead and Highgate as well. We need to consider why orange badge schemes apply in some areas but not in others, and why the rules are more severe in some areas than in others. That is the context in which I want to place the discussion about eligibility criteria.
This issue has been raised before in the House, but not in this Parliament. It was confronted in 1994 by the late John Watts, when he was Minister responsible, and representations on widening the criteria were made by hon. Members. I want to return to some of the issues that he raised.
There seem to be two broad problem areas and I have encountered both in my work as a constituency Member of Parliament. The first is that of temporarily disabled people. Some people might be described as temporarily disabled for what appear to be trivial reasons. For example, someone may have broken his leg in a skiing accident or injured himself playing football. Clearly, I would not want the scheme to be extended to cover such cases. However, there are other cases of temporary disablement, such as that of the woman in Twickenham who came to me for help. She had been walking along the road and a car had hit her and badly crushed her legs. She is still immobile after 21 months—she tried to walk with difficulty on crutches. She clearly falls within the criteria of substantial disablement, but because she is not permanently disabled the council would not issue her with an orange badge.
Another case is that of a woman with serious cancer. She is undergoing cancer therapy, which has the effect, as does the disease, of greatly weakening her so that she is not mobile and cannot walk 100 yd. She needs help, but cannot get it because that disease is curable and thus the disability is temporary. She does not fall within the disability criteria that the legislation requires. There are also people with arthritic conditions, who are waiting for hip replacement operations. That takes a long time. I am sure that the Government's health policy will improve that over time, but people wait for one or two years for hip replacement operations and, in the meantime, they cannot avail themselves of orange badges because they are only temporarily disabled.
Can the Minister do anything about those categories of people? One suggestion is to issue for one or two years orange badges that would be returnable thereafter. Clearly, the flexibility that local councils have would enable them to judge the severity of particular cases.
918
The second problem area is of a different kind. It covers people with diseases that clearly do not fit into the conventional definition of "physical disability". I do not know whether hon. Members are familiar with Crohn's disease, but it is a serious bowel disorder, such that people must have immediate access to public conveniences. It is a very distressing condition. Although it is not physical disablement in the normal sense, for those with severe manifestations of that illness easy access to parking is absolutely critical. Certain variants of epilepsy have similar implications.
If some of those diseases, which I believe are known to the Government—epilepsy, certain forms of mental illness, Crohn's disease and other bowel disorders—were encompassed in the scheme, we would be talking about large numbers of people and I understand why the authorities would not wish to widen the scheme indefinitely in that way. However, I should have thought that with an independent medical panel to hear appeals against local authority decisions and to look at cases flexibly, there might be some way of offering relief to those concerned.
Do the Government plan to address the question of the eligibility criteria? If they do, it must be done in a way that balances liberalisation against the danger of abuse. Do the Government propose to introduce the changes that were recommended in 1996 for a tougher enforcement code for orange badges; and if so, when? It was proposed that police officers and traffic wardens should be entitled to look at the identification of badge holders and that it should be mandatory for disabled people with orange badges to show them. That would be one way of cutting down on abuse while being flexible in other respects.
In a more general spirit, may I ask the Minister whether this whole area, which I accept is a vexed and difficult one because of the competing pressures, will be reviewed by the Government?
1.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) for affording the House the opportunity to debate an issue that is of particular importance to many disabled people.
As we acknowledged in our White Paper, for many severely disabled people the private car is the only viable transport option. However, its value would be greatly reduced, if not lost entirely, if disabled motorists were unable to park as close as possible to their destination. That is the primary purpose of the orange badge scheme, which enables people with severe mobility difficulties to park close to the places that they need or want to visit. Research demonstrates clearly that the mobility range of severely disabled people can be as little as 50 m, so even having to park 100 m or so away from one's workplace or from shops may make the journey extremely difficult, and in some cases impossible. The orange badge scheme is therefore vital in enabling the day-to-day activities that non-disabled people take for granted.
The scheme was first introduced in 1971 and, as the hon. Gentleman said, has been reviewed twice since then, the last review being completed in 1992. Eligibility for an orange badge is governed by the Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) Regulations 1982, which were subject to wide public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny.

919
To qualify for a badge a person must either be in receipt of the higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance or a war pensioner's mobility supplement; use a motor vehicle supplied by a Government health Department; be registered blind; have a severe disability in both upper limbs; regularly drive but be unable to turn a steering wheel by hand—even if that wheel is fitted with a steering knob; or have a permanent and substantial disability, which means that he or she cannot walk or has very considerable difficulty in walking. That last category is known as the "discretionary criteria".
It is clear from that list that eligibility is fairly tightly controlled, yet, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the number of badges issued over the past decade has risen dramatically, from 929,000 to 1.7 million—an increase of over 80 per cent. That total number bears no relation whatever to the proportion of the population that is disabled —some 10 to 12 per cent.; nor is the increase supported by a corresponding increase in the number of cars over the same period, although I recognise that not all badge holders are drivers.
That increase has prompted much concern, not least from our own statutory advisers, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, the majority of whose members are disabled people. The committee recently submitted to me a report that recommends that we review the scope of the scheme with a view to tightening up the eligibility and revising the administration of the scheme.
DPTAC is particularly concerned about the application of the discretionary criteria. Its concern has been prompted by the fact that only a third of badges are issued "as of right" under the specific criteria that I outlined earlier. DPTAC's view is that the discretionary criteria are being applied too widely and should be restricted to people over the age of 65 years who would otherwise have qualified for the higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance.
One of DPTAC's proposals is that an applicant's GP should be removed from direct involvement in the process. Many local authorities considering applications under the discretionary criteria consult the GP for further information. DPTAC's view is that there should be some form of independent assessment, either by another doctor or by a qualified health professional.
It is not just the issuing process that has come under scrutiny by DPTAC. Like those of us in the Department, it is also concerned about the apparent abuse of the system—another matter to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The badge design already has a photograph of the holder, but we have not yet been able to introduce the legislative changes to provide the enforcement authorities with the powers to inspect badges. That gives rise to scope for unscrupulous people to use a badge belonging to someone else—often an elderlym relative—and thus to enjoy the parking privileges that the scheme provides. That is unacceptable, and we have made it clear that we shall introduce the necessary legislation to allow inspection of badges as soon as parliamentary time allows.
DPTAC wants local authorities to strengthen their response to the abuse issue. It has recommended that local authorities should take a firm line with disabled people who knowingly allow their badge to be used by someone else, including withdrawing the badge altogether in cases of persistent abuse.
920
I recognise that DPTAC's recommendations have arisen from genuine concern about the effectiveness of the scheme. Although I share that concern, I am not as yet convinced of the need for a wholesale review of the scheme, as DPTAC has suggested. We have, however, undertaken a survey of issuing authorities to gather more information about how they are currently administering the scheme, particularly in relation to the discretionary criteria. I shall want to consider very carefully the information that is provided before deciding what, if any, further action is necessary.
Having set out the current position and explained our concerns and those of our advisers, I now turn to the particular concerns of the hon. Member for Twickenham, who has suggested that, far from narrowing eligibility, the scheme could perhaps be extended to cover people with temporary disabilities and those with specific conditions affecting their mobility.
I am very sympathetic to the problems faced by people with temporary disabilities, and I have certainly received other representations suggesting that the regulations should be relaxed to accommodate them. Currently, the regulations allow for badges to be issued only for a three-year period. We are not convinced that extending the scheme to allow badges to be issued for shorter periods would be in the best interests of the many thousands of severely disabled people for whom the scheme is an essential part of their mobility.
As I have said, there has already been a dramatic increase in the number of badges. Widening the eligibility criteria would inevitably mean a further rise in numbers. That would contribute to further traffic congestion in town centres, and could become self-defeating if it encouraged more local authorities to introduce local parking schemes that benefit only disabled people resident in their area. A number of local authorities have already introduced such schemes, which have attracted considerable criticism from disabled people residing outside those areas, as they are no longer able to access their town centres.
A significant rise in the number of badges would also make it more difficult for the police and traffic wardens to enforce the national scheme. The associations representing local highway authorities, whose members would have to operate the extended scheme, are opposed to the introduction of temporary badges.
From what I have said already about DPTAC, hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that it, too, shares those concerns, and fears that a move to extend eligibility would lead to the erosion of the benefits for those who currently qualify. It has emphasised the importance of ensuring that the rules of the scheme restrict eligibility to the permanently disabled people who rely on a badge to have at least some of the freedom of movement that non-disabled people enjoy.
It has also been suggested that there could be a two-tier system with a different coloured badge for people with temporary disabilities. Again, that would be difficult for local authorities to administer, and would make enforcement even more difficult for the police and traffic wardens. A two-tier system would also run counter to our

921
decision to implement the European Commission's recommendation for a standard design of parking card for disabled people.
The new badge, which will be blue, will be introduced in this country from 1 January 2000, and all badges will have been replaced by 2003. It will be recognised by all other member states, and will provide disabled people with the assurance that while travelling anywhere in the European Union they will be able to enjoy the parking concessions that apply to disabled people in each member state. The recommendation does not affect the eligibility criteria or the parking privileges that operate in each member state.
Returning to the United Kingdom scheme, I am aware that some authorities issue badges to people awaiting surgery, such as a hip replacement—a point made by the hon. Gentleman. They do so on the basis that, until surgery has taken place, those people are, in effect, permanently disabled. I understand that approach, but, in my view, it would not be appropriate to set national rules in this area. The effect of such conditions vary considerably. Setting eligibility criteria around particular conditions regardless of their effects would increase the demand for parking spaces reserved for disabled people, and could disfranchise the most severely disabled people who rely on them.
One such condition, to which the hon. Gentleman referred and which I know is of particular concern to him, is Crohn's disease. Although I recognise that the condition can be debilitating, those with the disease would be eligible for a badge only if their walking ability was also permanently, not just intermittently, affected. The issuing
922
authority is best placed to make that judgment—supported of course by medical evidence—and to decide whether the applicant qualifies for a badge.
I realise that this may seem harsh to those who are outside the scope of the scheme, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that for severely disabled people, who view the scheme as a lifeline, the main concern is to ensure that it does not become so over-subscribed as to minimise or even negate the benefits to them. They have already been disadvantaged in areas where local authorities have introduced their own badges in response to the increasing number of orange badge holders. They are anxious that that practice should not extend to other authorities.
The orange badge scheme is, without doubt, a key element in the independent mobility of many severely disabled people. Without the badge, many people would be unable to go about their day-to-day business. It is, therefore, vital that the eligibility criteria for an orange badge should be tightly controlled, and that issuing authorities take great care in processing applications to make sure that those who receive a badge are those who have the greatest need for one. I am afraid, therefore, that I can offer the hon. Gentleman little hope that the scheme will be widened to bring people with temporary disabilities within its remit; nor are we likely to specify specific conditions in the guidance that we issue to local authorities to assist them with their administration of the scheme.
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

    Cardiac Services
    Mr. Win Griffiths: What plans he has for improving cardiac services in the NHS.[82085]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jon Owen Jones): A national service framework for coronary heart disease will be published later this year. Its implementation will make a significant contribution to improving the quality of care and treatment for patients with heart disease in Wales.
    Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.
    Mr. Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, and, in particular, for the forthcoming publication of the national service framework. Will he convey to the Assembly—I am sure that someone quite close to him will be able to do that very well—the need to promote healthy life styles in Wales, and also the need to increase the resources available for cardiac care? Unfortunately, in Wales the problem is growing rather than diminishing.
    Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend's point is well made. Cardiac services in Wales are indeed in great need, although heart disease is often preventable, and, given better life styles, we could do a great deal to reduce its incidence in Wales.
    There is certainly some indication that demand is rising. I allocated an extra 1.4 million to the University Hospital of Wales last year so that cardiac surgery could continue there at its existing rate, but the Assembly will need to take advice from the newly formed specialised Health Service Commission on whether targets relating to cardiac surgery should be increased.

    Manufacturing
    Mr. Barry Jones: If he will make a statement on the prospects for manufacturing industries in Wales. [82086]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): The future of manufacturing industry in Wales is bright, provided that we work together and keep skills and productivity at the top of the agenda. The going has been tough in manufacturing industry—world growth has halved—but in Wales orders are expected to rise slightly over the next four months, and strong manufacturing growth is expected in 2000. The National Assembly will give a lead, working with business and creating jobs and opportunity. That will certainly be a top priority for a Labour-led Assembly.
    Mr. Jones: To assist manufacturing in my constituency, will my right hon. Friend fight to keep assisted area status for Deeside, and to deliver objective 2 status for it?
    924
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that the prospects for manufacturing in Wales—for example, in the aerospace industry—will not be helped by separatism and nationalism? Does he agree that the leadership of the nationalist party in Wales is over-confident, overstretched and overblown?
    I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his campaign, and wish him success.
    Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is right. Nearly 50 per cent. of manufacturing investment comes from foreign-owned companies, and Plaid Cymru would put that at risk. We need the balance between inward investment and the promotion of our indigenous companies that only the Labour party has promised to provide.
    I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the aerospace industry. I have made visits to his constituency with him, and I have seen the way in which management and trade unions in Deeside are working together to keep jobs and win jobs for the future.
    Mr. Richard Livsey: The House will note that, following pressure last night from Mike German, the Liberal Democrats' leader in Wales, the Secretary of State was unable to confirm the position regarding matched funding for objective 1 status. Will he confirm the statement made in a House of Commons Committee Room on 17 March by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that if there were to be any matched funding for objective 1 status in Wales, it would have to come from the Welsh block?
    Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman's question is very entertaining. He clearly understands that an election is going on in Wales, and 1 commend his ingenuity in managing to mention the representative of his own party, who was last seen in a life jacket.
    In fact, a Labour Government won objective 1 status for Wales. There were cynics, not least in the hon. Gentleman's party and in Plaid Cymru, who thought that that could not be achieved. Indeed, the leader of Plaid Cymru was so confident that it would not be achieved that he promised a crate of champagne to my predecessor. As far as I am aware, it has still not been delivered. But we have delivered objective 1 status, and, as the Prime Minister has made clear, a Labour Government will enable the Assembly to use it—and the finances that will be part of the overall £1.3 million—to transform the economy of Wales for the better.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: My right hon. Friend will not need to be told that manufacturing is always under pressure because it has to compete in a global market for exports and against imports, whereas the much larger service sector in the United Kingdom is not, in the main, subjected to those pressures. Will he ensure that the Bank of England is given that message before it starts to put up interest rates again?
    Mr. Michael: I shall ensure that the needs of manufacturing industry in Wales are put at the forefront and that messages are given to colleagues in the Cabinet with other responsibilities. Recently, I was pleased to visit a company in my right hon. Friend's constituency. The link between inward investment from Japan and that

    925
    company's rise in his constituency demonstrates how success can be achieved in partnership. Indeed, we are working with that company to put money into research and development to ensure that the high-quality work and skills base is developed. I understand his point. We will need to look carefully at the impact on jobs and manufacturing in Wales.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware of the dismay that he caused the manufacturing industry last night when he let slip that Wales would have to await the next spending review before it had any chance of any additional money by way of matched funding of objective 1 money from Europe, and that today's statement from Downing street, a recycled fudge on the issue, shows that we will have to rely on existing cash in the Welsh block, which means cutting health or education spending, to take up the objective 1 money that is available? Is it not clear that, as the Secretary of State has failed to deliver the goods, the only option for the Welsh electorate is to keep the pressure on new Labour by denying it an overall majority in the Assembly elections tomorrow?
    Mr. Michael: What is clear is that the only way in which the leader of Plaid Cymru can aspire to success is to purvey doom and gloom and to talk Wales down. He is the one who said that we would not achieve objective 1 status, but we did. Let no one take his words seriously in future.
    The right hon. Gentleman should be aware of the dismay that was felt in the hearts of people throughout Wales when it was suggested that he would have a number of seats in the Assembly —Plaid Cymru might have some effect in undermining confidence in Wales throughout the world. He should look at the comments by industrialists and employers, who say that they want a Labour lead in the Assembly because such a lead will be good for business. It will be good for Wales, for jobs and for opportunity for people throughout Wales.
    Mr. John Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way in which to improve the prospects of the Welsh manufacturing industry from tomorrow is for right hon. and hon. Members to work very closely with newly elected Members of the Welsh Assembly to ensure that we achieve the best possible deal for manufacturing industry in our country? The best way in which to achieve that is, of course, to ensure that, tomorrow, we get as many Labour candidates elected as possible, especially candidates of the calibre of Jane Hutt in the Vale of Glamorgan.
    Madam Speaker: Order. If I did not know that there was an election, I know now. Let us get back to the question.
    Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is right to point to the need for the Assembly to work in partnership with the House of Commons. He has been an example in the way in which he has worked with the potential Assembly Member for his constituency. I am sure that they will succeed in delivering for that constituency, as Labour Members will throughout Wales.
    Dr. Liam Fox: The Labour party has now had stewardship of the Welsh economy for two years
    926
    and manufacturing in Wales is in a state of decline. The most worrying thing is that, when it comes to manufacturing industry, business surveys show lower confidence in Wales than in any other part of the UK.
    Can the Secretary of State tell us why that should be? Is the situation not perfectly summed up in a typical quote in the Western Mail on 19 April, which said:
    "We depend upon manufacturing industry. It is important to us. We're not being well served by the Government."
    I quote not from a captain of industry, but from a Labour Member, the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek).
    Mr. Michael: I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman was unable to quote a captain of industry in support of the Conservative party; they are supporting Labour. I can say only that, for the hon. Gentleman, a Scot who was a member of a Government who gave us boom and bust and the destruction of the Welsh economy over 18 years, to speak about Wales, is barefaced cheek. GDP in Wales is expected to rise by 0.1 per cent. this year and manufacturing output is expected to decline by 2.9 per cent. this year but bounce back with 4.3 per cent. growth next year. That is the whole point. With the co-operation of the manufacturing industry, we are trying to develop a strong base, high productivity and high skills in a strong Welsh economy which makes use of the strong economy that has been achieved by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

    Aerospace Industry
    Mr. David Borrow: If he will make a statement on the contribution of the aerospace industry to the Welsh economy. [82087]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): The aerospace industry is enormously important to Wales and employs some 13,000 people. In recent times, I have visited British Aerospace, Raytheon in Deeside and General Electric at Nantgarw, where I launched the modern apprenticeship target for Wales, and we have also seen confirmation of the continuation and expansion of jobs at, for instance, RAF St. Athan and British Airways. The aerospace industry is high on our agenda of industries with which we need to work.
    Mr. Borrow: Over the years, I have had the opportunity to visit a number of airbus plants in the United Kingdom, including those in Bristol and Broughton, which employ many people from Wales as well as from Lancashire, many from my constituency.
    Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the success of the airbus project, which means that the airbus is now outselling Boeing in the international market and employing thousands of extra workers? Not only are new jobs being created in England and Wales but, during the next few years, jobs will be created in Scotland in producing the airbus. Is not that an example of the way in which partnership, not only across Europe but between the different parts of the United Kingdom, can bring success to the British and the European economy?
    Mr. Michael: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that, between Wales and Scotland and the regions of England, we see joint working on projects that can bring prosperity to all parts of the United Kingdom. I am keen to see co-operation between the Welsh Development Agency and the North West regional development agency which the Government have put in place. I recently visited the plant to which my hon. Friend referred at Broughton with my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) where I saw the confidence and high quality of the work force and the management team.
    Yes, we need to work together across boundaries, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will forgive me for saying that my priority will be to ensure that we have the strongest possible development within the aircraft industry in Wales.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: The pound has risen relentlessly this year. Yesterday, it went over FF10, nudging DM3. What impact will that have on the future prospects for aerospace products made in Britain?
    Mr. Michael: That gives a challenge to the British aerospace industry, as it does to other parts of manufacturing industry, a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) a few moments ago. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise the importance of the Government's policies in creating stability and bringing an end to boom and bust. This morning, Sir John Harvey-Jones said that a Labour-run Assembly in Wales will provide the blend of stability and innovation that Wales needs. That is what is good for industry.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: I welcome the Secretary of State's positive statement on the contribution of the aerospace industry to the Welsh economy, but does he also recognise that we in Northern Ireland are dependent on the stable and high—quality jobs that are provided by Shorts? Will he assure us that—once he is confirmed as First Secretary of the new Assembly, and in recognising the value of collaboration throughout the industry and in all regions of the United Kingdom—he will continue to promote such collaboration?
    Mr. Michael: Yes, I shall promote it, very much indeed. I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I believe that the advent of the National Assembly for Wales —and of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament—will strengthen the United Kingdom and our ability to work together for the benefit of everyone everywhere in these islands. One of my first actions after becoming Secretary of State for Wales was to visit Belfast and to talk to people from all parties about the action that we might take together, such as on tourism. As a group of small countries on Europe's periphery, we not only have much to learn from each other, but may together promote many common concerns—recognising the global nature of some concerns, such as the aerospace industry, which we want to be successful, thereby benefiting all parts of the United Kingdom.

    Health Authorities (Allocations)
    Ms Jackie Lawrence: What was the average percentage increase in the Welsh Office allocations to Welsh health authorities for 1999–2000. [82088]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): This year, we are providing almost 9 per cent.—£168 million—extra for hospital and community health services in Wales, which is on top of the £18 million waiting list money, which represents an increase of 1.3 per cent. The average increase in general medical services is 10.5 per cent; and, in drugs prescribing, it is 8.8 per cent. In my hon. Friend's own area—which is covered by the Dyfed Powys health authority—discussions are being held on the specific amount of money to be provided this year for health authorities. However, I am able to tell her that, this financial year, the increase for Dyfed Powys is 9.7 per cent., which is £23 million.
    Ms Lawrence: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement, particularly the part of it applying to my own area of Dyfed Powys. May 1 add that, yet again, the facts have proved "Rottweiler Rod" wrong? Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the NHS's remaining problems is the fragmentation caused by the previous Government's policies—which, unfortunately, are taking time to correct? Does he also agree that it is so important for health units—particularly those with local authority social services departments—to work together?
    Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. In four of the five areas in Wales, we inherited an NHS with deficits. It has also become clear that the internal market, fundholding and the previous Administration's other health policies created funding and service problems that will take some time to resolve completely. I am absolutely committed to creating a single NHS in Wales—so that, in each area, acute services, mental health services and community health services are provided in an integrated manner, and so that the public and those working in the NHS may have complete confidence in our health service.
    Mr. Cynog Dafis: Does the Secretary of State realise that the instructions that he has given to the Dyfed Powys health authority, and the trusts therein, to make provision to repay debts previously incurred because of deficits is causing them to come up with bizarre options, such as the centralisation of specialisms away from Bronglais general hospital? Does he agree that any such centralisation is bound to lead to a serious decline in accessibility and in quality of provision? Does he also agree that the National Assembly will have to make an early commitment to the survival and flourishing of Bronglais as a district general hospital, and to provide the type of funds that will be necessary to give that guarantee?
    Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman misquotes the instruction, which was to start repaying and certainly not to make immediate total repayment. I have just mentioned the history that led to our having an NHS in which four of the five units have serious deficits. Although that is a totally unreasonable and unacceptable way of running the

    929
    health service, it is what we inherited. The hon. Gentleman knows well the commitment that I gave to Bronglais general hospital and on services in Ceredigion, and that I have given the same commitment on services in Llanelli, where there has been another set of rumours. There is no threat to the accident and emergency units in either of those places.
    The sets of rumour and counter-rumour currently flowing around are bizarre. However, I should expect to have the hon. Gentleman's co-operation in reinforcing the reassurances that I have given personally in my visits—so that the rumours might be knocked on the head, and the stock-take that I have started may be used by the Assembly, in its early days, to ensure long-term stability for the NHS and the confidence in the NHS of patients, communities and NHS staff. They should all be able confidently to place their confidence in the NHS in Wales.
    Mr. Ted Rowlands: I also welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement of an increased allocation. He will be well aware of the considerable capital costs in our hospitals, particularly in North Glamorgan NHS trust, and the urgent requirement for capital expenditure. In his new role, will he carry on the urgent work so that we have a full and proper hospital service fit for the 21st century in north Glamorgan?
    Mr. Michael: I am happy to promise to my hon. Friend that I shall concentrate on delivering the service that the people of Wales expect from the NHS and on working with colleagues in the National Assembly to put in place a plan as a result of the current stocktaking to ensure that everybody can be confident about the long-term future. There has been too much swinging from one project to another and one extreme to another. We need dependable long-term planning. I know that my hon. Friend needs it for his area; we need it for every part of Wales.
    Dr. Liam Fox: The figures on allocations, or fine words, will fool no one working in the NHS in Wales. Doctors and patients in Wales know that, to fiddle the figures, patients are not being put on waiting lists or on waiting lists for waiting lists in case their illnesses embarrass the Government. That may please the Government statisticians, but it will not help any patients, who know that they are waiting longer between seeing their GP and being treated by a consultant. Is not the simple truth that the Government put public relations before patients and put the spin before the sick?
    Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman has obviously been working through the night on that little piece of spin. The simple fact is that the Conservative Government starved the NHS in Wales of the resources that it needs. We are increasing the resources available by 9 per cent. this year, as I have said. I gave facts about real money going to the NHS. I also pointed out the chaos that his party left behind. He and his Government have a great deal to answer for in Wales.
    Ann Clwyd: Given the high priority that Labour Governments always give to the NHS, when my right hon. Friend becomes the leader of the Welsh Assembly at the end of this week will he look in particular at the state of the mental health services in north Glamorgan? There are no high-dependency beds or day
    930
    care facilities and there is a bad ratio of psychiatric community nurses to patients. I am sure that he will want to put that right as soon as possible.
    Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend makes a good point. One reason why I want each of the trusts in Wales to provide acute mental health and community health services is to ensure that those services are integrated and balanced for every region of Wales. In the Cynon valley and Merthyr, the two community health councils will give my hon. Friend's constituency a voice in the provision of NHS services. That will put a laser-like focus on the provision of the services that she has asked about. I shall look to her, with her NHS experience, to help in ensuring that we provide the right services at the right time in every respect, including mental health services.

    Minimum Wage (Clothing Industry)
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: If he will make a statement about the effect of the minimum wage on the numbers employed in the clothing industry in Wales. [82089]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): I am not aware of any impact on the numbers employed in the clothing industry. However, it is clear that 109,000 people in Wales will benefit from the national minimum wage. I am proud to be part of a Labour Government delivering on the pledge of a national minimum wage—something to which the Labour movement has aspired over the past 100 years.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: When I asked a similar question two years ago, I was told that it was a disgrace that almost 60,000 workers in Wales earned just £2.50 an hour. We now know from a written reply from the Welsh Office yesterday that since Labour came to power, a net total of 1,300 people working in the clothing industry in Wales have lost their job. Is it a success or a failure of his Department's policy that so many people in Wales are going from a low wage to no wage?
    Mr. Michael: There we have another bit of synthetic rhetoric from the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman refers to job losses before the introduction of the minimum wage, which he cannot blame on the minimum wage. The minimum wage will provide a quality of income that some of our poorest-paid workers have not had in the past. It will create a level playing field, and put money in the pockets of people who have been deprived of a decent income over the years. The hon. Gentleman should look at the policies of the previous Conservative Government and their impact in recent years.
    Mr. Paul Flynn: Is not the reality that tens of thousands of people in Wales who have suffered insultingly low and unfair wages for many years have at last been given a reasonable level of wages through this great success of our Labour Government? Will my right hon. Friend go further and link the level of the minimum wage with another level to guarantee that it increases in line with inflation? Could I suggest that the level of the minimum wage is linked to the level of pay of Members of this House and of the Welsh Assembly?
    Mr. Michael: As always, I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity. There have been some disgraceful situations as a result of the lack of a minimum wage, such as an advert for a position in the private security industry which paid £2.50 per hour, with own transport and own dog essential. Such disgraceful situations will end following the introduction of the minimum wage. Certainly the increased incomes of 109,000 people in Wales will help the economy of Wales as a whole.

    Welsh Assembly (Ministers' Pay)
    Mr. Lembit Öpik: If he will introduce performance-related pay for Ministers in the Welsh Assembly. [82091]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jon Owen Jones): No, but future arrangements will be a matter for the National Assembly.
    Mr. Öpik: I am confused, and perhaps the Minister can help clarify an apparent contradiction. If he and the Government support the principle of performance-related pay for teachers, why do they not support it for Members and Ministers of the Welsh Assembly?
    Mr. Jones: I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman is confused by a typically silly Liberal election gimmick. Before he advocates that gimmick for the Welsh Assembly, he should consider its effect if it were applied here. If we were to assess the performance of Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament, we might find that, since they have achieved nothing since Lloyd George, the Exchequer would save a great deal of money.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Should not the performance of Labour Ministers in this House since 1997 be looked at carefully by the people of Wales? So many have been let down decisively by the Government in the past two years, whether they be school children, pensioners or students. If we are talking about performance-related pay and if Labour forms the Government in the Welsh Assembly, Labour Members' pay should be cut—certainly nobody else's. What percentage turnout in the election for the Assembly tomorrow will the Minister deem to be successful? If that turnout is below the 50 per cent. turnout for the referendum, will not the £2 million that the Government have spent on advertising the Assembly elections have been wasted, when it could have been spent on services for the people of Wales?
    Mr. Jones: I am content for the electorate in Wales to judge the performance of Labour Ministers, and to compare that performance with that of Opposition spokesmen. I am sure that the opinion polls will be reflected tomorrow, when we will see what the people of Wales think about the performance of Labour Members in comparison with the pathetic performance of the ranting few on the Opposition Benches.

    Minimum Wage
    Mr. Huw Edwards: What estimate he has made of the impact of the national minimum wage on the average income in Wales. [82092]
    Mrs. Diana Organ: What estimate he has made of the impact of the national minimum wage on the average income in Wales. [82093]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): No estimate is available of the impact of the national minimum wage on the average income in Wales, but we know that 109,000 people in Wales will benefit from the national minimum wage, and that is good news for the economy of Wales as a whole.
    Mr. Edwards: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the national minimum wage will be one of the Government's lasting achievements and that, combined with the working families tax credit, the increases in child benefit and the lop starting rate of tax, all of which were opposed by the Conservative party, it will make a significant difference to the incomes of people in Wales?
    Mr. Michael: Yes, indeed. Combating poverty is a major priority. It is good to see that people such as small business representatives now see the value of a national minimum wage.
    Mrs. Organ: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the measures that we have introduced to raise the income of 109,000 people in Wales are a refreshing change from the previous Government's policies, which were an attempt to promote Wales as a low-skill, low-wage area?
    Mr. Michael: Yes, indeed. If we can end dependency, get people into work and improve their skills and the quality of jobs available to them, that will be a test by which I will be glad to be judged when we can see the success that the first four years of the National Assembly for Wales will have brought about.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. [82115] Mrs. Linda Gilroy: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 5 May.
    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.
    Mrs. Gilroy: In this Red Cross week, will my right hon. Friend join me in recognising the important humanitarian work of the Red Cross Society, both here and abroad? The Red Cross and the Red Crescent are well known for their work providing care and comfort in crises. Is not their work to support international humanitarian law, and especially

    933
    the Geneva conventions, also very important? By his flagrant breach of that law, Milosevic has put himself outside the pale of civilised society. Will my right hon. Friend do everything that he can to promote the Geneva conventions, both in seeking a solution to the Kosovo crisis and in the future?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to pay tribute to the work of the Red Cross. It is doing magnificent work in the Balkans and the volunteers are using every bit of energy that they can to help people there. We have given about £2.5 million to the Red Cross, and a total of £40 million in humanitarian assistance. I know that my hon. Friend would want me to mention also the humanitarian work of the British armed forces to help the refugees, which I saw at first hand. Our effort stands comparison with that of any country in the world.
    Mr. William Hague: The Health Secretary denied it yesterday, but will the Prime Minister now admit that the Government did indeed propose to the European Union raising the maximum working hours of junior hospital doctors from 56 to 65 a week?
    The Prime Minister: On the contrary, under this Government, the number of junior doctors who work unacceptably long hours has fallen. When we came to office, 6,500 junior doctors worked more than 56 hours a week; we have cut that number to 4,800. Under our proposals, no doctor will be asked to work more hours than at present.
    Mr. Hague: The facts are plain. The Government are proposing a higher hours limit. The Health Secretary denied it yesterday, and today the Prime Minister says, "On the contrary," but what is this minute of the Council meeting in Brussels, dated 15 April 1999, saying:
    "The UK delegation is proposing the following text… 'an average of [65] hours a week during the first eight years …and an average of [60] hours a week for the remaining seven years'."?
    Only this Prime Minister would claim that an increase from 56 to 65 is a reduction. Can he confirm that what the Government are proposing would also last for 15 years?
    The Prime Minister: No, not merely do I not confirm it, I deny it. We are reducing the number of hours that doctors work. There is a transitional period; the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned 15 years. That is necessary, since we must recruit more doctors, and training for some of the specialties takes 15 years. However, as a result of what we are doing, junior doctors' hours will be reduced. They are being reduced now.
    Furthermore, we are going to increase the numbers recruited by 7,000 over the next three years, and we are increasing the numbers in training by 20 per cent. So, as a result of this Government, by the end of our first term in office, junior doctors will be working fewer hours and we will have recruited more doctors.
    Mr. Hague: If it is so good for junior doctors, why does the British Medical Association say that it is a "slap in the face" for doctors and
    "a betrayal of the patients"?
    The Prime Minister's position in answering those questions is to deny the truth, except the point that it will happen for the next 15 years—which he has now admitted.
    934
    The truth is that, the greater the claims that the Government make about the health service, the less they deliver. They said that they would reduce waiting lists, and they went up. Now, there are twice as many people waiting to go on the waiting lists. They claim that they are trying to reduce junior doctors' hours, and those hours are increased by the document. Is not the BMA right to say that that is a betrayal of doctors? Is it not a betrayal of all the promises that the Government made on health?
    The Prime Minister: No. Let me repeat what I said to the right hon. Gentleman, and let us see whether this time he can understand. Junior doctors' hours are being reduced. As for the working time directive, his party is opposed to it. He must now be saying that he is in favour of it, but he has been against it all the way through. As for the numbers of people going into the health service, we are increasing those, too—more doctors, more nurses. And we are putting an extra £21 billion into the health service. Are the Conservatives in favour of that extra £21 billion? We do not know.
    Mr. Hague: More hours.
    The Prime Minister: Let the right hon. Gentleman take it one more time. Under this Government, junior doctors are working fewer hours. That is what we have delivered—better than at any point when the Conservatives were in office. All that questions on the health service from the Conservatives reveal is that, on that as on so much else, they have not the faintest idea what they are talking about.
    Ms Oona King: Does the Prime Minister agree that one of the most precious things in this country is the right to free speech? Is not the only thing more precious the right to life? Given that, and in the light of the recent atrocities in my constituency and elsewhere in London, will he look at tightening the laws governing incitement to racial hatred so that individuals—or groups—who are guilty of it face penalties, and, in this country, the only thing that we nail is intolerance?
    The Prime Minister: It is precisely for that reason that we are considering how we extend the law, in order to ensure that incitement to racial hatred is a crime. We shall do everything that we can to make it clear that, although we live in a tolerant democracy, we shall be intolerant of racial prejudice and racial bigotry. Wherever these people rear their ugly heads, the forces of democracy will be there, ready to deal with them.
    Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The Prime Minister has told us this week that he wants a society that is tolerant at home and compassionate abroad. How does he believe that he is contributing to that by pushing through this House a piece of Tory legislation, the chief characteristic of which is to seek to deter asylum seekers by treating them with a mixture of delay, penury and injustice?
    The Prime Minister: I do not accept that at all. The aim of the legislation is to reduce the time spent dealing with asylum claims so that, by April 2001, the initial claims for asylum should be dealt with inside two months, on average, and any subsequent appeal may be handled within four months. Anyone who has studied the present

    935
    asylum system knows that it is not working properly. There is a huge backlog of cases, and proper, genuine asylum seekers often do not get the treatment that they need. We are changing the law precisely to ensure that genuine asylum seekers are treated properly.
    Mr. Ashdown: If the aim of the legislation, and of the Government, is to reduce the queue, they are failing comprehensively, as the queue has got longer and longer under this Government.
    Let me put the following to the Prime Minister: the denial of social security benefits to asylum seekers is "inhumane". That statement is not mine—it was made by the present Home Secretary at the last election. If it was true then, why is not true now? To put it another way: does the Prime Minister believe that he is fulfilling the great tradition of this country—that of showing generosity and compassion to those who seek refuge on our shores—by providing an asylum seeker with an allowance for her child of 50p a day?
    The Prime Minister: First of all, the right hon. Gentleman is simply wrong about the facts. We opposed the Conservatives' withdrawal of all benefits to asylum seekers. That is not the process that we are putting in place now. What we have done is to say that, if we want to make a fundamental change, we have to make the system quicker and more effective.
    There has been a rise of 42 per cent. in the number of cases, even while the backlog remains. The right hon. Gentleman says that the backlog is getting worse: it is, but that is precisely why we need the new legislation to change the system. When the new system is in place, we will be able to deal with asylum claims better, more effectively and more quickly. Genuine asylum seekers will be made welcome, but we do not want claims to be stacked up for years and years—as they are at present—and then not dealt with properly. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman giving that display of outrage if he is not prepared to confront the facts and understand that, without reform, the system does not help genuine asylum seekers—indeed, it harms them.
    Mr. Chris Pond: Given that the new deal is intended to provide lasting and worthwhile employment, does my right hon. Friend agree that it will be of no help to the Conservative party in finding a new chairman, now that Mr. Portillo has refused the job?
    Madam Speaker: Order. That is not the business of the Prime Minister and is rather a wasted question.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: Will the Prime Minister please explain how the democratic rights of my constituents in Beaconsfield have been enhanced by Scottish devolution? Under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993, the disposal in Colnbrook in my constituency of radioactive waste coming from Scotland is subject to authorisation by a United Kingdom Minister. However, after 1 July, it will be subject to authorisation by the First Minister of the Scottish Parliament. I will not be able to ask a parliamentary question of that person, and the House will not be able to hold him to account in relation to his duties in this country under the 1993 Act.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. If radioactive material comes through England, it is subject
    936
    to the English authority. In addition, I believe that devolution will benefit all the people of the United Kingdom. Before devolution, people faced a choice between the status quo —which was not accepted in places such as Scotland and Wales—or separatism. Now, people have the proper choice of devolution, and I believe that that will be supported in England, as well as in Scotland and Wales.
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Further to the last question, let me say that we are on the eve of the completion of John Smith's unfinished business—the re-establishment of a Scottish Parliament after nearly three centuries. That is the settled will of the Scottish people as demonstrated at the referendum. Amid the short-term problems of politics, will not the first-ever democratic election of a Scottish Parliament be a truly historic event?
    The Prime Minister: The Scottish Parliament was called unfinished business by John Smith. There is no better expression of his values and love of democracy than the Scottish Parliament. It offers us the chance of an enhanced and strengthened United Kingdom, in which those things that are distinctively Scottish can be handled in Scotland. Where it is right to co-operate and work in partnership, we shall do so within the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Bob Russell: The whole House will have been appalled by last week's bomb outrage in Soho. I regret that two of the three people who died—Andrea Dykes and John Light—were constituents of mine. On behalf of the House, may I invite the Prime Minister to send condolences to their families and best wishes to all those who were injured, including Julian Dykes, who does not yet know that his wife, who was four months pregnant, was killed?
    We cannot comment specifically on the case, because someone has been charged with the murders. May I suggest, however, that security cameras have an important part to play in detecting and preventing crime?
    The Prime Minister: On the last point, that is part of the reason why we have committed an extra £150 million for closed circuit television cameras, which do a tremendous job as we try both to cut crime and to identify the people who commit crime.
    In his first point, the hon. Gentleman spoke for the whole House. I certainly send my heartfelt sympathy to the families of those people who died as a result of a callous and brutal act. They and their families will have the support, thoughts and prayers of the whole House.
    Mr. Richard Burden: Will my right hon. Friend liaise with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on the new deal? It seems that there is great difficulty in filling some jobs being advertised in some parts of the country. Those jobs are not attracting applications, even though they require no special qualification. My attention was drawn to The Daily Telegraph yesterday, which noted that the Conservative

    937
    party is advertising for candidates, but finding great difficulty in receiving any applications. Can the Prime Minister offer any advice?
    Madam Speaker: Order. The question relates to the new deal.
    The Prime Minister: All I can say is that the new deal applies only to permanent jobs and would not therefore be suitable.
    Mr. Philip Hammond: After the fiasco over junior doctors' hours, does the Prime Minister recall that his Government made a pledge to the nurses in February that this year's pay settlement would be met in full from 1 April? Is he aware that many nurses received no additional pay in their April pay packets and that many NHS trusts are having great difficulty in financing the unfunded element of the nurses' pay settlement? What is he going to do about that?
    The Prime Minister: On junior doctors' hours, we are decreasing hours, not increasing them. That is the fact. Secondly, on nurses, we are the Government who have increased nurses' pay by more than at any other point in the past 20 years. Thirdly, we are funding the pay increase out of the additional £21 billion described just a few months ago by the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleagues as reckless and irresponsible. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then, but, as a result of what the Government are investing in the health service, there are more doctors and more nurses, and, for the first time ever, starting nurses are receiving a decent pay rise.
    Mrs. Diana Organ: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the transfer of 500 jobs from the Xerox plant in Mitcheldean in my constituency to Dundalk in southern Ireland, which may lead to the loss of 100 further jobs in local subsidiary companies? What support can the Government offer to help those 600 workers to find future employment, and what assistance can they give to local economies, such as that of the Forest of Dean, to sustain, improve and develop the vital manufacturing sector?
    The Prime Minister: I know that there is a task force in the area, which is helping those people who are going to lose their jobs. Although 500 jobs are to be transferred from Gloucestershire, 1,750 remain and I understand that a further 250 are being created. Obviously, I share my hon. Friend's concern about any changes that are made, but those are commercial decisions for the company. I should point out that, fortunately, the UK remains a very attractive location for overseas companies: a record 600 projects were attracted here last year, creating some 46,000 jobs. Of course, during rationalisation and change, some jobs will go and some stay, but the difference under the Labour Government is that we are trying to put in place measures that will help people to find new jobs when, unfortunately, their jobs are lost.
    Mr. William Hague: Whose fault is it that the Prime Minister's own district council,
    938
    Sedgefield, has one of the highest council taxes in the country? Is it the fault of the Labour council, or of the Labour Government?
    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to say that, as evidenced by the huge vote that we always get for Sedgefield's Labour district councillors, we enjoy the full support of all the local people.
    Mr. Hague: We are talking about the Prime Minister's constituency, where something is wrong and it is nobody's fault. Is it not true that Sedgefield has the 13th highest council tax in band D, at £967? The right hon. Gentleman is in good company on the Government Benches, with Redcar at £1,033 and Hartlepool at £978—no wonder the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) always keeps a posh house in London. Why do people who live under Labour councils have to pay high council taxes for poor services, incompetent administration and Labour councillors, a string of whom have fiddled the books?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has again got his facts wrong: the average council tax increase is lower in Labour councils than in Conservative councils; Conservative councils have higher than average increases in council tax; and the average council tax per dwelling is lower in Labour areas.
    Mr. Hague: And is it not true that the highest council taxes are all in Labour authorities, except for those in Liberal-controlled Liverpool, which has the highest of all? Is it not true that, in Blaenau Gwent, the former Labour mayor has been convicted of fraudulent expense claims; that, in Lewisham, the Labour chairman of housing was sentenced to 60 days in Brixton prison; and that, in Doncaster, four Labour councillors have gone to jail and the man whom the Prime Minister sent in to clean it up has now himself been arrested? Is it not the case that they are now the only people left in the Labour party who have genuine convictions? Is it not the case that if people want low council taxes, honest local government and good services, they have to vote Conservative tomorrow?
    The Prime Minister: No. I have to point out, not only that Labour councils have lower than average increases in council tax, but that all that the Conservatives do is take band D properties, when only 30 per cent. of properties are band D. If we take all properties, we see that people pay lower council taxes in Labour areas than in Conservative ones; moreover, they get better services—better education services and better local government services.
    As for the respective merits of candidates, I can do no better than to quote the sole Conservative candidate for Rutland council, Mr. John Duckham, who, when asked why there were not many Conservative candidates in Rutland, replied:
    "nobody came forward. It was not as though there were just no suitable candidates; we have long put behind us scruples about endorsing people purely on the grounds of their suitability."
    I think that we stand rather a good comparison.
    Ms Jenny Jones: Today, we commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Council of Europe. Does my right hon. Friend agree that

    939
    the values for which the Council of Europe stands—democracy and human rights—are as relevant to Europeans today as they were 50 years ago? Does he also agree that vigilance is needed if those values are to be safeguarded and future generations of Europeans are to benefit from democracy and human rights?
    The Prime Minister: It is right that the Council of Europe stands for those values, and we are fighting for them in Kosovo. It is worth pointing out that, since the second world war and the formation of the European Union, there have been tremendous strides forward within the EU in peace, prosperity and security. [Interruption.] I believe that to be the case. I think that Europe and the European Union have stood the test of time pretty well over the past 50 years. I think that the values of justice and democracy are the very values that we should be advancing now for south-east Europe and the Balkans.
    Mr. Robert Walter: The Prime Minister will recall, that two weeks ago—not for the first time this year—I asked him whether he could give the House a date on which beef exports would be resumed. Yet again, he did not answer the question. Later that day, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in answer to a question in a debate, said that the Government were working to a timetable. Will the Prime Minister tell us where in that timetable is the date for the resumption of beef exports?
    The Prime Minister: As I said to the hon. Gentleman last time, there had to be an inspection process first. I told him that an invitation was extended to the Commission. The Commission came between 12 and 16 April. Its representatives have gone back and they will prepare a report for the Commission. Once that report has satisfied the Commission that all the various obstacles have been overcome, a date will be submitted by the European Commission and agreed by us. That is the procedure that has to be gone through.
    I repeat to the hon. Gentleman—I think that I said this to him last time—that I do not accept the idea that we should take lessons from the Conservative party about BSE. We have had to sort out the vast multi-billion pound mess that we inherited from the previous Conservative Government.

    World Bank and IMF (Reform)
    Mr. David Chaytor: What proposals he has for the reform of the World bank and the International Monetary Fund.
    The Prime Minister: The United Kingdom has put forward proposals for a far-reaching reform of the international financial architecture to promote greater transparency. Those proposals are designed to develop improved mechanisms for crisis prevention and resolution and to minimise the human cost of financial crises. Together with the initiatives that we are taking forward at the International Monetary Fund and the World bank, for debt relief and poverty reduction, they amount to a substantial package of measures. I hope to make progress on all those matters at the June Cologne summit.
    Mr. Chaytor: I thank the Prime Minister for that reply and congratulate the Government on the international lead
    940
    that they have given on this reform process. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the past, too often the International Monetary Fund particularly has been the problem and not the solution in times of financial crisis? Does he agree also that an external evaluation system is needed for the IMF to improve its scrutiny and accountability, such as currently applies in the World bank?
    The Prime Minister: The UK has been a proponent of greater transparency in the IMF. I believe that the IMF, particularly under Michel Camdessus, has done excellent work in many parts of the world. However, the most important single problem that we face is constructing the financial architecture, both in greater accountability and transparency of national financial systems, that allows us to be able to deal with financial crises in a much better way.
    That is for the long term. For the short term, we have to ensure that there are sufficient funds available to help any country through a short-term liquidity crisis. We support reforms in the IMF, but I think that further reforms are necessary to make the system work.

    Engagements
    Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will the Prime Minister confirm, so that the people in this country really understand, that, once the Scots are to be deciding their own affairs in their own Parliament, the same number of Scottish Members will continue to come to Westminster to poke their nose into English affairs? Incidentally, most of those individuals are in the right hon. Gentleman's Government. Will he turn his mind to being fair to the rest of the population and tell us why it has not crossed his mind that we should also have a Parliament for England?
    The Prime Minister: I do not know whether the hon. Lady is outlining Conservative policy. One can never be sure. It is the case that devolution provides the chance for the United Kingdom to be strengthened for the 21st century. I believe that both the separatists, who want to wrench Scotland and Wales out of the United Kingdom, and those who advocate the status quo are the true enemies of the Union and of the United Kingdom. The best way forward is to have devolution and to make sure that, in future, those things that are distinctively Scottish can be decided in Scotland.
    Mr. Vernon Coaker: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his recent visit to the Balkans. I, too, recently visited the camps there under the auspices of UNICEF. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, once we have provided immediate aid in the camps, one of the most important things that we need to do is to support those people in finding their brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers and other relatives? So many of the refugees have been split from those whom they love. As well as supplying immediate aid, we must reunite them with their relatives and friends.
    The Prime Minister: Again, we are playing a leading part in trying to make sure that families are reunited. We

    941
    are providing as much assistance as we can to people on the ground. As I said earlier, the British troops are playing a marvellous role in that. We have made it known that we are prepared to do more to help refugees in this country. However, the refugees to whom I spoke were determined that we should carry on with our action until we succeeded.
    942
    I know that my hon. Friend will support that. The only thing that will ultimately secure the future of those people is for them to be allowed to return to Kosovo in peace. That is why we must intensify our action, we must make sure that the NATO demands are met, and not for one instant must we let up until those demands are met.

Kosovo Refugees
3.31 pm
Sir Norman Fowler: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's policy concerning refugees from Kosovo.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): As I explained to the House at oral questions last week, the Government's priority, along with our European partners, is to ensure that, as far as possible, Kosovan refugees are cared for within the region, so that they can return to their homes as soon as it is safe for them to do so, which is the refugees' overwhelming wish. There has been widespread understanding of the NATO allies' determination not to allow any actions to be taken that might inadvertently facilitate Milosevic's vile and brutal policy of ethnic cleansing.
We have also long made it clear that the United Kingdom stands ready to receive some thousands of refugees from the region on humanitarian grounds and on the basis of criteria agreed with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The priority of the UNHCR is to relieve pressure on the camps, not least in respect of the most vulnerable and those with family links in the United Kingdom.
We received the first request from the UNHCR on 20 April and agreed it within one hour. The first plane of refugees from Kosovo arrived in the UK at Leeds-Bradford airport on Sunday 25 April. There were 161 refugees, mainly women and children, including three cases in need of medical treatment. The second plane of 169 refugees arrived at East Midlands airport on 29 April.
Reception services for the refugees are being organised by the Refugee Council in co-operation with its partner agencies, Refugee Action, the Scottish Refugee Council and the Red Cross. Local authorities, airport authorities, the immigration service and local medical services are also heavily involved.
No upper limit has been set on the number of refugees that we will take. The UNHCR has now asked us to take more refugees because of the changing situation on the ground in Kosovo, and we are responding. A team of Home Office officials will be arriving in Macedonia very shortly to speed up the registration of refugees for potential evacuation.
The next two flights will arrive at Prestwick airport in Ayr on Sunday 9 May. We expect that there will be a further two flights later next week, building up in the following weeks to between five and seven planes a week, leading to a weekly total of around 1,000 refugees.
Local authorities, through their national association, have been fully involved from the start in the planning and development of these arrangements. Their representative was present at a regular meeting last week when contingency plans to increase flights to between five and seven a week were discussed.
The Refugee Council and its partner agencies are working closely with the Home Office and local government associations to identify sites for further reception centres across the United Kingdom. We are looking at all parts of the UK. A variety of different forms of accommodation will be used as temporary reception
944
centres where the refugees can be housed before moving into more settled accommodation. As the numbers increase, the refugees may need to be housed—for a while, at least—in former service accommodation.
I have already made it clear that local authorities and the voluntary sector will be reimbursed the additional costs that they incur in respect of these arrangements.
Those refugees who arrive here by way of priority from the UNHCR are either being granted permission to enter in line with that of close family members already settled in the UK or, where there are no such close family members here already, they are being given exceptional leave to remain for 12 months, to provide for their protection as requested by the UNHCR. Such status provides a "passport" into the normal benefits system and the right to work. Kosovans who arrive in Britain by their own means will continue to be able to apply for asylum in the normal way.
Finally, I pay tribute to the voluntary sector, to the local authorities and to the British public as a whole for their magnificent response so far to those who have arrived, and to the way in which I know that response will continue.
Sir Norman Fowler: Opposition Members entirely share the commitment to give all possible help and relief to refugees from Kosovo. Many of the families involved have suffered appallingly in the past months. In the light of that and the sheer scale of the problem, it is right that we should approach the plight of the refugees in a spirit of generosity.
Given that, I hope that the Home Secretary will give an assurance that he will keep the House fully informed of policy. Today, every newspaper in the country reported that the Government would take 1,000 refugees a week into this country. Whether that is a change of policy or, as one Home Office official called it, "a change of pace," it was, by any standards, a significant development. In my view, it should have been reported first to the House of Commons.
Against that background, let me put some brief points to the Home Secretary. First, we agree that the priority is to ensure that, as far as possible, refugees from Kosovo are cared for within that region. That is what the refugee families want and, of course, they also want to return to their homes as soon as it is safe for them to do so. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to agree that, in the meantime, that means that all possible assistance should be given, in particular to Albania and Macedonia.
Secondly, may I ask the Home Secretary about the total number of refugees that he envisages coming to this country? Several other countries have put a figure on it, but he has stuck to his formula of "some thousands". He has talked, and did so again this afternoon, of a weekly total of around 1,000 refugees arriving a week, but he has given no indication of how long that process will continue. Is there not advantage in giving the agencies involved, and the public generally, some better guide to the numbers envisaged under his policy?
Further to that point, the Home Secretary will have seen in the press the comments of some local authority spokesmen, which are rather contrary to the impression that he has given this afternoon. They are concerned whether facilities are adequate to care properly for the numbers of refugees that could be envisaged. Is the Home

945
Secretary satisfied that there will be adequate resources and, in particular, adequate help for the education authorities for the children involved?
In addition, will the families arriving from Kosovo eventually be subject to the regime of the Immigration and Asylum Bill, when it becomes law? In particular, will local authorities still have a duty under the Children Act 1989 to safeguard and promote the welfare of the children who arrive here?
Perhaps most crucially, will the Home Secretary emphasise that action is being taken entirely on humanitarian grounds? In no way can Milosevic use that action to validate his actions in Kosovo, which the whole nation utterly condemns. Our overriding aim remains that those refugees should be enabled to return to their own homes and live in peace and security.
Mr. Straw: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the tenor of his remarks and for his full support for the approach which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government have taken in respect of the priority, which has to be to secure humanitarian relief in the region of Kosovo. As my right hon. Friend said a few moments ago at Prime Minister's questions, let it be clear that the United Kingdom's contribution to the humanitarian relief within that region stands comparison with that of any country in the world.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I would keep the House fully informed. Yes, of course I will. I made what turned out to be a full statement at parliamentary questions just a week ago, and I shall continue to keep the House informed. The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the total number of refugees. We thought it wise from the start not to set either a minimum or a maximum limit, because the situation is changing. I believe that our original judgment not to set an upper limit, but instead to say that we stand ready to take some thousands of refugees, was correct because, as we have seen in the past few days, the situation on the ground in Kosovo—and therefore in Macedonia and Albania—is changing all the time.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about local authorities. I am aware of what one particular local authority spokesperson said, but the truth is that local authorities, through the Local Government Association, have been fully involved in these arrangements from the start, as the right hon. Gentleman would expect. One of their representatives was present at a meeting last Friday, when the contingency plans to take between five and seven flights a week were discussed. It is our judgment that the facilities will be sufficient. As I made clear, as the numbers build up, the arrangements for the initial housing of the refugees will have to be in reception centres and perhaps in service accommodation, given the numbers.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the families admitted on UNHCR nomination will be subject to the regime in the Immigration and Asylum Bill when that becomes law. The answer is no, because the regime specified in that Bill is for those who seek asylum status and have no formal leave to remain in this country, other than a pending asylum application. Those who are coming in are being given either leave to enter, consistent with the leave that their close family members have already been given, or exceptional leave to remain. That means
946
that they are automatically passported to social security benefits and to the right to work, and the full obligations of local authorities under the Children Act apply from the start in respect of those children.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: I very much welcome the step that my right hon. Friend has taken to admit refugees from Kosovo and to give them exceptional leave to remain. In the next week or two, while we are still discussing the Immigration and Asylum Bill, will he reflect on what the position might be? Those who are given exceptional leave to remain will not necessarily be debarred from applying for asylum. If they then applied for asylum, would they still be entitled to the benefits to which they are currently being given access?
Mr. Straw: They would not be deprived of those benefits because they have a pre-existing right to remain in this country in terms of exceptional leave. 1 can give my hon. Friend that assurance.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Is the Home Secretary aware that we share his view, because it is the overwhelming view of the refugees themselves, that the primary objective of the policy should be to create safe conditions for those people to return to their homes, and that everything that we do in the meantime must be consistent with that objective but must meet human need as best we can? In that context, does the Home Secretary not recognise that there was considerable concern that, whereas Germany had taken nearly 10,000 refugees, we had taken only some 300? His statement today will be welcomed.
Can the Home Secretary say whether there is sufficient support from the Home Office for our missions in Tirana and Skopje, which will have to facilitate the movement of refugees? Is he satisfied that the UNHCR will have obtained the necessary information for war crimes tribunals and the return of refugees?
Finally, may I return to a point raised by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler)? Will education authorities be reimbursed for all the relevant education expenditure that they may incur for the children of those refugees?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and to his party for their support for the overall approach that we have taken. He asked me a number of questions. He mentioned Germany. It must be acknowledged that refugee flows are never symmetrical. The number of refugees who seek access to any individual country in Europe has a great deal to do with historic and geographical ties. It is a matter of history that there are already 170,000 refugees from Kosovo in the German Republic: that is getting on for a tenth of the total population of Kosovo Albanians. Germany was bound to be able to offer many more refugee places because many of the refugees can stay with members of their family, and because there was great pressure in Germany for that country to receive refugees. I repeat what the Prime Minister said in Prime Minister's questions. We must judge the United Kingdom's contribution to humanitarian relief in this country and in the Kosovo region as a whole, and that stands comparison with any other country in the world.

947
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether there is sufficient support for the missions in Skopje and Tirana. I pay tribute to the huge effort of officials from the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development. However, they can always do with more support, and we are aiming to give them that by way of the Home Office team that is going out to Macedonia shortly.
Every effort is being put into the investigation of war crimes. On the issue of reimbursement of expenditure by local authorities, the details are being worked out at the moment. I said in my statement that the additional costs of local authorities and the voluntary sector would be reimbursed by central Government.
Ann Clwyd: I am sure that there will be overwhelming support from the British people for the Government's decision to admit refugees in larger numbers than previously. The British people are keen on that idea, and many of them have signified that they want to welcome refugees into their own homes.
What is the status of the 10,000 Kosovo refugees who have already come into this country? How many of them have been given refugee status? If it is a small number, can consideration of the other cases be speeded up? When I was in Albania last week, I was told by our embassy that it was granting no visas for refugees to this country. Will my right hon. Friend look into that matter, because I was also told that refugees seeking visas were being sent to Istanbul? That sounds ridiculous, and there must be an explanation. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would comment on those two points.
Mr. Straw: I thank my hon. Friend for her remarks. No new decision has been taken to admit larger numbers than have previously been admitted. The original decision that we would take some thousands of refugees was made at the beginning of April. We have merely sought to bring the arrangements consistent with that policy into play.
My hon. Friend asked about the status of the 10,000 or so people who have claimed asylum on the basis that they are from Kosovo and are ethnic Albanians. From recollection—I am happy to write to my hon. Friend—between 3,000 and 4,000 of that 10,000 have been granted either asylum status or exceptional leave to remain, and we are making arrangements to speed up the consideration of the other cases. Consideration of those cases is bound to be more complicated than the granting of exceptional leave to remain to those nominated by the UNHCR. Sadly, although a high proportion of those who claim that they are ethnic Albanians from Kosovo and are in need of protection under the 1951 Geneva convention on refugees, a number of others are not, as claimed, from Kosovo but are either Albanians who have no basis of claim under the 1951 convention or come from other parts of the region. We must ensure that the genuine applicants who meet the criteria are separated from those who are either genuine but do not meet the convention criteria or who are abusive and fraudulent applicants.
My hon. Friend expressed concerns about our post in Albania, and I shall certainly follow those up.
Mr. John Wilkinson: When I raised this issue on Monday, the Home Secretary said that
948
the United Kingdom stood ready to accept some thousands of refugees. May I point out to him that, before the exodus began, my local authority sent me a communication stating that it was already under refugee pressures that it could not sustain?
While the British people's hospitality is wholly commendable, may I say to the Home Secretary that this crisis was entirely predictable? From the time when the first bomb dropped, a mass exodus was to be expected. I suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that Her Majesty's Government ought to prepare plans on the scale of the dispositions made to receive refugees from Idi Amin's Uganda, but that clearly has not been done. Will he now reassure us that the efflux will be spread around the United Kingdom, and that hard-pressed London boroughs that can already barely cope will not have to bear an excessive burden?
Mr. Straw: I would like to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. He will have noted that planes have landed at Leeds-Bradford and East Midlands airports so far, and that next Sunday, 9 May, planes are due to land at Prestwick.
We are aware of the substantial pressures faced by the hon. Gentleman's borough, by a number of other inner and outer London boroughs and, as it happens, by district councils in the region of Kent, around Dover. It is precisely because of the disproportionate burden that a number of those boroughs are having to bear that we introduced the Immigration and Asylum Bill, so that asylum seekers who enter the country in the normal course of events—they usually do so clandestinely—do not necessarily end up in Dover or the key boroughs, but can be dispersed, not to the four quarters of the earth but to areas where they can be cared for sensibly and properly and where there is much less pressure than London boroughs are currently experiencing.
Mr. Tony Benn: I welcome the Government's decision to take refugees, but may I ask the Home Secretary two questions? First, given his suggestion that, if the problem is to be dealt with, it will be necessary to bypass his own legislation, will he look at the legislation again to see why that is the case? Secondly—this involves looking further ahead—are the Government and their partners in NATO committed to resettling the refugees in Kosovo? Has an estimate been made of how long that would take, what it would cost and who would pay? The desire to return home when ethnic cleansing is over will be the first thought in the minds of the refugees here.
Mr. Straw: Let me reassure my right hon. Friend that there is no bypassing of the Immigration and Asylum Bill. The Bill, of which an extensive proportion is concerned with immigration rather than asylum control, concerns people who have sought asylum status in this country under the 1951 convention, but have not been granted it. It has virtually nothing to do with either those who have been granted status under the convention, as refugees, or those who are given exceptional leave to remain in this country. They are automatically passported on to benefits, they have a right to work, and all the obligations imposed on local authorities by the Children Act apply to them.
My right hon. Friend asked whether we were committed to resettling refugees in Kosovo when the war is over. The answer is yes. It is not just because we are

949
committed to that, but because the overwhelming majority of refugees are desperate to return, that the fundamental focus of humanitarian relief must be on the region of Kosovo.
Mr. Alan Clark: Can the Home Secretary assure the House that his Department is taking effective screening measures to eliminate criminal elements among the refugee immigrants? His hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development will tell him that I have already raised that in the House, on the Adjournment.
Has the right hon. Gentleman seen both the MI6 report and the Interpol papers regarding the Kosovo Liberation Army's drugs and prostitution racketeering, and the general level of intimidation involved in its infiltration of the refugee camps and, in some cases, the refugees themselves? If he and his Department do not get a proper grip, a concomitant load will be thrown on both local authority services and the police in this country.
Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I do not disclose which papers from the Security Service or the Secret Intelligence Service I have seen.
One reason why I said earlier that we must look carefully at each of the claims made by the 10,000 people who enter the country by other means to claim asylum—typically, by clandestine means—is that, while some are genuine and meet the criteria of the 1951 convention, others are abusive claimants who come from Albania rather than Kosovo. As the right hon. Gentleman asks, some of them are criminals. It is obviously important that, so far as possible, we ensure that they are not given any status in this country.
That is why we have to resist those naive clarion calls saying that, without any verification, we should give refugee status to anyone who turns up in this country who claims to be a Kosovo Albanian from Kosovo; we cannot do that. The people who would be most undermined by that are genuine Kosovan refugees. Of that there is no question.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: First, will settlement be organised in clusters, to ensure that there is adequate mutual support for the families involved? Secondly, what counselling arrangements will be available, and from what agencies, for a people who have been through such immense suffering?
Mr. Straw: The arrangement is to ensure that people are settled in clusters. Indeed, that is the settled policy of the Government in respect of overall dispersal of asylum seekers, which we have set out in many consultative documents, and which we published alongside the Immigration and Asylum Bill. Every effort is being made to provide for mutual support, not least from the existing Kosovan population in this country. There is obviously an urgent need, for example, for interpreters.
I revert to the previous question. One of the reasons why we are sending a team of Home Office officials to the region, particularly Macedonia, to assist the UNHCR, is to help to process applicants to ensure that the people who come to this country by plane through the Refugee Council arrangements are those who are most in need.
Sir Peter Emery: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one of the problems among the
950
refugees is the number of broken families—and the number of children who have been separated perhaps from both parents and have no knowledge of whether their parents are alive? Does he accept that the International Social Service—with which I have some connection—which has its headquarters in Geneva and branches in Britain and in many European countries, and which specialises in uniting broken families and bringing destitute children back to relatives, should be encouraged to play a part wherever possible? Will he encourage the International Social Service branch in Britain to do all it can to help with that particular problem?
Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman raises an important matter. I can reassure him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, who is on the Treasury Bench, take that matter extremely seriously. We have already given £2.5 million to the International Red Cross precisely to assist in family reunion. Moreover, one of the criteria for admission to the UNHCR's lists of those to come to this country is family reunion.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Home Secretary accept that many of us are pleased with the support that the Government are giving to the recent arrivals from Kosovo and, in particular, the immediate reimbursement of local authorities of any extra costs that they have? It is important that they be rapidly paid. The move is extremely welcome.
Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the anomalous position whereby newly arrived refugees from Kosovo will be given exceptional leave to remain—and, therefore, correctly, access to all benefits— while many existing asylum seekers in this country will continue to depend on food vouchers, handouts and little cash, a system that leads to high administrative costs and to very unpleasant experiences for many of those asylum seekers, who feel humiliation in their communities? Will he reflect on the fact that that anomaly will get worse as time goes on? Perhaps now is the time to reflect on the wisdom of that policy in the first place.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his general endorsement of our approach; I shall pocket and treasure it.
There is nothing anomalous in the position of the Kosovan refugees who arrive here by nomination of the UNHCR. There is no doubt about their status. They are known to be refugees, having a well-founded fear of persecution by the state from which they come. There is therefore no question but that we can grant them exceptional leave to remain or other status to allow them to remain here. The problem with those who arrive clandestinely is, as I have explained, where they come from and whether they have a well-founded fear persecution. In many cases they do. Two-thirds of all asylum recognitions in the past month have been in respect of Kosovo, but some do not have a well-founded fear at all; they have made it up. They do not come from the area. We owe it to the House and to genuine Kosovan refugees to discover who they are and whether they have such a right.
I wholly reject my hon. Friend's suggestion about the way in which the benefits in kind will work. Our argument with the previous Government in respect of

951
benefits for asylum seekers was that they proposed to withdraw any benefit, whether in cash or in kind, from those who claimed asylum within country, and allow benefits only for those who claimed them at port. That would have left people destitute. Local authorities have had to fill that breach and they have done so well. But, as we heard from the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), that has placed substantial pressure on a disproportionate but small number of local authorities, principally in London. Those who have received benefits in kind have in no way gone destitute, however. They have been properly cared for and they will continue to be cared for under our new arrangements.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that all hon. Members and every United Kingdom citizen are deeply concerned about the plight of the Kosovan refugees and the way in which they have been treated by the Government of Serbia, but would not the Home Secretary think it appropriate to give the House an estimate of the cost of what we are doing? Secondly, does he believe—it may not be politically correct to say so—that all those who will be admitted to this country will willingly return to Kosovo as and when it is appropriate for them to do so? Is it not appropriate for the Government to provide all the aid that is necessary, by way of temporary and mobile housing and all the other forms of aid, to enable Kosovan refugees in Macedonia and Albania to be accommodated temporarily in those countries prior to Kosovo becoming safe again for the people of Kosovo to return to their own country?
Mr. Straw: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an estimate of the total cost immediately because the situation is changing, but as soon as a reasonable and robust estimate of the cost becomes available I shall make it available to the House. I would never accuse the hon. Gentleman of being politically correct. The thought would not pass through my mind. However, I should correct him in one respect. He implied that many of the people coming from the Macedonia area to Britain by way of the new
952
arrangements will want to stay, rather than go back. A few may, but the overwhelming evidence is that the vast majority of refugees from Kosovo are desperate to return to the homes from which they have been driven out by Milosevic's vile policy of ethnic cleansing. I am glad that there is such support across the House for the policy that we have adopted, which is, for all sorts of reasons, including those raised by the hon. Gentleman, to concentrate our humanitarian effort principally in the region, from which the refugees can most easily return to their own homes.
Mr. Tom Clarke: The Government's policy is entirely consistent with the decency and fairness of the British people who will be glad to welcome a small number of people who have had the most appalling experience. Those sentiments will be shared in Prestwick and in Scotland generally, where the people have the same qualities.
As my right hon. Friend raised the issue of Macedonia and the simple fact that, on all the evidence, the overwhelming majority of refugees want to return to their homeland, will he encourage the appropriate Ministers to ensure a dialogue between the UNHCR and the Government of Macedonia, if only because there seems to be an unseemly desire to move refugees from Macedonia to Albania, which is already overstretched? If it is possible to contribute further resources, it would underline the excellent announcement—made, this very morning, by our own Department for International Development—that we are prepared to provide more funding.
Mr. Straw: I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks. We are not only encouraging a dialogue between the UNHCR and the Government of Macedonia, but—as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development tells me—we are facilitating it. Moreover, today, the Prime Minister will be talking about that exact issue with Mrs. Ogata of the UNHCR.
Madam Speaker: Thank you. We shall now move on, although we shall undoubtedly very soon be returning to this business.

Points of Order
4.6 pm
Mr. John Whittingdale: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
During last week's debate on clause 2 of the Finance Bill, my hon. Friends and I pointed out that when the fuel escalator was introduced in 1993, United Kingdom petrol prices were among the lowest in Europe. In replying to the debate, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury stated that that was not correct, and that only Ireland and Denmark had higher petrol prices. I challenged her then, pointing out that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) had stated in his Budget speech that our petrol prices were lower than in any other major European country. She replied by saying that figures from the Library supported her case, and that not only was I wrong but my right hon. Friend had been wrong.
After the debate, I tabled a parliamentary question. I have now received the reply, with a letter from the Economic Secretary's office—although it is not signed by the Economic Secretary. In it, she states that she had inadvertently misread the figures, and that, in fact, I was right and she was wrong.
I have attempted to give the Economic Secretary notice of my intention of raising this point of order, but was able only to leave a message on the answering machine in her private office. Of course I accept that she did not intend to mislead the House. However, the issue is not a peripheral one: it is central to the debate on the Government's punitive increases in petrol duty.
Is it in order for a Minister to issue a correction simply through a written answer and by placing a letter in the Library? On a matter of this importance, should not the Minister come to the House and apologise in person?
Madam Speaker: The Minister has taken the correct course of action, in that, on 4 May, she corrected her statement in Hansard. On that same date, as the hon. Gentleman has said, she wrote to him expressing her regret for her inadvertent error. As soon as the matter was brought to the hon. Lady's attention, she took action in two ways—to correct it, and to inform the House by means of the Official Report.

Football Regulator
4.8 pm
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a regulator for professional football.
The regulator would have powers to establish a code of conduct for football clubs; to set performance targets for clubs on a variety of issues; to call clubs to account for alleged breach of the code; and to gain access to any evidence from clubs, including financial and ticket sales records. The regulator would report to the appropriate Department, and would be independent of any vested interest.
Football is a part of the nation's identity: its roots in our communities and its developments are an integral part of our cultural heritage. Football is the source and topic of many conversations up and down the land, and it is no exaggeration to say that, occasionally, it affects the United Kingdom's productivity.
Football speaks a universal language, bringing nations and people of all races together —even in disagreement on the merits of a particular player or team, or even of a referee's decision.
Football also plays a major role in the House, as witnessed by the excellent work of the all-party football group—which is expertly chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton)—not to mention the exploits of the parliamentary football team. [Interruption.] Perhaps it is better not to mention those exploits.
As football is so embedded in our society, our paramount priority should be to protect and enhance its future. Recognising that priority, the Government created the football task force.
We cannot allow the ownership of and responsibility for professional football to be left in the hands of those who seek to exploit it financially or for some personal kudos at the expense of supporters. There is a clear need to address important issues such as ticket pricing, club ownership, plc status and merchandising policies. Clubs have every right to make a healthy profit, but not at the expense of fans. There is a difference between profit and profiteering. Our big clubs in particular should be seen to act in a more responsible and accountable way to ensure a greater and more equitable redistribution of wealth throughout the game, and proper financial regulation.
Many of our fine new stadiums, large and small, are the focal point of local communities and have received considerable investment from the public purse. There is an enormous vacuum of power following recent sackings and financial irregularities. Hon. Members on both sides who have the best interests of the game at heart agree that there are huge concerns about the governance of football.
Football is not just an industry. It is more associated with the National Gallery and St. Paul's than with BP and ICI. It is a national treasure, not a device for squeezing money out of customers who face a monopoly. If clubs raise prices too dramatically, the customer does not just go somewhere else. Support is total and usually a legacy handed down from generation to generation. We have to be careful about who can own clubs and the motivation driving those who run the game. This is an issue of

955
business interest versus public interest. Is it right that media interests or leisure interests should have outright control?
Football's present direction towards the demands of shareholders rather than fans has created an uneasy climate in which a small number of rich clubs will get richer while poorer clubs go to the wall. Already this season we have seen many clubs in deep financial crisis, including Doncaster, Brighton and Hove Albion, Oxford, Crystal Palace, Hull City and Portsmouth. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin), whose leadership has helped the community in the revitalisation of Brighton and Hove Albion football club.
Soaring wage bills—fuelled by an incredible 40 per cent. increase in players' wages —and extraordinary transfer fees have added to the immense pressure of the need to succeed at all costs. There are many examples of good practice. A lot could be learned from what has happened at Northampton Town and Bournemouth, where supporters trusts have been set up to enable supporters to be involved in the running and accountability of their clubs. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke), who is a director of Northampton Town—a club which was recently congratulated on having the best access and facilities in the country for people with disabilities, as well as an equal opportunities policy.
The football regulator would be charged with the responsibility of presiding over the financial integrity of clubs. It could also investigate genuine complaints about ticket pricing policy and the cost and frequency of issue of replica kits. The regulator would also be involved in helping the game to clean up its image as regards transfer fees and the role of agents. That element of the game involves millions of pounds, and many fans are concerned that the lack of transparency damages the well-being of football.
Those who argue against regulation and say that football should be left to put its own house in order must prove that they have all the game's interests at heart. Self-regulation has not kept pace with the modern game; hence the creation of the task force. It was left to the Popplewell and Taylor reports to make recommendations on ground safety after the Bradford City fire disaster and the Hillsborough tragedy. The 1990 Taylor report was damning about the governance of the game.
We are developing all-seater stadiums, but the investment to achieve that has had to come through bodies such as the Football Trust, involving public funds. The massive revenues from television and media rights were not prioritised for the benefit of spectators. Without the Taylor recommendations, it is unlikely that ground improvements would ever have taken place.
The all-party football group has received representations from all aspects of football and there is a genuine desire to see the game progress. The group made representations on the Manchester United/BSkyB bid. Those representations showed that the receipts of one Manchester United home game were bigger than two years' income for smaller clubs such as Darlington or Hartlepool. That cannot be good for the game. While I wish Manchester United every success in the FA cup, the European cup final and the championship, their success
956
must not come at the expense of smaller clubs who develop young players and keep football available for ordinary supporters. There should be a more equitable redistribution of the plentiful resources at the top of the game for clubs throughout the football league and beyond.
Football has tremendous power to do good in society and can be used to help reduce crime and promote positive education policies. If the game is to continue to thrive, football must be allowed to develop at grassroots level in schools and junior teams. Figures show a reduction in the number of amateur teams, and school football is running into difficulty. My own schools association in Bradford is in desperate need of financial support. It is through those bodies that future stars will emerge.
The balance of big and small is an integral part of football's attraction, and to damage that balance would affect the whole market. Football is more than just an industry, but like many other industries, there is a need for sensible regulation to prevent anti-competitive practices and the emergence of elitist cartels. I am not alone in calling for action, as there have been many academic reports and press articles to that effect. Many organisations connected with football have recognised that self-regulation has not worked and that a regulator is now called for.
The Football Association, through FIFA, is responsible for the rules of the game, but it has failed miserably to protect and act in the best interests of all who support the game in many forms. It is now time to separate the regulatory function. The FA, rightly, should be responsible for the rules of the game, setting the criteria for membership, running competitions, overseeing player discipline and running the national side. However, it should hand over the scrutiny of clubs' finances and codes of conduct to an independent regulator.
The regulator would seek the assistance of a football industry committee, made up of bodies including the Football Supporters Association, the Football Association, the FA Premier League, the Football League, the Football Trust and the Professional Footballers Association. The separate regulatory function would ensure that the regulation of the financial, legal and commercial activities of clubs was seen as independent from vested interests.
There are many good people in football, and many who spend their lives putting great effort into developing football. Parochially, I congratulate my local club, Bradford City, its directors, management, staff and fans, who have worked together to improve the club's fortunes not only on the playing field, but in the running of the club's community activities. The club's success has raised the morale of the city. It is involved in Football in the Community, and is working with young people and the unemployed. It has established positive role models within the community, developed educational support and helped to kick out racism. Hopefully, the club will gain automatic promotion at the end of the week by beating Wolverhampton Wanderers.
The same tests that apply to other industries can be applied to football—issues such as monopoly control, serving the customer and what is and what is not a national asset—to preserve a healthy game from top to bottom. The Bill would seek to address those issues and many more affecting football at all levels. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe, Mr. Tony Clarke, Mr. Ivor Caplin, Gillian Merron, Mr. Vernon Coaker, Mr. Stephen Hepburn, Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Ivan Henderson, Ann Keen, Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick, Mr. Colin Burgon and Ms Joan Walley.

Football Regulator
  FOOTBALL REGULATOR
  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe accordingly presented a Bill to establish a regulator for professional football: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 June, and to be printed [Bill 95].
Orders of the Day
  Greater London Authority Bill
    2ND ALLOTTED DAY
    As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.
    2ND ALLOTTED DAY
      Clause 144

        ABOLITION
        4.18 pm
        The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): I beg to move amendment No. 84, in page 76, leave out line 31.
        Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 35, in page 76, line 31, at beginning insert
        `On the date of the first meeting of the Assembly under section 44(1) above,'.
        Government amendments Nos. 85 to 92.
        Government new clause 16—Transfers of LRT's property etc to Transport for London.
        Government new clause 17—Functions during the transition from LRT to TfL.
        Government new clause 18—Fares etc during the transitional period.
        Government new clause 19—Continuity: repealed or revoked functions of LRT.
        Government new clause 20—Transfer of former functions of London Transport Executive.
        Government new clause 21—Dissolution of London Regional Transport.
        Government new clause 22—Interpretation of Chapter XIV.
        Ms Jackson: The new clauses and amendments provide for a staged transfer of functions and undertakings from London Transport to Transport for London. Mindful of the importance to Londoners of our underground system, the Government's policy will preserve the elements of the existing system that tube users value: a single public sector operating company; unified planning; the integration of services; unified ticketing; and the retention of travelcard in the public sector.
        The public-private partnership will address the root cause of most problems with the network—past underfunding and underinvestment—by bringing in substantial private sector funds to improve the services, providing greater reliability; refurbished stations; improved trains; upgraded signalling; faster journey times; and greatly improved access for disabled people. There will be real local democratic accountability via the mayor, who will have ultimate responsibility for the underground.
        The Government intend to hand over the underground to the mayor knowing that all those benefits have been secured. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made it clear on Second Reading that once the public-private partnership process was under way,

        959
        the Government would see it through to completion. London Transport will remain in existence under ministerial sponsorship until the PPP contracts are let.
        After 3 July 2000, for a transitional period, Transport for London and London Transport will exist in parallel. On completion of the PPP the mayor will be responsible. A full explanatory paper has been provided, setting out what will happen during the transitional period.
        Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister said that the Government's proposals ensure full democratic accountability. Is it still the Government's intention that the new governing body for London will have no say in the system for which it will be accountable?
        Ms Jackson: I am somewhat perplexed by that question, because I have made it abundantly clear that after the completion of the public-private partnership, responsibility for Transport for London, which will include every aspect of public transport in London, will lie with the mayor. I can think of no greater democratic transparency or credibility than that the individual who will be responsible for London's integrated transport should have been placed in that high office by the people of London.
        Mr. Hughes: The Minister is still ducking the question. Will she confirm that it is still the Government's policy that the mayor and the assembly will have no say in the transport system—with the financial arrangements and those between the private and the public sector—for which they will be accountable? They will be told that they have to run it, but they will have had no opportunity to influence the arrangement that has been made.
        Ms Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is leaping ahead to amendments that we will debate later. Should the PPP not have reached completion before the mayor is in office, there will clearly have to be close co-operation and consultation with the mayor. If the hon. Gentleman is attempting to refloat the argument that has informed the majority of Liberal Democrat contributions to our debate—that not the mayor but the assembly should be the executive arm of the GLA—let me repeat that it is as hollow today, given our clear commitment to the structure of the GLA, as when it was first voiced in Committee.
        We have repeatedly made it clear that the PPP negotiations will not take place against a self-imposed deadline. That would obviously compromise the Government's ability to achieve best value. No one will be surprised to hear that we cannot accept amendment No. 35, which would set an arbitrary date for the dissolution of London Transport. New clauses 16 to 22 and amendments Nos. 84 to 92 will allow us to implement our policies. The new clauses will form a new chapter to part IV of the Bill: chapter XIV.
        New clauses 16 and 19 to 22 are intended to replace clauses 144 to 147 in the latest print of the Bill. They allow for the staged transfer of LT's undertaking and functions to TfL. Amendments Nos. 84 to 92 are consequential and would simply remove clauses 144 to 147 and replace any references to them.
        960
        New clause 16 makes it clear that the staged transfer will be implemented under the general transfer powers in part XII of the Bill.
        Mr. John Wilkinson: I am interested in the question of stages. Will the Minister comment on the suggestion in the Evening Standard of Wednesday 28 April that the delay in transferring the semi-privatised, private finance initiative infrastructure of the tube to Transport for London will cost the Treasury so much that fares will have to go up by 30 per cent. to meet the shortfall? Is that figure correct?
        Ms Jackson: Neither the story nor the figure is correct. Despite what has appeared not only in the Evening Standard but in other organs of the press, such stories are mere speculation. We have made it abundantly clear that the process—a public-private partnership, not semi-privatisation or, indeed, a private finance initiative, as the hon. Gentleman implied—is on course.
        Mr. Richard Ottaway: Will the hon. Lady give way?
        Ms Jackson: If I may, I shall finish my response to the question of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). The fantastic fares cited in newspapers are absurd.
        Mr. Ottaway: The Minister says that the story, which was properly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), is not correct. The point is that it is not a story; it is a report by Chantrey Vellacott, a well-known and respected firm of accountants, which calculates that if the Government's plans for the PPP continue as they have set out, fares will need to rise by 30 per cent. to pay for them. There is no speculation. That is the opinion of people who know much about the subject—dare I say more than either the Minister or me?
        Ms Jackson: I am perfectly prepared to accept that most people know more about this than the hon. Gentleman, but I certainly rebut the idea that I am as ignorant as he claims. It is not for me—or, I presume, the hon. Gentleman—to define a sense of pique that may rest in the bosom of one firm of accountants which had no part in the detailed examination of the proposals that informed the Government's policy on PPP. I repeat that such stories are mere speculation; they are not founded on any sort of fact; they are mere scaremongering. I wish that I were surprised that the official Opposition had participated in such scaremongering stories, but I regret that it is somewhat par for their particular course.
        New clause 17 sets up a legal framework in which both London Transport and Transport for London will have the necessary powers and duties that they will need to run their respective public passenger transport services during the period when both are in existence. For the duration of the transition, London Transport, the mayor and Transport for London will also be under a duty to consult and co-operate with each other for the following transitional purposes: ensuring that public passenger transport services are not disrupted, securing the PPP agreement and transferring the property, rights and liabilities of London Transport to Transport for London.

        961
        New clause 18 places a duty on the mayor to have regard to the financial and other interests of London Transport when setting the general level and structure of fares for London Transport, or negotiating the concessionary fares agreement on behalf of LT.
        New clause 19 provides for Transport for London to take over LT's legal liabilities. New clause 20 is necessary owing to the eventual repeal of the London Regional Transport Act 1984, in order that Transport for London should inherit certain necessary powers from LT. New clause 21 allows the Secretary of State to dissolve LT by order when all its property, rights and liabilities have been transferred. New clause 22 defines two of the major terms used in new clauses 16 to 21. 1 commend the new clauses to the House.
        Mr. Ottaway:I will not drag the debate down to the Minister's level.
        This group of amendments relate to the transfer of London Underground to the authority. They are necessary only as a result of the shambles that the Government are in over their plans to transfer London Transport's undertakings to the new authority. They have no idea how they will get there, no idea where they are coming from, and no idea of the finished project. The Minister takes the biscuit when she says that the process is clear and easy for everybody to understand and that no one is as bright and intelligent as she is. I am sorry, but we are simply not as gullible as that.
        In response to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), the Minister talked about whether the public-private partnership would be ready. The only reason why the amendments and new clauses have been tabled is that the PPP will not be ready. If she thought that it would be, there would be no need for the amendments because the transfer could be completed before the elections next year.
        4.30 pm
        The Minister said that the Government refuse to be tied to a deadline for the transfer because they want to achieve best value. I have to say that that is a pretty good line, but it does not fly. The Minister is not tied into a deadline because she has no idea when she will be able to reach her conclusions about setting up the PPP and when it will be transferred.
        We have an awful lot to say about the PPP and its transfer, and about the nature of London Underground and its relationship with the new authority. I shall not waste the House's time by saying it all twice, so I shall save my remarks for the next group of amendments, which relate directly to the PPP rather than to the transitional arrangements.
        Mr. Simon Hughes: We started considering a Bill whose original clause 144 is very simple and which states:
        "London Regional Transport shall cease to exist."
        We assumed that that would happen when the Bill became law, or at least when the Bill was implemented as an Act. In other words, LRT would cease to exist on the day the Act took effect. That was always the proposition, and the presumption.
        In Committee, Liberal Democrat Members, with the Conservatives, explored the issue. We discovered that Alice, from "Alice in Wonderland", had walked across the
        962
        Bill, in that clause 144 now meant that London Regional Transport shall not cease to exist. The reason was that the Government had decided, in the period since the Bill was published, that they would have to keep it going. We asked how long LRT would exist before ceasing to exist, but answer came there none.
        The Government new clauses that are to substitute for the original—and very simple—clause 144 are hugely longer. They propose a set of transitional provisions that do not say when that transition will begin or end. As the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) said, it became apparent that the plan had run into the sidings—or at least into a tunnel—and that the Government are not willing to reveal what is really going on.
        We are willing to let the Government tell us that they are on target for the timetable set out on Second Reading by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. My questions relate to what he told us on Second Reading on 14 December, and to the Government's proposals in the amendments.
        The timetable set out on Second Reading is the precondition to the public-private partnership. The Secretary of State said that London Regional Transport would be restructured in the first half of 1999 into an operating division and three infrastructure divisions. My understanding is that that has happened. He added that the aim would be to invite expressions of interest from infrastructure bidders early in 1999. It is understood that the invitation went out and that some people have responded. Will the Minister confirm that the date by which people were asked to express an interest has passed? Are all the expressions of interest that have been considered now with the Government? Even if she is not at liberty to say who has expressed an interest, will the Minister say how many such expressions were received?
        I understand that the Government intend the Bill to be enacted by the summer. Will the Minister say when the Government propose to start the transfer referred to in new clause 16, which will allow the Secretary of State to set up programmes for transferring London Regional Transport's property, assets or functions? What is the first date for such a transfer?
        Can the Minister say what is the last date by which the Government intend London Regional Transport' s property, obligations, assets and so on to be transferred?
        Mr. Edward Davey: Bet she can't.
        Mr. Hughes: I am not willing to take that bet because I do not believe anyone could win it. I understand, but I am willing to be proved wrong, that the Government do not yet know.
        Government new clause 21 says that LRT will be dissolved by the Secretary of State when he or she is satisfied that all functions have been adequately transferred. Does that mean under the current Government? Would it be in the next Government's period in office, or the one after that? Does it require the Labour party to be in office for a generation, or two? May we have some idea?
        To their credit, the Government faced the electorate on certain specific pledges. For example, taking 100,000 off the waiting lists was an early pledge. We are still waiting,

        963
        as it has not yet been quite delivered, but other pledges were made, and all of them were given time frames. What is the time frame for this one?
        Finally, I was not surprised to hear the Minister say that she was not minded to accept amendment No. 35. We took a simple view that anyone who believed in devolving power and responsibility for London transport to the new government for London should transfer responsibility to that new government once it had been set up. There is nothing complicated about that idea. It resembles tomorrow's Scottish elections, in that the plan is that once the people of Scotland have voted for their Parliament, power over a range of matters will be transferred to Scotland in a few weeks, which the Liberal Democrats welcome. The same applies in Wales.
        We had understood, naively perhaps, that when the Government said that they would, from next July, set up a new Greater London assembly, then once elected, the new mayor and deputy mayor would assume responsibility. When London government returns next year it will be welcome because many of us believe that there should be democratic government. However, will it or will it not take on responsibility then for London transport?
        If the answer to that question is no, a whole raft of proposals for the work that the London government will do will become theoretical. It will have work to do, but the proposition that it will take over transport clearly will not come to pass. If the Government cannot tell us by which date the new underground system will be handed over—whether or not the new mayor and assembly should have a say in its form—the election campaign will be interesting. Mayoral candidates will produce policies for running a transport system that they may not be able to run during their entire term of office.
        That is Alice in Wonderland politics. People are invited to stand for election to run London transport, but may not be given that prize before leaving office four years later. That is nonsense. The Government would do us all a service by loosening the apron strings and not being the nanny state. They must allow the mayor and the assembly, whoever they are, to take responsibility and to be accountable. If they do a wonderful job, they will be applauded. If they do a bad job, they will be kicked out. But if we are to have devolution, let us have it, not never-neverland, say-one-thing-and-do-another politics that replaces the simple proposition that LRT will go with clauses saying that it might be with us for the rest of our lives.
        Sir Sydney Chapman: Only rarely do I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). Rather more often, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). Today, I may speak briefly because they have spoken exactly as I would have wished to. The amendments would transfer responsibility from "London Regional Transport" to "Transport for London". It is no great radical leap in terms of the words used.
        I accept what the Government intend to do, but I do not agree with it. Of all the amendments that have ever been proposed to a Bill, these Government amendments represent the most radical changes to the Bill as originally
        964
        published. Vast changes are to be made to the Bill that the Government presented to the House: almost every amendment begins, "Leave out", and proceeds to delete chunks of text, in addition to which there are seven new Government clauses in this group. Talk about politics on the hoof—the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey might have got lost in the tunnel, but the train appears to have gone off the rails.
        The reason is simple: the Government realise that investment in London's transport is desperately needed, even though, goodness knows, investment increased dramatically under the previous Government. In the 1970s, the average level of investment in London transport was less than £50 million a year, whereas in the 1990s, the average was more than £500 million a year, and the figure is even higher today—but, whatever the sum, it is never enough. The reason for that is chronic underinvestment—especially in the underground system—during the 1950s and 1960s, when fewer people started to use the underground.
        The only practical, realistic way in which to get investment for the London underground system—indeed, for London's transport as a whole—is privatisation. However, the Government do not like the word "privatisation" and, because their pre-election speeches were all about what an awful thing privatisation is, for the past two years they have been desperately searching for an alternative form of words that will enable them to get what they want without having to announce it to the country. Instead of "private finance initiative", they have come up with "public-private partnership". However, I have to tell them that, if the public-private partnership does not have control over assets, it will not put in the investment—it is as simple as that.
        To return to the theme that I introduced yesterday, it is clear that what has been devolved to the people of London is a sham. The hon. Member for Southwark and North Bermondsey—sorry, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey; I suffer from dyslexia at this time of day—was absolutely right to say that there is to be no real devolution to the people of London. He mentioned that the Scots would be voting for their new Parliament tomorrow. The population of Scotland is 5 million, whereas there are 7 million people in London, but what the Government are not devolving to London is an insult when seen in comparison with what is to be devolved to the people of Scotland. London devolution is a sham—the Government's policy is all shadow and no substance. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South in resisting the amendments.
        Mr. Wilkinson: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish that you had been in Committee when the Government dropped the bombshell that London Regional Transport would have to continue and that Transport for London could not assume the assets of London Transport underground because the public-private partnership, on which had been predicated all the Labour Government's fine plans for modernising the tube, would not now or in the foreseeable future go ahead. That little statement was slipped into our proceedings, and the Minister might have been surprised at the uproar that it caused. However, the fact that the uproar was justified can be seen in the scale and scope of Government amendments Nos. 84 to 92 and, above all, Government new clauses 16 to 22.

        965
        As my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) so eloquently explained, there can be few occasions in recent parliamentary history when such vast tracts of a major Bill have had to be completely rewritten. More than that, the Labour party's manifesto for London at the general election should have been rewritten. It is demonstrably a fraudulent document.
        4.45 pm
        On transport matters, I think that The Times is normally fairly sympathetic to the Government's transport proposals. In an article in the business section on Tuesday 4 May, it postulated that the tube sell-off faces delay until after the next general election. The article written by the transport correspondent, Arthur Leathley, states:
        "The sell-off of London Underground is now so badly bogged down in a funding row between the Treasury and the Department of Transport and doubts over the availability of private finance that it will almost certainly have to be delayed until after the general election."
        The article continues:
        "Officials now concede that the private sector cannot take over the project until at least the spring 2001. But this is viewed by many observers as the likely date of the general election."
        That is a year after the election for the Greater London Authority. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, the election campaign will be transformed by this fact, with candidates postulating policies for a potentially nugatory role. We are talking about the Greater London Authority integrating London's transport, including the tube; manifestly, in respect of the underground services, it will not be able to carry that out.
        Notwithstanding that background, transitional arrangements are set out in the new clauses. I am glad that this is so. However, I think that the general public will be more worried about the funding gap than technical transitional arrangements. The failure in finding private finance means that the taxpayer will have to pick up the tab. It was imagined that leases of 25 years for the running of the tube's infrastructure would allow modernisation to take place over the first 15 years, and that private sector moneys would be available. Those moneys will not be available. The Treasury subsidies will be withdrawn from the beginning of the next financial year. They amount to about £350 million, and are badly needed by the underground management.
        Who will make good the difference and see through the transition which will lead eventually, one hopes, to the assumption by Transport for London of its rightful role, ultimately taking responsibility for the tube? If the answer is the travelling public, they will be extremely upset. Conservative candidates will certainly highlight the additional risk that London commuters will have to pick up the tab in the election campaign unless the Government are able to say now that the Treasury will make good the difference and that the fears of some of us are wholly unrealistic.
        There is one ray of hope which may change the transition schedule. It is the suggestion that I have read in the press today that Railtrack will assume responsibility for the running of the infrastructure of London Transport underground. If that is the case and a white knight such as Railtrack is to emerge at the 11th hour, I suppose that that is potentially good news. However, such a move
        966
        would take away the element of competition that we had imagined was at least possible under the Government's arrangements. It will be a monopoly system. Whether that accords with what the Government have in mind, only the Government can say.
        It is clear from the Report stage today that the Government have let the electorate of London down on one of the foremost elements of their 1997 election campaign. For the past two years, until the Standing Committee proceedings in March, the Government have not come clean and admitted that the transfer of the underground to Transport for London will not take place in the foreseeable future. Even now, the Government cannot give a date when Transport for London will assume the responsibilities that everyone expected it to take over on 3 July 2000. That is an admission by the Government of their failure to be candid with the electorate and to administrate on a central plank of their transport policy for London.
        Mr. John Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, as he is developing a powerful case. Is not the situation especially serious in the light of the 36 per cent. increase in tube breakdowns since the general election. and the 20,000 breakdowns on the London Underground tube network over the past 12 months alone?
        Mr. Wilkinson: As ever, my hon. Friend has the facts at his fingertips. The House is grateful to him for the knowledge that he brings to these matters. The figures that he quoted demonstrate how essential is the new investment that the Government promised would occur through the public-private partnership. That will not happen unless the Treasury provides the funds. There is no indication in any Government document that I have seen from the Treasury, in any of the press speculation or in any of the commentaries in the transport press that the Exchequer is prepared to make good the difference.
        That being so, the network will continue to deteriorate, the breakdowns will become more numerous and possibly more severe and, above all, the passenger is likely to have to pay more. That is the end result of Labour Government failure. The travelling public should be aware of the facts, and I am glad that we have had the opportunity to make plain these unpleasant realities.
        Ms Glenda Jackson: That was one of the most fascinating contributions that I have been privileged to hear in the Chamber. Member after Member of the official Opposition expressed bemusement at the Government's proposals with regard to the transition from London Transport to Transport for London. I find it hard to believe in their bemusement, as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister stated in the House on Second Reading that there would indeed be a transitional period.
        The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) clearly does not understand the complexity of the London underground. We are not selling a train set. We have the dread lesson of the experience of watching his Government enter into rail privatisation. They were so driven by a date, and by the desperate desire to offload a problem that they had neither the imagination nor the energy to tackle, that they cost the country billions of pounds. They sold off national assets for a fraction of their real worth, they fragmented an integrated railway system

        967
        into 100 separate operations, and now they have the audacity to suggest that we should follow that disastrous example in pursuit of an empty date.
        Our objective is to provide the best value and to ensure that adequate funding to modernise London's underground is brought into place, after more than a decade of lamentable stewardship by the previous Administration.
        The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) expressed similar bemusement. I have a clear recollection that he was in the Chamber when my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made his statement. The hon. Gentleman asked questions with regard to the state of the public-private partnership. I can tell him that there have been no expressions of interest, and none has been invited. There have been no invitations for pre-qualification. There has been great interest from the private sector, as I have had occasion to say before in the House.
        I also took on board the hon. Gentleman's point about Alice in Wonderland, because I was strongly reminded during his contribution of the White Rabbit desperately consulting a watch and crying all the time, "I'm late, I'm late!" He also seems to believe that the Government should be driven by some artificially imposed end date. That is not the way to produce the best possible value and the best possible results for the people of London in respect of the underground.
        All official Opposition Members who spoke were bemused at what the situation will be, but the Government, through the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on Second Reading, made that abundantly clear. However, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) was quite right. We are introducing radical and reforming changes, and there is a clear and desperate need for investment, as I have already had occasion to say, because of the previous Administration's lamentable stewardship of London Underground and because of their grievous lack of investment for at least a decade-not because of a lack of investment between the '50s and '60s. If I remember correctly, the core funding for London Underground was halved in the 1996 Budget.
        Nor do we come new to the idea of public-private partnership by virtue of being in government. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has been advocating public-private partnership for a considerable number of years—since well before the 1997 election.
        The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said that our proposals were a sham. I must tell him that the people of London voted for what the Government propose and they do not perceive our proposals as a sham. They perceive that there has to be a means of attracting adequate investment to ensure that the tube, which is one of the arteries of London, can maintain its proper place in moving them around this great city.
        Sir Sydney Chapman: All I ask the Minister to do when she returns to her Department is check out the facts. In the 1970s, the average investment in London Transport as a whole—90 or 95 per cent. of which went on the London underground—was under £50 million a year. The Conservative Government brought that figure up, from 1979 to the 1990s, to £500 million a year or more. Indeed,
        968
        the figure was about £750 million when we left office. Does she remember that? If she is disparaging what she calls the "lamentable" performance of the previous Government—that beggars belief—what on earth would be her epitaph for the previous Labour Government?
        Will the Minister remember one other thing? She condemns the way in which we privatised the railways, but does she admit that, thanks to privatisation, the fares of the railway companies are less in real terms than they were before privatisation? The fares on the London underground have gone up way beyond inflation.
        Ms Jackson: The most recent fare rise on the London underground was not way above inflation. I believe that it was 3 per cent., which is a marked contrast to the fare increases under the previous Administration. From 1986 to 1996, fares rose by an astronomical 38 per cent. in real terms.
        The hon. Gentleman referred to the investment made by the previous Government; the core funding figures from 1994 to 1997 show £399 million, £462 million, £251 million and £175 million. One of our first acts on taking office was finding an additional £365 million for London Underground, which ensured for two financial years that it had more than £1 billion to carry out necessary modernisation and the rolling back of necessary work on the underground. The failures of the previous Administration meant that, year on year on year, London Underground had been incapable of doing such work—it was impossible for it to plan.
        Mr. Keith Darvill: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the investment figures quoted by the Opposition include investment in the Jubilee line and investment required to resolve the problems arising from the King's Cross disaster?
        5 pm
        Ms Jackson: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The figures that I just read out, to stunned silence on the Opposition Benches, exclusively related to the core funding. They excluded the Jubilee line extension costs to which my hon. Friend referred.
        Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: The Minister has taken just one particular part of the funding. If she looks at the total funding, she will find that the figures are very different from those that she quoted. Will she confirm that, for the 10 years from 1987 to 1997, the previous Government invested an average of some £700 million per annum, whereas, under the Labour Government, the average has been £500 million?
        Ms Jackson: The hon. Gentleman can move the figures backwards and forwards as much as he likes; the fact remains that the core funding over the period to which he refers was reduced by the previous Administration. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. One has only to look at the state of the London underground when we came to office. Over 18 years, no major improvements were made in the core investment necessary to maintain one of London's vital arteries.
        Mr. Ottaway: It is important that we clarify this point, and I can think of no better authority than the

        969
        Department's annual report for 1999. May I draw the Minister's attention to paragraph 13(d) on London transport investment? Unfortunately, the figures start at 1993–94 and run for the six years to 1999–2000. I say "unfortunately", because the figures would be even more impressive if they went back further than 1993. In 1993–94, the core business was £520 million; in 1994–95, it was £554 million; and, in 1995–96, it was £589 million—compared with the figures for 1998–99 and 1999–2000, which were £394 million and—
        Ms Jackson: What about the intervening years?
        Mr. Ottaway: The intervening years were better still: 1996–97 was the only year in the last decade when that figure fell below £400 million.
        Ms Jackson: Half.
        Mr. Ottaway: My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) is absolutely right. The level of investment over the past decade has been, on average, £700 million per annum. The source for that information is the submission by London Underground to the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. The Minister is responsible for London Underground, but she may not know what her own organisation is saying.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The amendments are on the specific subject of transition, but we are now discussing investment, funding and the record of previous Governments. There must be a narrower discussion on the amendments before us.
        Ms Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I simply say that, if the previous Administration were so committed to maintaining and modernising London Underground, I find it somewhat surprising that their only response was to sell it off?
        The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) referred to the speculative stories that have been appearing in the London press. He referred in particular to one in The Times. I am sure that he is aware that it was virtually a rerun of a similar speculative story that appeared in the Financial Times several weeks ago.
        The hon. Gentleman was also much concerned about what he perceives as a funding gap before the public-private partnership for London Underground is completed. We have made it abundantly clear, both inside and outside the House, that we are cognisant of the importance of London Underground and would never, ever allow it to fall into what Opposition Members have called a black hole.
        Mr. Wilkinson: The phrase "a black hole" has a resonance with the general public, who are genuinely and rightly concerned. Did the Minister not admit in the Standing Committee that, for the transitional period at least, passengers on the London tube would have to continue to pay fare rises over and above the rate of inflation? She said that that would be the case for the foreseeable future—we have no date.
        What will happen during the transitional period between the assumption by the Greater London Authority of its responsibility and the assumption by Transport for
        970
        London of its intended responsibility for London Transport underground? The Exchequer has made no provision for the necessary investment. Does she have any figures with which she can reassure the House and the travelling public?
        Ms Jackson: That is not what I said in Committee about fares. I referred to the fare modelling on which the public-private partnership was based, and said that the modelling assumed a fare increase of the retail prices index plus one for the years 2000 and 2001 and, after that, the assumption was RPI plus zero. The general public in London can be in no doubt about the importance that the Government attach to London Underground. The hon. Gentleman is incorrect to say that the public are fearful.
        One of the first actions that we took when we came to office was to provide an additional £365 million for London Underground. There is no way in which we would not continue to ensure that this vital part of London's public transport system serves the people of London. It will be the mayor's responsibility to set fares.
        The hon. Gentleman also referred to a story that has appeared in the newspapers about Railtrack—it is again somewhat fantastical. It is interesting that that story has prompted a statement from the TubeRail Consortium, which says:
        "TubeRail remain as committed now to the London Underground PPP process as we have since it started—along with a number of other consortia.
        We have some very innovative proposals which will bring real benefits to London's passengers as well as offering best value to the taxpayer.
        Like the Government we believe strongly in a competitive process which will ensure the real value of bidders' proposals is properly tested. A single hid for the network would not deliver that."
        The TubeRail Consortium comprises Alstom, Amec, Brown and Root and Tarmac Construction.
        Mr. Simon Hughes: I do not know how near the Minister is to the end of her speech, and I assume that she will deal in a minute with the specific questions that I asked her about the beginning and the end of the transition. I want to make sure that she will give us an answer on a matter that she touched on. She said that no expressions of interest have yet been sought. On 14 December last year, the Deputy Prime Minister said:
        "The aim will be to invite expressions of interest from potential infrastructure bidders early next year."—[Official Report, 14 December 1998; Vol. 322, c. 630.]
        What is now the timetable, given that we are in May and, by most definitions, "early next year" must be running out?
        Ms Jackson: The hon. Gentleman clearly enjoys playing the White Rabbit. He is obsessed with time. Every time he gets to his feet, all he needs is the prop of the watch. I shall repeat what I said to him earlier: there have been no invitations from anyone to anyone for expressions of interest. The process is one of pre-qualification. The first stage of pre-qualification will be due later this spring. London Transport published a progress report on 15 March, and I repeat that there is great private sector interest in the public-private partnership. I have just read out the statement made today by TubeRail.
        Mr. Sayeed: Will the Minister give way?
        Ms Jackson: If I may, I should like to finish responding to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. We have made it abundantly clear that we will not be driven by an artificial date; we will be driven only by that which is in the best interests of the public and will deliver best value.
        Mr. Sayeed: The Minister says that she will not be driven by an artificial date, but a date is already specified in the proposals: that date is May 2000. According to Treasury figures, there will be no subsidy after May 2000. The fact is that the Government are well behind their plans for public-private partnerships. If PPP does not come about by the specified date, how will the Minister fund the tube?
        Ms Jackson: May 2000 is important because that is when the mayor and the assembly will be elected in London. The hon. Gentleman should note that we are discussing amendments and new clauses that will bring about the transition from London Regional Transport to Transport for London. There is no date for when PPP will be completed, because, as I have said, the Government will not be driven by the artificial end dates that, as far as the people were concerned, proved such a disaster under Administrations hell-bent on rail privatisation.
        Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister give way?
        Ms Jackson: No.
        Those end dates cost the people an enormous amount. They were a gross waste of national assets. This Government are driven by a wish to provide best value for the taxpayer, and they will deliver the best of all possible values in terms of investment in London Underground.
        Mr. Bercow rose—
        Ms Jackson: Now I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
        Mr. Bercow: If the Government are untroubled by dates, why, at the end of last year, did the Deputy Prime Minister blunder into talking about invitations for expressions of interest early this year—and why is it now necessary for his junior colleague to rescue him?
        Ms Jackson: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister never blunders. I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman is talking about.
        I believe that I have answered all the questions put to me. I commend the amendments and new clauses.
        Amendment agreed to.

      Clause 145
        TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ETC TO THE AUTHORITY
        Amendment made: No. 85, in page 76, leave out lines 32 to 39.—[Mr. Dowd.]
      Clause 146
        TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
        Amendment made: No. 86, in page 76, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 23 on page 77.—[Mr. Dowd.]
      Clause 147
        CONSTRUCTION OF REFERENCES IN LOCAL AND PERSONAL ACTS
        Amendment made: No. 87, in page 77, leave out lines 24 to 26.—[Mr. Dowd.]
      Clause 171

        PPP AGREEMENTS
        Mr. Ottaway: I beg to move amendment No. 79, in page 88, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 16 on page 98.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 22, in page 88, line 24, leave out 'must not' and insert 'may'.
        Amendment No. 23, in page 88, line 25, leave out 'must not' and insert 'may'.
        Amendment No. 24, in page 88, leave out lines 27 to 29.
        Government new clause 37—The PPP arbiter.
        Government new clause 38—Terms of appointment etc of the PPP arbiter.
        Government new clause 39—Staff of the PPP arbiter.
        Government new clause 40—Directions of the PPP arbiter.
        Government new clause 41—Guidance by the PPP arbiter.
        Government new clause 42—Duty of PPP arbiter.
        Government new clause 43—Further powers of the PPP arbiter.
        Government new clause 44—Provision of information to the PPP arbiter.
        Government new clause 45—Immunity of PPP arbiter.
        Government new clause 46—Expenses of the PPP arbiter.
        New clause 3—Funding and Management of London Underground—
        `The Mayor shall not be bound by any Public Private Partnership entered into by London Regional Transport or Transport for London and shall be free to enter into any method of funding and management of London Underground including a long lease of management, maintenance, replacement of rolling stock and operation to a private contractor.'.
        New clause 5—Public interest company if PPP agreement not signed—
        `(1) If no PPP agreement has been signed by 1st July 2000, the Mayor and Assembly shall be permitted to establish a public interest company as defined by subsection (2) below.

        973
        (2) In this Chapter "public interest company" means a company—

        (a) a majority of whose issued shares are held by or on behalf of any of the bodies or persons falling within paragraphs (i) to (iv) below;

        (i) any Minister of the Crown, Government department or other emanation of the Crown;

        (ii) any local authority;

        (iii) any metropolitan county passenger transport authority;

        (iv) any body corporate whose members are appointed by a Minister of the Crown, a Government department, a local authority or a metropolitan county passenger authority or by a body corporate whose members are so appointed;

        (b) in which the majority of the voting rights are held by or on behalf of any of the bodies or persons in subsection (2)(a) above;

        (c) a majority of whose board of directors can be appointed or removed by any of the bodies or persons in subsection (2)(a) above;

        (d) in which the majority of the voting rights are controlled by any of the bodies or persons in subsection (2)(a) above, pursuant to an agreement with other persons; or

        (e) a subsidiary of a company falling within subsections (a) to (d) above.

        (3) The public interest company may borrow money for investing in transport in Greater London.'.
        New clause 9—Public interest company if PPP agreement not signed(No.2)—
        '.—(1) If no PPP agreement has been signed by the date of enactment of this Act, the Mayor and Assembly shall be authorised to establish a public interest company as defined by subsection (2) below to take over from London Underground Limited.
        (2) In this Chapter "public interest company" means a company—

        (a) a majority of whose issued shares are held by or on behalf of any of the bodies or persons falling within paragraphs (i) to (iv) below:

        (i) any Minister of the Crown, Government department or other emanation of the Crown;

        (ii) any local authority;

        (iii) any metropolitan county passenger transport authority;

        (iv) any body corporate whose members are appointed by a Minister of the Crown, a Government department, a local authority or a metropolitan county passenger authority or by a body corporate whose members are so appointed;

        (b) in which the majority of the voting rights are held by or on behalf of any of the bodies or persons in subsection (3)(a) above;

        (c) a majority of whose board of directors can be appointed or removed by any of the bodies or persons in subsection (3)(a) above;

        (d) in which the majority of the voting rights are controlled by any of the bodies or persons in subsection (3)(a) above, pursuant to an agreement with other persons; or

        (e) a subsidiary of a company falling within subsections (a) to (d) above.

        (3) The public interest company may borrow money for investing in transport in Greater London.'.
        Mr. Ottaway: If anything illustrates the ideological battle at the heart of the Government, it is the delay, dither and lack of policy on London underground. The Government have learned how to use the language of the marketplace; they have learned how to pay lip service to the value of the private sector; but, when it comes to the
        974
        crunch and they have to face up to tough issues such as the future of London underground, they chicken out and return to their old Labour roots.
        What party on earth other than the Labour party promises improvements to London underground in its manifesto, and then comes up with a scheme that offers less investment than was offered by their predecessors, and says that the solution is to leave London underground in the hands of its present management?
        As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said, the standards of London underground are slipping, and the problems have become increasingly acute during the past two years. The Department's own figures state that in 1994–95, more than 16,000 delays were caused by faults in rolling stock. That figure fell over the next few years, before rising to more than 20,000 this year. Signal failures are up, as are other track faults; breakdowns and signal failures are daily occurrences. Poor conditions, delays and people missing connections are a fact of life, and the Government are taking no positive action to improve the situation.
        Since taking over the underground, the Government have cut investment. Table 13.d of their own annual report, to which I referred when we were discussing the previous group of amendments, shows a sharp fall in London Transport investment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) pointed out, no investment has been announced for next year, and the Treasury is ordering the Deputy Prime Minister to take the money out of the road maintenance programme.
        5.15 pm
        In their last decade in office—which is increasingly looking like a golden era—the Conservative Government invested, at today's prices, £8 billion. We were the first to admit that that was not enough, and that we needed to bring in the private sector to secure extra investment. What is this Government's answer? A public-private partnership which will introduce £7 billion over 15 years. That is half a billion pounds a year, and about the same level of funding that the Government are providing at present as a temporary measure.
        Why do the Government not admit that their plans for PPP are in a mess? As all the contractors involved are deeply wary of the Government's intentions, it now looks increasingly likely that the plan will not be up and running when the mayor takes office next summer, and quite likely that the funds will not be flowing by the summer of 2001. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) referred to a story in The Times yesterday, headed
        "Tube sell-off faces delay until after next election".
        A whole Parliament will have gone by, and the Government will have failed to deliver on their pledges. The reason for their inability to deliver on their pledges is their inability to embrace the private sector, and to use it whenever necessary or whenever it can help.
        It is well worth making a comparison with the privatised railways. The railways carry only a few more passengers per annum than the underground, but the differences in proposed levels of investment are startling. The state-owned underground can expect £7 billion over the next 15 years if it is lucky, and fares are rising. A recent report by the chartered accountants

        975
        Chantrey Vellacott, which was mentioned earlier, suggested that fares would have to rise by 30 per cent. to pay for the PPP. On the other hand, privatised rail fares are falling, and no less than £27 billion of investment has been pledged for the next 10 years.
        I shall deal with the question of performance shortly; but what a contrast that is. The Government, however, say that PPP is the best way of attracting investment. Labour Members nod: they believe that. But what do others say? The London school of economics is not a stupid organisation. In a report prepared with the respected transport economists Glaister, Scanlon and Travers, published on 20 March, it says:
        "The Government's plan for the Public Private Partnership…for the Underground is flawed in principle, and impracticable. The long-term capital needs of the Underground are of paramount importance to London and to the future of its economy. Before it is too late, the Government should alter its plans and modify the GLA Bill to allow the new Mayor and Assembly the freedom to choose the best solution from amongst a range of available alternatives."
        Mr. Edward Davey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Ottaway: I am still quoting. The report continues:
        "It is now apparent that the PPP as proposed will meet few of the promises made when it was announced exactly one year ago. The PPP threatens to impose burdensome long term pressures on Underground operating revenues, including the prospect of continually rising fares, in order to pay back up front investment by private contractors."
        Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman is quoting rather selectively from the academics' publication. If he read other parts, he would see that they back the idea of a public interest company, proposed by the Liberal Democrats and others in the capital. What they do not back is the privatisation option favoured by the Conservatives.
        Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman says that I am quoting selectively. In fact, I have quoted the first two paragraphs. He is right in saying that the report suggests a number of options, but one is a long-term lease of the underground to a single contractor. I shall say more about that.
        Mr. Davey: That is not privatisation.
        Mr. Ottaway: I accept that, but a long-term lease to a single private contractor over, say, 99 years is not far off being a full-scale privatisation.
        Mr. Davey: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the option that he has just described is not the favoured option in the report? The favoured option is a public interest company.
        Mr. Ottaway: I do not read that in the report. The academics do not express a favoured option; they put forward a number of options on an equal basis. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will get the report out and quote it in his speech.
        976
        The Government are failing in an ideological logjam. All the evidence of the past two decades is that privatisation works. All the companies that used to be at Labour's
        "commanding heights of the economy"
        are performing better in the private sector than they were in the public sector. It was not all straightforward, but no one suggests that companies such as British Airways, British Gas and the electricity boards would perform better back in the public sector. As the investment level in the railways comes through, the Government will soon be taking the credit for the performance of the railways as well; indeed, the language already seems to be moderating. Therefore, we urge the Government fully to embrace the private sector for London underground and to involve it in operations, as well as the infrastructure and management.
        The annual report for 1999 from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions continues to make interesting reading. Against the background of falling investment that I have described, it says at paragraph 13.8:
        "The Government is setting London Underground quality of service targets to 2000–01…At the time of writing, London Underground was on target to meet three out of nine quality targets".
        That is getting a bit off message. Such glossy documents are meant to be new Labour spin. If it thinks that failing on six out of nine quality targets is a success story, it has another think coming. The real point is that London Underground is currently making an operating profit of £250 million a year. If it can do that under the present management, while failing on two thirds of the quality targets, think what the private sector could do if the Government could get rid of their dogma and let it run the underground in the way in which it runs many former public services.
        It is possible to make London underground viable; I know that the Government have trouble believing that. They said that privatising the railways would not attract investment. They were wrong, and they are wrong on their public-private partnership.
        The Government will hang on to London underground until they have set up their PPP, but buses and roads will be transferred to the mayor next summer. It will be the first time since the 1920s that the buses and the underground have been under different management. It is not an integrated transport policy, but a disintegrated transport policy. The public are becoming increasingly aware of it.
        The worst thing—it is a further point made by the London school of economics—is that the mayor will have no say in the best way in which to run the underground. In response to interventions from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), the Minister said that, if the PPP was not ready by the time of the election, it was inevitable that the mayor would be involved. That does not seem to be a pledge of any sort, or perhaps I have read it wrongly. [Interruption.] The Minister says that it is a pledge.
        Ms Glenda Jackson: The hon. Gentleman clearly misheard what I said from a sedentary position. It has been abundantly clear to everyone who takes an interest in these issues that we have consistently said that, if the PPP is not concluded by the time the mayor takes office,

        977
        as the mayor will eventually be responsible for the underground, clearly, the mayor will be involved in the discussions on the PPP.
        Mr. Ottaway: What happens if the mayor has campaigned on a manifesto pledge not to accept the PPP?
        Ms Jackson: I should think that any candidate who campaigned on a pledge not to ensure that the relevant levels were invested in the underground, to transform it into the modern underground that London needs, would stand little chance of winning the favour of the people of London.
        Mr. Ottaway: The Minister is in for a big surprise. The people of London will not welcome a £7 billion debt being landed round their necks, with the Deputy Prime Minister walking off into his next job and saying to the people of London, "You pay for it over the next 30 years." In Committee, the Minister said that she would be proud to introduce a congestion charge. No doubt she would be proud to lumber London with a £7 billion debt, but she has not answered my question: what would happen if the mayor were committed to a pledge not to accept the PPP?
        Ms Jackson: I say again: I cannot believe that any serious candidate for the mayoralty of London would turn away from the only certainty of securing the relevant level of investment, over a sustainable period, to ensure that the underground could be modernised.
        Mr. Ottaway: I know that the Minister is a wise and intelligent person, but just suppose for a second, on that narrow issue, that she is wrong. Let me soften the line slightly. Let us suppose that a mayor is elected who is not opposed to the PPP and who is committed to a transfer, but on different terms from those that have been proposed by the Government. Is the Minister saying that she would override the mayor, or that he would have the last word? Who would have the last word in those circumstances?
        Ms Jackson: I have tried to shield the hon. Gentleman from the painful truth, but it is highly unlikely that anyone other than a Labour candidate will be elected as mayor for London. It is impossible to conceive of any Labour candidate not endorsing that imaginative and productive policy.
        Mr. Ottaway: If a Minister ducks a question three times, it is clear that she does not know the answer. Frankly, she should not come here unless she knows the answers. She should brief herself better before she comes here. It is almost as bad as yesterday, when she said that a passenger in a taxi could order a taxi driver to put out his cigarette. There seems to be no evidence for that; she has not produced any. She just makes statements off the top of her head without thinking about it and without any background, support or information whatever.
        Mr. Eric Forth: Does my hon. Friend conclude that what the Minister has now confessed publicly is that the form of the Bill that the Government are offering the House will not cater for some of the most likely outcomes of the election?
        978
        Does he agree that that puts London in a most dangerous and unpredictable position, and means that we cannot now sensibly deal with the future of the underground?
        Mr. Ottaway: My right hon. Friend is right. We have absolutely no idea where the Government are going. London underground is not a tin-pot organisation; it is a substantial part of London's economy. The Government have no vision, no idea, and no future for London underground which is coherent in any sense.
        In our judgment, the mayor should have the last word. What the Government are proposing, with their interim transitional plans, is to negotiate a PPP, and then to dump it on to the people of London and walk away from it. As I have said, it is a £7 billion millstone hanging from the neck of the people of London.
        There is a fourth way. The Government should consider pursuing a long-term leasing arrangement for London underground as an integrated operation with one private sector firm. There is a precedent for that: Eurotunnel has a lease on the channel tunnel until 2086. That was not negotiated by a Conservative Government; it was agreed by the present Government in December 1997. It is a model that would work admirably on the underground, with the authority as the landlord imposing terms in the lease, and with a regulator to keep an eye on performance. That is one of the many ways in which the potential of the private sector could be fully realised for the benefit of London underground. Best of all, that solution would impose no financial burdens on the new authority, it would satisfy the Treasury and would benefit London as a whole.
        Last year, the Transport Sub-Committee looked at the Government's plans for a public-private partnership and described them as a "convoluted compromise". We have no reason to believe that the Committee was wrong. A PPP is not the best way forward. It must be dawning on the Government by now that they have got it wrong.
        5.30 pm
        Mr. Harry Cohen: The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) started by talking about ideology and then exhibited a great deal of it. He wants to scrap the Government's proposals, which are really about countering the chronic under-investment in London underground during the Tory years. His solution in the amendment is wholesale privatisation, which simply negates the public service nature of the London underground. Only profit would matter. A few choice lines would run and the rest would be scrapped, regardless of public interest. The system would be unreliable and decline. Privatisation has already been thoroughly rejected by the London public, especially the travelling public.
        Only last week, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) said that the Conservative party wanted to change the public perspective of it as being about privatisation, particularly in terms of essential public services. Like that famous lager, he has not reached all parts, certainly among the shadow Transport spokesmen. At their first test, the London underground, their solution is wholesale privatisation. The hon. Member for Croydon, South should speak to his right hon. Friend on that point.

        979
        I want to take this opportunity to read into the record some serious points made by the Capital Transport Campaign, to which I hope the Minister will respond. Louise Hudson, a campaigner and researcher for that good organisation, referring to the Greater London Authority Bill and the London underground, said:
        "Capital Transport Campaign has become increasingly concerned during the past few months that the current proposals for the funding of London Underground will not meet the funding requirements of London's most heavily used public transport service. In addition, the proposals have not taken into account the findings of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee's investigation into London Underground published in July 1998.
        The Government grant to London Underground ceases in April 2000. The proposal is that the public-private partnership will provide over £7 billion over 15 years. That is less than the Underground is getting now. In addition there is the question of what will happen when the Government grant ceases. This will occur prior to the securing of extra revenue through the PPP.
        The deal for the Underground will be struck between the Government and the private sector. This will happen prior to the establishment of the Greater London Authority. Fifty one per cent of respondents to a recent London First business survey said that the Underground was the most important transport issue for the GLA. With this in mind the Mayor is likely to be judged on whether he succeeds in delivering an improved Underground service. Capital Transport Campaign is concerned that under present plans the Mayor will be scapegoated. The Mayoral candidates will have no idea of the nature of the contracts being negotiated. However, the Greater London Authority will have to pay back the private contractors their £7 billion, plus interest. The only way to raise this money is:

        1. Through raising fares

        2. Through road pricing

        Since most people who travel to work in central London travel by public transport, often those using the car do so out of necessity. They will ultimately pay for the public-private partnership along with the fare paying passenger who has already endured above inflation fare increases for a number of years.
        With all this in mind we believe that if the PPP does go ahead then the Mayor and Transport for London should have access to Government funds. This will enable them to secure revenue for the Underground when the Government grant ceases or if the PPP is likely to make unnecessary demands on the Mayor's revenue stream. If extra revenue is not forthcoming then it is unlikely that enough money will be available for projects such as the step free access programme for the Underground. High road charges, above inflation fare increases and an inaccessible public transport system will ultimately lead to social exclusion."
        I am sorry to have had to read that submission into the record, but those are important points that need to be addressed. I would be interested in the Minister's response. As the letter says, the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs said that the mayor could come under pressure to combine a cut in services with a hike in fares should there be a gap between income and fares, and payments to contractors. It called for fare increases to be capped and for the Government to clarify whether, in the event of a funding gap, they would make money available.
        I welcome the Minister's statement that the Government would not let London underground fall into a black hole. I should like the Minister, if not today at some other point, to expand on that and give greater assurances.
        980
        Reference has been made to the article in The Guardian today which spoke of Railtrack possibly putting in a bid for London underground. The same article states:
        "Mr. Prescott had originally planned to let the private sector take over the Underground's track and signalling systems by next April, and no subsidy was set for 2000–2001."
        The article also alleges that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions
        "has been told by the Chancellor…that next year's £350 million maintenance costs for the Underground will have to come out of the department of transport's budget."
        The financial situation is of concern to Londoners.
        I asked the Minister of Transport about the cost of the Jubilee line extension. He replied that the new estimate for the final cost of the project was about £3.2 billion. Set against that is £2 billion ring-fenced by the Government and directly funded by Government grant. In addition, there are some private contributions, but they are quite small—£135 million already paid by the Canary wharf developers and £7.5 million from British Gas, and another £400 million is to be spread over 25 years. That is a small sum. The final cost of the Jubilee line will be about £3.2 billion and there will be a Government grant of £2 billion. If one adds another £0.2 billion from private amounts, there is still £1 billion to come from the DETR's budget.
        The Minister of Transport told me that the Government were providing an extra £365 million for investment in the underground system, which means that a total of about £1 billion will be in the core network in 1998–99 and 1999–2000. That is for two years. As the Jubilee line extension is not being funded properly, the gap is £1 billion, and we are seeing the possibility of no Government grant subsidy from 2000 onwards. That is a serious problem for London Transport.
        Therefore, I again point to the Minister's answer that the Government will not let London underground fall into a black hole. At the moment, the figures look like a black hole. I hope that, if not today, later, we shall have a better explanation from the Minister, and that Ministers, who are also London Members of Parliament, will bring greater pressure to bear on the Secretary of State and, in particular, the Treasury to ensure that London Transport and the London underground have a proper deal.
        I am concerned about the points made by the Capital Transport Campaign that the new London mayor could be seriously scapegoated, or have his hands so tightly tied on London Transport that he could not develop the necessary policies in conjunction with and following the aims of the Government. I should appreciate it if those points could be addressed.
        Mr. Tom Brake: This group of amendments goes to the heart of the matter: the future for transport in London. Liberal Democrat Members did not press amendment No. 35 to a vote so that we might able to debate this group at much greater length.
        What is the current state of the tube? The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) has already mentioned the figures—obtained by Liberal Democrats—on rolling stock failures, which both show that, in the two years since Labour came to power, there has been a 36 per cent. increase in such failures and demonstrate the signification deterioration in the situation. Other hon. Members have

        981
        already mentioned the fact that £350 million will be needed for routine maintenance on the underground, and that that money will have to be found in the budget of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
        What about the current state of the public-private partnership? The Government's PPP proposals for the tube have been criticised by many well-respected individuals and organisations—to whom other hon. Members London have referred—such as London First; the London school of economics; John Kramer, the former chief executive of the Chicago rapid transport authority; the Capital Transport Campaign; and Chantrey Vellacott. All those people and organisations are either very worried about the Government's PPP proposals or are suggesting their preferred alternatives. Even a few Labour Members have expressed their concern about the proposals by supporting an early-day motion calling for an alternative to the PPP.
        A report in the Financial Times stated that the Deputy Prime Minister is talking with the Treasury about alternatives to the PPP. We do not know what those alternatives are, but it would be interesting to find out. Moreover, the Minister for Transport in London has said that the Government
        "will not do a deal for a PPP at any cost".
        However, the Chantrey Vellacott report that has been mentioned by hon. Members estimates that the Government's PPP proposals would impose an extra cost of no less than £7.8 billion to deliver the £7 billion of maintenance required on the London underground over and above the cost of the Government themselves financing the maintenance. The PPP process is therefore certainly not progressing with the support of many sections of the population or sectors of business.
        Even more alarming are reports in today's press that Railtrack is perhaps the only contender for the PPP. We all know the Deputy Prime Minister's views on Railtrack. Recently, he said that Railtrack has been
        "engaging in the blame culture which has characterised the industry in recent years."
        Until recently, that was his view on Railtrack. He has had his doubts about Railtrack, and I am sure that they remain.
        Ms Glenda Jackson: Forgive me if I misheard what the hon. Gentleman said, but did he really say that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister blamed Railtrack for "the blame culture"?
        Mr. Brake: I am quite happy to quote again the Deputy Prime Minister's comment. He said that Railtrack has been
        "engaging in the blame culture which has characterised the industry in recent years."
        I am simply repeating his words.
        Ms Jackson: I clearly did not mishear the hon. Gentleman. However, if he had read everything that my right hon. Friend has said in that context, he will appreciate that my right hon. Friend was not singling out Railtrack for engaging in the blame culture, but urging the entire railway industry to move away from that culture.
        5.45 pm
        Mr. Brake: It may well be true that the Deputy Prime Minister was not singling out Railtrack specifically, but he was singling out the rail industry, of which Railtrack is a major player, generally.
        What is the state of public-private partnership? We know that the tube system is deteriorating, and that concerns about the PPP are being expressed by various parties, companies and organisations. An alternative to PPP therefore must be found, which is why the Liberal Democrats have promoted the concept—which is supported by the Capital Transport Campaign—of a public interest company.
        We believe that the concept of a public interest company is necessary as a fall-back position. It is not good enough for the official Opposition to propose ending the PPP entirely without proposing an alternative. Everyone knows that privatisation is not an alternative, as it would not receive the support of Londoners. It is therefore incumbent on parties to propose viable alternatives, such as a public interest company.
        I hope that some Labour Members will agree that a public interest company is a viable alternative. Perhaps they will not actively and openly express their support for it today, but I hope that they are willing to work behind the scenes to promote it as an alternative to the Government's PPP proposals, which are rapidly running out of steam.
        As the official Opposition have proposed no alternative to PPP, Liberal Democrat Members shall not be able to back them up on amendment No. 79. However, we call on the Minister to respond to the points that I have made on PPP, perhaps to give some ground on their PPP proposals, and to accept that, in the months and years to come, the mayor and assembly should be allowed to consider alternatives such as public interest companies.
        Mr. John Randall: Although we have heard many different views on the issue, I think that both sides of the House will be able to agree that—although it has improved in parts—the London underground system is in a parlous state. I speak as someone who has used the underground for a great many years, and even used it to go to school.
        Mr. Tony McNulty: That was a long time ago.
        Mr. Randall: It was indeed a long time ago, demonstrating the extent of my experience in using the underground.
        Today, as I came in from Uxbridge on the Metropolitan line, a delay was caused by a breakdown at Neasden, and the passengers in my carriage were not very happy about it. I also do not think that they would have been very impressed to hear the Minister say that time is not a factor in solving the underground's problems. People in my constituency who use the stations at Uxbridge, Ickenham and Hillingdon demand—and deserve—a better service.
        Another major issue is how to reduce the number of cars driving into central London. That will not be easily achieved while the underground is in its current state.
        We have heard various options for rectifying the problem. One option from what I hesitate to call old Labour is the injection of public money. The Government

        983
        would regard that as unacceptable. The Conservatives advocate privatisation and we have heard of the Liberal Democrats' idea of a public interest company. The public-private partnership that we have heard about seems to be the least acceptable option to the experts. I shall not repeat the full list of those who have been highly critical.
        We should stop bandying investment figures about. It is time that the situation was resolved. The Government must realise that the public-private partnership is doomed from the start. We realised that in Committee when, in a sudden volte-face, the Government pulled out the clauses and said that they would come back to the issue, which is why we are debating it now.
        Most Londoners thought that the Labour Government had a cunning plan. In the end, they have a PPP—a pretty pathetic plan.
        Mr. Forth: I think that it was that great American President Ronald Reagan who said something like, "Here we go again." Here indeed we do go again. Yet again, we have before us another variant of the pathetic shambles that is the third way, in this case in the form of the mysterious PPP, which we are expected to believe will be the solution to what everybody knows are the problems of the London underground.
        It has become ever clearer as we have debated the issue that the Government cannot decide whether they still believe in the virtues of public ownership—the Government or their agencies owning and running a facility—whether they have come the whole way in our direction and believe in the virtues of private ownership and management, or whether they would rather take refuge in something half way between, which is neither one nor the other and therefore has no credibility. I do not need to repeat the list that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) has given of the reputable sources—well most of them are reputable, although one or two of them are not quite so reputable—who have analysed the issue and come up with cold, thoughtful criticism of the kind that we have all come to recognise.
        We are in a dangerous situation, with the Government groping their way forward—as they do on so many other issues, such as reform of the House of Lords and constitutional change—with no clear end position. They want us to trust them to come up with something and to believe that everything will be all right. We have heard that approach on many issues, and here we are in the same position today.
        That is bad enough, but now, thanks to the close questioning of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South, the Minister has admitted that she has no answer to the basic problem of the nature of the relationship between a mayor and a Government who take differing views on the way forward for the London underground. That is a serious matter. We are asked to take the role of the mayor and the assembly seriously. That is what the Bill is all about and what the referendum was supposed to be about. Here we have the clearest possible example of the Government failing utterly to work their way through the possible relationship between the Government, the London boroughs, the assembly and the mayor on the future of the London underground, its investment and management and the ultimate responsibility for it.
        984
        As I have always suspected, we are in danger of having institutionalised conflict between the different centres of power and authority for which there is no resolution. What was the Minister's answer? She said—in all seriousness, I assume—that we should not worry because only a Labour candidate would be elected as mayor and he would accept the Government's policy completely. That is odd, because we do not know what the Government's policy is and nor, apparently, do they. However, the Minister says that she does not need to give an answer about the relationship between the mayor and the Government on the London underground because the mayor will be a Government puppet.
        Labour Members may have their own views on that. Regrettably, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) is not here at the moment. Perhaps he has a view on that. I do not know. As we still do not know how the Labour party is going to select its candidate for mayor, I do not know how the Minister can be as confident as she appears to be that the Labour mayor will simply be a puppet of the Government who will accept completely the shambolic approach that they are offering for the future of the London underground. All is yet to be revealed.
        It is not good enough for the Minister to say that we should trust the Government because it will be all right on the night and the mayor will probably not contest what the Government are doing. The Government do not really know what they are doing anyway, but, somehow, everything is supposed to work out. We are being asked to accept the Bill and the amendments in that context.
        As if that were not bad enough, the Government new clauses contain all sorts of nonsense about a PPP arbiter. We do not know what the PPP is, how it will work and whether it will be biased towards the traditional public ownership approach that has failed this country so badly over many decades or the excitement and success of the new privatisation that we pioneered, and that the Government are playing with but have not quite come across to yet. The result is that a new bureaucrat will be set up to monitor, control or regulate the PPP, presumably because the Government do not know how it will work.
        There are various provisions about how the arbiter will be appointed, the staff that he will have, the directions that he will take, guidance that will be given, the duties of the arbiter, the further powers of the arbiter, immunity and—that favourite of all bureaucrats—the expenses of the arbiter. We cannot leave expenses out, because the arbiter will obviously have to have loads of expenses. I do not want to detain the House by going into all those issues. Presumably, the Minister will tell us in detail why we need a PPP arbiter. I do not expect her to go into too much detail about the expenses, but that will all come out in due course.
        All the provisions will add to the overhead burden of implementing whatever the Government want to do. All the measures that the Government have brought before us in these ill-thought-out, last minute changes to such an important Bill smack of a lack of thought and analysis and remind us that, every time that they do something, they add to the cost. Those who will bear the cost are the people who always bear the cost—the taxpayer and the users of the service. The combination may vary, but one thing is certain: the Government are telling the people of London, "Whatever we do to mangle your underground,

        985
        you, the London taxpayer and you, the users of the underground, will pay the bill, which will be substantial." That is not good enough.
        6 pm
        Mr. Sayeed: My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) said that he used the tube to get to school. So did I—some years earlier than he did, I think. In the days when I first used the tube it cost half an old penny to go from Hampstead to Belsize Park.
        Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Gosh, you are old.
        Mr. Sayeed: I am old. That shows how many years I have been using the tube. Without the tube, London would grind to a halt. We forget that more people travel on the tube than on the whole of the UK railways.
        In the past, we condemned the Soviet Union for a number of things, one of which was its suppression of demand by increasing queues, permitting shortages and making sure that life did not work productively. We are doing exactly the same with the tube service.
        Breakdowns on the tube have increased by more than one third, much to the irritation of our constituents and ourselves. We know that the Government have cut the subsidy to the tube. In the last 10 years of the Conservative Government—between 1987 and 1997—the average subsidy was £700 million. Under the Labour Government, the subsidy has been £500 million, and the subsidy will end in May 2000. There is nothing in the Treasury figures to show what will happen after that.
        Mr. Mike Gapes: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, in the last two Budgets of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), there were significant cuts in the funding of London underground and that the figures that he has given do not give the whole picture?
        Mr. Sayeed: The hon. Gentleman is correct, but we must look at the entire 10-year period. We expected to denationalise London underground, and we were preparing it for that. As the Conservative Government had properly funded and expanded London underground enormously during their 18 years, there had been front-ended funding. To reassure the hon. Gentleman, I have no ideological hang-up about funding London underground. We should use the best system; whatever works.
        When Price Waterhouse was asked about four options for future funding, the options were determined not by Price Waterhouse, but by the Government. In essence, the Government had determined the form of the funding for London underground. I find it extraordinary that the Government did not recognise that, if they decided to bring in a company of the repute of Price Waterhouse, they should have allowed it to decide on what it believed would work best. It would then have been for the Government to reject or accept it. However, the fact that the Government had determined the four options that Price Waterhouse was to look at meant that the company was constrained from looking at other options, including privatisation.
        We are told often that the Government want an integrated transport policy. I regret to say that that is no more than a slogan. The Government, with the Bill—
        986
        in terms of the incoherent proposals for the underground, London's main artery—are making sure that we will not have fewer cars on London's roads, but more. They are suppressing demand on the underground, they are pricing it out of existence, they are making sure that the public subsidy is cut and they are making sure that travelling on the underground is an increasing misery.
        As I said, without the tube, London would grind to a halt. Without the tube, people would not get to their jobs to earn money and to produce a prosperous Britain. It is incumbent on any Government to produce a public transport system for the capital city that will work. This Government are clearly failing to do that, and the Bill—which demonstrates that they are confused as to what they should do in the future—deserves to fail.
        Mr. Edward Davey: It is astonishing that we are having to consider 10 new clauses tonight. They are substantial new clauses, which change the dynamics of the commercial agreement to which the House is being asked to give its consent.
        New clauses 37 to 46 are needed logically by the PPP in terms of the structure that the Government are proposing. With a 30-year lease to private sector companies, there is a need for review. In Committee—when the Minister surprised us with the announcement—it was stated that a review was needed because the technology might change, and that the agreement would have to be reviewed to take account of that.
        There may be a need to review the performance of the contract, and how well the private sector company is doing with respect to the initial understanding. There is a need for a review to serve the interests of democracy. If we are to have elections for a mayor to oversee Transport for London, clearly the parameters of the agreement could be changed.
        Mr. Brake: Am I right in thinking that when the Liberal Democrats proposed a review in earlier debates, the Minister pooh-poohed it?
        Mr. Davey: My hon. Friend is right, but the Government have thought again. Within their own framework, there is a need for review, which shows the costs of their proposals. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) referred to the higher costs, and the Liberal Democrats contend that the Government's PPP proposal will be an incredibly expensive way of maintaining, developing and investing in the London underground.
        In such contractual relationships, one must think of the risk involved. The private sector contractor must be compensated for those risks. There are risks inherent in such contracts, including construction risks; we have seen those on the Jubilee line extension, with the overruns and the difficulties in tunnelling. Such matters are difficult to know a priori, so compensation is needed.
        There are funding risks, and we have heard about the higher costs for the private sector in terms of getting the capital—something to which my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) referred. We have heard references to the Chantrey Vellacott estimates of the costs.

        987
        The new clauses, with the introduction of the arbiter, add another, expensive risk. Anyone signing such an agreement will know that the contracts may change in future, not just by agreement, but by fiat. New clause 40(6) states:
        "A direction under subsection (3) above shall be final and binding…and shall, if and to the extent that the notice given under subsection (5) above so provides, take effect as a term of the PPP agreement."
        There is no doubt that anyone signing up to such contracts could be forced by the PPP arbiter to have their commercial agreement rewritten—without their agreement, necessarily. Which company would enter such a commercial agreement unless it knew that it would be massively compensated up front? That is where the higher costs will come in as a result of the Government's proposals. The travelling public of London and the taxpayer will be asked to pay those higher costs.
        In the Financial Times, the Minister said that one of the reasons for the arbiter was to make sure that companies did not make "windfall profits". When the potential bidders heard that, they were amazed. They find the idea that they will make huge profits ludicrous, considering all the risks involved. One of them was quoted as saying:
        "We don't see enormous profits, but the risks are considerable."
        The risks are indeed massive, and people will be persuaded to take them on only by up-front payment.
        The complexity of the PPP agreements lies not only in the need to analyse the risks before drawing up the legal documents. Imagine the extra transaction costs involved in setting up the whole system. There will be huge bills from the lawyers, bankers and other consultants. In opposition, Labour Members criticised the Conservative Government for paying so much in consultancy fees when they privatised the railways. The new proposals do not avoid that, despite what the Government hoped. Arguably, the transaction costs will be much higher. They will not be one-off, either, because of all the reviews. The costs inherent in the system, by basic common-sense analysis, are incredibly high.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington made it clear that there are alternatives. We set them out in detail in Committee. The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) spoke about the academic studies. If the Government had bothered to cross the pond to the United States of America, of which the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is so enamoured, they would have seen, in the hotbed of capitalism, examples of public sector owners operating public transport systems in urban areas incredibly successfully.
        John Kramer took over Chicago's urban railway company—it is overground as well as underground—when it was in a total mess and had been deteriorating because the previous public sector operation had not invested in it, but he was able to make it a success by issuing bonds, backed up by ticket revenue and state taxes, so that the people who provided the private finances knew that the returns would be stable. Over 20 years, he issued more than $20 billion-worth of bonds. That money enabled his management team to plan investment with certainty and transform Chicago's transportation system into the envy of the country.
        988
        That was a public sector option, using private sector capital, which is what the Liberal Democrats are arguing for. It has worked in America, and the Government could easily take it up. The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) made that point in a brave and excellent speech, and some Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), signed the Liberal Democrats' early-day motion calling for a public interest company.
        Many hon. Members support our approach. One would have thought that it was right up the Government's street and that the Deputy Prime Minister would have loved to adopt it. There is a huge battle raging in the Labour party between the privatisers in the Treasury and the people who take a different approach in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; unfortunately, the Deputy Prime Minister and his friends are not winning.
        The Minister pooh-poohs all press reports, but I am pleased to say that we have heard that the Deputy Prime Minister has had an emergency meeting with the Chief Secretary and other Treasury Ministers to find out whether there is an escape route and they can get out of this mess. We have offered them an escape route in new clauses 5 and 9. I think that the way out that we have offered in case the Government cannot make a go of their scheme would attract a lot of support.
        6.15 pm
        Mr. Simon Hughes: We are offering the Government a way, which I hope they will accept, even at this late stage, of getting off the hook. The great benefit of the public interest company, as in the Chicago scheme, is that it combines democratic accountability—it is run by those who are elected—with having more stakeholders. More people in the community publicly and openly participate, in that their finances feed the system and make it run, but it is controlled by those who are elected to that function.
        Mr. Davey: That is absolutely right. Ours is a democratic and transparent option, as well as being the most efficient. It is the best value for money for both passengers and taxpayers. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington has today written to the Public Accounts Committee asking it to investigate the accounting of the PPP.
        The Government will get their way and railroad through their 10 new clauses and the PPP scheme, even though the provisions are ill thought through and we will probably need to make many changes by regulation or by other means. The Public Accounts Committee needs to investigate, because in years to come the scheme will be seen to be an atrocious use of taxpayers' money.
        The PPP proposal is the Government's worst mistake since they came to power. It is a total shambles and will be proved to be so in years to come.
        Ms Glenda Jackson: I wondered whether the Conservative and Liberal spokesmen had rehearsed their contributions. They have been joined at the hip. I will ensure that the people of London know precisely what approach both the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats take to the overwhelmingly important issue for London of how we attract sustainable funding to improve our underground.

        989
        We have heard not one word from the official Opposition or the Liberal Democrats on how they would do that. We have heard endless fantasy, misrepresentation and scaremongering. Both parties have clearly failed to familiarise themselves with our proposals on the public-private partnership. The absurdities that have emanated from the lips of Opposition Members have been scandalous.
        When in power, the Conservatives proposed privatisation for the underground. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) was much concerned about what he considered a wilful waste of time by the Government over the public-private partnership. Is he aware that the Conservative Government's privatisation proposals would, by the estimate of the then Secretary of State for Transport, have taken at least four years to be fully implemented, even though they planned to reduce the underground by a third? The then Secretary of State informed the then Chancellor that, even post privatisation, they were looking for at least £190 million a year to be invested in the underground.
        Mr. Ottaway: How do you know that?
        Ms Jackson: We know that because the notes between the two of them were deliberately leaked. That was one of the reasons why the people of London expressed their total opposition to the Conservative party's proposal to privatise and why they have endorsed the Government's proposal for a public-private partnership.
        The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) repeated the Liberal Democrats' favourite call about bonds issues, which he says work extremely well in America. He forgets that those major American cities that were brought to bankruptcy and beyond not only by issuing bonds for financing capital investments, but by breaking out of any overarching control over public borrowing for major investment.
        We have made it abundantly clear that we believe in true fiscal prudence—and certainly in this area.
        Mr. Brake: Will the Minister give way?
        Ms Jackson: No. I shall finish my point, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to do so.
        It is absurd to presuppose that a public-private partnership evinced by this Government will do anything other than produce the best possible value for the taxpayer and the people of London by ensuring adequate investment. There will be no massive hike in fares, as the scaremongers on the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Benches have said in an attempt to delude the House and the people of London. There will be the certainty of long-term, sustained investment, which will improve the underground and its services.
        Mr. Brake: Will the Minister give way?
        Ms Jackson: No.
        The representation of the London underground given by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) was less than fair. He neglected to mention the programme of investment in which this Government have already engaged. We managed to find an additional £365 million for London underground when we came to office,
        990
        which is improving escalators, tracks and signalling. The sum has enabled the underground to prioritise issues of access at core stations. Over time, such stations will become truly accessible to everybody in London.
        If anyone genuinely believes that the deterioration that the hon. Member for Uxbridge described has come about over the past two years, they are clearly as misguided as Opposition Members. Such deterioration does not occur in the space of two years. It is the accumulation of more than a decade of neglect by the previous Administration. I sincerely hope that if Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members are not persuaded to withdraw the amendments, the House will reject them out of hand.
        I think that it would now be appropriate to speak to Government new clauses 37 to 46. I was surprised by the astonishment expressed by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton on these new clauses because I announced in Committee that the Government would be tabling amendments on Report to facilitate the establishment of an arbiter. I explained to the Committee that the mayor and PPP contractors would need to review future underground investment from time to time. The PPP contracts will therefore set out the procedures for periodic reviews, which will be held every seven and a half years or so.
        The scaremongering of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, who says that such reviews would lead to excessive and overweening costs, is unfounded. It is abundantly clear that the need for an arbiter will arise only if there is any basic disagreement between the mayor and the contractor. We expect the reviews to be conducted in a spirit of partnership, but it is inevitable that two parties may not always be able to agree. Therefore, it is necessary to provide for an arbiter. The parties to the contract will be able to refer unresolved matters to the arbiter, who will give a direction that is binding on both of them—unless both agree not to give effect to it.
        I sent Members who served on the Committee an explanatory note which gives a brief summary of the new clauses. Copies have also been placed in the Library. It may, however, help the House if I describe the general purpose and effect of the new clauses.
        New clause 37 provides for the appointment of the arbiter by the Secretary of State. The Government's intention is that there should be one arbiter for all three PPP contracts. Subsection (6) is therefore particularly important, in that it requires the Secretary of State to consult such persons as he considers appropriate before making an appointment.
        New clause 38 makes provision concerning the terms of appointment and dismissal of the arbiter. New clause 39 deals with the appointment of staff and their ability to discharge functions on behalf of the arbiter. New clause 40 sets out the arbiter's powers to give directions on matters referred to him by the parties to a PPP agreement. As I have mentioned, such directions are to be binding on the parties unless they both agree not to give effect to them.
        New clause 41 gives the arbiter a power to give non-binding guidance to the parties where they jointly refer a matter to him. The purpose of the new clause is to encourage the parties to reach agreement between themselves, in the light of the arbiter's guidance, without relying on a binding direction.

        991
        New clause 42 sets out the arbiter's duties when making directions or giving guidance. New clause 43 sets out further powers of the arbiter, including one to inspect relevant assets. New clause 44 empowers the arbiter to collect information that he considers relevant to the discharge of his functions. New clause 45 removes the liability of the arbiter and his staff for any acts or omissions, unless they can be shown to have been committed in bad faith. New clause 46 provides for the funding of the arbiter by the Secretary of State and for the recovery of costs from the parties concerned.
        These are important new clauses. They are intended to ensure that future investment needs of the London underground can be reviewed in the knowledge that the parties may call on an independent third party to issue binding directions when there are unresolved differences. The new clauses give the arbiter the necessary powers and duties to carry out such a task in a way that should be reassuring both to the mayor and Transport for London, and to PPP contractors.
        The new clauses are yet another example of the care and attention to detail that the Government have brought to bear not only on the PPP, but on the Bill. So far from the shallow and fantastic criticism that hon. Members have levelled at the Government to the effect that the PPP project is some shambles, the Government will ensure, via the PPP, adequate, sustainable, long-term funding so that when the underground is transferred to the mayor, it will be able to deliver the modern underground services that the people of London so desperately need.
        We have been meticulous in assuring ourselves that the model on which we base the definition of PPP contracts will deliver the best possible value to the taxpayer and, of course, to the underground itself. We have made it abundantly clear that, unlike the previous Administration, we will not be driven by empty ideology, or labour under the burden of an artificially imposed time scale. We will not be tinkering with Liberal Democrat proposals on financing the underground. I have serious difficulty in believing that the Liberal Democrat proposals could adequately fund a toy train over a long time, let alone cope with the complexities of the London underground.
        It is this Government, with their imaginative and innovative approach not only to local government but to genuine partnership, who will deliver for London the democratic voice that it has so long desired and the means of ensuring that the underground will be properly and adequately funded in the long term. I commend the new clauses to the House.
        Mrs. Laing: It is unfortunate that the Minister still blindly refuses to recognise the great success of privatisation of the railways, which has put Railtrack in a position today to declare that it wants to take over the underground. Would not that be a great way of using the resources that Railtrack has built up for the benefit of users of London underground and all the people of London? Dogma prevents the Minister and her colleagues from envisaging how well such a system would work.
        992
        Will the Minister confirm that, whatever conditions are imposed on whichever company or organisation runs the underground, all services that are currently provided, especially those beyond the Greater London boundary—in other words, in my constituency at the end of the Central line—will continue to run?
        6.30 pm
        Ms Jackson: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. If I remember correctly, she asked the same question on Second Reading. My answer now is the same as the one that I gave then.
        It being half-past Six o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [30 April]:—
        The House divided: Ayes 112, Noes 283.

        Division No. 165]

        [6.30 pm

        AYES

        Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

        Hammond, Philip

        Amess, David

        Hawkins, Nick

        Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

        Heald, Oliver

        Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

        Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

        Baldry, Tony

        Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

        Beggs, Roy

        Horam, John

        Bercow, John

        Howard, Rt Hon Michael

        Boswell, Tim

        Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

        Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

        Hunter, Andrew

        Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

        Jack, Rt Hon Michael

        Brady, Graham

        Jenkin, Bernard

        Brazier, Julian

        Johnson Smith,

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Browning, Mrs Angela

        Key, Robert

        Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

        King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

        Burns, Simon

        Lansley, Andrew

        Butterfill, John

        Leigh, Edward

        Cash, William

        Lidington, David

        Chope, Christopher

        Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

        Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

        Loughton, Tim

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

        Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

        MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

        (Rushcliffe)

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

        Malins, Humfrey

        Collins, Tim

        Maples, John

        Cran, James

        Maude, Rt Hon Francis

        Curry, Rt Hon David

        Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

        Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

        May, Mrs Theresa

        Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice

        Nicholls, Patrick

        & Howden)

        Ottaway, Richard

        Day, Stephen

        Page, Richard

        Donaldson, Jeffrey

        Paterson, Owen

        Duncan, Alan

        Randall, John

        Duncan Smith, Iain

        Redwood, Rt Hon John

        Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

        Evans, Nigel

        Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

        Fabricant, Michael

        Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

        Fallon, Michael

        St Aubyn, Nick

        Flight, Howard

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Forth, Rt Hon Eric

        Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

        Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

        Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

        Fraser, Christopher

        Soames, Nicholas

        Garnier, Edward

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Gibb, Nick

        Streeter, Gary

        Gill, Christopher

        Swayne, Desmond

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Syms, Robert

        Gray, James

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Green, Damian

        Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

        Greenway, John

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Grieve, Dominic

        Taylor, Sir Teddy

        Gummer, Rt Hon John

        Trend, Michael

        Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

        Viggers, Peter

        993

        Walter, Robert

        Wilshire, David

        Waterson, Nigel

        Woodward, Shaun

        Whitney, Sir Raymond

        Yeo, Tim

        Whittingdale, John

        Young, Rt Hon Sir George

        Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Wilkinson, John

        Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

        Willetts, David

        Sir David Madel.

        NOES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Coffey, Ms Ann

        Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

        Cohen, Harry

        Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

        Colman, Tony

        Allen, Graham

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

        Cooper, Yvette

        Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

        corbyn, Jeremy

        Ashton, Joe

        Corston, Ms Jean

        Atherton, Ms Candy

        Cousins, Jim

        Atkins, Charlotte

        Crausby, David

        Austin, John

        Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

        Banks, Tony

        Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

        Barnes, Harry

        Cummings, John

        Barron, Kevin

        Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

        Battle, John

        Dalyell, Tam

        Bayley, Hugh

        Darvill, Keith

        Beard, Nigel

        Davey, Edward (Kingston)

        Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

        Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

        Beith, Rt Hon A J

        Davidson, Ian

        Bell, Martin (Tatton)

        Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

        Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

        Dawson, Hilton

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Dean, Mrs Janet

        Bennett, Andrew F

        Denham, John

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Dismore, Andrew

        Berry, Roger

        Dobbin, Jim

        Best, Harold

        Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

        Betts, Clive

        Donohoe, Brian H

        Blackman, Liz

        Dowd, Jim

        Blears, Ms Hazel

        Drew, David

        Blizzard, Bob

        Drown, Ms Julia

        Blunkett, Rt Hon David

        Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

        Boateng, Paul

        Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

        Borrow, David

        Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

        Bradley, keith (Withington)

        Efford, Clive

        Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

        Etherington, Bill

        Brake, Tom

        Field, Rt Hon Frank

        Brand, Dr Peter

        Fisher, Mark

        Breed, Colin

        Fitzpatrick, Jim

        Brinton, Mrs Helen

        Fitzsimons, Lorna

        Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

        Flint, Caroline

        Buck, Ms Karen

        Flynn, Paul

        Burden, Richard

        Follett, Barbara

        Burgon, Colin

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        Burnett, John

        Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

        Burstow, Paul

        Foulkes, George

        Butler, Mrs Christine

        Gapes, Mike

        Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

        Gardiner, Barry

        Cable, Dr Vincent

        George, Andrew (St Ives)

        Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

        George, Bruce (Walsall S)

        Cambell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

        Gerrard, Neil

        Campbell-Savours, Dale

        Gibson, Dr Ian

        Cann, Jamie

        Gilroy, Mrs Linda

        Caplin, Ivor

        Godsiff, Roger

        Casale, Roger

        Goggins, Paul

        Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Chaytor, David

        Gordon, Mrs Eileen

        Church, Ms Judith

        Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

        Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Clark, Dr Lynda

        Grocott, Bruce

        (Edinburgh Pentlands)

        Grogan, John

        Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

        Gunnell, John

        Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

        Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

        Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

        Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

        Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

        Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

        Clelland, David

        Heal, Mrs Sylvia

        Clwyd, Ann

        Healey, John

        Coaker, Vernon

        Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

        994

        Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

        Mullin, Chris

        Hepburn, Stephen

        Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

        Hewitt, Ms Patricia

        O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

        Hill, Keith

        Olner, Bill

        Hinchliffe, David

        Organ, Mrs Diana

        Hodge, Ms Margaret

        Palmer, Dr Nick

        Hoey, Kate

        Pearson, Ian

        Hoon, Geoffrey

        Perham, Ms Linda

        Hope, Phil

        Pickthall, Colin

        Howarth, George(Knowsley N)

        Pike, Peter L

        Hoyle, Lindsay

        Plaskitt, James

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

        Pollard, Kerry

        Humble, Mrs Joan

        Pope, Greg

        Hurst, Alan

        Pound, Stephen

        Hutton, John

        Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

        Iddon, Dr Brain

        Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)

        Illsley, Eric

        Prosser, Gwyn

        Jackson, Ms Glenda(Hampstead)

        Purchase, Ken

        Jenkins, Brain

        Radice, Giles

        Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

        Rammell, Bill

        Johnson, Miss Melanie

        Rapson, Syd

        (Welwyn Hatfield)

        Raynsford, Nick

        Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

        Robertson, Rt Hon George

        Jones, Helen(Warrington N)

        (Hamilton S)

        Jones, Ms Jenny

        Roche, Mrs Barbara

        (Wolverh'ton Sw)

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

        Rowlands, Ted

        Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

        Roy, Frank

        Keeble ,Ms Sally

        Ruddock, Joan

        Keen, Ann(Brentford & Isleworth)

        Russell, Bob(Colchester)

        Kelly, Ms Ruth

        Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

        Kemp, Fraser

        Ryan, Ms Joan

        Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

        Sanders, Adrian

        Khabra, Piara S

        Savidge, Malcolm

        King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

        Sawford, Phil

        King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

        Sedgemore, Brain

        Kingham, Ms Tess

        Sheerman, Barry

        Kumar, Dr Ashok

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Laxton, Bob

        Singh, Marsha

        Levitt, Tom

        Skinner, Dennis

        Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

        Smith, Miss Geraldine

        Lewis, Terry(Worsley)

        (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

        Linton, Martin

        Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

        Livingstone, Ken

        Snape, Peter

        Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

        Soley, Clive

        Llwyd, Elfyn

        Southworth, Ms Helen

        Lock, David

        Spellar, John

        Love, Andrew

        Squire, Ms Rachel

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Starkey, Dr Phyllis

        McCafferty, Ms Chris

        Steinberg, Gerry

        McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

        Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

        (Makerfield)

        Stoate, Dr Howard

        McDonagh, Siobhain

        Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

        McDonnell, John

        Stringer, Graham

        Mckenna, Mrs Rosemary

        Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

        Mackinaly, Andrew

        (Dewsbury)

        McNulty, Tony

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        MacShane, Denis

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Mactaggart, Fiona

        Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

        McWalter, Tony

        Timms, Stephen

        McWilliam, John

        Tipping, paddy

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Todd, Mark

        Mallaber, Judy

        Trickett, Jon

        Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

        Truswell, Paul

        Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

        Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

        Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

        Twigg, Derek (Halton)

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Vis, Dr Rudi

        Meale, Alan

        Walley, Ms Joan

        Merron, Gillian

        Ward, Ms Claire

        Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

        Wareing, Robert N

        Mitchell, Austin

        Watts, David

        Moffatt, Laura

        White, Brain

        Moran Ms Margaret

        Whitehead, Dr Alan

        Morley, Elliot

        Wicks, Malcolm

        Mountford, Kali

        Wills, Michael

        995

        Winnick, David

        Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

        Wise, Audrey

        Wood, Mike

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Wray, James

        Mr. Kevin Hughes and

        Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

        Mr. David Jamieson.

        Question accordingly negatived.
        MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

      New Clause 37

        THE PPP ARBITER
        `.—(1) The Secretary of State may appoint a person to an office to be known as "the Public-Private Partnership Agreement Arbiter" (in this Act referred to as the "PPP arbiter").
        (2) The PPP arbiter shall have the functions conferred or imposed on him by or under this Act.
        (3) The PPP arbiter shall he a corporation sole by the name of "the Public-Private Partnership Agreement Arbiter".
        (4) If at any time no person holds the office of PPP arbiter, the Secretary of State shall appoint a person to that office if requested in writing to do so by a party to a PPP agreement.
        (5) A request under subsection (4) above must not include a request for a particular person to be appointed.
        (6) Before making an appointment under subsection (1) or (4) above, the Secretary of State shall consult such persons as he considers appropriate concerning—

        (a) the person to be appointed; and

        (b) the terms of the appointment.

        (7) The office of PPP arbiter may not be held by—

        (a) the Mayor;

        (b) an Assembly member;

        (c) the Authority or a member of staff of the Authority;

        (d) Transport for London or a subsidiary of Transport for London; or

        (e) a member of Transport for London or a director of a subsidiary of Transport for London.

        (8) The offices of Rail Regulator and PPP arbiter may be held by the same person.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 38

        TERMS OF APPOINTMENT ETC OF THE PPP ARBITER
        `.—(1) A person appointed to be the PPP arbiter shall be appointed for such term as may be specified or described in the instrument appointing him and shall hold and vacate office as the PPP arbiter in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
        (2) There shall be paid to the PPP arbiter such remuneration, and such travelling and other allowances, as the Secretary of State may determine.
        (3) There shall be paid such pension, allowance or gratuity to or in respect of the PPP arbiter, or such contributions or payments towards provision for such a pension, allowance or gratuity, as the Secretary of State may determine.
        (4) A person may resign from office as the PPP arbiter at any time by giving notice to the Secretary of State.
        996
        (5) The Secretary of State may remove a person from office as the PPP arbiter—

        (a) on the ground of incapacity or misbehaviour; or

        (b) where the Secretary of State considers that there has been unreasonable delay in the discharge of the functions of the PPP arbiter.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 39

        STAFF OF THE PPP ARBITER
        `.—(1) The PPP arbiter may appoint such staff as he may determine, subject to any restrictions contained in the terms of his appointment.
        (2) The staff of the PPP arbiter shall be appointed on such terms and conditions as he shall determine, subject to any restrictions contained in the terms of his appointment.
        (3) Any function of the PPP arbiter may be exercised by any member of his staff authorised for the purpose by him or, if there is no person who holds the office of PPP arbiter, by the relevant authority, whether specially or generally.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 40

        DIRECTIONS OF THE PPP ARBITER
        `.—(1) A PPP agreement may provide for matters of any description specified in the agreement to be referred to the PPP arbiter.
        (2) A party to a PPP agreement may refer to the PPP arbiter for direction any matter of a description specified in a provision of that agreement by virtue of subsection (I) above.
        (3) Where a matter is referred under this section to the PPP arbiter for direction he—

        (a) shall give a direction in relation to that matter, and

        (b) may give a direction in relation to any other matter which he considers relevant to the matter referred.

        (4) The directions that may be given under subsection (3) above include directions relating to the inclusion of new terms in, or the variation of existing terms of, the PPP agreement in question.
        (5) The PPP arbiter shall give notice of any direction under subsection (3) above to the parties to the PPP agreement in question.
        (6) A direction under subsection (3) above shall be final and binding—

        (a) on the parties to the PPP agreement in question, and

        (b) on any persons claiming through or under those parties,
        and shall, if and to the extent that the notice given under subsection (5) above so provides, take effect as a term of the PPP agreement.

        (7) Where a direction has been given under subsection (3) above, the parties to the PPP agreement in question may jointly agree that subsection (6) above is not to have effect in relation to that direction.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 41

        GUIDANCE BY THE PPP ARBITER
        `.—(1) The parties to a PPP agreement may jointly agree to refer any matter relating to the agreement to the PPP arbiter for consideration.
        (2) Where a matter is referred by virtue of subsection (1) above to the PPP arbiter for consideration he shall consider the matter and shall give to the parties who referred the matter such guidance as he considers appropriate.

        997
        (3) The guidance which may be given by the PPP arbiter by virtue of subsection (2) above includes guidance about any matter which he considers relevant to the PPP agreement in question.
        (4) Where the PPP arbiter has given any guidance under this section in relation to a matter which is subsequently referred to him for direction under subsection (3) of section (Directions of the PPP arbiter) above, the direction which may be given by the PPP arbiter under that subsection is not restricted by that guidance.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 42

        DUTY OF PPP ARBITER
        `.—(1) In giving in relation to a PPP agreement—

        (a) any direction under section (Directions of the PPP arbiter)(3) above, or

        (b) any guidance under section (Guidance by the PPP arbiter)(2) above,

        the PPP arbiter shall act in the way he considers best calculated to achieve the objectives specified in subsections (2) to (5) below.
        (2) The objective specified in this subsection is to ensure the performance of the PPP agreement in question so as to secure that the railway infrastructure to which the agreement relates—

        (a) is provided, constructed, renewed or improved, as the case may be, and

        (b) is maintained,

        having regard to the resources available to any relevant body which is a party to the agreement.
        (3) The objective specified in this subsection is to promote efficiency and economy—

        (a) in the provision, construction, renewal, or improvement, as the case may be, and

        (b) in the maintenance,

        of the railway infrastructure to which the PPP agreement in question relates.
        (4) The objective specified in this subsection is to enable any PPP company which is a party to the PPP agreement in question, and which the PPP arbiter considers to be efficient and economic in performing the agreement, to earn the rate of return incorporated in the agreement.
        (5) The objective specified in this subsection is to enable any PPP company which is a party to the PPP agreement in question to plan the future performance of the agreement with reasonable certainty.
        (6) In giving any such direction or guidance as is mentioned in subsection (1) above the PPP arbiter is to take account of any factors which—

        (a) are notified to him by the parties to the PPP agreement in question, acting jointly, as factors to which he must have regard when giving the direction or guidance in question, or

        (b) are factors specified or described in the PPP agreement in question as factors to which the PPP arbiter must have regard in giving any direction under section (Directions of the PPP arbiter)(3) above or any guidance under section (Guidance by the PPP arbiter)(2) above.

        (7) For the purposes of subsection (4) above, a rate of return is "incorporated in a PPP agreement" if, and only if, the agreement—

        (a) makes provision for the rate of return to be earned under the agreement by the PPP company concerned, and

        (b) states that subsection (4) above is to have effect in relation to that provision.

        998
        (8) In this section "railway infrastructure" means the railway or proposed railway in question and includes a reference to any stations, rolling stock or depots used or to be used in connection with that railway.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 43

        FURTHER POWERS OF THE PPP ARBITER
        `.—(1) For the purposes of the proper discharge of the functions conferred or imposed on him by or under this Act, the PPP arbiter may—

        (a) carry out inspections of such of the railway infrastructure or equipment belonging to, or under the control of, any party to a PPP agreement as he considers appropriate;

        (b) consult such bodies or persons as he considers appropriate in relation to any direction or guidance given or proposed to be given by him;

        (c) do all such things as he considers appropriate for or in connection with the giving of a direction under section (Directions of the PPP arbiter)(3) above or guidance under section (Guidance by the PPP arbiter)(2) above; and

        (d) do such other things as he considers necessary or expedient.

        (2) The powers conferred on the PPP arbiter by this section and section (Provision of information to the PPP arbiter) below are exercisable for purposes preparatory or ancillary to the giving of directions or guidance under this Chapter generally and notwithstanding that there is no matter in relation to which a direction under section (Directions of the PPP arbiter)(3) above, or guidance under section (Guidance by the PPP arbiter)(2) above, is required.
        (3) In this section "railway infrastructure" has the same meaning as in section (Duty of PPP arbiter) above.'—[Mr. Dowd.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 44

        PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO THE PPP ARBITER
        `.—(1) Any person falling within subsection (2) below shall, at the request of the PPP arbiter, provide him with such information as the PPP arbiter considers relevant to the proper discharge of the functions conferred or imposed on him by or under this Act and as may be specified or described in the request.
        (2) The persons who fall within this subsection are—

        (a) any party to a PPP agreement;

        (b) any associate of a party to a PPP agreement; and

        (c) any party to a related third party agreement within the meaning of section jOnc44 above.

        (3) The information shall be provided in such form and manner, and within such time, as may be specified in the request.
        (4) A person is not obliged by virtue of this section to provide any information which he would be entitled to refuse to provide in or for the purposes of proceedings in a court in England and Wales.
        (5) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b) above, "associate", in relation to a party to a PPP agreement, means—

        (a) a parent undertaking of that party;

        (b) a subsidiary undertaking of any parent undertaking of that party;

        (c) a subsidiary undertaking of that party; or

        (d) an undertaking in which that party, or any undertaking falling within paragraphs (a) to (c) above, has a participating interest.

        999
        (6) For the purposes of subsection (5) above—
        "parent undertaking" and "subsidiary undertaking" shall be construed in accordance with section 258 of the Companies Act 1985;
        "undertaking" has the meaning given by section 259 of that Act; and
        "participating interest" has the meaning given by section 260 of that Act.'—[Mr. Dowd.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 45

        IMMUNITY OF PPP ARBITER
        `.—(1) The PPP arbiter is not liable for anything done or omitted in the discharge or purported discharge of his functions as the PPP arbiter unless the act or omission is shown to have been in bad faith.
        (2) Subsection (1) above applies to a member of the staff of, or an agent of, the PPP arbiter as it applies to the PPP arbiter.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 46

        EXPENSES OF THE PPP ARBITER
        —The following expenses, namely—

        (a) any sums payable by virtue of section (Terms of appointment etc of the PPP arbiter)(2) or (3) above, and

        (b) any expenses duly incurred by the PPP arbiter or by any staff of the PPP arbiter,

        shall be defrayed by the Secretary of State.
        (2) A relevant body which is a party to a PPP agreement shall pay to the Secretary of State, at such times as he may direct, such sums as the Secretary of State may determine in respect of expenses defrayed by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above.
        (3) A PPP agreement may provide that sums paid by a relevant body by virtue of subsection (2) above, or any portion of such sums as may be specified or described in the PPP agreement, may be recovered by the relevant body from a PPP company which is a party to the PPP agreement.
        (4) Where a PPP agreement includes provision by virtue of subsection (3) above making any sum recoverable by a relevant body, the directions which may be given under section (Directions of the PPP arbiter)(3) above include directions varying the amount so recoverable.
        (5) Sums received by the Secretary of State by virtue of this section shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.'—[Mr. Dowd.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      Clause 187

        TRAVEL CONCESSIONS ON JOURNEYS IN AND AROUND GREATER LONDON
        Amendment made: No. 88, in page 100, leave out lines 6 to 8 and insert—
        `(b) which by virtue of section (Continuity: repealed or revoked functions of LRT) above has effect as if made by Transport for London.'—[Mr. Dowd.]

      Schedule 9

        OPERATING POWERS OF TRANSPORT FOR LONDON
        Amendments made: No. 89, in page 192, line 32, leave out
        `before it ceases to exist,'.
        No. 90, in page 197, line 37, leave out
        `before it ceases to exist,'.
        No. 91, in page 198, line 23, leave out from 'contract' to 'notwithstanding' in line 24 and insert
        `which by virtue of section (Continuity: repealed or revoked functions of LRT) of this Act has effect as if made by Transport for London,'—[Mr. Dowd.]

      Schedule 13

        PENALTY FARES
        Amendment made: No. 92, in page 214, leave out lines 20 to 22 and insert—
        '(b) which by virtue of section (Continuity: repealed or revoked functions of LRT) of this Act has effect as if made by Transport for London.'— [Mr. Dowd.]

      Clause 222

        ROAD USER CHARGING
        Mr. Ottaway: I beg to move amendment No. 80, in page 121, line 36, leave out clause 222.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 25, in page 121, line 36, after '(1)%% insert
        'Where the revenue raised is to be invested solely and exclusively in better provision for public transport, cycling and walking in Greater London'.
        Amendment No. 81, in page 121, line 41, leave out `keeping or'.
        Amendment No. 83, in schedule 18, page 230, line 36, leave out Schedule 18.
        Amendment No. 82, in page 230, line 45, leave out `keeping or'.
        Government amendments Nos. 140 and 141.
        Amendment No. 8, in page 235, line 12, leave out from `scheme' to third 'the' in line 13.
        Amendment No. 9, in page 235, line 14, leave out
        'during the scheme's initial period'.
        Amendment No. 10, in page 235, line 19, leave out from `(2)' to 'the'.
        Amendment No. 11, in page 235, leave out lines 24 to 27.
        Amendment No. 12, in page 235, leave out lines 32 to 40.
        Amendment No. 13, in page 236, line 36, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 237.
        Amendment No. 14, in page 237, leave out lines 24 to 38. Government amendment No. 142.
        Amendment No. 26, in clause 223, page 122, line 3, after `(1)', insert
        `Where the revenue raised is to be invested solely and exclusively in better provision for public transport, cycling and walking in Greater London'.
        Government amendment No. 143.

        1001
        Amendment No. 15, in schedule 19, page 247, line 6, leave out from 'scheme' to third 'the' in line 7.
        Amendment No. 16, in page 247, line 8, leave out
        `during the scheme's initial period'.
        Amendment No. 17, in page 247, line 13, leave out from '(2)' to 'the'.
        Amendment No. 18, in page 247, leave out lines 18 to 21.
        Amendment No. 19, in page 247, leave out lines 26 to 34.
        Amendment No. 20, in page 248, leave out lines 28 to 44.
        Amendment No. 21, in page 249, leave out lines 16 to 30.
        Government amendment No. 144.
        New clause 6—Traffic disruption charge—
        `(1) Where the money is to be invested solely and exclusively in better provision for public transport, cycling and walking in Greater London, each of the following bodies, namely,

        (a) the Authority,

        (b) any London borough council, or

        (c) the Common Council,

        may establish and operate schemes for imposing charges in respect of any disruption caused by works to roads, pavements or cycle lanes in their area.'.
        Government amendment No. 145.
        6.45 pm
        Mr. Ottaway: This debate is on road pricing. It would be sensible to get some myths out of the way before the debate begins. We concede that a transport Green Paper in the early 1990s, towards the end of the previous Government's time in office, said that there was a presumption that road pricing would be introduced. A Green Paper is a consultation document, not a statement of policy. That would not therefore have been a national policy as defined in the Bill.
        Secondly, a presumption in a Green Paper can be rebutted, and the Government should be under no illusion but that that idea was rebutted. The proposal was not taken forward. The proposal to introduce road pricing did not appear in the Conservative party manifesto in 1997. It never formed a part of our policy.
        We share the concern of all political parties about the problem of congestion. There is widespread concern about pollution caused by cars and other motor vehicles. The challenge to Governments of either persuasion is how to manage the car. In our view, clobbering the motorist is not the solution, and we reject outright the Government's anti-car rhetoric. Furthermore, making London the pilot scheme for congestion tax stands logic on its head. I can think of nowhere less suited and nowhere that would pose greater technical problems.
        Amendment No. 81 may be described as the lesser of our two amendments. It would delete the power from clause 222 to impose a charge for keeping a vehicle on the road. That charge is not a road user charge or a congestion tax. It is just another stealth tax. The clause permits the mayor and the London boroughs to impose a further levy for parking or keeping a car within a certain area. It is a further back-door tax that has nothing to do with congestion, and we oppose it.
        1002
        The main issue is the congestion tax, however. Already, 83 per cent. of commuters travel in and out of London by public transport. Public transport in central London is good, although that is, of course, a relative term. It is certainly better than in other cities in Britain and in most cities in the rest of the world. Whether under Labour or the Conservatives, public transport in London has been good. A wide variety of choice is available. By and large, and subject to the usual technical problems, the system gets people around the capital.
        As a result, road traffic in central London is not growing. The Automobile Association notes:
        "Road traffic levels within central London have hardly changed in 20 years. However, traffic levels in the outer areas have increased by 50 per cent in just 15 years."
        The question is whether central London is the right place to impose a congestion tax. People like their cars, the most liberating influence of the post-war years. Cars allow people a freedom to travel that their parents and grandparents never knew. People feel safe in their cars. Mothers use them to take children to school. Nurses use them for their night duty. Pensioners or disabled people use their cars to get to the shops. These are the people who will be hardest hit by the congestion tax.
        Let me turn to traffic speed. The AA, once again, states:
        "Travel by vehicle through central London has always been slow going because of the high frequency of junctions. In outer areas, speeds tend to be higher. Overall traffic speeds are declining in London. though less so in the central area because traffic levels have reduced slightly."
        Traffic speeds have slowed more generally in London and that is in large part attributable to the Government's anti-car stance. We are all in favour of pedestrian safety and of ensuring that drivers proceed safely, but do we really need each and every one of the extra crossings, traffic-calming measures and lane reductions that are currently being introduced? The widespread view is that the use of such measures has gone too far, and I have no doubt that it is a contributory factor to the reduction in traffic speeds in the capital.
        I said on Second Reading and in Standing Committee that we have to hand it to the Government: they slow down the traffic and thereby create congestion, which they then tax—that is a smart move. The truth is that many of the traffic jams are man-made; they could be avoided and traffic could be speeded up through more pro-motorist thinking.
        Mr. Simon Hughes: I recall the hon. Gentleman saying in Committee how strongly he supported local government in London being able to make its own decisions, so I find it difficult to understand why he criticises the Government on this point, given that most of the decisions on traffic calming are local borough decisions and will remain so. Why is the Tory party coming out, not against a proposition that there will be road charging, but against a proposition that, the issue having been debated during the election, those elected to represent Londoners may choose to impose road charging?
        Surely Tory policy, if it means anything, is to give freedom to local government and other authorities to make decisions; but the hon. Gentleman wants to restrict London's choices by removing altogether one of the options available to it.
        Mr. Ottaway: It is perfectly straightforward: we are against the congestion tax in London. As for the

        1003
        introduction of traffic-calming measures being a local authority decision, the hon. Gentleman should recall that, about a year ago, the Government proudly published a press release in which they announced that they had authorised huge levels of spending for thousands of new traffic-calming measures in London. That was Government money being spent on schemes instigated by the Government, and the local authorities were nothing but the agents of implementation; the Government inspired the initiative and the drive behind the schemes came from the centre.
        Mr. Hughes: A large proportion of the money will have been taxpayers' money because a large proportion of transport spending in Britain comes from the taxpayer by way of grant to local government. In some ways, for some purposes, local authorities are agents, but to my knowledge no local council has been required to spend money against its wishes on traffic-calming schemes. If the hon. Gentleman can give me one example to the contrary, his case has credibility—but I suspect that there is no such example.
        Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman has caught me unawares and I do not have such an example to hand, but he should not doubt that, if a local authority is given money, it will spend it. The truth is that if the Government take the credit for the schemes, they must be prepared to take the criticism as well. Let us suppose that I am wrong and the hon. Gentleman is right and that all the measures are entirely local-authority inspired; in that case, the local authorities are creating the congestion. However, the point is that the slowing down of traffic and the increase in congestion is, to a large extent, man-made.
        Two of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues—the hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) and for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey)—are constituency neighbours of mine, and they might occasionally visit Coulsdon in my constituency; in fact, I know that one of them has, because he wrote to me to tell me so. The red route director has put no fewer than three pedestrian crossings across the A23 route into Coulsdon, which has caused tailbacks north and south of about a mile each way. Those tailbacks never occurred before the crossings were introduced, so the congestion is a man-made problem. The existing pedestrian crossings worked fine, but now that the additional traffic lights have been put in, we have huge tailbacks.
        Mr. Edward Davey: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that all traffic-calming and road-safety measures cause congestion? The Minister for London and Construction was kind and helpful in working with local police and me to reduce the speed limit on the A3 Kingston bypass, which has improved the flow of traffic on that road and so reduced congestion.
        Mr. Ottaway: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the reduction in speed on the A3 Kingston bypass is popular, he has another think coming.
        Mr. Davey: It is popular in my constituency.
        Mr. Ottaway: Perhaps it is in the hon. Gentleman's, but it certainly is not in mine.
        Mr. Simon Hughes: I do not want to distract the hon. Gentleman from the wider issues, but I am perplexed.
        1004
        Is he arguing that, for example, many more bus lanes in London would be a bad thing because, although they would allow buses a greater speed of travel, they would have an adverse impact on car users? If we enhance the safety of pedestrians and cyclists and the speed of buses, we are bound occasionally to run the risk of car transport being slowed, but that might be an incentive for people to use different forms of transport, or to go around London rather than through it.
        Mr. Ottaway: I certainly do not suggest that all the measures are not wanted. My point is that I think that the balance might have begun to tip too far in one direction. If a speed limit of 25 mph were to be imposed throughout London, the whole city would grind to halt, just as a 25-mph speed limit on a motorway would clog up the whole road, because any trip would take twice as long and twice as many cars would be on the same stretch of road. There has to be joined-up thinking—
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have seen an awful lot of the hon. Gentleman's back in the past few minutes. He should address the Chair.
        Mr. Ottaway: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was carried away by the interventions.
        Before the Liberal Democrats put out their press releases saying "Tories oppose safety measures", alongside the one about the cracked paving stone, they should think seriously. Their holy grail appears to be the removal of congestion from London's roads, but that is unachievable, because if a motorist sees an empty road, the first thing he will do is drive down it—he will not take the bus. Congestion, once cleared, will return. The point is that many of the safety measures slow down traffic in London, and those measures are the result of Government decisions.
        The Government have given three reasons for proposing to introduce a congestion tax: first, to persuade the motorist to leave his car behind; secondly, to reduce pollution; and, thirdly, to raise taxes for transport purposes. Will the Minister, through the congestion tax, persuade the people of London to leave their cars behind? The AA report "New leadership for London: transport in the capital", under the heading "Car ownership", states:
        "The number of cars per London household is lower than many other parts of Great Britain, reflecting the cost of parking and the availability and accessibility of public transport."
        Were I to introduce an anti-congestion scheme and someone were to tell me that lower car ownership had resulted, I should say that I had achieved my objective. However, the availability of public transport in central London is already achieving the objective of keeping London traffic movements at a lower level than they would be if public transport were not available—all the evidence suggests that the availability of public transport in London keeps cars off the roads.
        In Committee, we examined in depth the pilot scheme in Leicester. The Minister for Transport in London said that she would publish the results when they became available, and I assume that she is a woman of her word. However, early reports from that scheme give rise to serious questions about whether imposing a congestion tax on motorists will make much difference to their habits. Early reports from Leicester indicate that it takes a

        1005
        road-use charge of £6 to make a motorist change his pattern of behaviour. It is believed that in London the figure would be nearer £8. I do not think that even this Government would have the gall to introduce a £8 charge on motorists every time they made a journey in London. Given that they would not do that, it follows logically that a lesser sum would not deter anyone. So what do we have? We have a revenue stream. It is a tax by the back door. It is yet another example of a stealth tax.
        7 pm
        What will happen in the London boroughs? In Croydon, there are reports that the council intends to produce a congestion tax that will bear on motorists entering London once the Bill is enacted. Apart from ensuring the re-election of the Conservative group at the next borough elections, what will be the net effect? The answer is that local shoppers will go to the new Blue Water retail development near the M25 rather than pay to go to Croydon. The congestion tax may solve the problem of congestion in Croydon, but it will make it into a ghost town.
        A good example is provided by Bath, where the Liberal Democrat council has raised parking charges to such a high level that there has been a 7 per cent. fall-off in the local economy. The House must recognise that one cannot impose a congestion tax in isolation and expect there to be no knock-on factors.
        Mr. James Gray: Does my hon. Friend agree that those who are most in favour of congestion charges are those who want to drive on our roads? The main purpose of a congestion tax is to get everybody else off the road so that the road is freer for oneself.
        Mr. Ottaway: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have yet to hear anyone advocating a congestion tax who does not drive himself.
        The second objective of the congestion tax is to reduce pollution. Notwithstanding my point that the tax is unlikely to affect volumes, it is possible to reduce pollution without the confrontational approach of extra taxation upon the motorist.
        Such have been the advances and technological developments in the production and construction of engines that a car manufactured 30 years ago emitted 95 per cent. more toxic waste from the back end than would a car produced now. That has been achieved by co-operation with the motor industry and without the need to introduce a congestion tax. We must try to remove the final 5 per cent. without imposing a charge. I am sure that the technology is available to produce the ultimate clean car. The Conservative party would encourage the motor industry to do so. It would also give every encouragement to cars powered by liquefied gas or electricity.
        It is worth noting that Oxford street, which is considered to be one of the more polluted areas in the country, is a street from which the car is excluded. The pollution tends to be the result of emissions from diesel engines in taxis and lorries. However, the Government must not use the environment as an excuse to impose a charge when other options are available.
        The Government's final, unashamed reason for imposing a congestion tax on Londoners is that it will create a revenue stream for the mayor. The Liberal party
        1006
        has been eyeing this up and has given it its full support. In "Yes, Minister", when the Minister in that programme was about to make a controversial decision, Sir Humphrey used to say, "Very courageous, Minister, very courageous." It is very courageous of the Government to be advocating an additional tax on London. They are doing so unashamedly with the full intention of creating a revenue stream for the mayor.
        The Government should be aware, however, of a recent report contained in a confidential Scotland Yard memo, according to the Evening Standard, which warns that there could be
        "a violent backlash by drivers, increasingly angered by moves to penalise them at every turn. A separate Government-commissioned study has also warned that drivers' acceptance of technology that charges them for driving on roads-and traps them when they don't pay-cannot be relied upon."
        The congestion tax will not be an easy measure to introduce. It is a courageous decision on the part of the Government to introduce it. I do not believe that anyone will become the London mayor on a pledge to introduce the tax.
        Mr. Gray: Is my hon. Friend aware of the report by the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs on the integrated transport White Paper, which was produced last week? It comes to three clear conclusions on congestion charging. The first is that it must be 100 per cent. hypothecated. Secondly, it must be totally additional to any present expenditure. Thirdly, it must be permanent. We know that the Government are proposing congestion charging for 10 years. The Sub-Committee was plain that it must not form a revenue stream for the Government, the Treasury or local government.
        Mr. Ottaway: We talk of nothing else in Croydon. I intend to address all three points that my hon. Friend has sensibly and wisely raised. Early reports suggest that the congestion tax could raise £200 million a year. First, it must be questioned whether that is enough. In Committee, the Minister made it clear that this money would not necessarily be used as a subsidy for London underground, and referred to road improvements or traffic-related improvements. I venture to suggest that improving London's roads or traffic-related schemes will need more than £200 million a year.
        We congratulate the Government on the halfhearted establishment of the principle of ring-fencing and hypothecating the proceeds of any congestion tax. However, any congratulation must be tempered by two factors, one of which we believe to be fatal. First, the funding is ring-fenced for only 10 years in the Bill. That obviously prompts the question: what will happen after 10 years. In our opinion, the answer is clear. The money will go to the Treasury coffers. If it is to be ring-fenced, that should be the position in perpetuity and not for a limited period. To that extent we welcome the conclusion of the Sub-Committee to which my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) referred.
        Secondly, the greatest weakness of the Government's proposal—in our view the fatal one—is the additionality factor. I have no doubt that a Chancellor seeing a mayor with a revenue stream of £200 million a year would immediately dock £200 million from his transport grant to London, with the result that the people of London

        1007
        would be no better off. If the Minister is to reassure me that that will not happen, it will be clear that the Department has fought the battle over hypothecation. If so, why does it not fight the battle over additionality and enshrine the result in the Bill?
        We do not have to look far for a good current example, and that is next year's funding for London underground, about which there has been much discussion today. All the early signs are that that funding will have to come out of the road maintenance programme. If ever there were a classic example of having to rob Peter to pay Paul, this is it.
        Mr. Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman is exactly right about additionality. Why, then, did the Conservative party not support my hon. Friends and me yesterday when we tried, through an amendment to clause 86, to ensure that the Greater London Authority transport grant increased year on year, so that funding from central Government to Transport for London would not be a problem?
        Mr. Ottaway: Because I had no idea that that is what the Liberals were voting on. As I read the amendment, it described something entirely different. In any event, I do not feel slavishly bound to follow the Liberals through the Division Lobby on every occasion. We know that they have a pious coalition deal, which they keep denying. The Conservative party makes up its own mind, introduces its own amendments and votes when it thinks appropriate rather than letting the Liberals decide for it. The Liberals could easily have joined us in the Lobby just now, as their spokesman endorsed every point that I made on the public-private partnership.
        We oppose the congestion tax because it is a back-door tax—a stealth tax. It will not solve the problems of congestion in London, it will not ease pollution, it will damage local economies and it will hit the vulnerable. I urge the House to support our amendments.
        Mr. Darvill: I support the Government amendments and oppose the Conservative proposal to delete clause 222. The Government's proposal is not to impose road charging. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) rightly said in his intervention, the permissive provisions in the Bill would allow charging by the mayor and the London boroughs.
        The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) said that the balance between public transport and road congestion was moving the other way. That may be so in some areas, but surely it is a matter for each London borough to decide in accordance with local circumstances. On a Londonwide scale, it is a matter for the London boroughs, the mayor and the Greater London Authority to put before the electorate. If the Conservative amendment were accepted and clause 222 deleted, that possibility would be removed from councillors and candidates at the GLA election next year, which would be a disservice to the people of London.
        Mr. Gray: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the conclusions of the oft-quoted Transport Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport
        1008
        and Regional Affairs? The Sub-Committee's report on the White Paper on integrated transport were published last week. The hon. Gentleman's colleagues concluded that it would be wrong to allow any local authority to make up its own mind about congestion charging, as that would drive traffic into the neighbouring local authority. Labour members of the Transport Sub-Committee therefore supported a regional strategy only for congestion charging. Does the hon. Gentleman therefore differ from his hon. Friends on the Committee?
        Mr. Darvill: Yes. Local councillors need to take a broader perspective. I would propose a sub-regional approach. Councillors and members of the GLA will have to think much more broadly. I have not read the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I understand the argument. My view is that the debate must take place on a Londonwide basis, recognising local conditions and the position of Londoners as a whole and the commuter transport implications.
        Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that the Government were not advocating road user charging, despite the appearance to the contrary—after all, as he knows, clause 222 dangles that prospect. In the light of what his hon. Friend the Minister said earlier, in a characteristically arrogant fashion, about the likelihood of a Labour mayor being elected, would the hon. Gentleman advocate a Labour mayor supporting such charges—yes or no?
        7.15 pm
        Mr. Darvill: The debate on the Labour manifesto and the manifestos of candidates for mayor will take place in the coming months. I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Croydon, South about the balance.
        In answer to the question from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), if the clause is removed from the Bill, that debate will not take place. It is taking place now in the Chamber, but, if the amendment is accepted, there will be no possibility of candidates for mayor and the GLA, and councillors in the London boroughs, debating the matter locally. For that reason, the provision should remain in the Bill.
        I recognise that there will be competing arguments. For example, when a bus lane is created, there is often opposition from car users, but support from those who use the public services. There is opposition from people who may be affected by rat running as a result of the new bus lane, and local measures may be proposed to avoid that. All that takes place locally.
        I support the measure because the revenues to be raised from the charges are hypothecated. I have some sympathy with the argument of the hon. Member for Croydon, South about the longer-term nature of the investment. The longer term must be taken into account in the decision-making process. The hypothecation of the revenues over a longer period would give much greater scope for investment. However, in subsequent elections, a party that opposed hypothecation after, say, 10 years could put its alternative proposals to the electorate. Those proposals might be unpopular, but parties would nevertheless need to consider the long term when formulating their policies.
        Mr. Gray: Am I right in thinking that the hon. Gentleman is arguing in favour of hypothecation being

        1009
        permanent? If so, does he realise that it will be necessary for him to vote against the Government in the forthcoming Division?
        Mr. Darvill: I said that I had some sympathy with the argument for longer-term hypothecation. However, I support the Bill because it moves in an important direction and, with regard to hypothecation, it is unique in law making in this country. That is warmly welcomed, and the benefits will become apparent. It enables the argument about road charging to take place against the background of the resulting benefits and the scope for investing the revenues in public transport.
        Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman's tone is immensely reasonable. What is less reasonable is his unwillingness to tell us whether a Labour candidate for mayor should advocate road charging. As his party has included the provision in the Bill, does he understand that some of us are eagerly waiting, with beads of sweat on our brow, for Pandora's box to be opened so that we can discover the earnest intentions of Labour Members?
        Mr. Darvill: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's patience will be rewarded in due course. I am happy to give my opinion, but other colleagues may have different opinions. When we have formulated our policies, we will have the debate. I believe that there is considerable merit in road charging, provided that the revenues are used to improve public transport. The charges will be unpopular with some people, but, if those who pay them can see the benefits in improved public transport, the policy will be much more popular than Conservative Members think.
        Most members of the public who have to travel in and out of London and use their cars to do so realise that a major problem is building up, no matter who is in government and no matter who controls the GLA. Local traffic problems apply in local areas. The public want those problems to be resolved. They know that resolving such problems is difficult and often requires increased capital investment, but the road charging provisions are a way of squaring that circle. That is why I do not believe that they are as unpopular as Conservative Members say.
        I hope that hon. Members will oppose the Opposition amendment and support the amendments that would facilitate discussions on hypothecation and the detail of the Bill.
        Mr. Brake: I shall speak against the Conservative amendment and in support of the Liberal Democrat amendments.
        What would be the effect of the Tory amendment? It would simply remove the possibility—not the certainty—of road user charging. However, if road user charging were implemented after the viable public transport alternatives were put in place, it could play a major role in raising funds for investment in public transport, in improving the health of the one child in seven who suffers from asthma and in helping the United Kingdom to meet its CO2 reduction targets. Finally, it could play a major role in helping the boroughs to deliver
        1010
        on their target of a 10 per cent. reduction in road traffic, which was agreed under the previous Government and which they have to hit.
        Mr. Ottaway: May I take it from the hon. Gentleman that the Liberal Democrats will be campaigning in next year's mayoral elections on a pledge to introduce road user charging?
        Mr. Brake; I am happy to respond to that intervention. My understanding is that one of the Conservative contenders for mayor, Steve Norris, has indicated his support for the proposals. We have clearly said that we see a role for road user charging in reducing congestion in London. I am happy for that to go on the record.
        The official Opposition have to confirm whether they are committed to the targets for CO2 reduction to which the Government have signed up and whether they are committed to the road traffic reduction targets in the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997, which was passed when the previous Government were still in office. Are they doing a U-turn on that issue, as on so many others?
        Even if the official Opposition are not convinced of the environmental arguments in favour of road user charging, are they not convinced that investment will arise from charges? In the unlikely event of a Conservative mayor or a Conservative Government being elected, how would they fund the investment that was needed? They have been distinctly quiet on that key point.
        Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman has obviously forgotten that, only last week, he was one of those who voted in favour of the oft-quoted report of the Transport Sub-Committee of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee. The report said, in absolutely straightforward terms, that road charging must be hypothecated, additional and permanent, and must not be used for revenue streams of any kind. It appears that he is, in classic Liberal fashion, arguing exactly the opposite of what he signed up to last week.
        Mr. Brake: On the contrary, I am arguing in favour of everything listed by the Committee in its report. I shall come to those points in a moment.
        Road user charging must involve additionality, which is why we tabled an amendment to that effect yesterday. It did not receive the support of the official Opposition, apparently because they did not understand what it meant. Road user charging must be hypothecated for the purposes of public transport, cycling and walking, which is why we have tabled an amendment on that subject. It must also be hypothecated permanently, and we have tabled an amendment to that effect.
        It is clear that we cannot possibly support the Conservative amendment, which is all to do with political opportunism—a splurge in the media a few days before an election. It pays no regard to London's environment or to the investment needs of London Transport.
        Mr. Gray: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in a debate that is extraordinarily important—not only to proceedings on the Bill, but to the recent general discussion on transport, particularly in the context of the integrated transport White Paper. The White Paper is much lauded by Labour Members and, as I have had

        1011
        occasion to say once or twice, the Transport Sub-Committee studied it recently and produced a report last week.
        If we are to address the problems that we all face in cities and towns across this small country of ours, we will have to address the question of congestion. I take issue with speakers on both sides of the House—Liberal Democrat and Labour Members—who have suggested that, somehow or other, Her Majesty's official Opposition are opposed to reducing congestion. Of course we are not; all along—when we were in government for 18 triumphant years and since—we have made it plain that we are wholeheartedly in favour of reducing congestion. It is terribly important that we should do so for health reasons, because of air pollution and so that people can get about the town.
        That brings me on slightly, to a point to which I alluded a moment ago. Most commentators produce ideas on environmental questions, not necessarily because they believe that they will carry them out, but because they hope that everyone else will carry them out. Two or three examples spring to mind. All my constituents talk gaily about how important it is to support village shops—and, indeed, it is—but, goodness me, they spend £5 in the village shop once a week and then zip round to Sainsbury's by road to spend £200 or —300 on their week's shopping. Although they pay lip service to reducing congestion by using the village shop, they contribute to it by going to Safeway or Sainsbury's.
        The same applies to road user charging. People talk about reducing congestion in central London, for example. They say, "Until now, I have been using my motor car to get to central London. I would like you, Mr. Mayor, to introduce road user charging. That will hurt me in my pocket, so I will give up my car and get on the underground." Oh, no, that is not what they mean at all. They mean, "I want you, Mr. Mayor, to introduce road user charging. That will mean that there will be a great reduction in traffic across London, so I can drive into the office much more quickly than I have been for the past two or three years." That is entirely selfish and entirely the opposite of what is proposed.
        The Government seem to be in nirvana. They think that, somehow, introducing this road tax—an entry fee of £10 according to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), although I hope that that figure is wrong—will make people better and make London a better place. All it will mean is that company car users will lob the fee back to their company accountants. Millionaires driving their Rolls-Royces will not be bothered about a fee—they would pay £8 or £10 with no trouble at all, and would pay £10, £20 or £30 for parking. They would not care about that. However, old people who need their motor cars to get to the shops, disabled people who cannot et down the steps into the underground and poor people who cannot afford to pay £10 would be damaged by such a fee.
        Road user charges would have exactly the opposite effect to that which the Government describe, but would encourage the people whom I mentioned to say, "Fine. I have a big BMW and I work in a bank in the City of London. I do not care about road user charges. Indeed,
        1012
        they will make things even better because the roads of London will be clear for me to zip along at 90 miles an hour."
        Mr. Darvill: A borough or a mayor introducing such a scheme would take into account, through concessionary measures, people with disabilities. Would that not answer the hon. Gentleman's point? Moreover, the groups to which he referred would benefit from improved public transport.
        7.30 pm
        Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman reminds me of a point that he made in his thoughtful speech, which was about allowing individual boroughs to do different things. Let us imagine a situation in which the borough of Hackney signs up to road user charging and is determined to keep cars out of the borough. It may say, "We will charge road users £20 so that no one comes through the borough." Given the ring of steel around the City of London, the City of London would almost certainly say, "Fine. We are determined to deter cars from going through the City of London, so we will charge road users £100." My friend the fat cat in his BMW would not care about that. Those who would care are people in the borough of Islington and boroughs south of the river, which would be used as rat runs by those avoiding the heavy charges.
        Allowing a borough to make up its own mind on road user charging would have exactly the opposite effect from that described by the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill). That point was brought out clearly in the Labour-dominated Select Committee report last week, which deals not with London, but with other parts of the country. It says that it would be wrong if a local authority had the right to make up its own mind about road user charging or parking charges because that would have an appalling effect on neighbouring boroughs and councils. It says that such decisions should be made by the regions. I do not recall exactly what the report says, but it was said in the Select Committee discussions that the regional development agencies, or possibly the elected regional governments—if, heaven forfend, those ever come about—might be the right bodies to make those decisions. If local authorities were allowed to make them, the effect on neighbouring councils would be deleterious.
        Ms Glenda Jackson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who I believe is a member of the Select Committee to which he refers. Everyone in the House welcomes his interest in this debate, but this is clearly the first time that he has turned his mind to the Bill, because he is under a total misapprehension with regard to the introduction of road user charging within London. Boroughs must fit into a mayoral strategy. It will be for the mayor to decide whether to introduce such charges. Boroughs must be part and parcel of that strategy, and the Secretary of State will examine how the money will be spent. The figures which the hon. Gentleman is tossing across the Floor of the Chamber are absurd. I am delighted that he has at last managed to manifest an interest in our deliberations.
        Mr. Gray: I was merely answering an intervention by the hon. Member for Upminster, who suggested that charging should differ from borough to borough. I am surprised that the Minister was not clearer about the fact

        1013
        that I serve on the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. I am proud to do so. Given the hard time that we gave her on one or two of her appearances before the Select Committee recently, I should have thought that our faces, if not our names, would be engraved on her memory.
        Mr. Ottaway: Perhaps she is too thick-skinned.
        Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend suggests that the Minister may be too thick-skinned to be aware of that. Perhaps he is right, but I would not be so ungentlemanly as to suggest it.
        What is the purpose of road user charging? My thesis is that it will not achieve the aims that the Government have set up for it. It sounds like a frightfully good idea if it is to reduce road usage, but it will reduce road usage for the wrong people and allow those who do not care about the cost to continue to use the roads. It is rather like the recent increase in petrol charges, which has damaged my rural constituency, poor people and the disabled.
        The hon. Member for Upminster also suggested that road user charging might enable disabled people to use public transport. I do not know about the disabled people in his constituency, but there are many disabled people in my constituency who could not use public transport under any circumstances. Flippantly to suggest that they should be charged off the roads in the hope that that will make public transport better is not a particularly caring point to make.
        Mr. Darvill: The point that I made was twofold: first, that concessionary arrangements could be made for disabled people; and, secondly, that an increased investment in public transport might benefit some disabled people. I was not making a cursory suggestion; I was saying that there are two sides to the argument that road user charging could benefit the groups that we were discussing.
        Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his clarification. I hope that he will forgive me for misquoting him, but I was thinking on my feet. He makes a good point. The more reductions there are for old people and the disabled, the better. Even better, however, would be no user charging at all. We would then not have to worry about concessions for the old, the disabled and the poor.
        Mr. Brake: The hon. Gentleman said that the Conservatives believe that congestion needs to be tackled. Perhaps he is about to explain how.
        Mr. Gray: I am grateful for that question, but I fear that you would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I launched into a wider discussion on transport and how to reduce congestion on the roads. We are discussing the proposals in the Bill for road user charging within London. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I could have an interesting discussion about reducing congestion in the context of the Select Committee, but I would be trying your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I dealt with it now.
        I wish to concentrate for a moment or two on the three aspects of road user charging that I find particularly unattractive. Labour Members talk gaily about hypothecation, but Treasury officials with whom we did
        1014
        battle over 18 years have always gone to lengths to say that there can be no such thing. Hypothecation does not fit in the Treasury's theology, for the good reason that, if a public duty should be carried out, it should be carried out through taxation. Hypothecation is a misleading way of pretending that, somehow, taxation is being put to a particular use.
        Worthwhile measures such as improving the transport infrastructure in London will cost much more than the funds raised through road user charging. If the Government then say, "We are sorry, but we don't intend to do those things because they are more expensive than the money that we have raised from road user charging," they will be wrong. If we have to look after those with asthma, reduce pollution and facilitate movement around the centre of London, the GLA should do that, irrespective of how much money it raises from road user charging. Treasury mandarins always tell me that hypothecation does not work for that reason.
        If one is to hypothecate, additionality is crucial. It must be possible to demonstrate beyond any shadow of a doubt that the project for which the money is being used would not, under any circumstances, have been undertaken anyhow. The Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee is discussing bus lanes, improving the roads and all kinds of projects that should be undertaken by any Government. Additionality, which is absolutely central to road user charging, means providing for transport users something that they would not otherwise have. If the money is simply used to improve the underground or the road lights in Clapham high street, it is a wrong use of road users' money.
        My next point—it is the main thing that is wrong with the proposals-is that the arrangement must also be permanent. It must not be for just a few years. The GLA must not be able to say, "Londoners will not notice. We shall charge them a few pounds for a few years, and they will then forget about it. We shall then bring the charges into the mayor's funds," or, in the case of the Labour party, into the Treasury's funds. That is a straightforward con. The Government are telling the public, "We're going to take this money off you. We're going to pretend that it's for transport use of one sort or another. Don't you all want cycle tracks? Don't you all want to encourage pedestrians"—as the Liberal Democrats are always reminding us—"and don't you want to improve roads? I'm sure you're all very fed up with the congestion in London. It must be awful when you're trying to get to work and the roads are all congested. Don't worry, we're going to charge you £8 a time when you come into London, and we're going to use the money to put those things right for you. Aren't we a wonderful Government?" However, there is a postscript at the bottom in very small print, which reads, "But only for 10 years."
        Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that the precedents that the Government have established in other areas of public policy in the past 24 months offer us no confidence that a road user charging policy would be operated on the basis of additionality—rather, the contrary applies?
        Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend makes that point extremely well. Our experience in the past 24 months shows that the Government will put a spin on the measure and will make out that it will help the public, but the truth is that it will help no one other than themselves.

        1015
        The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) alluded to revenue flows for the mayor. The Government are not even covering their nakedness by pretending that the revenue is additional, that it is for transport and that it is permanent. They have the brass neck to say, "It is only for 10 years and then we'll have the cash. What would the poor old mayor do if he didn't have road user charging, because he wouldn't have any money? The poor old mayor needs the cash. He needs the revenue flow. What's the point of having a mayor without the revenue flow? Road user charging is terribly important, because it gives the mayor some cash."
        Mr. Clive Efford: Is the hon. Gentleman not overlooking the issue of accountability? The mayor will be directly elected by the people of London, and will be accountable for the policies that he or she puts into place. If a mayor were to do what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting regarding future investment in public transport in London, he or she would soon be accountable to the people and would be out of office.
        Mr. Gray: The accountability point is a good one. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. It will be extraordinarily interesting to see in the manifestos of the various candidates for mayor whether they sign up to an £8 or £10 road user charge. Labour candidates—who knows, the Minister may be one—may be brave enough to say, "Please vote for me, because I'm going to charge you £8 if you come into London." I would be bold enough to say that accountability would work, and, if the hon. Lady were such a candidate, she would certainly not be elected.
        It was interesting that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, when challenged on this point by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South, went to some lengths to avoid saying whether a Liberal Democrat candidate for mayor would be upfront and would say that he would introduce road user charging. The Conservative party is clear: we would not bring in road user charging in London. We have tabled the amendment to prevent road charging from being introduced, so that, even if an elected mayor wanted to do so, he could not.
        The Conservative party is the only party in the Chamber that has made its position clear—none of the minority parties is present, except the Liberal Democrats. Her Majesty's official Opposition are making it absolutely plain that we wholeheartedly oppose congestion charging in London. Our mayoral candidate will stand on that manifesto. The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) is quite right in saying that accountability comes into it, and, if mayoral candidates from other parties stand boldly in front of Londoners and say, "We're going to charge you guys for using our roads," they will lose.
        Mr. Efford: If accountability comes into it, should the mayor not have the right to choose whether to introduce road charging? By taking his approach, would the hon. Gentleman not be denying the democratic right of the people of London to choose whether they want road pricing?
        Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. However, with the amendment, we are trying to protect
        1016
        the people of London from the stealth tax that the Government propose to introduce in the Bill. We are opposed to congestion charging. We do not believe in charging Londoners £8 or £10 to use their own roads. The Labour party does, and the Liberal Democrats may or may not£but, as usual, it is not certain. That is true accountability. I am sure that, if the debate is reported—I hope that it will be reported during the campaign for the mayoral elections—it will be absolutely plain that the Conservative party is wholeheartedly opposed to road congestion charging. We have spoken against it for some time, but the other parties are in favour of it. It is worth putting it on the record that the Conservative party is the only party opposed to road user charging.
        It should be made clear that the proposal that the amendment would change is not about congestion, health, air quality or any of the worthy issues that some hon. Members have referred to, but about revenue for the mayor. If done nationally, it is about revenue for the Treasury. That is one of the strongest reasons why we have tabled the amendment.
        7.45 pm
        Mr. Ken Livingstone: As there is such interest in what intending candidates for mayor would do, I can tell the House that I was initially sceptical about the congestion tax. I was aware of the origins of the tax. It was not drawn up in Labour party headquarters, and it is not some product of a leftie think tank: it comes from the neo-liberal, Thatcherite right. Milton Friedman and others argued for a congestion tax. According to my broader version of it, it is a flat-rate tax, like the poll tax. It would not be my tax of first choice to fund transport, but it is an integral part of the Government's transport strategy for Britain.
        London is being given the chance to introduce this tax ahead of the rest of the country, largely because if it cannot work here, it will not work anywhere else in Britain. We still have a good public transport infrastructure and a degree of congestion that makes the case.
        I think that there is wide public acceptance that something like a congestion tax must be introduced. The debate will be about the levels. [Interruption.] I see Conservative Members shaking their heads, but I have received detailed documents from broadly business organisations in London calling for a £5 tax. Taxi drivers, who are not normally part of the militant tendency, are talking about £7.50, although they think that they should be exempt. That is understandable, because the taxi trade should be integrated into the overall Government public transport strategy.
        Mr. Ottaway: Before the hon. Gentleman is completely seduced by the pleas of the business community in support of the road user tax, he should be aware that it is trying to distract attention from the workplace parking levy, which affects businesses. If he reads on, he will find that businesses are opposed to the workplace parking levy, and that they want the man on the street—or, more to the point, the man behind the wheel—to pay the extra taxes rather than business.
        Mr. Livingstone: It will come as no surprise to the hon. Gentleman that I find the car park tax a more attractive proposition, because it is not a flat-rate tax.

        1017
        To provide the extra resources that London needs to have a dramatic improvement in the quality of public transport, money has to come from somewhere else. The Government will not suddenly open their coffers to London so that there is a great flood of extra resources. As London is substantially more wealthy than the rest of the United Kingdom, and inner London is the richest region anywhere in the European Union, it is not unreasonable that we look to Londoners to pay part of the price of improving the quality of public transport.
        A list of proposals is rapidly building up among candidates across the political spectrum. Jeffrey Archer wants high-speed bus lanes. Proposals for new buses from the outskirts, conductors back on the buses and improved cleaning of the buses will require money. I think that Londoners would be prepared to pay a reasonable sum to see an improvement in the quality of public transport, so that people are encouraged to leave their cars at home.
        The tax could be introduced in a divisive and counter-productive way. It could be a massive levy dumped on Londoners without first seeing some improvement in the quality of public transport. I have not the slightest doubt that the Labour party manifesto for the mayor and assembly for London, and all the leading Labour candidates for the assembly and the mayoralty, will propose a phased introduction and tying the tax to a real improvement in the quality of public transport. That will produce the circumstances in which we can recreate the impact that the Greater London council's fares cut had in 1981 of getting people to leave their cars at home and switch to public transport.
        Careful handling and planning will be needed. We shall have to listen to what Londoners say about the level at which the charge should be set, and the areas that will be affected. We shall have to be cautious. It would be a great mistake to set this tax at a level that would cause a public backlash, or to create the impression that we favour an anti-car strategy rather than a pro-public transport strategy.
        I think that, during the debate that will take place in the coming year as the election of mayor becomes closer, we shall see that Londoners are prepared to pay that bit more to put a public transport system that previous Administrations have ignored for the best part of two decades back on its feet, and to ensure that it is effective, efficient and clean. At the same time, encouraging people to leave their cars at home by means of the combination of a congestion tax and improved public transport will lead to a better quality of life in London as pollution, congestion and the number of accidents are reduced.
        I see the attraction to the Tory party of an opportunity to say, "This is just another tax. We are opposed to it, as we are opposed to every tax." The Tories will have to answer a question, however: where will the money needed to improve public transport come from if they turn their backs on the tax measures that the Government are giving Londoners a chance to implement? For we are talking about Londoners: it will be Londoners who go to the polls next May knowing where their candidates—Tory, Liberal and Labour—stand on the issue. I have no doubt that they will cast their votes, by an overwhelming majority, for candidates who are prepared to use these taxes to improve public transport and the quality of life in our city.
        Mr. Edward Davey: I thank the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) for bringing us back
        1018
        to reality, and for referring to the need to tackle congestion. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) took us down an odd path when he spoke of paying £5 in his village shop and £300 in the nearest supermarket, especially as no London Conservative Members were present at the time.
        Congestion is a huge problem in the capital. The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) said that it had not increased in the past 20 years, but that is because it is so bad. It is a real problem in both inner and outer London. When I knock on doors in my constituency, I find that people raise the issue of traffic congestion time and again. They want the Government to give a lead.
        We have not talked about the market economics behind road use charges. The Conservative party used to be the party that believed in market economics and price signals. One reason for traffic congestion is that public highways are a free good: people do not have to pay to use them. Basic macro-economic theory shows that, when a free good is available, people tend to use far too much, because they do not have to pay for it. When a price mechanism is introduced, people are given a signal to help them to make choices, and resources can be allocated more efficiently across society.
        Mr. Howard Flight: Does the hon. Gentleman apply the same arguments to the national health service, as his logic suggests?
        Mr. Davey: I can see from your frown, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you do want me to stray too far from the amendment, so I shall be careful about how I answer that question. The national health service was established to be free at the point of use: that was one of its basic notions.
        People want to be able to travel along Britain's roads without the problem of congestion, and they want the Government to come up with policies to prevent it. That is the thinking behind this policy. We need only consider the incentives that will result from road user charging. People will ask themselves, "Do I really have to take that journey in my car? Is there an alternative?" Not only Londoners, but those living in the constituency of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire who are coming to London may think twice. Perhaps they will leave their Mercedes at home and get on the train, even if they are as wealthy as they seem to be.
        Mr. Gray: I did not suggest at any stage that my constituents were wealthy. That is not the point that I was making, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. The hon. Gentleman wants the tax to be used to drive people off the roads, and leave them open to those who can easily afford to pay it. It is a rich man's tax. The rich man in his Jaguar will be fine, while the poor man will have to stay at home.
        Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman clearly was not listening. What I said was that a price signal would lead people, rich or poor, to think about their journeys and about the alternatives. In fact, most people on low incomes do not use cars. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the statistics, he will find that the public transport system will be massively improved for those who use public transport most at present by the revenue streams that will be generated. Those on low incomes stand to benefit.

        1019
        Although congestion charges are right in principle, for the economic reasons that I have given and the environmental reasons given by other speakers, they will work only if there is a political consensus, not just here but in the wider London population. In that respect, I fear that the Government are not doing their own policies a service in regard to their presentation in both the Bill and the media. In this instance, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire was right: he complained that the Government had not ring-fenced the revenues from road user charges effectively. The Government are not guaranteeing to those who will pay that the charges will be ploughed back permanently into public transport in the capital.
        The hon. Gentleman made two points in that regard. First, he made a point about additionality. We need to ensure that the revenues raised constitute additional funds. That is why the Liberal Democrats argued yesterday and in Committee that the Greater London Authority transport grant—the money that the Government currently suggest should go to Transport for London—should be maintained in real terms. If a future Chancellor could say, "Mr. Mayor"—or Mrs. Mayor—"now that you have your revenues from road user charges, you will not need the transport grant any longer", it would undermine public support for the charges in London.
        Additionality is a key part of ensuring that road user charges are saleable to the public, but another key part is ensuring that they are ring-fenced. After the Second Reading debate, the Government relented and in Committee, by means of schedule 18, they inserted a complex set of paragraphs in an attempt to persuade people that they would ring-fence the revenues for 10 years; but, as we said in Committee, we do not feel that they have actually done that, and detailed scrutiny of schedule 18 will prove that we are right. Ministers did not accept our argument in Committee, but, even if they do not accept it now, the Government ought to consider it seriously in the other place. It is in their interests, and in the interests of those who want to reduce congestion, for the tax to be made saleable.
        Paragraph 17(6) of the schedule sets out in detail how the 10-year period will be measured. Paragraph 17 introduces the concept of the initial period, at the start of the 10 years; sub-paragraph (6) specifies how the time when that initial period began will be judged. Under the sub-paragraph, effectively, the Secretary of State can deem that a particular road user charging scheme has been changed in some way. Perhaps the rates have changed; perhaps the district boundaries have changed. The Secretary of State can then say, "This is a different scheme", and the initial period will therefore be deemed to have come to an end.
        8 pm
        As the initial period has come to end, the revenues will no longer be available solely and exclusively for investment in London Transport. I do not say that to make a political point. I am trying genuinely to be helpful to the Government because I want to ensure that they achieve in legislation what they say they want to achieve: to ring-fence the revenues.
        That is not the only aspect of road user charging that we need to address to ensure that the new charges are saleable politically. We need to ensure that there are
        1020
        improvements in the public transport system up front. People who are going to be asked to pay the charges need to know that they will get benefits. As we have seen in the first two years of the management of London's underground and public transport system, such improvements to London's public transport system have not occurred. That is likely to occur again now that the Government have gone down the path of PPP schemes.
        What may happen is that the charges will be introduced, people will be asked to pay and then they will not see any benefit for several years. That is not a politically sensible strategy. I am incredibly worried about that because I want congestion to be tackled. Charging may be one of a package of measures that will help, but it will fall at the first hurdle if we do not persuade people that it is in their interests—that it will tackle the problems that we are all concerned about.
        Therefore, I ask the Minister to examine the way in which the Government are putting the road user charges element of their public transport strategy for London together, as well as the money that they are investing in London underground and other aspects of London's public transport.
        I am particularly concerned about the following point, which was mentioned in the previous debate, but is relevant now: the money for London's public transport system from April 2000. At the moment, no one is clear, least of all in the management of London Transport, where the money will come from to maintain the infrastructure, to invest in the system and to ensure that improvements are achieved. If the managers of the system are not sure where the money is coming from less than a year before that financial year starts, clearly, they cannot make the proper investment plans and strategies that are needed.
        Those are my two concerns about the way in which the Government are approaching the matter. First, they are not ensuring that the money is fully hypothecated and will be genuinely additional. Secondly, their overall transport strategy is not ensuring that there will be benefits up front for the people who will need to use the alternatives to cars or motor transport. Indeed, the alternative is public transport.
        I do not think that Ministers can get away with leaving it to a future mayor. They cannot duck responsibility on the matter. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Brent, East, who may turn out to be a mayoral candidate, is now on record as saying that he supports road user charges. He has a legitimate point about the level of those charges. There will be a debate on that, but I am glad that, in principle, he is now in favour.
        We have heard that at least one putative Conservative candidate—my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) mentioned him earlier—may be in favour of the scheme. Apparently, Lord Archer is against. He has taken the populist, opportunist Tory line, but it is possible that candidates who are against road user charges might win the mayoral elections.
        The Minister cannot push that point aside and say that a Labour candidate will win. It is possible that a candidate from another party, or an independent candidate who is opposed to road user charges, will win. If that person has made a case against road user charges, that not only puts

        1021
        a massi ve hole in the Government's strategy for London Transport, but may put a huge hole in the finances of the PPP and London Transport.
        Ms Glenda Jackson: We have been round this course in Committee. I say to the hon. Gentleman again, as I said to him then, that the modelling for the PPP is not based on any funding from either road congestion charging, or a levy on workplace parking. I repeat to him for about the sixth time that the financial modelling for the PPP is not dependent on any revenues from congestion charging.
        Mr. Davey: The reason why the Minister keeps having to repeat that point is that she will not publish the report that contains the modelling so that the House can see it before it passes the Bill. If she and her colleagues had the decency to publish that report, so that we could scrutinise and analyse it, the matter might be a little more open, the debates might be a little more fruitful and we would not have to make a stab in the dark about where the calculations are coming from.
        In a constructive spirit, I say that the Government have to make the case for road user charges. We know that it will be politically difficult to sell. No one is under any illusions about that, but unless they create the framework properly and sensibly in the first place, making that case will be incredibly difficult.
        Mr. Efford: The issue inspires much passion among people outside the House. If there were a referendum on the issue, there might be a higher turnout than in the local elections tomorrow. I recall having a public meeting about the closure of a hospital in my constituency and booking a rather large hall, expecting thousands of people to turn up; 110 did so. When I had a similar meeting on the introduction of speed humps in a short road, the same number turned up.
        I have concerns about the introduction of road charging. We need to take a sequential approach to the issue, the first being that we need to charge at the place where people park. We need to end the process of allowing out-of-town centre developments with huge car parks that one can land jumbo jets on, which have free parking.
        One of the concerns that I have, representing an outer London constituency, is that it is likely to be close to one of the areas where a booth or machine for charging for entrance to London will be sited. Many people from outside London use my town centre, which is likely to be the other side of the toll booth, or whatever it is going to be. That would place my town centre at a disadvantage. I know that other hon. Members representing other town centres and other cities have similar concerns. Therefore, the issue requires more discussion.
        The problem that I have with the Liberal Democrats' approach is that they are taking away the democratic right of Londoners to have a say on the issue. A similar position has been taken by the Conservatives. The mayor should have powers to introduce the measure. The mayor should be able to go to Londoners to have the debate. At the moment, I err on the side of caution because I do not think that London is ready for road charging, but that option should be available to the mayor.
        1022
        Another problem that we face—it is something that I have spoken about several times in the House already—is that south-east London does not have the tube network.
        Mr. Simon Hughes: Some of us do.
        Mr. Efford: North Greenwich will have the tube soon. My constituency does not have it. The A2 and A20 meet in my constituency near two motorways. The problem with road charging is that it does not offer at the outset an alternative for people to switch to.
        Connex South Eastern says that, during peak hours, it is running at capacity. It does not have any excess places for people to use at peak times. The London bus network is not seen as a satisfactory alternative. People could turn to the London taxi, but that would only add to road congestion.
        Are the Conservatives aware that the average speed in London before the introduction of motor vehicles was 11 mph and that their transport strategies managed to get the figure back down to 11 mph by the time that they left office? Their transport strategies do not, therefore, give them much to crow about.
        The serious point is that there are no transport alternatives. We need substantial investment in public transport to improve and expand it, and to allow people a choice. They could then switch from their car to safe, affordable, comfortable and reliable public transport. At present, we are not offering people those alternatives, particularly in my part of south-east London. Public transport should be extended before we go down the road—if I may use that word—of introducing road user charging, but Londoners should have an opportunity to tackle that issue in future.
        Ms Glenda Jackson: My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) is entirely right. The Bill contains enabling powers, and he put his finger on the point when he said that such powers should be available to the mayor, should he or she wish to use them.
        Londoners have said time and again that traffic congestion in the capital needs to be tackled. Clauses 222 and 223 will enable London's mayor and boroughs to introduce road user charging schemes and levy a charge on workplace parking. We amended the Bill in Committee to give the mayor and boroughs those new powers, underlining our proposals for a strong, effective mayor with powers to tackle congestion.
        The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) was at some pains, as he said, to set the record straight on the Conservative party's policy on that issue. However, he seems to have executed a U-turn this evening because I distinctly remember that, in Committee, he said that the Conservative party was not opposed in principle to introducing road user charging nationally; it was only London's mayor to whom it wanted to deny those enabling powers.
        I regret that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) is not in his place, not least because he is clearly as uninformed about his own party's policies as he is about the Government's proposals. He is opposed to any charging scheme unless there is clear hypothecation. His experience of the Treasury led him to believe that hypothecation would never be introduced, but we, as a radical Government, have demonstrated that it can, and will, be introduced.

        1023
        The issue of hypothecation ran through all the contributions to the debate. Hon. Members expressed concerns about whether 100 per cent. of net proceeds would be available to the mayor and boroughs for the mayor's transport strategy, how long hypothecation would operate and whether hypothecated income would be additional. I shall lay to rest all the fears on those three issues. Certainly, 100 per cent. of net proceeds will be spent exclusively on the mayor and borough transport strategies.
        Hypothecation may continue for longer than 10 years for specific schemes. However, I say to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), who spoke to the Liberal Democrat amendments, that we reject permanent hypothecation, as we did in Committee when the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey)—or perhaps it was the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow)—proposed it. As I said to Liberal Democrat Members then, it is absurd to think that one would achieve the best public transport system or the best value for the taxpayer if a scheme of permanent hypothecation were introduced, because we do not seek gold-plating or platinum-plating of public transport legislation. Surely it must be possible to evaluate schemes to find out whether they are delivering best value for the taxpayer.
        Mr. Brake: Would it not be possible, under a permanent scheme, for the mayor to decide to reduce the congestion charges or abolish them entirely?
        8.15 pm
        Ms Jackson: As I have already pointed out, the 10-year period is not an absolute cut-off; when schemes are reviewed, it will be possible to extend them. Clearly, there will be schemes that will take much longer than 10 years to complete, but to include in the Bill the requirements in the Liberal Democrat amendments would be nonproductive. They would not produce best value for the taxpayer or, in the long run, the best and most effective improvements from transport schemes.
        Concerns were expressed about whether such hypothecated income streams would be additional. I was somewhat surprised to hear the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, who was in the Committee when I made that point clear, but I shall make it clear again. The Bill requires any such scheme to keep separate income and expenditure accounts. Such accounts must be published annually and it will therefore be abundantly clear that those revenues are indeed additional.
        Mr. Edward Davey: Is the Minister saying that the only money available for London transport will come from road user charges?
        Ms Jackson: I am bemused by the hon. Gentleman's question, and I would love to know—or perhaps I would not—how he arrived at it. I repeat that any concerns that revenues raised from road user charging would not be additional should be laid to rest by the fact that the Bill requires all such schemes to keep separate income and expenditure accounts, which must be published annually. It will therefore be abundantly clear that those revenues are indeed additional.
        1024
        The hon. Gentleman was concerned also about whether there would be funding for the mayor and the boroughs. I cannot understand his concern, because the Government have announced an additional £1.8 million for local authority transport.
        Mr. Ottaway: Does the Minister accept that I share Liberal Democrat Members' concerns? This is a question not of publishing accounts and saying that the revenue is additional, but of what the Treasury will be doing. Will the Minister assure us that there will be no reduction in the Treasury's grant to match the money raised by the schemes?
        Ms Jackson: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously asking me to predict Budgets five or 10 years in advance? Did his party ever do so? Did his party ever guarantee any kind of funding for local authority transport? The Conservatives guaranteed year-on-year reductions. I say to the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton that their fears that the hypothecated revenues might be a way for the Government to avoid their responsibilities, now or in future, by eroding central funding for local authority transport schemes are unfounded. I say for the third and final time that the Bill requires such schemes to keep separate income and expenditure accounts, which must be published annually.
        I have already said that the Government's commitment to improving and integrating public transport is on the record, not only in our policy pronouncements, but in the additional £1.8 million that we have provided for local authority transport.
        The hon. Member for Croydon, South accused the Government of being anti-car. That is far from the case, but we are anti-pollution. I am sure that he is aware that drivers suffer three times more pollution from petrol-driven cars than those who walk on the pavement. Any improvement that can be made in congestion will therefore not only improve journey times, but begin to reduce the amount of pollution in our air, thereby improving the environment and the quality of life in London. That point was made in the thoughtful contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).
        The hon. Member for Croydon, South is clearly anti-pedestrian, and does not like the idea of zebra crossings being introduced. He is also very doubtful about traffic calming measures—which are road safety measures that have reduced accident rates, particularly for children, pedestrians and cyclists. Traffic calming measures have, indeed, reduced the accident rate for children by 67 per cent.
        In this debate, the hon. Member for Croydon, South acknowledged that public transport in London is good; although, in our previous debate—in the criticism that he was levelling at London Transport—he could have fooled me that that was his belief. Nevertheless, he ignores the fact that public transport is good only because of a basket of schemes enhancing public transport's priority on the road.
        Mr. Ottaway: I cannot let the Minister get away with saying that I am anti-pedestrian. The point—which I went to great lengths to make—is that there has to be a balance between the needs of pedestrians and of motorists. I also

        1025
        questioned whether the Government had struck the balance right. That certainly does not mean that I am anti-pedestrian.
        Ms Jackson: The hon. Gentleman certainly implied that he was anti-pedestrian. He was much exercised by the introduction of pedestrian crossings in a road in his constituency. Moreover, his main concern about the crossings was not safety or the fact that they did not improve access to either side of the road for pedestrians, but that cars had to wait in queues for pedestrians to cross.
        Roads are surely not the exclusive preserve of the users of one form of transport, and they certainly are not paid for by users of one form of transport. Surely pedestrians and cyclists, and certainly public transport, have a right to their fair share of our roads and of road use. Ever since the Government entered office, we have been prioritising the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport.
        The hon. Member for Croydon, South also expressed concern about the possibility of congestion charging leading to—I paraphrase—a "beggar my neighbour" policy. He gave the example of Bluewater, which he said is having an effect on a town centre in his constituency. Bluewater—which was given planning permission by the previous Administration—underlines the absolute necessity of co-ordinating planning and transport decisions. We have introduced a requirement for those decisions to be co-ordinated. We simply cannot create good transport infrastructures without considering land use and land use planning issues.
        In his speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) expressed his concern about those issues. Precisely to address those issues, the Government have made it abundantly clear that there must be co-ordination in any such schemes, and that such schemes must work within an over-arching mayoral strategy. There would be no virtue or value if the introduction of such schemes turned city centres into ghost towns. We are concerned with the revitalisation of our urban centres, and one of the ways of achieving that objective is to make our urban centres pleasant places in which to work, shop, walk and live. We therefore have to reduce not only traffic congestion on our streets, but the noise and environmental pollution that go with that congestion.
        I should say again—just so that there is absolutely no doubt about the issue—that the modelling for the public-private partnership for London Underground is not dependent on revenue from road user charges or the workplace parking levy.
        As I said, I regret that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire has left the Chamber. I was somewhat bemused by his expression of concern for the poor, the disabled and the elderly. When the Conservative party was in government, those sections of our society seemed to have totally disappeared from Conservative party thinking. He also complained about increased fuel duty as it affected his constituency, again neglecting to point out that that policy was introduced by the previous Government.
        The hon. Member also expressed some concern about protecting London. Again, however, a previous Conservative Administration abolished the GLC, thereby denying a democratic voice to the people of London. I shall not go into the details of the inordinate damage that Conservative Administrations have inflicted on Londoners—by taking away housing, jobs and many social services.
        1026
        The provisions in schedules 18 and 19 will ensure that the schemes that I have been describing may be introduced quickly and operate effectively and equitably. However, I repeat that they are enabling powers, and that it will be for the mayor and the boroughs to decide whether to make use of the charging powers provided by the Bill.
        I have already touched on the issue of what I perceive to be the official Opposition's U-turn on the issue, by seeking to deprive the mayor and the boroughs of the option of introducing a road charging scheme. However, as I said, I appreciate from the remarks in Committee of the hon. Member for Croydon, South that he perceives Conservative party policy as in principle favouring introducing such charges—but only nationally and not in London. He did not afford any evidence that, should they be introduced, our hypothecation of any such revenue raised would become part of Conservative policy.
        Evidence shows that road user charging and a levy on workplace parking are able to help to tackle the problems of congestion and pollution. Clearly, less congestion means faster, more reliable journey times, and that will benefit businesses, motorists and the capital's bus users. It will make the streets more pleasant for pedestrians and residents, and make our city more attractive to tourists.
        New charges will also generate a revenue stream. As I have already made clear, all such schemes introduced by the mayor or boroughs within the GLA's first 10 years will retain every penny of the proceeds for transport expenditure. We shall review the arrangements 10 years after establishment of the GLA.
        As I said, we do not share the view of the Liberal Democrats that hypothecation of charging revenues should continue indefinitely, as they might not provide value for money in the long term.
        I have also touched on the issue of requiring separate accounts to be maintained and published for each charging scheme, guaranteeing transparency and demonstrating to Londoners that the revenues generated by new charges are additional moneys for transport expenditure.
        The Government have made it clear that schemes may be introduced if they directly or indirectly help to deliver the objectives in the mayor's transport strategy. The requirements for the Secretary of State to make regulations covering various aspects of the schemes' operation have been reduced.
        We have also given the mayor the opportunity of specifying which aspects of the charging schemes, if any, he or she would wish formally to approve as schemes are developed. That will help to ensure consistency across schemes when the mayor considers that to be necessary, and allow charging authorities the freedom to take decisions on other issues.
        I have given only a brief overview of the key changes made to the Bill in Committee. As I said, the Government believe that the Bill's enabling powers are greatly important and must be available to the mayor and the assembly, to ensure that improvements not only in London's public transport but in London's environment may be made.
        The Bill's provisions will provide the mayor and boroughs with powers to make a real difference in tackling London's serious traffic problems. Clauses 222 and 223 will, as I said, empower the mayor and borough

        1027
        to introduce road user and workplace parking charging schemes. The provisions of schedules 18 and 19 will ensure that schemes may be introduced quickly and operate effectively and equitably.
        A world-class city requires a world-class transport system. It is therefore only right that London's mayor and boroughs should have the powers that they need to help them to deliver that goal for Londoners.
        8.30 pm
        It was heartening to hear the support expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Brent, East, for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) and for Eltham. They each adopted a reasoned and thoughtful approach—cautious in some instances. Like the Government, they understand that the introduction of congestion charging or levies will need the consent of the people of London. It would not be possible for the debate to begin if the mayor and the boroughs were denied the powers that we have ensured will be enshrined in the Bill—powers that we believe will give Londoners the benefits and improvements in quality of life in this great city that we are committed to ensuring.
        Mr. Flight: Like many Conservatives, I have been attracted by the concept of road pricing and the market principles that lie behind it, but the Government are profoundly mistaken if they sincerely believe that it will achieve the two objectives that they claim. Like the taxation of petrol, if it is to have any effect on usage, the charge will have to be very substantial. That would bear hardest on those in the middle of society and those for whom marginal expenditure is meaningful—often those bringing up children and paying mortgages.
        My views against the principle were particularly shaped when I read a fascinating account of the early days of the London county council at the beginning of this century. It was a huge relief to Londoners when the LCC came in and swept away the various transport charges such as bridge tolls that were causing delays and congestion. I wonder about the practicalities of how the charges will work. Are they not likely to cause congestion? What is the position of someone who lives on the borders of London? What will the arrangements be for checking and presumably fining people if they have not paid their tax?
        I have lived in London for 25 years. The hassle that Londoners have to go through to get a resident's parking permit is irritating, involving taking a form to their employer and getting him to sign and stamp it to confirm that they work for that firm. I suppose that we are now going to have another round of such bureaucratic hassle. I confess that I have driven to and from my workplace since I have lived in London, largely because I have worked late hours. The congestion seems to me to be less than it was 20 years ago. The main cause of that improvement is the building of the M25, which has taken a massive pressure of through traffic off London. It is naive to think that waving our fingers to promote public transport and a congestion charge will be a realistic answer to the problem.
        The objective is clearly to raise money. The idea has nothing to do with reducing traffic in London. It would be politically impossible to think of anyone levying a charge high enough to discourage car usage. We are
        1028
        talking about yet another stealth tax. If the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) believes that the measure will be popular with Londoners, he is greatly mistaken. If he fancies his chances of being mayor of London, he will have to change his tune.
        Mr. Paul Burstow: The debate has been illuminating, giving us further confirmation of the Conservatives' emerging transport policy. We have learned that their candidate is to enter the mayoral elections with his hands tied in debates about road charges and the workplace levy. That makes it difficult for the Conservatives, to set out transport policies for the benefit of Londoners. It may explain why Steven Norris is at least beginning to consider the possibility of standing not as a Conservative but under an independent banner. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) has rightly said, during his time as a Minister and after leaving ministerial office, Mr. Norris was only too willing to acknowledge the fact that workplace charges were essential to deal with some of the fundamental problems of traffic and transportation in Greater London.
        We have learned from the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), as he gropes his way towards a new transport policy for the Conservatives, that their ideas involve ripping out pedestrian crossings, removing traffic calming measures and getting cars to go faster on almost every road. It will be interesting to debate those policies during the election campaign next year.
        Mr. Ottaway: Our policy is not to rip out pedestrian crossings.
        Mr. Burstow: I am delighted to issue the press release confirming that tonight we have managed to persuade the Conservative party to turn away from the crazy policy of which we heard earlier in the debate.
        The hon. Member for Croydon, South is right to say that road pricing and workplace charges are not a panacea. They are not the be all and end all of a debate on transport policy. He was right to draw attention to the need to recognise that there should be more investment in clean vehicle technology. I should like to draw the attention of the House to work that is being done in London, led by my local authority in Sutton, in pioneering the Zeus project on the development of low and nil-emission technology, in partnership with Southwark, Merton and other local authorities throughout the country. They are liaising with European partners to work alongside the manufacturing industries that provide our motor vehicles to ensure that they bring forward plans from their drawing boards and put them in the marketplace. That is happening. We are grateful for the support that we have had from the Government, but we wish that they could give a little more leadership by investing the public money for which they are responsible in such vehicles and so setting an example.
        The Conservatives have tied the hands of their candidate, but Labour is effectively doing the same thing because of the way in which the Government are setting up the two potential sources of revenue.
        It is clear that the Government have not addressed hypothecation, or the permanence of the scheme. I listened closely to the Minister, and I shall address some

        1029
        of her comments. Reference has been made to the report of the Transport Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, and the three key issues identified in the report—hypothecation, permanence and additionality.
        The Minister claims that there is 100 per cent. certainty that 100 per cent. of the net proceeds of the initial schemes will go into transport schemes in London. However, we are then told that hypothecation may continue into the future for specific schemes. The Minister has again rejected the idea that we should have the permanent hypothecation of resources, arguing that that would be gold-plating London Transport. Anyone outside this House who heard the argument that if a scheme went on for over 10 years, with the hypothecation of the revenue streams from the two sources of charging, we would be in danger of gold-plating the transport system would wonder where the Minister has been.
        Ms Jackson: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not what I said. I referred to the extension of the initial 10-year period, for example, for schemes such as a private finance initiative which would clearly run on for longer than 10 years. Such examples are included in the Bill, and will be entirely feasible. He is misinterpreting the review which will take place after the first 10 years of a running scheme. That does not mean automatically that hypothecation will end.
        I have pointed out one scenario where hypothecation would, of necessity, have to continue, and I can think of many others. 1 did not say—I am clear that the hon. Gentleman does not think for one moment that I did—that, after 10 years, any form of transport in London would be gold-plated. The Liberal Democrats' argument for permanent hypothecation will not deliver the best possible value with the funds raised, and will not deliver the best possible public transport.
        Mr. Burstow: I am pleased that the Minister has acknowledged that, after 10 years, our transport system will not be gold-plated by this Government. Undoubtedly, the Government are not putting in adequate resources to deliver that. Having said that, the key point is that if we are to persuade Londoners that the permissive powers to be granted to the mayor are to be invoked and used for the good of Londoners, we need to be able to say that the money that Londoners will pay will go back to the benefit of Londoners and London Transport. The Government are not prepared to accept that.
        Ms Jackson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will apologise to the House for misleading it in that way. The Government have made it abundantly clear that 100 per cent. of the net proceeds raised will be spent only on the improvement of transport in London.
        Mr. Burstow: For 10 years—that is the key point, to which the Minister did not refer.
        Ms Jackson: I did not refer to that because I had just, in some detail, evinced to him the realities of what he sees as the 10-year bar less than a minute ago. As he is clearly having difficulty in retaining the information, I will give it again. There will be a review after the first 10 years. That review does not automatically mean the closure of hypothecation. I have given one instance where there
        1030
        would be a clear need for an extension way beyond the initial 10-year scheme. That is my point. We do not accept the Liberal Democrats' argument for permanent hypothecation for the reasons that I have, on more than one occasion, given to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.
        Mr. Burstow: The problem is that the Minister acknowledged earlier that she could not give commitments as to the level of public expenditure to be committed to London Transport over the next 10 years, or any other period. That is why we believe fundamentally that the Government's weasel words on additionality have nothing to do with additionality. The separate accounts to which the Minister referred do not give Londoners any form of guarantee that the revenue streams that the charges will produce will give additional funds for the benefit of London Transport.
        Ms Jackson: Given the company he keeps, the hon. Gentleman clearly knows a great deal more about weasel words than I will ever know. The Bill states that the revenues will be additional by virtue of the requirement for separate revenue accounts and income and expenditure accounts, which must be published annually. My point was that I could not guarantee any budget; nor, in the unlikely event of the hon. Gentleman ever being in a Government position, could he. I can assure him of the Government's commitment to local public transport, by virtue of the additional £1.8 million that we have invested.
        Mr. Burstow: The Minister is charm itself, and she makes my point for me yet again. She makes it clear that she cannot give a commitment tonight that is essential, in terms of a debate about charges in the elections next year, to give Londoners confidence that they are voting for something that will benefit them and not the Treasury, which undoubtedly has the Minister in an arm-lock and is denying her the ability to give the guarantee this evening.
        Ms Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? [Interruption.]
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. It is entirely up to the hon. Gentleman whether he gives way.
        Mr. Burstow: I happily give way to the Minister again.
        Ms Jackson: I am grateful. I repeat: we have made it clear that the Government have broken the wall of hypothecation, which was an absolute no-no as far as previous Treasuries were concerned. That is another indication of our unified, linked-up government, inasmuch as we have achieved a clear commitment that 100 per cent. of the net proceeds of the revenues raised will be spent exclusively and totally on transport. Those proceeds will not be diverted into the Treasury—not only in London but in the rest of the United Kingdom-when, as we hope, the schemes are introduced post-legislation.
        8.45 pm
        Mr. Burstow: The Minister may be right in saying that hypothecation has had one of the arms that was held behind its back released, but the Treasury still firmly grips the other when it comes to budgetary matters. The hon. Lady has not persuaded me or my colleagues that she has been able to convince the Treasury on that point.
        The Government will produce a sterile debate about road charging in London because they are not setting up a scheme that will give confidence to Londoners. That is one of our major criticisms of the policy, but we believe that the provisions are needed and we support the permissive powers that they grant. We want the debate to take place because we believe that, ultimately, with the caveats that we have set out, we need the charges to generate the revenues that the mayor will need to deliver real improvements for London in the long term.
        Mr. Simon Hughes: New clause 6 suggests a third revenue stream, which it calls a "traffic disruption charge". Some wonderful true stories have appeared in the London press over the past year. On 22 February, the Evening Standard carried a story,
        "Same road dug up each week for a year".
        One of my local authority chiefs complained that Southwark Bridge road in my constituency had been visited 30 times by BT alone, with workmen arriving 75 times, in the past 12 months. That was not as bad as a street in Camden that had been disrupted by the utilities 85 times in the previous year.
        Without much notice, the Royal Parks decided to close the Mall, effectively blocking all central London's traffic for a few weeks at the turn of the year. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) introduced a private Member's Bill on the subject earlier in the year, perhaps because of his earlier incarnation as the unsuccessful candidate for Peckham, where I believe he got about 5 per cent. of the vote. The experience may have left a searing impression on him about traffic in London. I welcome his Bill. Lord Archer has also seen that there may be cause for complaint.
        If we are seriously looking for revenue streams to help to fund public transport in a way that is ring-fenced, as my hon. Friends have so painstakingly argued, in addition to giving the mayor and the authority the option of workplace and road user charging—which we support—we should consider so arranging matters that, when an agreed contract for digging up the road has been breached, somebody should pay something into the London kitty for the disruption caused.
        The Government may not have seriously considered that.
        Ms Glenda Jackson: We have.
        Mr. Hughes: As far as I know, the Minister has not yet put it on the record whether the Government are for or against the idea. I am not pressing her for an answer now, but I hope that, when the Bill goes to the other place, the Government will seriously consider introducing that third revenue stream. If we are looking for money for London, that seems an obvious source, and it will be extremely popular with Londoners.
        Mr. Davey: My hon. Friend is making a refreshingly different speech. Perhaps it should be known as the Heineken traffic disruption charge speech?
        Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend nearly got his joke in.
        1032
        I hope that my proposal will be taken seriously. It would probably be more popular than the others. I hope that, in due course, not only will London government have the ability to raise revenue as it chooses, but the Government will not interfere in such revenue once it has been raised.
        Mr. Ottaway: It is not often that I find common cause with the Minister, but I sensed her frustration when the Liberals were misinterpreting the Government's policy, just as they do my party's policy, which frustrates me.
        As this debate has gone on, I have detected a certain frisson in the Chamber. It is beginning to dawn on Members that the Conservatives are right on this matter, and that the other parties are wrong. It is beginning to dawn on people that the Government's policy will not work. It will hit people hard, as my hon. Friends the Members for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) have pointed out. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are not London Members."] It is a perfectly valid point, no matter where the hon. Members come from.
        I also note a willingness among all Members who are not Conservatives to try to put an interpretation on Conservative party policy, so I shall clarify it. The Minister has chosen to misinterpret our policies possibly because I left a slither of a vacuum in them, which I shall now promptly fill. I should make it absolutely clear that we are opposed to congestion taxation in London. I stand by what we said in Committee: we still have an open mind on congestion taxation in the rest of the United Kingdom. That was and remains our position.
        The Minister said that she was unable to give an undertaking on the question of additionality because she could not possibly decide the budget for years to come. That is exactly the point that we have been making. It is impossible to give an undertaking on additionality, which is why it will be impossible for the Government to persuade anybody that such additionality will occur.
        Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Ottaway: No, not at the moment.
        The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said that the Government must make their case before they are able to support congestion charging. I do not think that they have made that case. We therefore hope that the Liberal Democrats will join us in the Lobby.
        The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) spoke about out-of-town centres such as Bluewater, as, indeed, did the Minister. The hon. Gentleman said that he was against out-of-town centres where there was free parking. From that, I presume that he is advocating that such centres should have paid parking. The Minister chose to misinterpret my point about Croydon on that issue. Road pricing is being proposed in Croydon. Why should any shopper choose to pay to go to Croydon when they can go to Bluewater out-of-town retail development and park for nothing? That is the impact that the proposals will have on local economies in London. The Minister has made the case neither for additionality nor for hypothecation. Nor has she addressed the 10-year cut off for hypothecation.

        1033
        The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) supported congestion charging; it was the first time that I have heard him do so. I suppose that the waiting electorate will digest that development. He said that he thought that people would welcome a little extra for the funding of transport in London, but unless the Minister can assure him on additionality, there will not be any little extra. That is the difficulty.
        Mr. Livingstone: I trust my colleagues.
        Mr. Ottaway: That sounds like a man who is still desperate to be selected as a candidate.
        The Minister has failed to persuade us that the proposal will do anything to solve the problems of congestion in London. In fact, it is a stealth tax—a tax by the back door. The issues of pollution can be tackled without the introduction of a congestion charge. Under the circumstances, we shall press the amendment to a Division.
        Question put, That the amendment be made:—
        The House divided: Ayes 97, Noes 265.

        Division No. 166]

        [8.55 pm

        AYES

        Amess, David

        Hammond, Philip

        Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

        Heald, Oliver

        Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

        Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

        Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

        Horam, John

        Baldry, Tony

        Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

        Beggs, Roy

        Hunter, Andrew

        Bercow, John

        Jack, Rt Hon Michael

        Boswell, Tim

        Jenkin, Bernard

        Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

        Key, Robert

        Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

        Lansley, Andrew

        Brady, Graham

        Leigh, Edward

        Brazier, Julian

        Lidington, David

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Lilley, Rt Hon peter

        Browning, Mrs Angela

        Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

        Burns, Simon

        Loughton, Tim

        Butterfill, John

        MacGregor, Rt Hon John

        Chapman, Sir Sydney

        McIntosh, Miss Anne

        (Chipping Barnet)

        MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

        Chope, Christopher

        Maclean, Rt Hon David

        Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        (Rushcliffe)

        Malins, Humfrey

        Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

        May, Mrs Theresa

        Collins, Tim

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Colvin, Michael

        Ottaway, Richard

        Cran, James

        Page, Richard

        Curry, Rt Hon David

        Paterson, Ownen

        Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

        Randall, John

        Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice

        Redwood, Rt Hon John

        & Howden)

        Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

        Day, Stephen

        Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

        Duncan, Alan

        Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

        Duncan Smith, Iain

        St Aubyn, Nick

        Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Evans, Nigel

        Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

        Fabricant, Michael

        Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

        Fallon, Michael

        Stantley, Rt Hon sir John

        Flight, Howard

        Swayne, Desmond

        Forth, Rt Hon Eric

        Syms, Robert

        Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

        Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

        Fraser, Christopher

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Garnier, Edward

        Taylor, Sir Teddy

        Gibb, Nick

        Trend, Michael

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Viggers, Peter

        Gray, James

        Walter, Robert

        Green, Damian

        Waterson, Nigel

        Grieve, Dominic

        Whitney, Sir Raymond

        Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

        Whittingdale, John

        1034

        Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

        Young, Rt Hon Sir George

        Wilkinson, John

        Wilshire, David

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

        Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

        Woodward, Shaun

        Sir David Madel.

        NOES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

        Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

        Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

        Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

        Dawson, Hilton

        Allen, Graham

        Dean, Mrs Janet

        Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

        Denham, John

        Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

        Dismore, Andrew

        Ashton, Joe

        Donohoe, Brian H

        Atkins, Charlotte

        Dowd, Jim

        Austin, John

        Drew, David

        Barnes, Harry

        Drown, Ms Julia

        Barron, Kevin

        Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

        Battle, John

        Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

        Bayley, Hugh

        Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

        Beard, Nigel

        Edwards, Huw

        Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

        Efford, Clive

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Ennis, Jeff

        Bennett, Andrew F

        Field, Rt Hon Frank

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Fisher, Mark

        Berry, Roger

        Fitzpatrick, Jim

        Best, Harold

        Flint, Caroline

        Betts, Clive

        Flynn, paul

        Blackman, Liz

        Follett, Barbara

        Blears, Ms Hazel

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        Blizzard, Bob

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        Boateng, Paul

        Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

        Bradley, Keith (Withington)

        Foulkes, George

        Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

        Gapes, Mike

        Brake, Tom

        Gardiner, Barry

        Breed, Colin

        George, Bruce (Walsall S)

        Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

        Gerrard, Neil

        Buck, Ms Karen

        Gibson, Dr Ian

        Burden, Richard

        Gilroy, Mrs Linda

        Burgon, Colin

        Godsiff, Roger

        Burstow, Paul

        Goggins, paul

        Butler, Mrs Christine

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

        Gordon, Mrs Eileen

        Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

        Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

        Campbell-Savours, Dale

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Cann, Jamie

        Grocott, Bruce

        Caplin, Ivor

        Grogan, John

        Casale, Roger

        Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

        Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

        Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

        Chaytor, David

        Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

        Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

        Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

        Clark, Dr Lynda

        Heal, Mrs Sylvia

        (Edinburgh Pentlands)

        Healey, John

        Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

        Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

        Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

        Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

        Clwyd, Ann

        Hepburn, Stephen

        Coaker, Vernon

        Heppell, John

        Coffey, Ms Ann

        Hesford, Stephen

        Cohen, Harry

        Hewitt, Ms Patricia

        Colman, Tony

        Hinchliffe, David

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Hodge, Ms Margaret

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Hoey, Kate

        Corston, Ms Jean

        Hoon, Geoffrey

        Cousins, Jim

        Hope, Phil

        Cranston, Ross

        Hope, Phil

        Crausby, David

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

        Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

        Hurst, Alan

        Dalyell, Tam

        Hutton, John

        Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

        Iddon, Dr Brian

        Darvill, Keith

        Illsley, Eric

        Davey, Edward (Kingston)

        Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

        Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

        Jamieson, David

        Davidson, Ian

        Jenkins, Brian

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

        1035

        Johnson, Miss Melanie

        Prosser, Gwyn

        (Welwyn Hatfield)

        Purchase, Ken

        Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

        Rammell, Bill

        Jones, Ms Jenny

        Rapson, Syd

        (Wolverh'ton SW)

        Raynsford, Nick

        Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

        Robertson, Rt Hon George

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        (Hamilton S)

        Keeble, Ms Sally

        Roche, Mrs Barbara

        Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

        Rowlands, Ted

        Kemp, Fraser

        Roy, Frank

        Khabra, Piara S

        Ruddock, Joan

        King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

        Russell, Bob (Colchester)

        King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

        Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

        Kingham, Ms Tess

        Ryan, Ms Joan

        Kumar, Dr Ashok

        Sanders, Adrian

        Laxton, Bob

        Savidge, Malcolm

        Levitt, Tom

        Sawford, Phil

        Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

        Sheerman, Barry

        Linton, Martin

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Livingstone, Ken

        Singh, Marsha

        Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

        Skinner, Dennis

        Lock, David

        Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

        Love, Andrew

        Smith, Miss Geraldine

        McAvoy, Thomas

        (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

        McCafferty, Ms Chris

        Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

        McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

        Snape, Peter

        (Makerfield)

        Soley, Clive

        McDonagh, Siobhain

        Southworth, Ms Helen

        McDonnell, John

        Spellar, John

        McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

        Squire, Ms Rachel

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Starkey, Dr Phyllis

        McNulty, Tony

        Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

        MacShane, Denis

        Stoate, Dr Howard

        Mactaggart, Fiona

        Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

        McWalter, Tony

        Stringer, Graham

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Sutcliffe, Gerry

        Mallaber, Judy

        Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

        Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

        (Dewsbury)

        Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Timms, Stephen

        Meale, Alan

        Tipping, Paddy

        Merron, Gillian

        Todd, Mark

        Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

        Tonge, Dr Jenny

        Miller, Andrew

        Trickett, Jon

        Mitchell, Austin

        Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

        Moffatt, Laura

        TWigg, Derek (Halton)

        Moran, Ms Margaret

        Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

        Morley, Elliot

        Vis, Dr Rudi

        Mountford, Kali

        Ward, Ms Claire

        Mullin, Chris

        Wareing, Robert N

        O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

        Watts, David

        O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

        White, Brian

        Olner, Bill

        Whitehead, Dr Alan

        Palmer, Dr Nick

        Wicks, Malcolm

        Pearson, Ian

        Wills, Michael

        Perham, Ms Linda

        Winnick, David

        Pickthall, Colin

        Wise Audrey

        Pike, Peter L

        Wood, Mike

        Plaskitt, James

        Wray, James

        Pollard, Kerry

        Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

        Pond, Chris

        Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

        Pope, Greg

        Pound, Stephen

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

        Jane Kennedy and

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Mr.Keith Hill.

        Question accordingly negatived.
        It being after Nine o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

      Schedule 18

        ROAD USER CHARGING
        Amendments made: No. 140, in page 233, line 31, at end insert—
        '(1A) Any charge imposed by a charging scheme in respect of the keeping of a motor vehicle on a road in a charging area must also have effect in respect of the use of the motor vehicle in that charging area.'.
        No. 141, in page 235, line 5, leave out 'four' and insert 'ten'.
        No. 142, in page 238, line 23, at end insert—
        '4 year programmes: amendment, replacement and voluntary
        statements
        23A.—(1) Where a statement has been prepared and approved under paragraph 20 or 22 above, the authority which prepared the statement may—

        (a) amend the statement, or

        (b) replace it with another statement (a "replacement statement"),
        but subject to the following provisions of this paragraph.

        (2) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, where a charging scheme is in force—

        (a) the charging authority may prepare a statement such as is described in paragraph 20(1) above, and

        (b) if the charging scheme is one to which paragraph 21 above applies, the Authority may prepare a statement such as is described in paragraph 22(2) above,

        at any time before the beginning of the first financial year for which a statement under paragraph 20 or, as the case may be, paragraph 22 above is required to be prepared in respect of the scheme.
        (3) For the purposes of this paragraph—

        (a) a "voluntary statement" is a statement prepared under sub-paragraph (2)(a) or (b) above,

        (b) a statement prepared under sub-paragraph (2)(a) above shall be treated as a statement prepared under paragraph 20 above and, if approved in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph, as approved under that paragraph, and

        (c) a statement prepared under sub-paragraph (2)(b) above shall be treated as a statement prepared under paragraph 22 above and, if approved in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph, as approved under that paragraph,

        and references to statements under paragraph 20 or 22 above shall be construed accordingly.
        (4) The power conferred by sub-paragraph (1)(b) or (2) above is exercisable—

        (a) in the case of a statement under paragraph 20 above in respect of a borough scheme, during the period of six months beginning with the day on which a change of control of the London borough council concerned occurs; or

        (b) in any other case, during the period of six months beginning with the term of office of any person returned as the Mayor at an ordinary election or at an election under section 16 of this Act.

        (5) Where, in exercise of the powers conferred by this paragraph, an authority proposes—

        (a) to amend or replace a statement prepared and approved under paragraph 20 or 22 above, or

        (b) to prepare a voluntary statement,

        sub-paragraph (6) below applies.
        (6) Where this sub-paragraph applies, the amendment, replacement statement or voluntary statement must be submitted for approval—

        (a) to the Secretary of State; and

        (b) if the statement concerned or affected is one prepared in respect of a borough scheme by the charging authority, to the Authority.

        (7) Where sub-paragraph (6)(b) above applies, any submission to the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (6)(a) above may only be made—

        (a) by the Authority acting on behalf of the charging authority concerned; and

        (b) after the giving by the Authority of the approval required by sub-paragraph (6)(b) above.

        (8) Where a statement prepared and approved under paragraph 20 or 22 above is amended in accordance with this paragraph, the statement shall continue to be regarded for the purposes of this Schedule as a statement so prepared and approved, notwithstanding the amendment.
        (9) A replacement statement or a voluntary statement must relate to the four financial years beginning with the financial year in which it takes effect (disregarding so much of that year as has expired before the statement takes effect).
        (10) A replacement statement or voluntary statement prepared and approved under this paragraph shall be taken for the purposes of this Schedule to be a statement prepared and approved—

        (a) under paragraph 20 above, if it was prepared in respect of a charging scheme by the charging authority; or

        (b) under paragraph 22 above, if it was prepared by the Authority.

        (11) Where a voluntary statement or replacement statement prepared by an authority takes effect, the time at which any subsequent statement is required to be prepared by that authority by virtue of paragraph 20 or 22 above in respect of the charging scheme in question shall be determined as if the financial year preceding that in which the replacement statement or voluntary statement takes effect had been such a fourth year as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph.'. — [Mr. Dowd.]

      Schedule 19

        WORKPLACE PARKING LEVY
        Amendments made: No. 143, in page 246, line 48, leave out 'four' and insert 'ten'.
        No. 144, in page 250, line 17, at end insert—
        '4 year programmes: amendment, replacement and voluntary statements
        29A. —(1) Where a statement has been prepared and approved under paragraph 26 or 28 above, the authority which prepared the statement may

        (a) amend the statement, or

        (b) replace it with another statement (a "replacement statement"),

        but subject to the following provisions of this paragraph.
        (2) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, where a licensing scheme is in force—

        (a) the licensing authority may prepare a statement such as is described in paragraph 26(1) above, and

        (b) if the licensing scheme is one to which paragraph 27 above applies, the Authority may prepare a statement such as is described in paragraph 28(2) above,

        at any time before the beginning of the first financial year for which a statement under paragraph 26 or, as the case may be, paragraph 28 above is required to be prepared in respect of the scheme.
        (3) For the purposes of this paragraph—

        (a) a "voluntary statement" is a statement prepared under sub-paragraph (2)(a) or (b) above,

        1038

        (b) a statement prepared under sub-paragraph (2)(a) above shall be treated as a statement prepared under paragraph 26 above and, if approved in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph, as approved under that paragraph, and

        (c) a statement prepared under sub-paragraph (2)(b) above shall be treated as a statement prepared under paragraph 28 above and, if approved in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph, as approved under that paragraph,

        and references to statements under paragraph 26 or 28 above shall be construed accordingly.
        (4) The power conferred by sub-paragraph (1)(b) or (2) above is exercisable—

        (a) in the case of a statement under paragraph 26 above in respect of a borough scheme, during the period of six months beginning with the day on which a change of control of the London borough council concerned occurs; or

        (b) in any other case, during the period of six months beginning with the term of office of any person returned as the Mayor at an ordinary election or at an election under section 16 of this Act.

        (5) Where, in exercise of the powers conferred by this paragraph, an authority proposes—

        (a) to amend or replace a statement prepared and approved under paragraph 26 or 28 above, or

        (b) to prepare a voluntary statement,

        sub-paragraph (6) below applies.
        (6) Where this sub-paragraph applies, the amendment, replacement statement or voluntary statement must be submitted for approval—

        (a) to the Secretary of State; and

        (b) if the statement concerned or affected is one prepared in respect of a borough scheme by the licensing authority, to the Authority.

        (7) Where sub-paragraph (6)(b) above applies, any submission to the Secretary of State under sub-paragraph (6)(a) above may only be made—

        (a) by the Authority acting on behalf of the licensing authority concerned; and

        (b) after the giving by the Authority of the approval required by sub-paragraph (6)(b) above.

        (8) Where a statement prepared and approved under paragraph 26 or 28 above is amended in accordance with this paragraph, the statement shall continue to be regarded for the purposes of this Schedule as a statement so prepared and approved, notwithstanding the amendment.
        (9) A replacement statement or a voluntary statement must relate to the four financial years beginning with the financial year in which it takes effect (disregarding so much of that year as has expired before the statement takes effect).
        (10) A replacement statement or voluntary statement prepared and approved under this paragraph shall be taken for the purposes of this Schedule to be a statement prepared and approved—

        (a) under paragraph 26 above, if it was prepared in respect of a licensing scheme by the licensing authority; or

        (b) under paragraph 28 above, if it was prepared by the Authority.

        (11) Where a voluntary statement or replacement statement prepared by an authority takes effect, the time at which any subsequent statement is required to be prepared by that authority by virtue of paragraph 26 or 28 above in respect of the licensing scheme in question shall be determined as if the financial year preceding that in which the replacement statement or voluntary statement takes effect had been such a fourth year as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (I) of that paragraph.'. — [Mr. Dowd.]

      Clause 301

        REGULATIONS AND ORDERS
        Amendments made: No. 126, in page 157, line 21, leave out '27 & and insert
        '(Limits of the general power)'.
        No. 138, in page 157, line 21, leave out from 'above' to end of line 22.
        No. 145, in page 157, line 27, after 'paragraph' insert `4 or'.
        No. 100, in page 158, line 5, leave out 'or (2)'.
        No. 101, in page 158, line 5, at end insert 'or (5)'.
        No. 109, in page 158, leave out line 11.
        No. 110, in page 158, line 11, at end insert—
        `section (Transitional and consequential provision);'.
        No. 111, in page 158, line 11, at end insert—
        `section (Transfers of property, rights or liabilities);'.
        No. 112, in page 158, line 11, at end insert—
        `section (Pensions);'.
        No. 113, in page 158, line 11, at end insert—
        'section (Transfer and pension instruments: common provisions);'. — [Mr. Dowd.]

      Schedule 26

        ENACTMENTS REPEALED
        Amendment made: No. 150, in page 302, line 45, column 3, at beginning insert
        `In section 1(3), the words "but excluding any part of it within the metropolitan police district".'. —[Mr. Dowd.]

      Clause 305

        INTERPRETATION
        Amendments made: No. 127, in page 159, line 9, at end insert—
        '"national policies" means any policies of Her Majesty's government which are available in a written form and which—

        (a) have been laid or announced before, or otherwise presented to, either House of Parliament; or

        (b) have been published by a Minister of the Crown;'.

        No. 128, in page 159, line 15, at end insert—
        ' "principal purposes", in relation to the Authority, shall be construed in accordance with section (The general power of the Authority)(2) above;'.
        No. 114, in page 159, line 34, at end insert—
        '(4) Any power conferred by this Act to affect enactments by subordinate legislation is exercisable notwithstanding that those enactments consist of or include—

        (a) provisions contained in Part III above;

        (b) provisions relating to the subject matter of that Part; or

        (c) provisions creating or otherwise relating to offences.

        (5) In subsection (4) above "affect", in relation to any enactment, includes make—

        (a) incidental, consequential, transitional, supplemental or supplementary provision or savings; or

        (b) amendments, modifications or adaptations.'. — [Mr. Dowd.]

      New Clause 16

        TRANSFERS OF LRT's PROPERTY ETC TO TRANSPORT FOR LONDON
        '.— (1) The Secretary of State shall from time to time prepare programmes for the transfer to Transport for London of property, rights and liabilities of London Regional Transport—

        (a) for the purpose of enabling Transport for London to perform its functions as they become exercisable; or

        (b) in preparation for the dissolution of London Regional Transport;

        and in this Chapter "transfer programme" means a programme under this subsection.
        (2) Any powers conferred by Part XII below are exercisable for the purpose of implementing any transfer programme.
        (3) A transfer programme may include plans relating to—

        (a) the transfer of rights and liabilities under contracts of employment;

        (b) the provision of pensions, within the meaning of section (Pensions) below;

        (c) the apportionment of any property, rights or liabilities;

        (d) the creation of rights or liabilities;

        (e) the transfer of statutory functions;

        (f) the exercise of any other powers under Part XII below.

        (4) A transfer programme may provide for different property, rights or liabilities to be transferred on different days.
        (5) To the extent that a transfer programme has not been implemented, it may be varied or replaced by another such programme.'. —[Mr. Dowd.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 17

        FUNCTIONS DURING THE TRANSITION FROM LRT TO TFL
        `.—(1) In this section "transitional purpose" means the purpose of—

        (a) facilitating the securing and carrying into effect of PPP agreements under Chapter VI above;

        (b) facilitating the transfer of property, rights or liabilities of London Regional Transport to Transport for London; or

        (c) securing that public passenger transport services continue to be provided without disruption.

        (2) London Regional Transport shall be under a duty, and shall be taken at any time before the coming into force of this section to have had power, to do all such things as it considers appropriate for any transitional purpose.
        (3) In discharging their functions during the transitional period it shall be the duty of—

        (a) the Mayor,

        (b) London Regional Transport, and

        (c) Transport for London,

        to consult and co-operate with each other for any transitional purpose.
        (4) The following provisions of this section have effect for the purpose of facilitating the discharge of the duty of co-operation imposed on London Regional Transport and Transport for London by subsection (3) above.
        (5) London Regional Transport and Transport for London shall each provide to the other such information as may reasonably be required by that other for the purpose of discharging any of its functions during the transitional period.

        1041
        (6) London Regional Transport and Transport for London shall each have power to enter into arrangements with the other—

        (a) for the provision by the one for the other of administrative, technical or professional services or of passenger transport services;

        (b) for the one to make available for use by the other, or for shared use by each of them, any land, equipment or other property;

        (c) for the one to place any of its officers or other members of staff at the disposal of the other, for the purposes of its functions;

        (d) for the discharge by the one of any functions of the other on its behalf.

        (7) Arrangements entered into under subsection (6) above may be on such terms as may be agreed between London Regional Transport and Transport for London.
        (8) Arrangements by virtue of paragraph (c) of subsection (6) above may only be entered into after consultation with the officers or members of staff concerned.
        (9) In this Chapter "the transitional period" means the period which—

        (a) begins with the coming into force of this section; and

        (b) ends on the day on which London Regional Transport ceases to provide or secure the provision of public passenger transport services.'. — [Mr. Dowd.]

        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 18

        FARES ETC DURING THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD
        `.— (1) If provision is made under or by virtue of this Act which has the effect of applying to any extent in relation to London Regional Transport during the transitional period—

        (a) the powers conferred on the Mayor by section 134 above, and

        (b) the duty imposed on the Mayor by section 135 above,

        then the Mayor, in discharging that duty as so applied in relation to London Regional Transport, shall act in a way which he considers will not prejudice the financial or other interests of London Regional Transport, having regard to the financial and other interests of Transport for London.
        (2) If provision is made under or by virtue of this Act which has the effect of—

        (a) applying to any extent in relation to London Regional Transport during the transitional period any of the provisions contained in sections 187 to 190 above or Schedule 12 to this Act, and

        (b) authorising or requiring Transport for London during the transitional period to act on behalf of London Regional Transport for the purposes of any of those provisions as so applied,

        then Transport for London, in acting on behalf of London Regional Transport for those purposes, shall do so in a way which (having regard to its own financial and other interests) it considers will not prejudice the financial or other interests of London Regional Transport.'. — [Mr. Dowd.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 19

        CONTINUITY: REPEALED OR REVOKED FUNCTIONS OF LRT
        `.— (1) In this section—
        "abolished function" means any function of London Regional Transport which was conferred or imposed by a statutory provision which is repealed or revoked by or under this Act;
        1042
        "abolition", in relation to an abolished function, means the coming into force of the repeal or revocation of the provision conferring or imposing the function;
        "statutory provision" means an enactment contained in—

        (a) an Act passed before the date on which London Regional Transport is dissolved or in the Session in which that date falls; or

        (b) subordinate legislation made before that date or in that Session.

        (2) There may be continued by or in relation to Transport for London anything (including legal proceedings) which relates to an abolished function and is in the process of being done by or in relation to London Regional Transport immediately before the abolition of the function.
        (3) Anything which—

        (a) was made or done by London Regional Transport for the purposes of or in connection with an abolished function, and

        (b) is in effect immediately before the abolition of the function,

        shall have effect as if made or done by Transport for London.
        (4) Transport for London shall be substituted for London Regional Transport in any instruments, contracts or legal proceedings which relate to an abolished function and which were made or commenced before the abolition of the function.'. — [Mr. Dowd.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 20

        TRANSFER OF FORMER FUNCTIONS OF LONDON TRANSPORT EXECUTIVE
        `. Any functions of the London Transport Executive established under section 4 of the Transport (London) Act 1969 which, by virtue of section 67(1) of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 are exercisable by London Regional Transport, shall instead be exercisable by Transport for London.'. — [Mr. Dowd.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 21

        DISSOLUTION OF LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT
        `. When the Secretary of State is satisfied that provision has been made for the transfer of all property, rights and liabilities of London Regional Transport, he may by order provide for the dissolution of London Regional Transport.'. —[Mr. Dowd.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 22

        INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER XIV
        `.In this Chapter—
        "transfer programme" has the meaning given by section (Transfers of LRT's property etc to Transport for London)(1) above;
        "the transitional period" has the meaning given by section (Functions during the transition from LRT to TfL)(9) above.'. —[Mr. Dowd.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
        Order for Third Reading read. —[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
        Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time. — [Mr. Dowd.]
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must remind the House that Madam Speaker has selected the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
        9.8 pm
        Mr. Ottaway: 1 beg to move,
        That this House, whilst accepting the principle of a representative body to speak for London, declines to give a Third Reading to the Greater London Authority Bill because it provides for an Authority elected by proportional representation, which will lead to weak government and disproportionate influence of minority parties; because it introduces road user charging which will not solve the problems of congestion or pollution in London; and because it provides wholly unsatisfactory arrangements for the future of London Underground which will not receive the necessary funding or management under the Government's proposed Public Private Partnership, thus burdening Londoners with substantial levels of debt from the outset.
        The Conservatives make no apology for having scrapped the Greater London council—it was a bloated, inefficient and expensive organisation. However, we recognise that there is a case for a voice for London. We believe that the borough system has worked well for the past decade and argue that, working with the mayor of London, the boroughs have it within their grasp to become a more effective organisation. That would be to the benefit of the London boroughs and of London as a whole.
        The model enshrined in the Bill, however, does not hold much appeal for us. Our arguments that the assembly should comprise an assembly of borough representatives have been rejected and, as a result, we believe that the potential for conflict with the London boroughs is real, and we fear clashes reminiscent of the bad old days of the GLC. We also believe the method of election of both the mayor and the assembly to be flawed. The assembly is almost guaranteed to be hung, and all the inherent weaknesses of proportional representation will be on display.
        It is also arguable—in the light of the Government's confessed concerns about the potential rise of extremist parties in London—whether PR is the right method of election for London.
        Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman says that he believes that the Greater London Authority is almost bound to be hung. If by that he means that there is bound to be no majority for one party, and if it is the case that Londoners who vote do not by a majority vote for one party, does he not accept that the GLA would be more accurately representing Londoners if it represented them according to the share of the votes that they cast than by the result of a distorted figure that gives a minority a majority?
        Mr. Ottaway: Time does not permit a detailed analysis of electoral systems. The hon. Gentleman is going into old territory on proportional representation. The Conservative party thinks that PR gives disproportionate power to minority parties and that that will be to the detriment of the assembly.
        Before I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, I was questioning whether PR is the right method of election for London given the Government's professed concern about
        1044
        the potential rise of extremist parties in London. It is safe to say that it is not beyond the realms of possibility that a British National party candidate could be elected to the assembly. There is also a lack of checks and balances if the mayor loses the plot. The separation of powers between the executive and the assembly is unique to this country. Without the checks and balances of such democratic systems as exist in the United States, for example, the risk of disaster will always be round the corner.
        In the old Greater London council, the leader could be removed. In the House, the Prime Minister can be removed. The leader of any council in the country can be removed. However, in London, even if 5 million people signed a petition calling for the removal of the mayor, with a unanimous resolution of this House and the other place and a flock of psychiatrists in Harley street declaring the mayor to be insane, nothing could be done and he could continue in office if he so wished.
        London is to be used as a pilot scheme for extra taxation in the form of road user charging. Given that that is unlikely to have any effect upon congestion; given that most public transport systems in London are already saturated and could not cope if there were an exodus from the car; given that the stated aim of road user charging is to reduce the level of pollution, which it is unlikely to do; and given that ix is a tax by the back door, we believe that London is not the right place to introduce such a scheme, and we oppose it.
        Above all, the biggest disaster waiting to happen concerns London underground. The Government are busy negotiating a public-private partnership. They have little idea how it will end up, but they know that they will not have completed negotiations by the time the new authority starts work. The Government have given little indication of the mayor's involvement in the negotiations. They simply intend that when they have finished their negotiations, they will dump the outcome on the people of London, walk away from it and say, "You pay off the debt."
        The Government are so panicky that the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) may end up as the first mayor of London that they have introduced no fewer than 250 powers to enable the Secretary of State to intervene. The House should be under no illusion but that whoever is elected as the first mayor of London will be very much under the thumb of the Secretary of State. The mayor's room to manoeuvre will be minimal and his chance to introduce his own flair and imagination will be strictly limited. The shape and direction of the authority will be very much at the Government's whim. None of this bears any resemblance to, or has any place in, the Conservative party's vision for London.
        Our vision is of a lighter touch, with an assembly of borough leaders working with the mayor, not against him. We have a vision of an underground system maximising the benefits that the private sector can bring, with the motorist being managed, not clobbered. It is a vision of working with the people of London, not against them. It is for these reasons that 1 urge the House to support our reasoned amendment.
        9.15 pm
        Mr. Darvill: I oppose the amendment and support the Third Reading of the Bill.

        1045
        As a member of the Standing Committee and a comparatively new Member of the House, I found the experience in Committee extremely worth while. It was a good-natured Committee, by and large. More than 100 hours of work on the detail of the Bill certainly added to my knowledge of pan-London issues.
        The restoration of strategic Londonwide government, in which I am proud to have played a small part, will be a lasting legacy of the Government. Within two years of the general election and on the basis of my party's firm manifesto commitment, a referendum was held and supported by a large number of Londoners, and a comprehensive Bill produced. That is indeed a tribute to the work of the Government and the House.
        The Bill not only has support in the House and Londonwide, through the ballot box and the referendum, but during the course of the Standing Committee I received numerous briefings from business organisations, the Association of London Government and so on, supporting the broad thrust of the Bill. It clearly meets the wide-ranging demands of various groups of Londoners.
        Developing strategy for the mayor will be an important part of life in London for the next year or so, as we lead up to the election, and afterwards. It is not a question of working against Londoners, as the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) claimed. The ethos of the Bill is to work with Londoners, the London boroughs and all the participatory organisations set out in the Bill.
        Transport will be the principal focus of the GLA and the mayor. It was good to debate the subject at such length today, as that is the aspect of life in London where most difference can be made. The time that we spent debating transport this evening and in Committee was time well spent. Adding democratic power to the police authority is another important step. The powers of the London development agency to regenerate London and the measures relating to the environment and the emergency services are all significant.
        I believe that in Committee we spent too long on some clauses and not enough time on others. With due respect to colleagues on the Liberal Benches, having listened to them on many occasions I thought that our time could have been better spent on the more important clauses, rather than listening to the repetition of the same points on others. It is for hon. Members to present their own arguments, but when we are considering a Bill of more than 300 clauses that deals with such important issues as transport and strategic regeneration, we must use our time effectively. On the whole, however, the Committee did its work well.
        I am proud to support the Bill and I wish it good speed.
        9.19 pm
        Mr. Simon Hughes: This is not only a long Bill; its size suggests serious reading. At the start of our debate yesterday, it was already the largest and longest in the living memory of the Officers of the House, comprising 306 clauses and 26 schedules. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) kindly added up the additional contents, which have been added over only the past two days. We calculate that the Bill
        1046
        now comprises 338 clauses and 27 schedules. The only significant problem is that it has not got better; with expansion, it has got worse.
        Mr. Gapes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Hughes: In a moment.
        My hon. Friends and I made our position clear on Second Reading. We have long advocated London having its own democratic government, and we therefore supported introducing a Bill that would allow us to consider that proposal, but we raised five principal objections.
        We said that there was far too much central Government power over what was meant to be a handing over of regional government power. That was true, and is still absolutely true. We said that there was no power, which there should have been, to vary the amount of money raised by the Greater London Authority. If we want to give real political power, we have to give real economic power. That was true, and is still true.
        We said that the mayor would be too powerful relative to the assembly. That was absolutely true, and is still absolutely true.
        The Minister for London and Construction>(Mr. Nick Raynsford): No.
        Mr. Hughes: It is absolutely true. As the Minister and his colleagues kept on telling us, the Bill's structure means that we will have an executive mayor and an assembly that, if it is lucky, will benefit from a bit of consultation about what the mayor is planning to do.
        Like many of the people who responded to the Green Paper, we argued strongly that the principal powers should be extended to include duties relating to the health of Londoners and the co-ordination of the provision of higher, or post-secondary, education. Neither has been included in the Bill. We argued that, although the electoral system would be better than the one we had when London last had regional government, the proposed system was not the best. That is as true now as when we started our consideration of the Bill. I have to report that there has been no improvement at all to any of the proposals that were the subject of those five objections.
        We were surprised that the Government resisted so many of the specific ways in which we sought to amend the authority's general powers. We argued that a principal purpose of the new authority should be promoting the health of people in Greater London, but they resisted that. We argued that a principal purpose should be the achievement of sustainable development. They resisted that. Saddest of all, when we argued yesterday that a principal purpose of the authority should be the promotion not only of social development but of equal opportunities, they resisted that, too.
        We argued that it might be possible for the deputy mayor to be chosen by the assembly, given that the deputy mayor has to come from the assembly. We thought that the Government might accept that reasonable and modest proposal—but no, the deputy mayor has to be appointed by the mayor because the mayor has to keep all the power to herself or himself.
        On Second Reading, we also flagged up the fact that we wanted to introduce parish and community councils in London under the umbrella of the Bill. The rest of Britain

        1047
        can have them, but sadly, that was not technically possible because of the Bill's long title. We shall have to come back to that issue.
        We have clearly moved forward in some respects and progress has been made. We flagged up the fact that the Government were proposing that, although the elections would be in May next year, the authority would come into existence in April. We persuaded them that that was not terribly logical. There will now be elections for the assembly in May and the authority will come into being in July, which is a welcome change.
        We welcome the proposals for consulting more widely with London's representative communities, which we argued about in Committee. We welcome wider consultation with people about the appointment of chief officers of police, which we pressed for in Committee. We greatly welcome the great concessions of yesterday, when the Government accepted our amendments: climate change should appear instead of global warming, and waste minimisation should be added to the list of environmental considerations. Those are small amendments for which we are nevertheless grateful.
        It was also accepted all round the House that, for the first election, there should be a minimum threshold, for particular London reasons, for those who are to be elected on the top-up list. However, Liberal Democrat Members made it clear that we reserve our position until we have heard the electoral commission's report on the viability and appropriateness of continuing a threshold thereafter.
        Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: Given the vandalism of the Conservative Government, who abolished the GLC, and the fact that this Government are re-establishing London government, may I suggest that Liberal Democrats are nitpicking? They accuse us of centralisation, but we are responding to public demand and restoring London government. In respect of economic power, we are creating a regional development agency and the power of the mayor will be balanced by the assembly. Health is a feature, and we are not returning to a GLC. We are restoring London government, and Londoners will elect a Labour mayor.
        Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has a duty to defend the proposition put forward by his party, given that he is responsible for so much in London Labour party politics.
        We take the same general view on this Bill as we take on the Government's constitutional reforms in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Government could have been brave, but they are usually timid. They could have real devolution, but they always stop short. They could have given power away from Whitehall, but they always keep Secretaries of State and Prime Ministers in charge of the bodies that are meant to be devolved.
        Mr. Gapes: In his discussions with his colleagues, could the hon. Gentleman find time to suggest to his mathematical colleague, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), that he might wish to calculate the number of repetitive arguments that have been put ad nauseam by the Liberal Democrats at every Committee sitting and in the House?
        Mr. Hughes: I seem to remember that the hon. Gentleman came up with some extraordinary views in
        1048
        Committee which suggested that Stalinism still reigns on some of the Labour Benches. We kept to the agreed timetable in Committee. My hon. Friends and I contributed to most debates, unlike most Labour Back Benchers, who were noticeably silent. Sadly, that is a reflection of the state of the parties: we speak our minds, whereas Labour Members are often not allowed to do so.
        The Government had opportunities to make progress. They could have agreed to allow the mayor to be recalled—a point made by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway)—if he or she no longer had the confidence of Londoners, but they resisted. They could have allowed London government to take account of national policy, but not to be required to be consistent with it. Why have devolution if the devolved body has to do the same as everyone else? However, the Government resisted that. They could have allowed London government to be free of capping, but they resisted it. They could have allowed the current concessionary fare regime, which is the best of the series of regimes, to be the starting point for concessionary fares in the new London government, but instead we shall start with the old regime, which is less good in terms of those who benefit from the concessions.
        Although we welcome the opportunity for road charging to be levied both at the workplace and for road users, the Government resisted other transport proposals that were obviously necessary. They resisted permanent hypothecation, which we debated regularly with the Minister for Transport in London. They resisted the proposal by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) for a guaranteed annual increase in funding for London transport in line with the retail price index.
        Then, in Committee, we had the blow that none of us expected. We imagined that London Regional Transport would be abolished and handed over to Transport for London, but we discovered that it would not be abolished after all. We discovered that the invitation to tender for the new tube system, which was meant to be issued early this spring, had still not been issued, and that the public-private partnership, which the Government say is not driven by empty ideology, is something to which the Government are so wedded that they will continue with it, despite the fact that it appears to be an empty proposition. Nobody is playing that game. My hon. Friends have offered the Government a better, internationally tried and tested, and acceptable alternative—a public interest company to run London underground. Instead, next July we are to have a London government that will not allow the mayor or the assembly to run the key transport system that everybody thought it would run.
        We do not support the Conservative amendment, and we shall oppose it. The Conservatives complain about the fairer electoral system that is proposed, because they believe that it will lead to parties having an influence out of proportion to the number of their candidates who have been elected. The fact is that people will be elected in proportion to the votes cast for them. The Tory party has set itself against the right of the London government to introduce road charging, which we think it should have. The Tory answer to the problem of the future of the tube is to privatise it, which my hon. Friends and I have always opposed.

        1049
        I pay tribute to my hon. Friends who have worked assiduously in Committee for 100 hours, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), who has supported us throughout. For Liberal Democrats, this Bill has been a test of whether the Government would deliver regional government for London. We gave them the benefit of the doubt on Second Reading. Sadly. we have been let down, so we shall not be able to support the Bill on Third Reading tonight.
        9.31 pm
        Ms Linda Perham: I welcome the Bill, which will restore democratic accountability to London. I still welcome it, even though we spent until midnight yesterday discussing it, and 100 hours in Committee, not to mention Second Reading. As amended, it is now an immensely detailed document. If the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is to be believed, it is the largest ever Bill. It will fundamentally affect the lives of Londoners by setting out how the mayor and assembly will be elected, the accountability of the mayor, which is most important, and the strategies of the mayor.
        The capital's transport strategy is of great importance to Londoners, and has rightly generated huge interest. It has taken up a great deal of time and energy on the Floor of the House and in Committee. It was one of the areas that I focused on in my speech on Second Reading on 14 December. I raised issues of concern to the licensed taxi trade, a large number of whose drivers live in my constituency. I was pleased to introduce a new clause in Committee on charging fees for "the knowledge", so that existing drivers do not have to subsidise applicants for licences. The Government have accepted the case, and hope to introduce a measure in the other place.
        The Bill deals with the vital area of planning. There is a clear need for a strategic approach to planning in London. If strategic planning was not needed after the abolition of the Greater London council, why did the London Planning Advisory Committee have to be established?
        There is also a clear need for a London overview of environmental issues, such as biodiversity, waste management, air quality and noise. A culture strategy is also important. That comes last on the list, but as far as I am concerned last is not least. As a former chair of the leisure committee on the London borough of Redbridge and as a professional librarian, I strongly hold the view that people spend their quality time on leisure and culture—what they choose to do with their time, rather than what they are obliged to do with it. Under that heading come art and tourism, sport, buildings, treasures, antiquities, broadcasting and other media, museums, galleries and libraries.
        I am delighted that the London research centre—the former research library—which was wrenched from its place in County hall when the GLC was spitefully abolished, will return under the umbrella of our splendid new GLA to continue to serve Londoners through their mayor and assembly.
        9.34 pm
        Mr. Wilkinson: The Bill has been notable for the excellent relations between hon. Members on the Front Benches. That has enabled us to make progress within the
        1050
        timetable, and to try to improve the Bill. Candidly, it has come out of its Committee and Report stages hardly any better. It is undoubtedly longer, and I shall judge it by its effect on my constituents.
        I must pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), who has been good humoured, but tenacious throughout; our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), who was the only non-London member of the Standing Committee; and the Nestor on our Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), to whom we Conservative Achaeans always turn for wise counsel in the difficult task of investing socialist—I must not call it that—new Labour Ilium. The triumvirate—or should I say "tripersonate"?— on the Government Front Bench, the hon. Members for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) and for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), have been attentive and courteous, and we appreciate the way in which they have responded to all our questions.
        I asked whether the Bill would benefit my constituents. It will provide a voice for London; but will the mayor's voice be the authoritative voice of Londoners, or will he merely articulate his own concerns? We look to the assembly to modify his opinions, and to provide counsel and input to ensure that local interests are secure. We have our doubts, however. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South said, without borough representation there is a serious likelihood that important local interests will be subordinated to the concerns and preoccupations of the mayoralty, or of London as a whole.
        The assembly will be a strange political hermaphrodite. How the two parts will coexist remains to be seen, but I am sure that the directly elected representative for my constituents' borough and the neighbouring borough of Ealing will carry more weight than the more rootless individuals who will have no constituency connection. The jiggery-pokery involved in the imposition of an arbitrary 5 per cent. threshold rather than the arithmetical threshold of about 3.8 per cent. of normal turnout will ensure that probably one representative on the list is not the authentic person who would have been elected under an arithmetical system, and is therefore not the representative in a wholly democratic sense.
        As for the qualities desired in the mayor, he will need drive and vision, but, above all, he will need political attributes to be able to take advantage of the wide powers of consultation that the Bill vests in him. I think that we approve of the manner in which the Government have sought to widen the consultation and make it effective, but, if the mayor is to reconcile diverse and potentially conflicting interests involving boroughs, business, race and minorities, industry and the environment, he will need a sense of balance.
        Mr. Fitzpatrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Wilkinson: No, because others wish to speak. Normally, I would give way.
        My constituents are apprehensive about planning. The spatial development strategy of the mayoralty will, in essence, take precedence over the unitary development plans of the boroughs, and thus could militate against my constituents' concern to ensure a balance between

        1051
        developmental and residential needs, and recognition of the paramount importance of maintaining the environment and the quality of life in London.
        In that context, people will look to the authority to bring about a genuine improvement in London's transport system. They are doubtful whether road user charges could ever work: they are aware that the British motorist already pays the highest taxes in Europe, and that these are just additional taxes. I consider it diabolical that employers should have to pay taxes for the people who come to work on their premises. As for promoting the Bill and taking it to its final stage without meeting the main objective that the Labour party set itself in London-—the creation of a public—private partnership—that is a deficiency of the worst order, of which I am sure the electorate will prove highly critical in the elections next spring for the mayor and members of the assembly.
        This will not be a truly democratic institution of the kind to which we are used, particularly because there is no mechanism to hold the mayor to account, and to get rid of him if necessary. We have reservations about the system of election and about the powers and undue influence of the Secretary of State. That said, we are determined that the assembly and the authority, in the person of the mayor who heads it, will be Conservative controlled next spring. That is our objective. We are determined to make the system work. Our constituents may have reservations now, but, with Conservative control, it could potentially do a very good job.
        9.40 pm
        Mr. McNulty: I say to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) that Solihull was not the only non-London representation on the Committee. The Vale of Glamorgan was there, too, and that should be recognised.
        It is not worth rising to the flatulent twaddle of the Liberal Democrats, save to say that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) entirely forgot the one lasting and only significant impression that they made on the Bill. Hon. Members who were on the Committee may remember that, on one occasion, there was a "which" where the "h" had been left off. The Liberal Democrat train spotters noticed it and put the "h" back in. That—I mean it with all sincerity—is the only significant, substantive change that the Liberal Democrats made to the entire Bill.
        Nothing in the reasoned amendment—we have to say "reasoned"; I do not know why—that has been tabled by the Conservative party would find any support among Labour Members. It is quite a disappointment, given that we spent so much time lovingly together upstairs in Committee Room 12.
        The first point in the reasoned amendment is fine: we would anticipate that from Conservatives. They are against democracy, so they do not want a directly elected chamber of any significance in terms of the assembly. If they were honest, they would admit that they would rather have some blokes-in-suits way of securing the mayoralty, perhaps an hereditary principle or something like that. Nothing else that they suggest in the reasoned amendment is worth supporting. It should simply be dismissed out of hand.
        1052
        The real reason why I wanted to speak was to say that there were three people in the Committee who did substantive work and should be congratulated by the entire House, not just by Labour Members. As a preface, I say that the Conservatives are to be congratulated on the way in which they dealt with matters of substance in Committee. They had their position. It was bonkers and entirely wrong on most occasions, but they put it in a reasoned and fair way. Their position was full of integrity, rather than the on-going teenage "Call My Bluff' which we had ad nauseam from the three Liberal Democrats, lovingly referred to as Moe, Larry and Curly, the Three Stooges.
        The three who made significant contributions are, of course, the Front-Bench team. It is not invidious to point out that, although the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), and my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London played a significant role, the real architect of the piece is my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction. He is to be hugely congratulated on his work, which is why that is enough from me; I want to hear from him.
        9.43 pm
        Mr. Peter Brooke: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty). He spoke on the Committee as much as any Labour Back Bencher. I join him in his praise for the Minister for London and Construction and his colleagues. It has been a long road. It has been a pleasure to follow that road in the steps of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway).
        I go back briefly to the governance of London debate in mid-June 1997. At that stage, the Government did not seem to be clear where they were going. I recall quoting a question to Alec Douglas-Home during the 1964 general election about VAT, to which he replied, "A lot of clever chaps are thinking about it at this moment."
        After the debate, the Minister confirmed to me that a lot of clever chaps were beginning to flesh out what the Labour party thought about the governance of London in preparation for the Bill. I am not totally confident that the Government know even now where they are going.
        We have come to Third Reading. Like the hon. Member for Harrow, East, I greatly enjoyed the Committee stage. I am sorry that I have not been present more often during Report. Much work has been done by those clever men, hut, as with devolution on the eve of the first elections and as with the House of Lords Bill in the Committee stage—we have not even been allowed to debate the White Paper on the future of the House of Lords—ultimately, we do not have a clear idea that the Government know their direction. The best evidence for that is the gallimaufry and mishmash of new clauses and new schedules with which we have been festooned during the debate.
        The Government have relied on the election and the referendum result, which they claim endorsed their proposals. As their political opponent, I am content that they should remain lulled into false security, although, as I re-entered the Chamber a little before 6 o'clock this evening, I felt the susurrus of flapping—not yet the flapping of London Labour Members concerned about their seats, but certainly the flapping of chickens coming home to roost.

        1053
        To state the position in London terms, I sadly have a sense of the Third Reading of this Titanic of a Bill steaming steadily into the darkness; its engine room, which is the London underground, as invisible as the underground is to the average London pedestrian. The Minister for Transport in London has been temporarily lost overboard, but she is obliged to believe that all is well with the Government's plans for the London underground. As a traveller on the underground, I place more confidence in the permanent way than the third way. I fear that, as time passes, the number of Londoners who believe that all is well with the underground under Labour is beginning to recede. That is how support for a Government haemorrhages. I do not say that with pleasure, for I am a Londoner, but it increases the sense of drama and the feeling that the Government will first visibly retreat in the heart of our capital.
        9.46 pm
        Mr. Randall: Even if I had the skills of Liberal Democrat Members, unfortunately time does not allow me to indulge in the verbal incontinence that we have heard them demonstrate throughout the Committee proceedings on the Bill. Those hon. Members who were not present in Committee did at least witness a small example of that a few moments ago.
        The people of Uxbridge were, at best, lukewarm when they voted in the referendum for London government without knowing the meat on the bones of that concept. Now that there is a little more meat, they will be disappointed to find out exactly what they voted for. However, it would be churlish of me not to say that the Bill contains some good proposals, although it is not the Conservative model, and I fear that it will not fulfil the aspirations that many Londoners have for it. My particular worry is that the outer London suburbs, such as the area that I represent, will pay for the inner boroughs and will end up being neglected by the mayor and assembly.
        I accept that, although we shall shortly vote for the reasoned amendment in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends, the mathematics will be against us once again. I am pleased at least to have taken part in this undoubtedly historic moment in London's history. I hope that my doubts will not be realised, because I take pride in this great city of ours. However, I fear that it will take a Conservative mayor and assembly to make sure that the Bill works for the people.
        9.47 pm
        Mr. Raynsford: The reasoned amendment serves only to highlight the confusion and muddle that characterise the Conservative party's approach to the governance of our capital.
        Fifteen years ago, the Conservative party introduced legislation to abolish democratic and strategic government in London, without consultation, without a referendum and without so much as a by-your-leave. They left London for 13 years without a democratic, citywide authority. Two years ago, the Conservatives went into an election arguing that there was no need for any strategic authority for the capital. Following their comprehensive rejection by the people of London, they were forced to think again. Today, we see the result of that extended process of policy reappraisal.
        While the rest of London looks forward to the potential and possibilities that the Greater London Authority will bring, the Conservative party has, at long last and after
        1054
        much consideration, got around to a grudging acceptance of the need for a representative body for London, although it still proposes to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill that will set up the new authority.
        Of course, the people of London have not chosen to wait for the Conservative party's conclusions. While it has been deliberating, the Government have published a Green Paper and a White Paper and held a referendum in which our policy proposals were overwhelmingly endorsed by majorities in every one of the 32 London boroughs and the City of London. It is those proposals that the Bill will implement.
        We intend that there should be a mayor and assembly for London: a mayor to offer strategic leadership across the capital and an assembly to ensure proper scrutiny and accountability. The mayor will be elected with a clear mandate from the people of London—which the supplementary vote may be more capable of delivering than first past the post. The assembly will not—as the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) suggested—be a hung council. Conservative Members seem not yet to have recognised that the mayor and not the assembly will be the executive, and that the mayor will have a clear mandate.
        The assembly will be elected by the proportional, additional member system, with a mixture of constituency and list members—reflecting the diverse views of London, and ensuring that the assembly is best placed to perform its role as a body charged not with executive responsibilities, but with questioning, scrutinising and investigating on behalf of the capital's electorate.
        The electoral systems have been designed for effective government in London, were clearly stated in our White Paper and were overwhelmingly endorsed in the referendum. Conservative Members' refusal to accept those facts borders on the incredible.
        I shall now deal with road user charging, which was also mentioned in the Opposition's reasoned amendment. In doing so, I should briefly provide some background to our proposals.
        When Conservative Members left power, they left behind a city suffering from traffic congestion and air pollution—with all the costs to health and the economy that those entail, but without any framework or plan for dealing with them. The position was not sustainable. However—perhaps with the exception of Conservative Members—there has been broad endorsement of our approach, in our integrated transport strategy, to tackling those problems.
        We developed our proposals on road user charging and workplace parking charging with the support of a wide range of organisations from the business community—such as London First—and from the wider community, including the Association of London Government. Contrary to the claims of Conservative Members, our proposed measures are not anti-car, but represent a balanced package aimed at reducing congestion and generating investment.
        Moreover, the proposals are not—as Conservative Members suggested—being imposed by the Government. The mayor and the London boroughs will have the power to introduce such charges if they choose to do so. That is a proper democratic framework. We have also guaranteed that, for 10 years, every penny so raised will be devoted to investment in transport.

        1055
        Again, therefore, the Opposition's reasoned amendment reflects nothing more than a lack of understanding of the challenges facing London, and the disengagement of the Conservative party from London's new political agenda—which has been symbolised by yet another spectacular U-turn, as Conservative Members try to forget the congestion charging proposals that they themselves made in a Green Paper only three years ago, when they were in power. Conservative Members have given up all principle and consistency and are opportunistically seizing any issue that they think might bring them a little cheap short-term popularity.
        When the Government came to power, we inherited a clapped-out underground system, suffering from years of neglect and underinvestment and with no satisfactory arrangements for future investment. It is therefore astonishing to have to listen to carping criticisms from Conservative Members when they are faced with the new and creative approach that we have adopted to bringing much-needed investment back into the underground system. Their carping simply demonstrates the total bankruptcy of their views, their failure to recognise London's new mood, and the new way forward offered by the Government.
        I criticise Conservative Members, but I also criticise Liberal Democrat Members. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) rightly stressed in his intervention, while the Government are engaged in restoring a vibrant new democratic structure of government for London, the Liberal Democrats are capable only of narrow-minded carping. We have heard a series of whinges from them—such as their belief that the mayor will be too powerful. They simply cannot stomach the idea of an effective mayor who will be able to deliver for the people of London.
        The Liberal Democrats claimed that there was no provision for health, but they were wrong. The Bill contains clear provisions allowing the mayor to have full regard to the health of Londoners, and to promote initiatives to improve the health of Londoners.
        For decades and generations, the Liberal Democrats have campaigned on electoral reform, but—would you believe it? —when we present them with a proportional electoral system for London, do they say, "Yes, we welcome it"? No, they carp, whinge and criticise. It is typical that they should fail to welcome the proposal.
        The fact that the Liberal Democrats will abstain in the vote on Third Reading—sitting on their hands while we are creating a new structure of government for London—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that he would not be supporting either the Conservatives' reasoned amendment or Third Reading, and that is abstention. It is a failure to sit on either side of the fence—which is typical of a party of protest, not of a serious party of government.
        Mr. Simon Hughes: The record will show that the Minister is wrong. I said that we would vote against the reasoned amendment for the reasons that I set out in my speech.
        Mr. Raynsford: The Liberal Democrats will be voting against the Conservatives' reasoned amendment, but they
        1056
        will not be supporting the Third Reading of the Bill. What a classic comment on their total disengagement from the process of government. They are irrelevant to the future of London.
        In contrast with the lame and limp contributions of the Liberal Democrats, we have heard many telling contributions this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) rightly highlighted the historic nature of what we are doing. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) rejoiced in the restoration of democratic electoral systems in London and a democratic citywide authority. The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) demonstrated once again his characteristically courteous approach by thanking us for the courtesy that we extended in Committee; I greatly appreciate that. He made some important points on behalf of his constituents. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) for his kind words. He added his characteristically vibrant approach to the debate and highlighted again the ineffectiveness of the Liberal Democrats.
        The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) entertained us with his characteristic humour and erudition throughout the Committee. I thank him for his contribution this evening, although I disagree with his conclusion about where we are going and the prospects for the new London government. He may be in for a surprise as the people of London welcome the creative new structure of government with an elected mayor, which the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), sitting next to him, has advocated in the past. The new structure can offer new hope, new prospects and a better system of government to galvanise our city. I hope that, when it succeeds, the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that he was present and party to an historic reform of government in London.
        In a characteristically kind way, the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) recognised the good things in the Bill, although he criticised it. He also always saw the brighter things of life in Committee, including the odd bird flying past the window, which caught his attention as an avid bird watcher.
        The Bill carries forward our manifesto promise to the people of London, confirmed a year ago this week in the referendum, to create a new authority, providing the right mix of leadership and accountability, with an elected mayor and a separately elected assembly. The Bill will ensure that Londoners once more have a democratic say on vital issues such as transport, the environment and economic development. It provides a framework for new investment in the underground system and for the first time will give the people of this city proper democratic oversight of the running of their police service.
        The Bill will comprehensively reform the way in which our capital is governed. That inevitably requires complex and lengthy legislation. I am particularly grateful for the diligence and fortitude of all the hon. Members who have contributed to the detailed scrutiny of the Bill in Committee and on Report. I am grateful for the support and help of all my hon. Friends, but I also thank the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members who have shown enormous diligence in following the Bill through its lengthy proceedings. The Standing Committee sat for more than 100 hours and considered a huge number of amendments—1,400 of them—addressing every aspect of the Bill. Contrary to some suggestions, the majority of the

        1057
        amendments—around nine out of 10—were from the Opposition parties, who managed to table more amendments to this Bill than to any other in recent memory.
        The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) has assiduously tried to count the number of clauses. He overlooked the amendments that deleted redundant clauses. Our estimate is that there will be 330 clauses, not 338, but he was right about there being 27 schedules.
        I am grateful for the Committee's diligent scrutiny. That, together with the timetabling of progress through all stages, including Report, has ensured that every aspect of the Bill has been tested and examined in the most rigorous detail, enabling the House to make its legislative intent very clear. I am sure that that will be noted when the Bill is examined in the other place.
        The Bill will leave the House in good shape, with its underlying principles endorsed. It is a good and historic Bill. Future generations will look back on it as an important milestone in the development of democratic government in London. We are offering a new style of governance for London with a directly elected mayor as part of our programme to modernise local government systems. One year to this day—
        It being Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [30 April]: —
        The House divided: Ayes 105, Noes 265.

        Division No. 167]

        [10 pm

        AYES

        Amess, David

        Fraser, Christopher

        Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

        Garnier, Edward

        Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

        Gibb, Nick

        Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Baldry, Tony

        Gray, James

        Beggs, Roy

        Green, Damian

        Bercow, John

        Greenway, John

        Boswell, Tim

        Grieve, Dominic

        Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

        Gummer, Rt Hon John

        Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

        Hague, Rt Hon William

        Brady, Graham

        Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

        Brazier, Julian

        Hammond, Philip

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Heald, Oliver

        Browning, Mrs Angela

        Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

        Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

        Horam, John

        Burns, Simon

        Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

        Butterfill, John

        Hunter, Andrew

        Chapman, Sir Sydney

        Jack, Rt Hon Michael

        (Chipping Barnet)

        Jenkin, Bernard

        Chope, Christopher

        Key, Robert

        Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

        Laing, Mrs Eleanor

        (Rushcliffe)

        Lansley, Andrew

        Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

        Leigh, Edward

        Collins, Tim

        Lidington, David

        Cran, James

        Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

        Curry, Rt Hon David

        Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

        Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

        Loughton, Tim

        Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice

        Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        & Howden)

        MacGregor, Rt Hon John

        Duncan, Alan

        McIntosh, Miss Anne

        Duncan Smith, Iain

        Mackay, Rt Hon Andrew

        Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Maclean, Rt Hon David

        Evans, Nigel

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Fabricant, Michael

        Malins, Humfrey

        Fallon, Michael

        Maude, Rt Hon Francis

        Flight, Howard

        Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

        Forth, Rt Hon Eric

        May, Mrs Theresa

        Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

        Nicholls, Patrick

        1058

        Ottaway, Richard

        Townend, John

        Page, Richard

        Trend, Michael

        Paterson, Owen

        Viggers, Peter

        Randall, John

        Walter, Robert

        Redwood, Rt Hon John

        Waterson, Nigel

        Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

        Whitney, Sir Raymond

        Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

        Whittingdale, John

        Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

        Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Wilkinson, John

        Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

        Wilshire, David

        Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

        Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

        Soames, Nicholas

        Woodward, Shaun

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Yeo, Tim

        Swayne, Desmond

        Young, Rt Hon Sir George

        Syms, Robert

        Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Mr. Stephen Day and

        Taylor, Sir Teddy

        Sir David Madel.

        NOES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Cranston, Ross

        Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

        Crausby, David

        Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

        Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

        Allen, Graham

        Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

        Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

        Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

        Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

        Dalyell, Tam

        Ashton, Joe

        Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

        Atkins, Charlotte

        Darvill, Keith

        Austin, John

        Davey, Edward (Kingston)

        Barnes, Harry

        Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

        Barron, Kevin

        Davidson, Ian

        Battle, John

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Bayley, Hugh

        Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

        Beard, Nigel

        Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

        Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

        Dawson, Hilton

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Dean, Mrs Janet

        Bennett, Andrew F

        Denham, John

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Dismore, Andrew

        Berry, Roger

        Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

        Best, Harold

        Donohoe, Brian H

        Betts, Clive

        Dowd, Jim

        Blackman, Liz

        Drown, Ms Julia

        Blears, Ms Hazel

        Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

        Blizzard, Bob

        Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

        Boateng, Paul

        Edwards, Huw

        Bradley, Keith (Withington)

        Efford, Clive

        Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

        Ennis, Jeff

        Brake, Tom

        Field, Rt Hon Frank

        Breed, Colin

        Fisher, Mark

        Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

        Fitzpatrick, Jim

        Buck, Ms Karen

        Flint, Caroline

        Burden, Richard

        Flynn, Paul

        Burgon, Colin

        Follett, Barbara

        Burstow, Paul

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        Butler, Mrs Christine

        Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

        Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

        Foulkes, George

        Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

        Gapes, Mike

        Campbell—Savours, Dale

        Gardiner, Barry

        Caplin, Ivor

        George, Bruce (Walsall S)

        Casale, Roger

        Gerrard, Neil

        Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

        Gibson, Dr Ian

        Chaytor, David

        Gilroy, Mrs Linda

        Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

        Godsiff, Roger

        Clark, Dr Lynda

        Goggins, Paul

        (Edinburgh Pentlands)

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

        Gordon, Mrs Eileen

        Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

        Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

        Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Clwyd, Ann

        Grocott, Bruce

        Coaker, Vernon

        Grogan, John

        Coffey, Ms Ann

        Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

        Cohen, Harry

        Hall Patrick (Bedford)

        Colman, Tony

        Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Heal, Mrs Sylvia

        Cousins, Jim

        Healey, John

        1059

        Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

        McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

        Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

        (Makerfield)

        Hepburn, Stephen

        McDonagh, Siobhain

        Heppell, John

        McDonnell, John

        Hesford, Stephen

        McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

        Hewitt, Ms Patricia

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Hodge, Ms Margaret

        McNulty, Tony

        Hoey, Kate

        MacShane, Denis

        Hoon, Geoffrey

        Mactaggart, Fiona

        Hope, Phil

        McWalter, Tony

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Mallabar, Judy

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

        Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

        Hurst, Alan

        Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

        Hutton, John

        Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

        Iddon, Dr Brian

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Illsley, Eric

        Meale, Alan

        Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

        Merron, Gillian

        Jamieson, David

        Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

        Jenkins, Brian

        Miller, Andrew

        Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

        Mitchell, Austin

        Johnson, Miss Melanie

        Moffatt, Laura

        (Welwyn Hatfield)

        Moran, Ms Margaret

        Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

        Morley, Elliot

        Jones, Ms Jenny

        Mountford, Kali

        (Wolverh'ton SW)

        Mullin, Chris

        Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

        O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

        Keeble, Ms Sally

        Olner, Bill

        Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

        Palmer, Dr Nick

        Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

        Pearson, Ian

        Kelly, Ms Ruth

        Perham, Ms Linda

        Kemp, Fraser

        Pickthall, Colin

        Khabra, Piara S

        Pike, Peter L

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        Plaskitt, James

        King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

        Pollard, Kerry

        King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

        Pond, Chris

        Kingharn, Ms Tess

        Pope, Greg

        Kumar, Dr Ashok

        Pound, Stephen

        Laxton, Bob

        Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

        Levitt, Tom

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

        Prosser, Gwyn

        Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

        Purchase, Ken

        Linton, Martin

        Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

        Livingstone, Ken

        Rammell, Bill

        Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

        Rapson, Syd

        Lock, David

        Raynsford, Nick

        Love, Andrew

        Roberston, Rt Hon George

        McAvoy, Thomas

        (Hamilton, S)

        McCafferty, Ms Chris

        Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try Nw)

        1060

        Roche, Mrs Barbara

        Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        (Dewsbury)

        Rowlands, Ted

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Roy, Frank

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Ruddock, Joan

        Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

        Russell, Bob (Colchester)

        Timms, Stephen

        Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

        Tipping, Paddy

        Ryan, Ms Joan

        Todd, Mark

        Sanders, Adrian

        Tonge, Dr Jenny

        Savidge, Malcolm

        Trickett, Jon

        Sawford, Phil

        Tumer, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Twigg, Derek (Halton)

        Sheerman, Barry

        Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Vis, Dr Rudi

        Singh, Marsha

        Walley, Ms Joan

        Skinner, Dennis

        Ward, Ms Claire

        Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

        Wareing, Robert N

        Smith, Miss Geraldine

        Watts, David

        (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

        White, Brian

        Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

        Whitehead, Dr Alan

        Snape, Peter

        Wicks, Malcolm

        Soley, Clive

        Wills, Michael

        Southworth, Ms Helen

        Winnick, David

        Spellar, John

        Wise, Audrey

        Squire, Ms Rachel

        Wood, Mike

        Starkey, Dr Phyllis

        Wray, James

        Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

        Wright, Anthony D (Dt Yarmouth)

        Stoate, Dr Howard

        Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

        Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

        Straw, Rt Hon Jack

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Stringer, Graham

        Jane Kennedy and

        Sutcliffe, Gerry

        Mr. Keith Hill.

        Question accordingly negatived.
        Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.
        Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

      SELECT COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
      Ordered,
      That Mr. Mike Hancock be discharged from the Select Committee on Public Administration and Mr. Mark Oaten be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Allen.]

  Medical School (North Staffordshire)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Allen.]
  10.15 pm
  Ms Joan Walley: I am most grateful for this opportunity to make the case in the House for an undergraduate medical school at Keele university, which will be for the benefit of people in north Staffordshire and further afield. The proposal is supported by many hon. Members, some of whom are here this evening.
  We want Keele university to be able to offer places to 50 undergraduate medical students by 2000. Those places will be based in north Staffordshire, and placements will be provided in areas as far afield as Shropshire, the rest of Staffordshire, Burton and Crewe. It is essential to this bid that there is a joint proposal, involving the universities of Keele and of Manchester. This is a collaborative venture.
  During Prime Minister's questions today, we heard a lot about doctors' hours and the working time directive. However, the bottom line for us is that we do not have enough doctors, because the previous Government did not give them to us. Therefore, we recognise that we must recruit and train more medical staff in north Staffordshire, where the shortage is already apparent. It is worth noting that the health needs of our area are widely acknowledged to be more pressing than those of the rest of the west midlands and, indeed, of the country as a whole.
  I pay tribute to the vision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who has put forward proposals in response to the medical work force standing advisory committee, which has stated that an extra 1,000 medical students should be recruited every year by the year 2005. I am happy to say that my right hon. Friend will visit north Staffordshire next week, so there will be an opportunity to discuss our proposals with him at first hand. However, his vision has been equalled by that of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, through the comprehensive spending review, has provided the additional money for the extra recruitment.
  Mrs. Llin Golding: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the strengths of the Keele bid for the additional places is that work on it has been going on for many years? There has been striking co-operation with the health authorities in Manchester and Shropshire over a long period. Everything is now in place to make it possible to expand the number of available places beyond 50. Is not that one of the main reasons behind the strength of this proposal?
  Ms Walley: I am very happy to agree with my hon. Friend, who has campaigned longer than most for this medical school. In a moment, I shall explain how we have been trying to establish a medical school at Keele university since 1965.
  The vision that we share is not only for undergraduate places that at present do not exist in north Staffordshire. Our vision is for the expansion of facilities dedicated to medical education. For the first time since 1965, as a result of the comprehensive spending review, we have a real opportunity to establish a medical school in the area.
  1062
  That has been the dream of many people—including the medical director at the North Staffordshire hospital trust, Keith Prowse—since the 1960s.
  If we look out from Westminster across the river, we can see Guys and St. Thomas's medical school. We want exactly the same facility for Shropshire, Staffordshire and Cheshire. We want a postgraduate school. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) said, the bid is led by Keele university, and it has widespread support, not least from the North Staffordshire hospital NHS trust and other trusts in the area. It is supported by local Members of Parliament. There is also support, and proven expertise, from Manchester and Liverpool universities.
  The bid also has the support of chief executives from Burton hospitals NHS trust, East Cheshire NHS trust, Mid Cheshire hospitals NHS trust, Mid Staffordshire general hospitals NHS trust, the Princess Royal hospital NHS trust, the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt orthopaedic and district hospital NHS trust, the Royal Shrewsbury hospitals NHS trust, and a range of local medical committees and primary care groups.
  That wide geographical support is backed by a new spirit of partnership that is growing as a result of the area's recently created and innovative health action zone. Excellent working partnerships across the area involve schools and health partnerships. We want to build on all that. Although we are in the west midlands region, the teaching hospital for which we are bidding would look towards Manchester. We have discussed that point with colleagues in the region and see no problem arising.
  No one disputes the difficulties of local recruitment of medical staff. We want to create an opportunity out of the shortage. We want permanent training places. We want 50 in the first instance, and we want to build on that figure. We want local youngsters to aim high and to take up a medical career. We also want to build a local centre of excellence to which students may come from elsewhere. They will come from outside the area to train with us and, having trained, they will stay on to practise in areas that are experiencing some of the greatest difficulties in recruiting medical staff—doctors, consultants and others.
  There is a culture of learning in our area. Earlier today, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and I attended a presentation of the beacon awards at which Stoke-on-Trent college was presented with a certificate of excellence. There is a culture of aiming high so that we may address the traditional imbalance of underachievement.
  The spin-offs of a graduate medical centre would be enormous. There would be extra research money and benefits to patients—our constituents. It would almost certainly bring extra employment over a wide area, and it would bring extra ancillary staff. It would give us an opportunity to build a centre of excellence to deal with the particular medical problems that we face. I hope that I have argued convincingly for the excellence of the bid, which will shortly be considered by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health.
  Let me turn now to the extent of ill health in the area. On key indicators, north Staffordshire performs consistently worse than the west midlands region and the United Kingdom as a whole. This is the right time to redress the imbalance, and to train and recruit personnel in an area in which they are badly needed.

  1063
  The figures speak for themselves. Keith Prowse, the medical director of North Staffordshire hospital NHS trust, has highlighted the seriousness of our recruitment problem. In north Staffordshire alone, there are 10 full-time general practitioner vacancies. Four further practices have hard-to-fill vacancies that have not even been advertised. Local GP training schemes have had five more vacant slots in 10 practices since last August. On behalf of all my hon. Friends present in the Chamber tonight, I ask the Minister to look favourably on our proposal for a world-class teaching hospital, based at Keele university and serving the wider region that we represent.
  10.25 pm
  Charlotte Atkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) for allowing me to participate in this important debate.
  Among the Government's top priorities are improving health outcomes and addressing health inequalities. The Labour Government were the first to appoint a Minister for Public Health to set out proposals to improve the health of the population as a whole, especially the worse-off. North Staffordshire wants to follow that example. As my hon. Friend says, we have significantly worse health outcomes than either the west midlands or the whole of England and Wales. On the positive side, that means that we can achieve far greater health improvements than other parts of the country, so we are faced not only with a tremendous opportunity, but with a tremendous challenge.
  It is in part owing to my hon. Friend's persistence that we have achieved a health action zone, which affords us exciting opportunities. It will help to break down the cycle of unhealthy life styles, poor health outcomes and low health aspirations that has bedevilled north Staffordshire for too long. It creates exciting possibilities: healthy living centres, schemes to promote community safety and tackle teenage pregnancy and drug abuse, and opportunities to create partnerships across education, the voluntary sector, the business community, social services and local people. However, we in north Staffordshire lack the inspiration, the learning culture and the modern expertise that comes from having a local medical school.
  Located between Birmingham and Manchester, north Staffordshire fails to attract and retain the high-quality health care professionals we need. It is a well-established fact that the majority of medical students will ultimately practise in the locality in which they have trained; therefore, despite the delights of the Staffordshire peak district, our area has become denuded of local GPs and hospital doctors. Today, I spoke to a local GP in Leek, Dr. Shiers, who told me of the vulnerability of market towns such as Leek. Four to five years ago, when general practice was not a popular option for newly qualified doctors, there were only two or three applicants for local vacant posts.
  That does nothing to raise standards of primary health care or to encourage greater collaboration between primary and secondary care. A university medical school at Keele would create positive ripples throughout the whole service, not only in hospitals. Medical students
  1064
  need to experience general practice early in their training if we are to create the proper balance between primary and secondary care—an objective to which I know the Government are committed. The influx of students would have a positive impact on general practice by stimulating new ideas, boosting in-service training and encouraging better communication between local doctors.
  What I find especially attractive about the Keele proposal is that it is based on partnership—building on the expertise of Manchester university while exploiting the underuse by students of north Staffordshire hospitals and community placements. It would benefit from the assured quality of the established and well-tested Manchester curriculum, and make better and more rational use of national health service training facilities. The proposal offers a cost-effective way of training more doctors and meeting the needs of an area that is crying out for greater investment in improving health care.
  10.29 pm
  Mrs. Llin Golding rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Does the hon. Lady have the permission of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) and that of the Minister? I see that she does.
  Mrs. Golding: I wish briefly to sum up, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Essentially, the case for a new medical school at Keele rests on the following factors: the existence of a substantial natural catchment population for major trauma, tertiary and specialist services of about 1.7 million people; the presence of well-developed primary and community services; the substantial range of health and health-related teaching and research activity already existing within the area; the commitment and support of the relevant health authorities and trusts; links with other medical schools, which are extremely strong; and Keele's traditions and strengths, which make it a particularly suitable home for a 21st century medical school.
  10.30 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on obtaining the debate and on providing the opportunity to discuss the provision of additional medical student places in the United Kingdom. I acknowledge the interest of my hon. Friends the Members for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) and thank them for their contributions to the debate. Other hon. Members have been in their places this evening to show, I am sure, support for the bid that has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North.
  I hope that my hon. Friends will understand that, at this stage in the bidding process, I cannot debate the merits of any individual sites for the expansion of medical education. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is looking forward to his visit to the area concerned.
  It might be helpful if I set out the background to the plan to increase medical school intake. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North said, the planned

  1065
  increase was originally a recommendation in the third report of the Medical Workforce Standing Advisory Committee. It reflected its detailed consideration of the overall long-term need for doctors in this country, taking into account the projected demand for health services, the projected numerical losses from the profession as a result of retirement and other factors. The House will note that the committee's remit was with the overall numbers of doctors needed. It was not concerned with the specialties that the new doctors might join after completing their undergraduate training.
  The Government are proud that, following the comprehensive spending review, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health was, last July, able to tell the House that the intake of students to medical schools in the United Kingdom will increase by about 1,000 places per annum—by 20 per cent.—to about 6,000. This will be the biggest increase in medical education in this country in a generation. Our intention is to ensure that the national health service will have the doctors that it needs in the first part of the new century.
  Statutory responsibility for the allocation of the additional student places to individual universities rests with the appropriate funding council. In England, a joint implementation group, led by the chief executive of the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the permanent secretary of my Department, is working together to allocate places and to make recommendations to the HEFCE.
  Some 158 extra places have already been allocated to existing medical schools in England for the autumn 1999 intake, and work is now well advanced to allocate more than 800 further places to English universities.
  We should be clear why the issue of medical education is so very important. The White Paper "The new NHS" introduced a new concept of clinical governance, which embraces a range of quality assurance processes, such as clinical audit, and acknowledges the importance of continuing professional development and lifelong learning to the delivery of quality patient care in the NHS. The expectations placed upon tomorrow's doctors will be demanding, and their preparation to meet them will begin as soon as they enter medical school.
  In increasing medical student places, we want to set an agenda to drive up the standards of medical education as a whole so as to deliver real long-term benefits to the NHS, following curriculums consistent with the General Medical Council's report entitled "Tomorrow's Doctors", and working towards the principles set out in "The new NHS". That is why we have asked the joint implementation group to observe specific objectives in judging proposals from universities for the allocation of the further places in England. Those objectives reflect the Government's agenda both for the NHS and for a healthier nation.
  The joint implementation group's objectives are, first, to develop new doctors who are equipped to meet the challenge of the changing health and health care needs of patients and populations into the first half of the 21st century. In short, the new doctors must have the right medical and technological skills, and must be adept at dealing with the changing health needs of a new century.
  The second objective is to develop new doctors who are able to practise to a very high standard, through being able to appraise and use evidence, to become lifelong
  1066
  learners, to maintain professional standards and be effective team members and leaders. In the new century, as now, the public will want to know that the doctors whom they consult will be of the best, and that the service that they deliver will be characterised by excellence.
  The pace at which new treatments and clinical techniques are developed means that a doctor's education and professional development cannot end with the completion of specialist or vocational training. This pace of change can only accelerate in the decades ahead. Whatever specialty doctors follow in their careers, they have a duty to maintain and continue to develop their clinical practice throughout their careers. They will continue to learn, so that they remain skilled in, and will apply, the latest knowledge in their work. The country will also rightly expect them to work to the highest professional standards, and to work together within the profession and across professional boundaries.
  The third objective of the joint implementation group is to develop new doctors who are committed to, and skilled in, promoting health, preventing ill health, diagnosing and treating injury and disease, and caring for people with long-term illness and disability. More than ever before, the practice of medicine is about the promotion of health and the prevention of illness and injury, as well as the treatment of injury and disease, and long-term care. That is essential to our strategy for a healthier nation.
  The fourth objective is to develop new doctors who understand the value of partnership and communication with their patients, their colleagues, and members of other professional groups. The best doctors have always worked with their patients and colleagues to ensure the very best outcomes for patients, but the skills to work together in partnership with patients and their families must be a part of the medical curriculum from the beginning.
  The group's fifth objective is to provide a high-quality educational environment in which evaluation and research are fostered and which gives value for money. Medicine is not taught by rote. A high-quality research environment in a university is a major driver to the development of inquiring and innovative doctors who will learn by approaching medical problems.
  The national need for trained doctors who are able to apply rapidly expanding knowledge in the biological and social sciences will remain paramount. To give just one key example, advances in human genetics will bring a revolution to health care in the next century, and the Government recognise the need to strengthen medical education in genetics at all stages of the continuum of training to ensure that tests are used and interpreted appropriately and efficiently. In so rapidly changing a field, a strong research base will be needed to underpin the development of students and their teachers alike.
  As the group considers bids, it seeks to demonstrate an active commitment to the admission of students from a broad range of social and ethnic backgrounds, to reflect the patterns of populations served by the NHS. In increasing the supply of doctors, the joint implementation group wants to ensure that unnecessary and often hidden barriers to a broader mix of gifted medical students are avoided.
  There are already examples of outreach, where universities and others have worked with local schools, often in areas where there has been little tradition of

  1067
  higher education. They have encouraged young people who might never have considered a medical career to work from an early stage of their secondary school careers towards entry to medical school. Such approaches are not simply a matter of promoting equal opportunities, critical though that is. They also help to ensure that new doctors understand, and can best work with, the communities that they serve.
  Finally, the group will ensure that the distribution and patterns of training of students effectively increase the home supply of doctors, and meet the needs of the populations served by the NHS, wherever the doctors may be trained and work. It will seek to enhance quality and value for money through collaboration between universities and partnership with the NHS, consistent with the principle of different groups working together.
  Using those objectives as a benchmark, the joint implementation group will be well placed to judge which universities can best and most cost effectively deliver to this agenda.
  All universities were invited in the new year to submit proposals for the allocation of places. I am delighted that about 20 proposals were submitted to the joint implementation group. These include a number of proposals for collaborations between new and existing medical schools, such as the planned co-operation between the university of Manchester and the university of Keele, to set up medical education facilities on new sites drawing on the curriculums, resources and expertise of the established medical schools. The joint implementation group is now considering all the proposals, and an announcement can be expected reasonably soon.
  1068
  It would be quite wrong for me to debate the merits of any of the proposals in this place when they are still being considered. It is clear that the different proposals will be judged on their different qualities. Not least among those will be the likely impact on local health services of establishing new sites for medical education or of increasing the size of existing sites.
  Equally, the joint implementation group will consider the quality of the medical education on offer, and that will include the capacity of the local health services to provide a broad range of suitable clinical placements in primary and secondary care settings which are easily accessible from the university. Also, and fundamentally, the group must judge how the allocation of medical school places will affect the overriding reason for the increase—the development of the right number of appropriately skilled doctors to deliver medical care in the first part of the new century, in the most cost-effective way, for the country as a whole.
  My hon. Friends may be assured that Keele university's proposal to set up a joint medical school with Manchester university, which I understand that they see as a possible first step towards the establishment of a free-standing medical school, will be considered in detail alongside those of other universities and in accordance with the objectives that I have described.
  Hon. Members may be assured of the Government's wish to ensure that the long-term supply of doctors best meets the needs of the country as a whole, wherever the places are situated, and that the underlying principles followed will ensure a quality, cost-effective education—not only for the students filling the additional places now being created, but for all medical students at all universities, consistent with the curricular requirements of "Tomorrow's Doctors" and the broader vision set out in the White Paper "The new NHS".
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 17 March 1999,Official Report, column 665, on special advisers, if he will give the total travel cost of each occasion when (a) departmental and (b) non-departmental advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity since 2 May 1997 and the place visited. [82411]

  Mr. Straw
  For the period 2 May 1997 to 27 April 1999, Special Advisers in my Department have travelled overseas in an official capacity on two occasions to Brussels and once to Washington. The total cost of travel and any hotel accommodation for the visits to Brussels was £433.00. The cost of the visit to Washington was accounted for in the answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) on 13 March 1998,Official Report, columns 366–67. Because of the block booking arrangements, the cost per person for travel was £3,500. All travel complied with the requirements of the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Management Code.

  Deaths (Police Custody)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date he received the report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture relating to the handling of deaths in police custody; and when he has to respond. [82650]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My hon. Friend may be referring to the report by the European Committee on the Prevention of Torture on its visit to the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man in September 1997.

  We received the Committee's report in April 1998. The Government forwarded a response in October 1998.

  Fire Brigades (Millennium Compliance)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the fire brigades to whose millennium computer preparedness the recent study by Action 2000 drew attention. [82819]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The results of independent assessments conducted by Her Majesty's Fire Service Inspectorate up to 12 April were reported to the Action 2000 National Infrastructure Forum on 21 April. The latest position is that 45 out of 49 brigades in England and Wales have so far been assessed. Of these, 22 are classified as prepared, and 23 have been given an Action Plan. All are expected to be prepared by September. It is not my intention to name individual brigades at this stage.

  Coroners
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the syllabus of the programme of training courses organised by his Department for coroners and details of the attendees in each of the past five years. [82699]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Home Office courses have contained lectures on the following subjects:

  judicial reviews

  pre-inquest hearings

  dealing with juries

  summing up and verdicts

  coroners and criminal law

  the Attorney-General and the coroner

  the role of the pathologist

  post mortems

  histopathology

  forensic pathology

  paediatric pathology

  toxicology

  hospital deaths

  mesothelioma and associated respiratory diseases

  industrial diseases

  disaster management

  accident reconstruction

  coroners: the Home Office role

  computerising coroner records

  Home Office statistics

  the role of the coroner's officer

  the coroner and the media

  the Mental Health Act 1983

  the Treasure Act 1996

  death registration.

  Since 1995, some 220 coroners and their deputies have attended Home Office-organised courses. The figures for 1994 are no longer available.

  Proxy Voting
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete his review of proxy voting. [82848]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Working Party on Electoral Procedures which I am chairing has been examining both proxy and postal voting along with other electoral issues. I expect to present the Working Party's final report to the Home Secretary in the late summer.

  Sexual Offences (Anonymity)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will assess the(a) benefits and (b) disadvantages of granting anonymity to defendants in actions for (i) rape and (ii) other sexual offences. [82856]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government have no plans to review this area of the law, which reflects the position that, in accordance with the principles of open justice, the press should be able to report the identity of all defendants. By virtue of their right to control proceedings
  369
  in court, judges have an inherent power to impose reporting restrictions in exceptional circumstances where there is good reason and it is in the interests of justice.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is his Department's estimate of the number of animals used in experiments in(a) 1996, (b) 1997 and (c) 1998; [82910]

  (2) in how many facilities in the United Kingdom animal experiments are permitted to take place; [83006]

  (3) how many project licences were issued in (a) 1996, (b) 1997 and (c) 1998 for animal experiments. [82909]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Information on the use of animals in scientific procedures is published each year in the Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals. Table la gives details of the number of animals used. In 1996, the total was 2,646,026 and, in 1997, it was 2,573,088.

  Figures for animal use during 1998 are being collated and will be published in July.

  Scientific procedures must normally be carried out at designated establishments. The Annual Reports of the Animal Procedures Committee 1996 and 1997 list the numbers of such establishments and also give the number of project licences issued. They show that:
  300 certificates of designation were in force on 31 December 1996 and 292 on 31 December 1997; and
  667 new project licences were granted during 1996 and 919 during 1997.

  Figures for 1998 will be published shortly. They will show that there were 286 certificates of designation in force on 31 December 1998 and that 1,104 project licences were granted during 1998.

  In specific circumstances (such as field trials), experiments can also take place at places other than designated establishments. Details of the number of such places are not held centrally.

  Of the 286 certificates of designation in force on 31 December 1998, 107 were registered as commercial concerns. The number of companies may differ slightly from this: some companies, for example, may hold more than one certificate of designation each covering a different facility.

  Illegal Handguns
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many illegal handguns are estimated to be in circulation in the UK, separately identifying the figure for 9mm Browning automatics; and if he will make a statement. [83060]

  Mr. Boateng
  There is no reliable estimate of the number of illegal firearms in circulation in this country.

  The existence of illegal firearms is of great concern to the Government. We will do all we can to ensure that the police service and Her Majesty's Customs are equipped to target this particular crime. Work is also continuing at international level to address the problems of the illicit
  370
  manufacture and trafficking of firearms, notably through a Protocol to the proposed United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organised Crime.

  Passport Applications
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he plans to reduce waiting times for passport applications; and if he will make a statement. [83138]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To meet its customers' needs the Passport Agency is now prioritising applications by customers' declared travel dates. Its secondary standard of service target is to give priority to customers' travel needs aiming to meet their declared travel dates for at least 99.99 per cent. of passports issued. The Agency is meeting this target and will continue to do so.

  The Agency's aim is to reduce turnround times in all the six regional passport offices to its target of ten days by September and in the meantime to meet customers' declared travel needs. It will do this by injecting additional resources, through system improvements and clear messages to passport applicants on how they can best assist the Agency to meet their needs.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) new applications and (b) applications for renewal of United Kingdom passports were received in each month since January 1998; how many unprocessed applications there were at the end of each month; and if he will make a statement. [83137]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Information on new and renewal applications and on unprocessed applications is shown in the table.

  Month

  New

  Renewal

  Work in Progress

  January 1998

  179,812

  210,465

  118,983

  February 1998

  205,613

  221,535

  139,879

  March 1998

  233,839

  223,772

  168,064

  April 1998

  192,314

  167,118

  136,174

  May 1998

  268,357

  202,910

  184,505

  June 1998

  245,467

  176,988

  204,589

  July 1998

  233,388

  168,073

  190,857

  August 1998

  230,835

  179,665

  101,300

  September 1998

  138,630

  109,215

  86,848

  October 1998

  125,315

  99,087

  53,652

  November 1998

  145,815

  117,807

  77,423

  December 1998

  90,208

  74,731

  61,396

  January 1999

  166,995

  172,346

  129,778

  February 1999

  208,906

  188,515

  210,292

  March 1999

  294,787

  239,533

  222,631

  The Passport Agency has encountered a number of operational problems arising from the introduction of new high technology driven passport issuing arrangements into its Liverpool and Newport passport offices. This has caused delays in the processing of non-urgent applications and has increased the backlog of unprocessed work.

  To meet its customers' needs the Passport Agency is now prioritising applications by customers' declared travel dates. Its secondary standard of service target is to give priority to customers' travel needs aiming to meet

  371
  their declared travel dates for at least 99.99 per cent. of passports issued. The Agency is meeting this target and will continue to do so.

  The Agency's aim is to reduce turnround times in all the six regional passport offices to its target of 10 days by September and in the meantime to meet customers' declared travel needs. It will do this by injecting additional resources, through system improvements and clear messages to passport applicants on how they can best assist the Agency to meet their needs.

  Human Rights
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what approach the Government are taking in relation to statements about the compatibility of new legislation with the Convention rights set out in the Human Rights Act 1998. [83540]

  Mr. Straw
  A statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act may be made where, in the view of the Minister, the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the Convention rights. In other cases a statement under section 19(1)(b) of the Act should be made: such a statement is not one that the provisions of the Bill are incompatible with the Convention rights but only one to the effect that the Minister is unable to make a statement of compatibility. A section 19(1)(a) statement is a positive statement of compatibility.

  If a section 19(1)(a) statement is to be made, a Minister must be clear that, at a minimum, the balance of argument supports the view that the provisions are compatible. Lawyers will advise whether the provisions of the Bill are on balance compatible with the Convention rights. In doing so, they will consider whether it is more likely than not that the provisions of the Bill will stand up to challenge on Convention grounds before the domestic courts and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. A Minister should not be advised to make a statement of compatibility where legal advice is that on balance the provisions of the Bill would not survive such a challenge. The fact that there are valid arguments to be advanced against any anticipated challenge is not a sufficient basis on which to advise a Minister that he may make a statement of compatibility where it is thought that these arguments would not ultimately succeed before the courts.

  Section 19 of the Act applies where a Minister of the Crown is in charge of a Bill, that is, either a Government Bill or a Consolidation Bill. Section 19 does not apply to Private Members' bills: there is no duty to make a statement about their compatibility with the Convention rights. Where the Bill is directly assisted by the Government, however, the Minister responsible for the policy should, as a matter of good practice, express the Government's views on compatibility with the Convention rights during the Second Reading debate.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many claims were submitted to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (i) in total and (ii) by the victims of rape and 372
  incest; and what percentage in each case were (a) processed, (b) awarded and (c) rejected, in each of the last five years. [83266]

  Mr. Boateng
  The available data record the number of applications received in a year, the number of claims settled in that year and the outcomes. Claims are not necessarily settled in the year in which they are received, but may be settled in subsequent years. In the following table the term 'rape' includes rape within the family.

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Claims received

  Total number

  71,734

  75,667

  75,032

  77,326

  75,956

  Rape

  3,997

  3,891

  3,581

  4,020

  3,260

  Claims settled

  Total number

  64,549

  76,225

  79,219

  79,544

  85,493

  Rape

  905

  2,355

  2,401

  3,018

  3,594

  Percentage settled attracting monetary award

  Total

  58

  58

  59

  57

  55

  Rape

  66

  67

  69

  71

  68

  Remembrance Day
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change(a) the name of and (b) ceremonials associated with Remembrance Day. [83272]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are no plans to change the name "Remembrance Day", which is also known as "Remembrance Sunday". Nor are there any plans to change the present arrangements for the official ceremony at the Cenotaph, which are generally recognised as successfully uniting the nation in memory of all those who made the supreme sacrifice and all who mourn them.

  The Royal British Legion, which organises the march past the Cenotaph that follows the official ceremony on Remembrance Sunday, has made proposals which will allow greater participation in future years by non ex-Service groups and individuals. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has welcomed the proposals for expansion of the march past put forward by the Royal British Legion, and Home Office officials are discussing the details with them.

DEFENCE

  Landmines
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of each type of anti-personnel mine are presently held by(a) the Royal Air Force, (b) the Royal Navy and (c) UK Special Forces. [81995]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Royal Air Force's stock of 209,625 HB876 bomblets (as at 1 April 1999), the sub-munition for the JP233 runway denial weapon, is being withdrawn from service to comply with the Ottawa Convention and destroyed by a contractor in Germany. Destruction will be completed by 1 January 2000, well ahead of the schedule stipulated under Ottawa of the four years after entry into force of the Convention. No anti-personnel mines are held by either the Royal Navy or UK Special Forces.
  373
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) anti-personnel landmines, (b) weapons containing anti-personnel landmines and (c) weapons containing anti-vehicle mines equipped with anti-handling devices have been developed by NATO forces carrying out operations in Kosovo. [81993]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Providing details of those weapon systems being developed by other NATO forces currently carrying out operations in Kosovo is a matter for those nations concerned. The Ottawa Convention, and the Landmines Act 1998, prohibit the UK from developing, stockpiling, using or transferring either(a) anti-personnel mines, or (b) weapons containing anti-personnel mines. The RAF's stocks of the JP233 Runway Denial Weapon—which is prohibited under the Ottawa Convention—have been withdrawn from service and will be destroyed by 1 January 2000, well ahead of the schedule stipulated under the Ottawa Convention. In the case of (c), the UK's equipment programme (including those weapons in service; being developed in collaboration with other NATO countries; or awaiting procurement decisions) currently contains the following anti-vehicle systems. They are all required to be compliant with the definitions and provisions of the Ottawa Convention and the Landmines Act 1998:

  In-service
  Barmine: An Anti-Tank mine. No anti-handling device is fitted to this weapon, but disturbance of the mine may, in some circumstances cause it to detonate.
  Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) Phase 2: A long-range rocket, deploying anti-vehicle mines. Developed by Germany and procured in co-operation with France, Germany and Italy. The anti-handling device fitted to this weapon would cause detonation after deliberate and sustained movement of the mine.

  Under Development
  Aimed controlled effect anti-tank mine (ACEATM): A manually deployed anti-tank weapon. Being developed in collaboration with France and Germany. A non-lethal anti-handling device would switch the weapon off if disturbed.

  Future Systems
  Area Defence Weapon: A manually deployed anti-vehicle weapon. No contract has yet been awarded. A non-lethal anti-handling device would switch the weapon off if disturbed.
  Shielder: A vehicle-launched scatterable mine system employing anti-tank mines. No anti-handling device is fitted to this weapon, but disturbance of the mine may, in some circumstances cause it to detonate.

  Gulf War (Vaccines)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which vaccines or components of vaccines given to Gulf War service personnel contained squalene preparations; and how many British Gulf War veterans have tested positive for the presence of squalene in blood samples. [82286]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Details of the Ministry of Defence's programme to immunise UK troops against the potential threat posed by Iraq's biological weapons during the Gulf conflict were published in October 1997, in the MOD paper "Background to the Use of Medical Countermeasures to Protect British Forces during the Gulf War (Operation GRANBY)". None of the vaccines used for this programme contained squalene. In addition, UK Service personnel would have received other 374
  immunisations against diseases which potentially posed a public health threat. So far as has been ascertained, none of the latter vaccines contained squalene either.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which vaccines used on Gulf War service personnel were acquired from the USA. [82287]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Details of the Ministry of Defence's programme to immunise UK troops against the potential threat posed by Iraq's biological weapons during the Gulf conflict were published in October 1997, in the MOD paper "Background to the Use of Medical Countermeasures to Protect British Forces during the Gulf War (Operation GRANBY)". This describes in detail how a vaccine against plague was purchased from the US DoD for use by UK forces. None of the other vaccines used for this programme were acquired from the US.

  In addition, UK Service personnel would have received other immunisations against disease that potentially posed a public health threat. So far as has been ascertained, none of the latter vaccines were acquired from the US.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in the investigation into vaccines used on Gulf War service personnel. [82288]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Details of the UK's anti-biological warfare agent immunisation programme for the Gulf conflict were declassified in December 1996. An explanation of the vaccines used and the reasoning behind the programme was published in October 1997 in the MOD paper "Background to the Use of Medical Countermeasures to Protect British Forces during the Gulf War (Operation GRANBY)". A copy of this publication has been placed in the Library of the House at that time.

  A Fact Finding Team within the Ministry of Defence's Gulf Veterans' Illnesses Unit (GVIU) was established in September 1997 to look into the implementation in-theatre of the 1991 programme of immunisation against biological warfare agents. This review is based on oral testimony and extant documentary evidence. with a view to making public as much information as possible. The team's fieldwork was completed last autumn and a paper based on their work, and on other contemporary material that has been located, is in the course of preparation. This will be published once it is completed, which is expected to be within the next three months.

  In May 1997, the Government announced the funding of a research programme to investigate the possible adverse health effects of the combination of vaccines and tablets which were given to troops in the Gulf to protect them against the threat of biological and chemical warfare agents. An Independent Panel has been set up to oversee this research programme. The Panel consists of experts in fields of toxicology, immunology, virology, microbiology and epidemiology and includes two members who have been nominated by Gulf veterans groups. The programme as a whole is now expected to take some three and a half years to complete. However, we expect to publish results from the first phase of work during the first half of 1999.

  This research involves an in depth study into the potential adverse health effects of interactions between the vaccines which could have been administered to Service personnel at the time of the Gulf War, both with

  375
  and without pyridostigmine bromide (PB) which was present in the NAPS tablets given to UK troops in the Gulf War as a pre-treatment against nerve agents.

  Investigation of the specific combination of anthrax and pertussis vaccines is a priority element of the programme. The National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC) have been asked to repeat the tests they carried out in the late 1990 that led the Department of Health to notify the MOD that it had anxieties about the simultaneous use of anthrax and pertussis vaccines. NIBSC will commence this work later this year, when protocols are finalised. Their programme is expected to run for two years.

  Initial dose-ranging work at CBD Porton Down on the physical effects of vaccines and PB in rodents is nearing completion and a meeting of the Independent Panel held in March this year gave CBD permission to proceed with longer term studies to investigate potential cognitive and neurophysical effects of the vaccines/PB combination. NIBSC have also been invited to participate (in particular in the anthrax/pertussis work) and it is intended that a number of other scientific and academic bodies will contribute to the research in due course. It is expected that this study will report towards the end of 2002.

  The Independent Panel also approved a study to determine whether CBD Porton Down staff, who have received multiple immunisations including anthrax and plague in the course of their duties, exhibit higher levels of ill-health than their non-vaccinated colleagues. This study is expected to be complete by the end of this year.

  Ministerial Meetings (US)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many meetings his special adviser, Bernard Gray, and Deputy Chief of Defence Procurement (Support) held with members and officials of the US Administration during their visit to the USA on 4 and 5 March; with which US department they met at each meeting; and what was the purpose of their visit. [82247]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Meetings were held on 5 March with Department of Defence officials to discuss defence industrial co-operation. The meetings were positive. We expect these discussions to continue as part of MOD's normal dialogue with US officials on defence equipment business.

  Yugoslav Air Force
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on(a) the level of Yugoslav air defence capability and (b) the threat to NATO aircraft from (i) non-portable, (ii) towed and (iii) self-propelled air defence weaponry, following the initial NATO air campaign. [82474]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Yugoslav air defence capability has been and will continue to be damaged by the NATO air campaign. All Yugoslav operational air defence weapons are portable to a greater or lesser extent. Their towed anti aircraft guns present a limited threat to NATO's high altitude air attacks. These guns and their self-propelled air defence weapons still pose a credible threat to NATO aircraft, if operating at low level. NATO continues to take appropriate measures to minimise the threat.
  376
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Yugoslav Air Force (i) MIG-29s, (ii) MIG-21s, (iii) ORAOs and (iv) Galebs are confirmed destroyed by NATO; how many were estimated non-operational before NATO operations over Serbia began; and if he will make a statement on the estimated impact of NATO action to date on Yugoslav Air Force capability. [82473]

  Mr. George Robertson
  We estimate that NATO has destroyed 70 out of 450 aircraft of all types. This includes seven MiG-29s, 16 MIG-21s and 35 ORAO/GALEB aircraft. Between 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. of their aircraft might have been non-operational before the NATO campaign began. The Yugoslav Air Force continues to fly a limited number of combat missions but NATO action has had a considerable impact on its capability.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the basis of the calculation of the cash budget of the Chief of Defence Logistics in 1996–97 in his Department's expenditure plans 1999–2000 to 2001–02, Table 1A. [82515]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Defence Logistics Organisation brings together the three single Service logistics commands: the Chief of Fleet Support, Quartermaster General and Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Land Logistics Command. In order to show comparable figures for the new Chief of Defence Logistics Top Level Budget (TLB) for previous years, the budgets of those former TLBs, which under the earlier Estimates structure were shown on Vote 2 (Defence: logistics services), have been added together. In addition, the total figures for 1996–97 and 1997–98 have been adjusted by the amounts of the loans and grants to and repayments from the Hydrographic Office Defence Agency that had previously been contained within the Chief of Fleet Support TLB but which it has now been decided should be shown separately for all years in Supply Estimates (Vote subhead 1N) and, therefore, in Table la of The Government's Expenditure Plans 1999–2000 to 2001–02: Ministry of Defence.

  Efficiency Savings
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) efficiency savings and (b) purchasing reductions which have been (i) identified and (ii) achieved in his Department's cash plan (A) 1998–99 estimated outturn and (B) the 1999–2000 expenditure plans in the Class VI Estimates, Vote 1, for each of votes 1A to 1P, excluding Vote 1N. [82557]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Depleted Uranium Weapons
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has held with his NATO counterparts regarding the use of depleted uranium weapons by NATO forces in current operations in Yugoslavia. [82861]
  377
  Mr. George Robertson
  I have had no discussions on the use of depleted uranium with my NATO counterparts. The United Kingdom has not used DU ammunition in the Balkans. It is a matter for the individual nations as to what ammunition they employ.

  National Insurance Charge
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the revenue effect of reducing the national insurance charge by 0.5 per cent. for all those employed in or by the armed forces. [82752]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Based on figures for Financial Year 1999–2000, it is estimated that the revenue effect of reducing by 0.5 per cent. the National Insurance Charges for Armed Forces personnel, will be:

  (a) Employees' National Insurance Charges—£16.9 million

  (b) Employers' National Insurance Charges—£17.0 million.

  Any other personnel employed in support of the Armed Forces—excepting MOD civil servants—are directly employed by contractors. Responsibility for the payment of National Insurance Charges therefore lies with the contractors concerned and not the Armed Forces.

  Cranwell
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many students are currently training at Cranwell to become officers; and how many are of Afro-Caribbean origin. [83076]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 4 May 1999]: On 29 April 1999, there were 319 Royal Air Force officer cadets undergoing initial officer training at RAF College Cranwell. Within that total, there were fewer than five people who had declared their ethnic origin as Black Caribbean, Black African or Black Other. Detailed figures are not given in order to protect the confidentiality of the individuals concerned.

  Sandhurst
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many students are currently training at Sandhurst to become officers; and how many of these are of Afro-Caribbean origin. [83072]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 4 May 1999]: As at 1 April 1999, there were 626 British Officer Cadets under training at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst. Of this number, there were fewer than five cadets whose ethnic category was classified as either Black African or Black Other. Detailed figures are not given in order to protect the confidentiality of the individuals concerned.

  Dartmouth Naval College
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many students are currently training at Dartmouth Naval College to become officers; and how many of these are of Afro-Caribbean origin. [83073]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 4 May 1999]: There are currently 348 Royal Navy Young Officers under training at Britannia Royal Naval College Dartmouth. Of these, six are of ethnic origin, although none are currently Black-Caribbean or Black other.
  378
  In addition, there are presently 49 Young Officers from a number of overseas countries undertaking training this term. Of these, two are of Black Caribbean origin.

  Army Barracks (Gaelic Athletic Association)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date and by what legal authority Army barracks were constructed on property of the Gaelic Athletic Association and grounds of Crossmaglen Rangers; what preparations have been made to vacate these barracks; what functions currently conducted at or from these barracks will be discontinued and what functions will be carried out from which other sites; what preparations for the transfer of functions are being made at other sites; what date has been set as the target for completion of these moves; what compensation or other payments have been made to the owners of this land; and what plans have been made to demolish the barracks and return the site to its previous use. [82502]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 4 May 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) on 4 May 1999, Official Report, columns 328–29.

  Commissioned Officers (Ethnic Origin)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many commissioned officers there are in(a) the Army, (b) the Royal Navy and (c) the Royal Air Force; and how many are of Afro-Caribbean origin. [83074]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 4 May 1999]: As at 1 March 1999, the numbers of all commissioned officers, and the number of commissioned officers whose known ethnic category is either 'Black-African' or 'Black-Caribbean' is as shown in the table:

  All ethnic origins

  Black-African1

  Black-Caribbean1

  Naval Service

  7,733

  8

  6

  Army

  12,707

  12

  12

  Royal Air Force

  10,798

  9

  17

  Total

  31,238

  29

  35

  1These numbers are based on the self-classification of ethnic origin used by individual members of the Armed Forces. There are a further 24 officers who have classified themselves as 'Black-Other'.

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress of the study into the options for a public private partnership for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. [83391]

  Mr. George Robertson
  A report on the Public Private Partnership options for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency was submitted by the Ministry of Defence study team to Ministers on 31 March 1999.

  The report detailed the progress of the study to date, setting out the team's analysis and the proposed way ahead. In line with their advice, I have agreed that they should consult on the report's findings with key stakeholders, including other Government Departments,

  379
  UK industry and academia, overseas allies, DERA staff and trade unions, before providing me with a final recommendation in the summer.

  I would hope to be in a position to make an announcement on the PPP option chosen by the time of the summer recess. However, it is important that all stakeholders are properly consulted and their views taken into account prior to a decision being taken on the final shape of the PPP.

  A copy of the consultation document has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Defence Logistics Organisation
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the location of the permanent headquarters for the Defence Logistics Organisation. [83539]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We have undertaken a comprehensive investment appraisal and business case study to inform a decision on the location of the headquarters of the Defence Logistics Organisation (DLO) following its Foundation Year. I am now able to announce that, subject to full consultation with the Trades Unions, the headquarters will be based from 1 April 2000 at Ensleigh in Bath. The headquarters will comprise only a very small proportion of the DLO's staff, but its new location is the best site to enable it to drive forward the revolution in logistic support, deliver the full scale of early business improvements expected from the newly unified organisation, work closely with the Defence Procurement Agency to develop the Smart Procurement initiative and meet the DLO vision to excel as an integrated and responsive defence logistics team. Once agreement is reached with the Trade Unions, transition planning will begin in earnest with the aim of a progressive move to the new location completed by 1 April 2000.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Business Closures
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what support his Department provides for profitable medium-sized businesses facing closure as a result of multi-national corporations rationalising their operations. [82375]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 29 April 1999]: The closure of any successful business, whether operated by a foreign or indigenous company, is always a matter for regret. The DTI's Invest in Britain Bureau and its partners seek to ensure that, where multi-national firms are considering global rationalisation, the case for the UK is put forward strongly to local management. However, commercial decisions taken in the light of world market conditions rest with the companies themselves.

  In circumstances where there are redundancies, the Employment Service stands ready to give the maximum possible assistance to those affected, including counselling, careers guidance and advice on re-training opportunities. In offering support the Employment Service takes account of the skills and experience of the
  380
  employees being made redundant and local labour market conditions. The Employment Service has also targeted help in cases where there are large scale redundancies by setting up Rapid Response Units. These have been established to offer a wide range of co-ordinated support, and to assist people who have unfortunately been made redundant to find jobs quickly.

  Discrimination (Sexual Orientation)
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to introduce protection from discrimination in the workplace for lesbians and gay men. [83020]

  Ms Hodge
  We are currently considering our response to the Equal Opportunities Commission's recommendations, following their review of the current sex discrimination legislation. One of the EOC's proposals was that there should be legal protection for gay men and lesbians. We are considering carefully the Commission's recommendations, including whether or not legislation is the most appropriate route.

  Roman Catholic Secondary Schools (London)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils there are in Roman Catholic secondary schools in London; and how many are of Afro-Caribbean origin. [83075]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 4 May 1999]: In January 1998 there were 59,030 pupils in Roman Catholic maintained secondary schools in London, of which 4,438 were of Black Caribbean background and 4,835 of Black African background.

  A and AS Courses
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects the QCA to give final approval for the specifications submitted to it by awarding bodies for new A and AS level courses; and when he expects specimen papers, specifications and marking schemes to be circulated to schools. [83289]

  Mr. Mudie
  [holding answer 4 May 1999]: The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority intends to produce by September 1999 synopses of all proposed AS and A level specifications to be introduced for teaching from September 2000. After final approval, the new specifications, together with sample assessment materials and marking schemes, will be published and distributed to schools and colleges by the awarding bodies in December 1999. Although the final specifications will not be available until later in the year, I understand that the awarding bodies plan to make detailed information on their draft specifications available to schools and colleges as soon as possible after they have been submitted to QCA later this Spring.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what performance targets will be set for the Employment Service in 1999–2000. [83463]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Aim of the Employment Service is to contribute to high levels of employment and growth, and to individuals leading rewarding working lives, by
  381
  helping all people without a job find work and employers fill their vacancies. This aim is supported by six key Objectives.

  I am today announcing the targets I have set the Employment Service for 1999–2000 for each of its Objectives.
  Objective A: To help people into work by providing the appropriate advice, guidance, training and support either directly or in partnership with others.
  Target:
  1. To place 1.25 million unemployed people into work.
  Objective B: To concentrate efforts on helping people improve their employability and move from welfare to work particularly if they have already spent long periods without a job.
  Targets:
  2. To place 190,000 long-term (6 months plus) JSA claimants into work.
  3. To place 38,000 JSA claimants out of work for 2 years or more, including New Deal for over 25s participants, into work:
  4. To place 100,000 New Deal for 18–24 participants into work;
  5. To place 15,000 New Deal for Lone Parents participants into work;
  Objective C: To involve people with disabilities in the world of work by helping them to find and retain jobs and encouraging employers to open more opportunities to them.
  Target:
  6. To place 85,000 unemployed people with disabilities, including New Deal for Disabled People participants, into work.
  Objective D: To set out clearly the rights and responsibilities of people who claim Jobseeker's Allowance and ensure that throughout the period of their claim these rights and responsibilities are fulfilled.
  Target:
  7. To ensure the correct application of the JSA process in at least 96 per cent. of cases checked in quarter four of 1999–2000.
  Objective E: To provide a courteous and professional customer service to all jobseekers.
  Target:
  8. To achieve an 87 per cent. customer service delivery rate.
  Objective F: To deliver these services cost effectively.

  Targets for the Employment Service in Scotland and Wales, derived from the national targets, will be announced shortly.

  I am also announcing today a review of the aims, Objectives and targets of the ES for the year 2000 and beyond, to ensure they continue to be an accurate reflection of the key role ES has to play in the implementation and operation of our employment policies.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he intends to reply to the letter sent to him by Karen Lloyd and Sarah Varnan of Windermere Road, Kendal on 23 February. [83183]

  Mr. Mudie
  I am afraid there is no record of the original letter to the Secretary of State having been received in the Department. However, the correspondents copied their letter to the Prime Minister on 19 April. A copy arrived in the Department from the Prime Minister's382
  office on 30 April. We will reply within the timetable set by the Department's Correspondence Standard, ie 15 working days from receipt.

  Youth Service
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the future of the Youth Service. [83296]

  Mr. Mudie
  We are currently considering a range of proposals supporting the requirements of young people, including the role of the youth service. The nature and timing of our planned consultation on the future of the youth service will need to be determined once the youth service's part in the wider agenda has been firmly established. An announcement will be made in due course.

  Acting Heads and Deputy Heads
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list by local education authority how many acting heads and acting deputy heads there were in January 1999 and in each of the last three years in maintained schools in England and Wales, listing separately(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools. [80676]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 23 April 1999]: The information requested is not held centrally.

  An Office for Manpower Economics sample survey of vacancies and recruitment in schools in the maintained sector in England and Wales at September 1998 estimated that the proportion of acting heads was about 3 per cent. and the proportion of acting deputy heads was about 6 per cent.

  Teachers may take on a job in an acting capacity when another post is vacant or the incumbent is absent because of sick, compassionate, study or training leave.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Appellants (Payments)
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many independent tribunal decisions to allow payments to appellants there were in the last year; and how many of these were paid to the claimant(a) within one month, (b) between one and two months and (c) after more than two months after the decision. [83067]

  Angela Eagle
  The latest available statistics indicate that for the period 1 December 1997 to 30 November 1998, a total of 261,255 appeals were heard and decided. Of these, 87,986 [33.7 per cent.] were in the appellant's favour. Information is not kept about what proportion of these resulted in payments to appellants or how soon after the Independent Tribunals' decisions such payments were made.

  Giro Cheques
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he has taken to ensure that giro cheques cashed in shops offering to cash cheques on the spot are being legitimately encashed by claimants. [82632]
  383
  Mr. Timms
  The administration of benefits is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, Peter Mathison. I have asked him to reply to my right hon. Friend.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Frank Field dated 4 May 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Peter Mathison to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what moves he has taken to ensure that giros cashed in shops offering to cash cheques on the spot are being legitimately encashed by claimants. As Mr. Mathison is away from the office on leave, I am replying.
  Current banking law allows cheque shops to exchange giros for cash and clear them through their own bank account.
  The Benefits Agency is aware of the risks this poses to its girocheques and is taking steps within the legislation to minimise the problems. For instance, the Benefits Agency has worked closely with the British Cheque Cashers Association (BCCA) and is establishing a formal memorandum of understanding with them to improve cooperation between our organisations. The BCCA is a trade association for cheques shops with over six hundred members which promotes a code of practice setting out various security measures to be observed. At local level there are examples of good liaison between individual cheque shops and BA fraud investigation teams.
  In addition the Benefits Agency is currently reviewing the end-to-end payment process to identify the areas of risk in order to plan further security improvements.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will increase the time allocated by Health and Safety Executive inspectors to the inspection of genetically modified trial crop sites. [74867]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]: The time allocated for Health and Safety Executive inspection of genetically modified trial crop sites has been increased in 1999–2000 by about 15 per cent. compared with the previous year.

  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to use research data from other countries on the ecological impact of genetically engineered of crops in order to avoid the need to plant such crops in this country for research purposes. [79488]

  Mr. Meacher
  All available research data are used, including data from other countries, when making assessments. However, the UK ecosystem is unique and therefore information from other countries is not always relevant. Some research trials are statutory, for example trials in respect of the UK National List of Seeds, and these must be grown and assessed in the UK.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to improve the mechanisms for informing local communities of genetically modified crops being grown in their area. [82259]
  384
  Mr. Meacher
  Information on the location of trials of genetically modified (GM) crops is currently available on the public register held in my Department. Outside of London, details of local releases are available at the regional offices of the Environment Agency and in Scotland at both the offices of the Scottish Office and the Health and Safety Executive, Edinburgh. The information is also available on my Department's website. Copies of register entries for particular releases are available by post on request. In addition, anyone applying for a release consent must publish a notice in a newspaper circulating in the areas likely to be affected by the proposed release. We continue to examine ways of improving the availability of information to local communities of GM crop trials but have no plans at present to change existing mechanisms.

  Genetically Modified Engineering
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list each(a) biotechnology and (b) other company which has asked the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment to keep confidential papers or information which it has provided to the committee on genetically modified engineering. [77942]

  Mr. Meacher
  The legislation requires the Secretary of State to keep certain information confidential if requested to do so by the company concerned. Such information is limited to the protection of intellectual property rights for which a patent application is being made. The information is placed on the public register once the patent has been granted. Otherwise all the information in the application for consent to release or market a GMO is available on request. All the information submitted with an application is available to the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment.

  The following companies have asked the Secretary of State to treat elements of their applications as commercially confidential under the terms outlined above:

  Zeneca Plant Science Limited

  Plant Breeding International

  Advanced Technologies (Cambridge) Limited

  Nickerson BIOCEM Limited

  Shell Research Limited

  Rhone-Poulenc Agriculture Limited

  Maribo UK Limited

  Ciba-Geigy Limited

  Sharpes International Seeds Limited

  The Scottish Agricultural College

  Plant Genetic Systems NV

  Axis Genetics Limited

  Agrevo UK Limited

  Novartis Seeds Limited

  Monsanto Plc

  Scottish Crop Research Institute

  Pioneer Genetique SARL

  John K. King and Sons Limited

  CPB Twyford Limited

  The University of Leeds.

  A1/M1 Link Road
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many vehicles used the Al/M1 Yorkshire link road in its first full month of operation; what was the total sum paid to Yorkshire Link under the design, build, finance and operate contract; and if he will make a statement. [81898]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 23 April 1999]: 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. Phil Willis, dated 5 May 1999:
  Ml-Al link road—volumes of traffic
  As you know, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question. You asked "how many vehicles used the MI-A1 Yorkshire Link road in its first full month of operation; what was the total sum paid to Yorkshire Link Ltd. under the design, build, finance and operate contract".
  Traffic volumes vary along the length of the new link road. In its first full month, the average vehicle usage was 1.5 million vehicles. Approximately 20% of these were heavy goods vehicles.
  The estimated cost to public funds is measured by the Expected Net Present Value of the shadow toll payments by the Highways Agency over the 30-year life of the contract. The exact payment will depend on traffic flows. The expected range is between £186m-£281m over the 30-year period. It is not possible to provide more detailed information, since this is commercially sensitive and protected by confidentiality clauses in the contract which pre-date the Open Government initiative on disclosure of information.
  Additional information on this contract can be found in the National Audit Office Report "The Private Finance Initiative. The first four Design, Build, Finance and Operate Roads Contracts", which was published on 28 January 1998.
  I trust the above information meets your requirements.

  Millennium Compliancies
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the local authorities identified by the Year 2000 Taskforce as giving cause for concern in terms of their millennium computer compliance preparations. [82821]

  Mr. Meale
  As Action 2000 stated at their National Infrastructure Forum on 21 April 1999, at this stage of the evaluation process they are not naming any organisations. At the next Forum meeting, on 13 July, the Government Offices for the Regions, as the Millennium Bug responsible bodies for local authorities, fully expect to be in a position to report progress on all local authorities.

  West Midlands Regional Development Agency
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to ensure that Herefordshire is adequately represented on the West Midlands Regional Development Agency; and if he will make a statement. [82823]

  Mr. Meale
  Our primary concern in appointing the board members of Regional Development Agencies was to choose people with a wide range of experience who would make an effective contribution to the work of the boards. Members should not consider themselves to be the delegates of any group, body or geographical area but should take into account the interests of the region as a whole.

  SSSIs
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the designated areas of special scientific interest that have been subject to inappropriate development since May 1997. [82676]

  Mr. Meale
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on 28 April 1999,Official Report, column 144.

  Unauthorised Camping
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to assist councils faced with the cost of cleaning up land from which travellers have been evicted. [82719]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have published, jointly with the Home Office, good practice guidance for local authorities and the police on managing unauthorised camping. The good practice recognises that the cost of clearing up after unauthorised encampments can be high, and suggests that costs might be reduced by the provision of refuse collection and disposal services during the encampment.

  We want to encourage local authorities to think creatively about how best to manage unauthorised camping. Part of their thinking may involve the provision of temporary, serviced sites as advised in Department of the Environment Circular 18/94 "Gypsy Sites Policy and Unauthorised Camping", and latterly in the good practice guidance.

  Radar
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if civil airlines flying into United Kingdom airports are required to have radar enabling their pilots to detect other planes or flying objects directly below them. [82849]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Many passenger transport aeroplanes flying in UK airspace already have an airborne collision avoidance system installed and operating. This system is known as Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) II. It can provide advisory information including recommended avoidance manoeuvres to the pilot if another aircraft equipped with an operating transponder beacon is likely to pass too close. The intruder aircraft may be coming from any direction and may be above, below or at the same level as the aeroplane equipped with TCAS.

  With effect from 1 January 2000, all aeroplanes with more than 30 passenger seats or with a maximum take off mass that exceeds 15,000 kilogrammes will need to be equipped with an improved version of TCAS II that offers enhanced operational performance. It is intended that by 1 January 2005 this requirement should be extended to all aeroplanes that have more than 19 passenger seats or a maximum take off mass of more than 5,700 kilogrammes.

  BEST Pensions
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what offer has been made by the Government to the BEST pension trustees; and what was the response; [82678]
  387
  (2) for what reasons the BEST pensions issue remains unresolved; [82677]

  (3) how many meetings his officials have had with officials in other Government departments, regarding the BEST pension fund, since 15 September 1998. [82682]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Discussions about achieving a just out-of-court settlement of this issue are proceeding. We continue to attach high importance to bringing the discussion to a satisfactory conclusion without any unnecessary delay.

  Officials from other Departments have been kept fully informed of matters
  affecting their Departmental interests.

  Radioactive Iridium (Stansted)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the circumstances whereby a package of radioactive iridium was discovered at Stansted Airport. [83123]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I understand that this package, which was misdirected from the United States, arrived at Stansted Airport on Saturday 24 April 1999, as part of a normal shipment of radioactive material, and was placed in Federal Express's radioactive material store. When it was recognised that this package did not belong in the United Kingdom, the consignor was contacted and its proper destination ascertained. The package was returned to the United States on Monday 26 April 1999. At no time did it leave the control of Federal Express during its brief stay in the United Kingdom. The material was correctly contained in a package approved by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the US Department of Transportation in compliance with the requirements of the International Civil Aviation Organization's Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (Class 7) which governs the international transport of dangerous goods by air. I also understand that the package bore the appropriate markings and the correct labels, enabling it to be properly and safely handled. I would emphasise that the package at no time posed any threat to the health of workers, the public or to the environment.

  The Civil Aviation Authority is investigating the circumstances of how the package came to the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action was taken to safeguard (a) human health and (b) the environment following the discovery of a radioactive package of iridium at Stansted Airport. [83132]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 4 May 1999]: On arrival at Stansted Airport, the package was placed in a dedicated and licensed radioactive store of Federal Express where it remained until it was returned to the United States. I understand that the package bore the appropriate markings and the correct labels, enabling it to be properly and safely handled. There was at no time any hazard to human health or to the environment.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the package of iridium found at Stansted Airport was transported there on a passenger-carrying aircraft. [83135]
  388
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 4 May 1999]: This package arrived on a Federal Express cargo plane and was similarly returned to the United States on a Federal Express cargo plane.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what hazard warnings there were on the outside of the package of radioactive iridium discovered at Stansted Airport. [83134]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 4 May 1999]: The package which was mistakenly delivered to Stansted Airport bore all the necessary hazard warnings in accordance with the requirements of the International Civil Aviation Organization's Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (Class 7) and with the relevant UK regulations for air transport of dangerous goods (The Air Navigation (Dangerous Goods) Regulations 1994 SI No. 3187 and Amendments 1996 SI No. 3100 and 1998 SI No. 2536).

  The warnings consisted of an indelible trefoil symbol, resistant to the effects of fire and water, plainly marked on the outside of the package, together with two diamond shaped Category III-YELLOW labels on opposite sides of the package. The labels also bear the trefoil symbol, the word "RADIOACTIVE", and give details of the contents, the radioactivity and the Transport Index.

  Radioactive Material (Transport)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has of the number of packages of radioactive material carried within the United Kingdom by common carriers for the last year for which figures are available. [83131]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 4 May 1999]: Data are not collected separately on whether radioactive material is carried by common carriers or by a company's own transport, as they are required to meet the provisions of the same regulations. It was estimated in 1997 that of the order of 10,000 flights carrying packages of radioactive material currently occur each year, the vast majority of which contain limited quantities for medical or industrial use in excepted or Type A packages.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what controls exist over the movement within the United Kingdom of radioactive packages by common carriers. [83133]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 4 May 1999]: The transport of radioactive material within the UK, by whatever type of carrier, is controlled by a number regulatory requirements. The main regulations are as follows:

  Road
  The Radioactive Material (Road Transport) (Great Britain) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996 No. 1350). The Radioactive Substances (Carriage by Road) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1983 (SR 1983 No. 344). The Radioactive Substances (Carriage by Road) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1986 (SR 1986 No 61).

  Sea
  The Merchant Shipping (Dangerous Goods and Marine Pollutants) Regulations 1997 (SI 1997 No. 2367); Merchant Shipping Notice No. M 1620, "The Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Marine Pollutants in Packaged Form on Ships".
  389
  Air
  The Air Navigation (No. 2) Order 1995 SI No. 1970. The Air Navigation (Dangerous Goods) Regulations 1994 SI No. 3187 and Amendments 1996 SI No. 3100 and 1998 SI No. 2536.

  Ports
  The Dangerous Substances in Harbour Areas Regulations 1987 (SI 1987 No. 37).

  Rail
  The Packaging, Labelling and Carriage of Radioactive Material by Rail Regulations (RAMRai1) 1996 (SI 1996 No. 2090): Approved Requirements for the packaging, labelling and carriage of radioactive material by rail 1996 Edition. The Carriage of Dangerous Goods (Classification, Packaging and Labelling) and Use of Transportable Pressure Receptacles Regulations (CDGCPL) 1996 (SI 1996 No. 2092). The Packaging, Labelling and Carriage of Radioactive Material by Rail Regulations (Northern Ireland) (RAMRailNI) 1998 (SR 1998 No. 132).

  Park Homes Working Party
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many meetings have been held by his Department's Park Homes working party. [83285]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 4 May 1999]: The Working Party has met five times to date and is making useful progress.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of the width of council tax bands G and H; and if he will take steps to reduce the width of these bands before any general revaluation. [83237]

  Ms Armstrong
  We cannot make any changes to the valuation bands unless we carry out a revaluation of all dwellings. Last year we fully considered whether the current council tax bands should be changed and whether a revaluation was required. We set out our conclusions in the White Paper, "Modern Local Government—In Touch with the People". We explained that the council tax was generally working well and that we do not plan to make any fundamental changes to the council tax, or carry out a revaluation, during the course of this Parliament.

  Builders and Roofers
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to protect the public from dishonest and incompetent builders and roofers. [83146]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the hon. Member to my oral answer of 13 April 1999, Official Report, columns 1-3, which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey).

  Planning Applications (Freight)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many occasions since March 1994, he or his predecessors have intervened during consideration of (a) a development plan 390
  and (b) an individual planning application, because the proposals would conflict with the potential to carry freight by water or rail. [82884]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Since March 1994 the Secretary of State has issued 34 directions to local planning authorities for them to change policies or proposals in their development plans; none of these concerned conflict with the potential to carry freight by water/rail. Information is not held centrally on the reasons for call-in of planning applications by the Secretary of State in that period. Such information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Fenchurch Street Station
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the circumstances which led to the suspension of services and the closure of Fenchurch Street Station on Wednesday, 20 April; and if he will make a statement on the measures taken to avoid future closures. [83305]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I understand from Railtrack that services to Fenchurch Street Station on 20 April were suspended as a result of power failure. The decision to close the station was taken by the train operator, LTS Rail Ltd. Railtrack say that they are committed to reducing the delays to train services caused by infrastructure failure.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what proposals he has for strengthening the Hedgerow Regulations; [83043]

  (2) what measures he proposes for increasing the percentage of hedgerows protected in the North West Region. [83042]

  Mr. Meale
  Recommendations to the Government for strengthening the Hedgerows Regulations 1997, put forward by the group which reviewed them, were published in July 1998. The group recommended that research should be commissioned into the impact of their proposals, before final decisions were taken. We are studying the results of that research.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Question Time
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Council what changes she plans to make to the allocation of oral question time for the (a) Secretary of State for Scotland and (b) Secretary of State for Wales; and if she will make a statement. [82828]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have asked the Procedure Committee for its views on whether the amount of time allocated for such oral questions should be reduced once the new
  391
  legislatures are functioning. I understand that the Committee is due to report soon and I will take its views into account before reaching a decision.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Cleveland Police
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) if she will publish the references provided for the former Deputy Chief Constable of the Cleveland Police in support of his application for the post of Deputy Commissioner of Royal Turks and Caicos Islands; [82685]

  (2) if she will publish the names of individuals who provided the reference for the former Deputy Chief Constable of Cleveland Police for the post of Deputy Commissioner of Royal Turks and Caicos Islands. [82686]

  Clare Short
  It would not be proper for the Department for International Development to disclose the names of those who supply references for individuals applying for posts with the department.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence he has obtained that contact with some genetically modified crops could lead to antibiotic resistance in humans; and if he will make a statement. [82628]

  Mr. Rooker
  There is no evidence that contact with genetically modified (GM) crops will lead to antibiotic resistance in humans. The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes rigorously assesses each application for a GM food before it is allowed onto the market. As part of this assessment, it looks very carefully at the use of antibiotic markers and recommends against approval in those circumstances where it considers that there is a finite risk that their use might give rise to an increase in resistance against clinically important antibiotics.

  Draft Food Standards Agency Bill
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what environmental appraisal was made of the draft Food Standards Agency Bill; and what changes were made to the draft Bill as a result. [82854]

  Mr. Rooker
  We did not consider that the provisions of the draft Bill establishing this new body with a range of enabling powers would themselves have significant implications for the environment. We do however envisage that the individual actions and decisions taken by the Agency in the exercise of its powers will, where relevant, be subject to environmental appraisal.

  School Milk
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Department is taking 392
  to encourage the uptake of the EU subsidy for school milk. [82772]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 4 May 1999]Last year, my noble Friend Lord Donoughue asked the Intervention Board to promote the EU scheme in England and Wales, and similar exercises were carried out in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Board is also working to identify ways of simplifying the arrangements.

  BSE Inquiry
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many Salmon letters have been sent out by the BSE inquiry in preparation for Phase II of the inquiry; to whom they were sent; how many have been withdrawn; and what is the total cost of providing legal assistance to recipients of letters pertaining to Phase II of the BSE inquiry. [83262]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 4 May 1999]: The distribution of Salmon letters is a confidential process which is entirely a matter for the Committee of Inquiry and individual recipients; I am therefore unable to provide the information requested.

  Flood and Coastal Defence
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in developing targets for flood and coastal defence operating authorities and in developing the Environment Agency's general flood defence supervisory duty. [83462]

  Mr. Morley
  I am pleased to announce the publication, today, of interim targets for flood and coastal defence operating authorities and elaboration of the Environment Agency's supervisory duty. I am placing a copy in the Library of the House.

  The targets are designed to assist in developing a seamless and integrated service of flood forecasting, warning and response as well as a more certain delivery of Government policy towards flood and coastal defence. They follow recommendations, which the Government accepted, in last year's Agriculture Select Committee's report on flood and coastal defence and in the Independent Report on the Easter 1998 floods.

  These interim targets will, among other things, set in hand arrangements for flood and coastal defence assets to be identified, recorded on a central database and their integrity assessed. There are also targets in relation to other important issues such as completion and implementation of Water Level Management Plans and Shoreline Management Plans, as well as wider environmental objectives.

  These targets, and elaboration of the Environment Agency's supervisory duty, have been developed in full co-operation with the Agency, the Association of Drainage Authorities and the Local Government Association and in consultation with a wide range of relevant organisations. I have been impressed by the strong support we have had both for the overall approach we have adopted and for the particular measures we are introducing.

  A more comprehensive set of targets, and further elaboration of the Environment Agency's supervisory duty, will be developed over the next year for adoption

  393
  from March 2000. We will continue to work in a consultative way and I shall continue to keep Parliament informed of developments.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 5 May. [82891]

  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.

  Departmental Staff (Ethnic Origin)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will provide a breakdown, in numerical and percentage terms, of the ethnic origin at 1 March of(a) his private office, (b) Government special advisers, (c) the No. 10 Policy Unit and (d) No. 10 Downing Street staff in total. [78505]

  The Prime Minister [pursuant to his reply, 14 April 1999, c. 238–39]There is an error in the figures in the table setting out the ethnic origin of all Downing Street staff. The figures should have read:

  Total

  Ethnic minority

  Ethnic minority (per cent.)

  146

  7

  4.8

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Rugby League World Cup
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what(a) financial and (b) other assistance his Department is providing to the Rugby League World Cup. [83077]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 4 May 1999]Firstly, I congratulate the Rugby Football League (RFL) on their successful bid for this major international sporting event and look forward to a world-beating competition next year.

  Year/budget

  Spending (£ million)

  Allocation between totals in Table Al

  1997–98

  Welfare to Work

  143

  own line in table

  1998–99

  Welfare to Work

  717

  own line in table

  1999–200

  Welfare to Work

  1,492

  own line in table

  Invest to Save Budget

  53

  own line in table;

  allocations to departments set out in table 1.8 of Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis 1999–2000 (Cm 4201)

  Capital Modernisation Fund

  250

  own line in table;

  allocations to date to departments set out in table 1.9 of Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis 1999–2000 (Cm 4201)

  394
  The RFL have been in close contact with UK Sport both before and after bidding for this event and are currently drawing up a business plan which will enable UK Sport to make a full assessment of their financial requirements. I offered my support as venue sponsor for staging the draw for this prestigious event, which took place on 26 April, and I would welcome the opportunity to become involved in profile raising events, in co-ordination with the RFL's strategy for promoting the World Cup.

  Television Licence Fee
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the panel on the television licence fee is due to report. [83292]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 4 May 1999]As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 12 January 1999,Official Report, columns 131–32, the BBC funding review panel will report to him by the end of July this year. There will then be a period of public consultation.

TREASURY

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each of the years 1997–98 to 2001–02 all cross-departmental budgets, the spending accounted for by each and a breakdown of how that spending is allocated between the departmental totals in Table A 1 of the 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review. [68391]

  Mr. Milburn
  The table sets out the information requested. Cross-departmental budgets are defined for this purpose as those budgets expenditure from which is accounted for by more than one department.

  In addition, there are several other programmes which are subject to joint financial management and planning arrangements between two or more departments, but which are accounted for on one department's vote. The Single Regeneration Budget falls into this category, as do the Sure Start programme and the single asylum budget established in the Comprehensive Spending Review. The CSR also established joint strategic planning arrangements for the criminal justice system and on drugs, and similar arrangements are being developed for DETR and MAFF's countryside and rural development programmes.
  395

  Year/budget

  Spending (£ million)

  Allocation between totals in Table Al

  2000–01

  Welfare to Work

  1,317

  own line in table

  Invest to Save Budget

  79

  own line in table;

  allocations to date to departments set out in table 1.8 of Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis 1999–2000 (Cm 4201)

  Capital Modernisation Fund

  1,000

  own line in table;

  allocations to date to departments set out in table 1.9 of Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis 1999–2000 (Cm 4201)

  2001–02

  Welfare to Work

  1,278

  own line in table

  Invest to Save Budget

  98

  own line in table;

  allocation between departments not yet determined

  Capital Modernisation Fund

  1,250

  own line in table;

  allocation between departments not yet determined

  Task Forces
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what(a) reviews, (b) task forces and (c) advisory groups have been established by his Department since 1 May

  Title

  Reports

  Comprehensive Spending Review

  CSR White Paper 14 July 1998

  Review of North Sea Fiscal Regime

  The Chancellor announced on 7 September 1998 in a press release that the Government had been monitoring changes in oil prices and that at the current low level of oil prices it would not be right at this stage to proceed with reform of the regime

  Review of Charity Taxation

  Consultation document published 9 March 1999. Responses invited by 31 August 1999

  Review of Alcohol and Tobacco Fraud

  Report published 28 July 1998

  Government Taskforce on Tax and Benefits

  Announcement on 17 March 1998

  Review of Landfill Tax

  Financial Statement and Budget Report 18 March 1998

  Review on the Revenue Effect of a reduced rate of VAT for energy efficient material and alternative options for targeted relief to help those on low incomes to save energy.

  Report on the effect of a reduced rate of VAT for schemes helping the less well off insulate their homes published November 1998

  Review of PFI (Public/Private Partnerships)

  >Sir Malcolm Bates report published 13 June 1997

  Review of Research and Development

  Consultation document published on Budget Day 1998, comments were also invited in respect of various Inland Revenue Technical notes published on 14 January and 10 March 1999

  Review of the calculation of Vehicle Excise Duty for lorries

  Not yet reported

  Review of Public/Private Partnership options for the Royal Mint

  Not yet reported

  Review of Company Car Taxation

  New emission's-based approach announced in March 1999 Budget

  Review of graduated Vehicle Excise Duty for cars

  Consultation document published with the Pre-Budget Report November 1998. £100 rate for cars up to 1,100 cc from 1 June 1999 and emissions-based approach from Autumn 2000 announced in March 1999 Budget

  Consultation on a potential Aggregates Tax

  Consultation document published on 15 June 1998

  Review of Double Taxation of companies

  A discussion paper was published 12 March 1999—ongoing

  Enterprise Management Incentives

  >New scheme announced in 1999 Budget. Technical note published. Advisory Group will help draw up details to be published in the autumn legislation to follow in Finance Bill 2000

  Review of General Anti-Avoidance Rule

  On Budget day 9 March 1999, Official Report, columns 173–90, the Chancellor unveiled a substantial package of measures designed to attack avoidance and safeguard future revenue. He said that a general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) for corporate direct taxes remained an option for the future if more targeted legislation proved ineffective in dealing with the problem of avoidance, but that the Government would not proceed with a GAAR in this Budget or with a mini-GAAR for VAT on construction services. Consultation documents published on 5 October 1998 (direct taxes) and on 20 January 1999 (VAT)

  396
  1997; what costs they have incurred to date; and what reports they have published. [71510]

  Ms Hewitt
  The reviews, task forces and advisory groups established by the Chancellor's departments since 1 May 1997, and reports published to date are as follows:
  397

  Title

  >Reports

  Second review of Private Finance Initiative

  The Government have received a report and will respond in due course

  Task Force on Industrial use of Energy

  >Report by Lord Marshall 'Economic instruments and the business use of energy' published with the Pre Budget Report on 3 November 1998

  Review of Banking services in the UK

  Consultation document published 25 January 1999

  Review of Employee Share Ownership

  Consultation document was published on 18 December 1998. New scheme announced in 1999 Budget. Technical note published 10 March 1999. Advisory Group will help draw up details to be published in the autumn, with legislation to follow in Finance Bill 2000

  Further review of the Capital Gains of companies

  Ongoing

  New Deal Taskforce

  'Meeting the Needs of the Disadvantaged' November 1998; 'Business Participation in Welfare-to-Work: Lessons from the United States' January 1999

  Efficiency review of the Office for National Statistics

  Announced by the Economic Secretary on 16 February 1999

  Review of average earnings figures

  >Report on Review of average earning figures was published on 1 March 1999

  Review of central government civil procurement

  >Not yet reported

  Smaller quoted companies working group

  >Report 'Smaller Quoted Companies: a report to the Paymaster General', published November 1998

  Task force on Banks Assistance to Credit Unions

  >Not yet reported

  Working group of financing high technology companies

  Report: Financing of High Technology Business: a report to the Paymaster General. November 1998

  Policy Action Team: Business

  Not yet reported

  Policy Action Team: Access to financial service

  Not yet reported

  Private Finance Taskforce

  Ongoing

  Standing Committee on preparations for EMU

  Ongoing

  Business Advisory Group on EMU

  Report 'EMU: Report from the Business Advisory Group' published January 1998

  Review of VAT registration limits

  Measures announced in March 1999 Budget and publication of Summary Report on representations received

  VAT group treatment

  Measures announced in March 1999 Budget and publication of Summary Report on representations received

  Inquiry into lower rate ring-fenced tonnage based tax and enhanced training incentives

  Inquiry announced in 9 March 1999 Budget

  The costs of collecting information on the costs incurred to date by each review, task force and advisory body are disproportionate.

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a list of (1) task forces and (2) policy reviews established by his Department since May 1997 which(a) had external members recruited by way of public advertisement, and details of any person so appointed and (b) engaged in public consultation exercises, and the form that these took. [74458]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Taskforces and reviews established by the Chancellor's departments since May 1997 which had members recruited by public advertisement or undertook public consultation are listed.

  1. The Comprehensive Spending review:

  a. No external members recruited by public advertisement.

  b. The terms of reference were made available. Extensive consultations were undertaken in the course of 24 main departmental and 6 cross departmental reviews. Individual departments also approached interested bodies.

  2. Review of North Sea Fiscal regime

  a. No external members recruited by public advertisement.

  b. Industry views were invited and discussions took place between Summer 1997 and March 1998. The Chancellor announced on 7 September 1998 in a press release that the
  398
  Government had been monitoring changes in oil prices and that at the current low level of oil prices it would not be right at this stage to proceed with reform of the regime.

  3. Review of Charity Taxation

  a. No external members recruited by public advertisement

  b. A consultation document was published on 9 March 1999.

  4. Review of Alcohol and Tobacco Fraud

  a. No external members recruited by public advertisement

  b. A Joint Working Party was formed, drawn from the main alcohol and tobacco trade associations and interested Departments Representations were invited from anyone who felt they could contribute to the review. Since the Review was published in July 1998 further consultation groups have been formed with the trade to explore the costs to industry of implementing measures recommended by the Review.

  5. Review of the Revenue Effect of a reduced Rate of VAT for Energy Efficient Material and alternative options for targeted relief to help those on low incomes to save energy.

  a. No external members recruited by public advertisement.

  b. Discussions have been held with representatives bodies

  6. Review of research and development

  a. No external members recruited by public advertisement.

  b. A consultation document was published on 17 March 1998, comments were also invited in respect of various Inland Revenue technical notes published 14 January and 10 March 1999.

  399
  7. Review of the calculation of vehicle excise duty for lorries

  a. No external members recruited by public advertisement.

  b. No public consultation. A number of consultation groups, and an advisory panel including industry representatives and environmentalists.

  8. Review of Public/Private Partnership Options for the Royal Mint

  a. No external members recruited by public advertisement.

  b. The Economic Secretary invited all major stakeholders to contribute to the review.

  9. Review of Graduated Vehicle Excise Duty for cars

  a. No external members recruited by public advertisement.

  b. A consultation document was issued.

  10. Consultation on a potential Aggregates Tax

  a. No external members recruited by public advertisement.

  b. A consultation document was published on 15 June 1998.

  11. Review of Double Taxation of companies

  a. No external members recruited by public advertisement.

  b. A discussion paper was published on 12 March 1999

  12. Review of General Anti Avoidance Rule

  a. No external members recruited by public advertisement.

  b. A consultation document was published on 5 October 1998

  13. Review of VAT Registration Limits

  a. No external members recruited by public advertisement.

  b. A consultation document was published and meeting held with business.

  14. VAT Group Treatment

  a. No external members recruited by public advertisement.

  b. A consultation document was published and meetings held with business.

  15. Review of Employee Share Ownership

  a. No external members recruited by public advertisement.

  b. A consultation document was issued on 18 December 1998. Technical notes issued on 10 March 1999.

  16. Taskforce on the Industrial Use of Energy

  a. No external members recruited by public advertisement.

  b. A consultation document was published in June 1998.

  c. A report was published in November 1998.

  17. Review of Banking Services in the UK

  a. No external members recruited by public advertisement

  b. A consultation document was published on 25 January 1999

  18. Efficiency Review of the Office for National Statistics

  a. A firm of consultants, KPMG, was appointed after a public competition.

  b. No external public consultation has been undertaken.

  19. Private Finance Taskforce

  a. No external members recruited by public advertisement.

  b. Draft standardisation documents were published for comment in October 1998. A consultation document on accounting PEI transactions was published in January 1999.

  20. Task force on Banks' Assistance to Credit Unions

  a. No external members recruited by public advertisement.

  Date established

  Actual report date

  Expected report date

  Termination date

  Comprehensive Spending Review

  7 May 1997

  14 July 1998

  14 July 1998

  Review of Alcohol and Tobacco Duties

  2 July 1997

  28 July 1998

  28 July 1998

  Taskforce on tax and benefits

  19 May 1997

  17 March 1998

  17 March 1998

  400
  b. Regional discussion fora to listen to people's views have been held in Birmingham, Liverpool, Edinburgh and Newcastle.

  21. Policy Action team: Business

  a. No external members recruited by public advertisement.

  b. Regional discussion fora to listen to people's views have been held in Birmingham, Liverpool, Edinburgh and Newcastle.

  22. Policy Action Team: Access to Financial Services

  a. No external members recruited by public advertisement.

  b. Regional discussion fora to listen to people's views have been held in Birmingham, Liverpool, Edinburgh and Newcastle. A range of organisations have also been invited to make their view known.

  23. Enterprise Management Incentives scheme

  a. No external members.

  b. Technical note issued 10 March 1999.

  24. Review of Company Car Taxation

  a. No external members.

  b. Press notices on 9 March 1999 invited views on the reform

  25. Further review of capital gains of companies

  a. No external members

  b. Informal meetings with representative bodies. A Working Group has been set up.

  26. Review of Landfill Tax

  a. No external members

  b. A business brief was issued inviting comments.

  Most Taskforces and reviews are short term exercises established to give thorough consideration to important and difficult issues. External members are invited to sit on some reviews and Taskforces to contribute specific experience and expertise. In such cases, public advertising would not be appropriate and would incur disproportionate cost.

  Since 1 October 1998, appointments to those Taskforces and reviews which qualify for classification as advisory non-departmental public bodies have come within the remit of the Commissioner for public appointments.

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list all those task forces and policy reviews with external members established by his Department since May 1997 which have set up(a) sub-groups, (b) working parties and (c) other subsidiary committees; [79251]

  (2) if he will list for all task forces and policy reviews with external members established by his Department since May 1997 (a) their dates of establishment, (b) those which have issued final reports and their dates of publication, (c) those which have been terminated and their dates of termination and (d) for those bodies still in existence, expected reporting and termination dates. [79274]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information on task forces and policy reviews with external members established by the Chancellor's departments is listed.
  401

  Date established

  Actual report date

  Expected report date

  Termination date

  Review on the Revenue Effect of a reduced rate of VAT for energy efficient material and alternative options for targeted relief to help those on low incomes to save energy

  2 July 1997

  November 1998

  November 1998

  Review of Private Finance Initiative

  8 May 1997

  13 June 1997

  13 June 1997

  Review of management recruitment incentives for high tech small and medium sized enterprises

  19 March 1998

  9 March 1999

  9 March 1999

  Second review of Private Finance Initiative

  12 November 1998

  22 March 1999

  The Government have received a report and will respond in due course

  Task force on industrial use of energy

  19 March 1998

  3 November 1998

  3 November 1998

  Review of Banking services in the UK

  3 November 1998

  December 1999

  From end 1999

  New Deal Taskforce

  14 July 1997

  No report-by date. The Taskforce may choose from time to time to publish reports into specific issues

  The Taskforce was appointed for two years initially, with a review in May 1999

  Private Finance Taskforce

  2 July 1997

  Late Summer 1999

  Efficiency review of the Office for National Statistics

  13 July 1998

  16 February 1999

  16 February 1999

  Review of average earnings figures

  23 October 1998

  1 March 1999

  1 March 1999

  Review of central government civil procurement

  December 1998

  April 1999

  April 1999

  Smaller quoted companies working group

  August 1998

  November 1998

  November 1998

  Task force on Banks Assistance to Credit Unions

  28 July 1998

  June 1999

  June 1999

  Working group on financing high technology companies

  November 1997

  November 1998

  November 1998

  Policy Action Team 3: Business

  November 1998

  31 July 1999

  31 July 19991

  Policy Action Team: Access to financial service

  October 1998

  31 July 1999

  31 July 1999

  Inquiry into lower rate ring-fenced tonnage based tax and enhanced training incentives

  9 March 1999

  to be announced

  1Expected date

  Additionally, those which have set up (a), subgroups, (b) working parties and (c) other subsidiary committees are as follows:
  Comprehensive Spending Review: a, b, c
  Review of Alcohol and Tobacco Duties: a, b
  Task force on tax and benefits: a, b, c
  New Deal Task force: a, b
  Policy Action Team: Access to financial services: a.

  Inland Revenue Documents
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a copy of the latest draft of 402
  (a) the Inland Revenue self assessment computations form and (b) the Inland Revenue income tax calculations flowchart for 1999–2000. [81704]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue is currently working on the 1999–2000 drafts for the self assessment tax calculation and tax calculation guide to include all necessary changes including those coming from the Budget. These documents are, at this stage, in the process of change from the 1998–99 versions. Further work will be carried out during the course of this year including consultation with the representative bodies and usability testing with taxpayers. Final drafts should be available towards the end of 1999 once this process has been completed.

  Additional Personal Allowance
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the abolition of the additional personal tax allowance in relation to carers; and if he will introduce a new allowance or credit to assist working carers with the costs of caring. [80937]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 16 April 1999]The additional personal allowance is to be abolished as part of the package of reforms leading to the introduction of the children's tax credit. It is primarily claimed by people who are not married and living with their spouse and have one or more qualifying children resident with them, but in a minority of cases it is claimed by married people who have a totally incapacitated spouse and a qualifying child resident with them. Most people in this situation will benefit from the introduction of the children's tax credit, which will be worth more than twice as much as the additional personal allowance.

  Health Insurance
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the letter of 16 July 1997 from the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe to the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) regarding permanent health insurance schemes for employees, what steps he has taken to monitor the sound and prudent management of such schemes; and if he has found it necessary to take action under the Insurance Companies Act 1982. [82169]

  Ms Hewitt
  None. In the first instance, the management of such schemes is a matter for the insurers themselves. However, most insurers have undertaken to abide by the Association of British Insurers Codes of Practice.

  The statutory regulation of insurance companies aims principally at ensuring that only properly authorised insurers carry on business in the United Kingdom; that there is sound and prudent management; and that there are systems of managerial and financial control sufficient to ensure that an authorised company is able to meet its liabilities to policyholders and potential policyholders. In the performance of the administrative and supervisory tasks contracted out to them by the Treasury, the Financial Services Authority will take account of the criteria of sound and prudent management set out in Schedule 2A of the 1982 Act when reaching a view on the management of an authorised insurance company.

  Income Tax (Married Couples)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the number of married couples in which the eldest spouse turns 65 years after 5 April 2000 in the period(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02; and how many will pay income tax as a consequence of the loss of the married couples allowance. [80877]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of married couples in which the eldest spouse turns 65 after 5 April in both 2000–01 and 2001–02 is not known. It is therefore not possible to estimate the number who will pay income tax as a consequence of the loss of the Married Couples Allowance.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate the revenue effect of reducing national insurance contributions by 0.5 per cent. for those employed in central Government and associated public bodies; [82749]

  (2) if he will estimate the revenue effect of reducing the national insurance charge by 0.5 per cent. for all those employed in or by local government. [82751]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A reliable estimate could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in work are paying contributions of less than 25 times the lower earnings limit every year. [82697]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 4 May 1999]Based on the DSS Lifetime Labour Market Database, there were 2.2 million people with Class 1 and/or Class 2 contributions paid on earnings less than 25 times the Lower Earnings Limit (£58) in the 1995–96 tax year. The figures are based on those who have actually paid contributions at the full rate. They exclude women paying Reduced Rate Class 1 contributions and do not take any credited contributions into account. However, they do include students and others working for only part of the year.

  Fair Trade Products
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce fair trade products at(a) meetings, (b) events and (c) catering facilities within his Department. [82867]

  Ms Hewitt
  In purchasing goods and services for these and other purposes, all Departments will take full account of the Government's policy of seeking value for money having due regard to propriety and regularity.

  Financial Services Authority
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to ensure that the Financial Services Authority applies regulatory requirements equally across different distribution channels within particular market sectors. [83102]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 4 May 1999]The Government intend that the Financial Services Authority (FSA) should have statutory objectives setting out what the Government expect it to deliver. It is for FSA to determine how to achieve those objectives, bearing in mind the circumstances of the different market sectors it covers.

  Alcohol and Tobacco Fraud
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the Government have spent implementing the recommendations of the Alcohol and Tobacco Fraud Review since its publication in January 1998; and what stage the consultation exercise which Her Majesty's Customs and Excise is currently undertaking with the trade has reached. [83147]
  405
  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 4 May 1999]The Alcohol and Tobacco Fraud Review (ATFR) was published in July 1998 as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review. The Government have allocated £35 million to Customs and Excise over three financial years from 1999–2000 to implement the ATFR recommendations, of which £15 million is for 1999–2000. In addition, the Government approved a claim on the Reserve for Customs during 1998–99 for £9 million which has enabled Customs to make an early start on implementing the ATFR.

  The consultation exercise with the trade which seeks to establish the cost to industry of implementing those recommendations which involve procedural changes to tighten up on fraud is at an advanced stage. Subject to the outcome of that consultation, a final decision will be taken on how and when such measures are to be implemented during 1999.

  HIPC Initiative
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the change in the annual debt repayments of each country taking part in the HIPC Initiative as a result of that initiative. [82504]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information can be found in the IMF Paper,HIPC Initiative—Perspectives on the current framework and options for change—supplementation on costing (13 April 1999).

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to alter the criteria for countries seeking to benefit under the HIPC Initiative. [82506]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Chancellor and the International Development Secretary announced their proposals for delivering faster, deeper and wider debt relief on 4 March.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which countries have qualified to benefit under the HIPC Initiative to date. [82505]

  Ms Hewitt
  There are 41 countries classified as HIPCs. Details on which countries have qualified can be found in the IMF Paper:Debt Initiative for the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPCs).

  Amusement Machines
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate the revenue from amusement machine licence duty on lop stake amusements-with-prizes trivia machines in the years(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02; [82312]

  (2) what forecast he has made of the revenue from amusement machine licence duty in (a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01, (c) 2001–02. [82314]

  Mrs. Roche
  There are no forecasts at the level of disaggregation specified in the question. The March 1999 FSBR forecast total betting and gaming receipts of £1.5 billion in 1999–2000.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's policy regarding the taxation of lop stake amusements-with-prizes trivia machines. [82311]
  406
  Mrs. Roche
  All 10p stake amusement with prizes trivia machines bear amusement machine licence duty of £645 per annum and where applicable, the takings from such machines are liable to value added tax at the rate of 17.5 per cent.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he received in 1998–99 regarding amusement machine licence duty. [82313]

  Mrs. Roche
  Between 1 April 1998 and 31 March 1999 Treasury Ministers received 388 representations regarding amusement machine licence duty.

  Euro
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the Bank of England has to carry out further euro note printing trials. [83464]

  Ms Hewitt
  Having completed the pre-production trialing of the Euro notes due to be introduced in 2002, the European Central Bank has asked the Bank of England to assist with the next stage of technical preparations. This is to produce sample banknotes for each denomination to be used for reference purposes by those countries participating in production later this year. The bank will be involved in printing a further 1.5 million Euro 500 notes, which is equivalent to less than one day's normal production of Sterling notes. The cost of some £60,000 will be paid out of the proceeds of the note issue.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Departmental Legal Business
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his Department's policy when(a) conducting legal proceedings and (b) seeking legal advice as to the circumstances in which Queen's Counsel should be instructed; and for each of the last three years (i) on how many occasions his Department instructed Queen's Counsel and (ii) what was the total cost of instructing Queen's Counsel. [81758]

  Mr. Byers
  The DTI's policy is similar to that of other departments. The Crown Prosecution Service, the Treasury Solicitor's Department, the Serious Fraud Office and the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers predominantly use junior counsel when it is necessary to instruct counsel to provide legal advice or to conduct legal proceedings.

  In civil cases, the two First Treasury Counsel are both junior counsel and they will advise and represent the Government without a Queen's Counsel in many of their important cases. In addition, the Attorney-General maintains four panels of junior Counsel whom Departments are expected to use for the majority of the Government's civil litigation. The approval of the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General is required before a Queen's Counsel can be instructed to appear for any Government Department in civil litigation.

  A panel of Standing Counsel who are all junior counsel, exists in London and the South Eastern circuit to provide advice and to handle most work at the Central Criminal Court and Crown Court in that area. More generally, the

  407
  Department maintains circuit based lists of junior counsel to conduct almost all its criminal casework in the Crown Court in England and Wales. Within and outside London, Queen's Counsel are instructed occasionally in very serious or complex casework prosecuted by the Crown.

  In determining the level of counsel to use, the Department will consider the individual circumstances of each case. It will take into account, inter alia, the importance and sensitivity of the case, the complexity of the law, the weight and complexity of the evidence, and the degree of experience and expertise required before deciding whether to instruct Queen's Counsel or junior counsel.

  The number of occasions on which the Department has instructed Queen's Counsel in the last three years, and the cost of doing so, is not collected centrally and could not be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Holiday Makers (Carbon Monoxide Poisoning)
  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he takes to ensure that holiday companies ensure that holiday makers are safe from carbon monoxide poisoning in accommodation rented through them abroad. [82652]

  Dr. Howells
  While the Government are, of course, concerned about the safety of British holidaymakers when travelling overseas, the safety standards applying to rented accommodation are subject to national regulation over which Her Majesty's Government have no jurisdiction.

  Nevertheless, holiday companies, and others, in the United Kingdom offering or selling package holidays are covered by "The Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992". The Regulations provide that those who offer package holidays are liable to consumers for the proper performance of contracts, including, amongst other things, supplying accommodation which is safe.

  Disqualified Accountants
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the accountants who have been disqualified from public practice as a result of the criticisms of their conduct in his Department's inspectors' reports in the past 10 years. [82674]

  Dr. Howells
  Disciplinary action is a matter for the accountancy body responsible. The following table details accountants who have been mentioned in inspectors' reports and who have been either excluded or suspended from membership of their accountancy body in the past ten years.

  Companies Act Inspection

  Name of individual

  Disciplinary action

  Edencorp plc

  Mr. G. J. Cook

  Exclusion

  Barlow Clowes Gilt Managers Limited

  Mr. J. A. B. Pilkington

  Exclusion

  Mr. D. C. Mitchell

  Exclusion

  James Ferguson Holdings plc

  Mr. C. F. Newman

  Exclusion

  Mr. I. M. Crabtree

  Suspension for 1 year

  Atlantic Computers plc

  Mr. P. L. Goldie

  Exclusion

  Atlantic Computer Systems plc

  Accounting Firms (Money Laundering)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the powers available to him for investigating the affairs of accountancy firms judged by the High Court to have knowingly laundered money. [82648]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department has no powers as envisaged by my hon. Friend; money laundering is primarily a matter for the police and the conduct of accountancy firms for their professional body.

  Arms Exports (Yugoslavia)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library the documents relating to arms exports to Yugoslavia or the former Yugoslavia involving the defence contractors BMARC and Astra. [82703]

  Dr. Howells
  The statutory and accounting records of Astra Holdings plc and Springfield Road Limited, formerly known as British Manufacture and Research Co. Ltd (BMARC), are under the control of the official receiver following their winding up by the court.

  Access to the records is governed by insolvency legislation and the direction of the court and, as such, at this time there is no proposal to remove the records from the official receiver who will continue to consider requests to inspect them.

  Competition
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is taking to improve the enforcement of fair competition in the United Kingdom economy. [82690]

  Dr. Howells
  The Competition Act 1998 will introduce tough new powers to deal with anti-competitive agreements and abuses of market dominance when its main provisions are brought into force on 1 March 2000. These include strong powers of investigation, a power to take interim measures where necessary pending the completion of an investigation, powers to direct undertakings to bring infringements to an end and powers to impose penalties for breach of the prohibitions. The Director General of Fair Trading has the main responsibility for enforcement of the new Act and extra resources have been provided to the Office of Fair Trading for that purpose.

  Fair Trade Products
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arrangements his Department is proposing to introduce for the provision of fair trade products(a) at meetings,(b) in its catering facilities and (c) at events sponsored by it. [82744]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary today,Official Report, column 410.

  Milk Marque
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 28 April 1999,Official Report, column 203, if he will indicate the

  409
  timetable for addressing each consideration delaying the publication of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on Milk Marque. [83038]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 4 May 1999]Publication of the report is not delayed. The guidance referred to in my previous answer explains that there is no statutory deadline for publication of MMC monopoly reports, and sets out the factors which may affect timing.

  It is the Department's view that quoting expected publication dates may provoke unwarranted speculation. The content of reports is invariably commercially sensitive and we do not wish to damage companies by encouraging speculation.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 13 April 1999,Official Report, column 95, on the milk market investigation, what practical obstacles are preventing the publication of the MMC report on the supply of milk.[82858]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 30 April 1999]The Department of Trade and Industry has provided information about the publication arrangements for monopoly reports at paragraphs 08.1–8.3 of its publication "Guidance on DTI procedures for handling Monopoly references and reports", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Companies
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many companies satisfy the Companies Act 1985 definitions of(a) small, (b) medium and (c) large companies. [82932]

  Dr. Howells
  The Register of Companies does not hold information on company turnover, number of employees and balance sheet totals and, without this, it is not possible to determine precisely the numbers of companies which fall into each class.

  During 1997–98 annual accounts registered at Companies House for each class of company were:
  abbreviated (small) 38.2 per cent.
  abbreviated (medium) 0.6 per cent.
  full accounts 42.5 per cent.
  others (dormant etc.) 18.7 per cent.

  Using these percentages based on the 1.2 million companies currently on the register, it could therefore be argued that there are approximately 458,000 small companies, 7,000 medium companies and 510,000 large companies within the Companies Act 1985 definition.

  £

  Inspection

  Legal inspector's fees (including VAT)

  Accountant inspector's fees (including VAT)

  Total cost (including VAT)

  Mirror Group Newspapers plc

  1,677,377

  7,097,247

  8,774,624

  Queens Moat Houses plc

  1,482,686

  3,984,421

  5,467,107

  Wace UK Holdings Ltd.

  —

  —

  Inspection being carried out by Departmental staff

  Tinsley Robor plc

  —

  —

  Inspection being carried out by Departmental staff

  European Colour plc

  —

  —

  Inspection being carried out by Departmental staff

  Robert Maxwell
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when inspectors were appointed to investigate the affairs of the business dealings of the late Robert Maxwell; what has been the cost of the investigation to date; when he expects the report to be published; and if he will make a statement on the timescale for the report's publication. [82905]

  Dr. Howells
  There is no inspection into "the business dealings" of the late Robert Maxwell although inspectors were appointed on 8 June 1992 under Companies Act powers to investigate and report on the affairs and membership of Mirror Group Newspapers plc. They were asked to look, in particular, at the offers for sale of the company's shares in early 1991. The cost of the inspection to date has been £7,467,805. The inspectors have not yet reported to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. A decision on publication will be taken when the report has been received and fully considered.

  "Building Confidence in Electronic Commerce"
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many responses he has received to the consultation document, "Building Confidence in Electronic Commerce". [83019]

  Mr. Wills
  I am pleased to say that we have received 246 responses to "Building Confidence in Electronic Commerce—A Consultation Document". A list of respondents—excluding those who have asked for their response to be kept confidential—has been placed in the Library of the House. The responses are currently being carefully studied and a summary will be published in due course. The Electronic Commerce Bill will be introduced into Parliament later in this session.

  Company Investigations
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list(a) the investigations currently being carried out by his Department under the Companies Acts, Financial Services Act 1986 and the Insurance Companies Acts, (b) the cost of each investigation, (c) the manner in which the costs are being apportioned and (d) the likely date of publication. [82929]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department undertakes a number of confidential investigations under the Companies Act 1989, Insurance Companies Act 1982 and Financial Services Act 1986 for which there is no provision for the reports to be published. A list of current inspections which have been announced and their cost is set out in the table. The inspectors have yet to submit their reports and no decisions on publication can be taken until completion.

  ACAS
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to receive the Annual report for the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. [83393]

  Mr. Byers
  The ACAS Report for 1998 is being laid before both Houses of Parliament today. Copies are available from the Vote Office.

  British Nuclear Fuels
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if British Nuclear Fuels Ltd is required to seek the (i) advice and (ii) permission of his Department before making investments in companies. [82507]

  Mr. Battle
  BNFL is a Public Limited Company wholly owned by the Government and subject to the Companies Acts. BNFL is run on a commercial basis, with responsibility for day to day management and operations resting with the Board of the company. BNFL's plans for major investments are discussed with my Department as they arise. These together with BNFL's overall investment strategy are formally reviewed each year in the context of the company's Corporate Plan when it is submitted to Ministers for approval.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if British Nuclear Fuels Ltd sought the advice of his Department before investing in Pangea Resources Ltd; [82511]

  (2) if Ministers gave agreement for British Nuclear Fuels Ltd to invest in Pangea Resources Ltd. [82512]

  Mr. Battle
  No. I also refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 23 March 1999,Official Report, column 140.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions his Department had with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office concerning British Nuclear Fuels Ltd's plan to invest in Pangea Resources Ltd prior to such investment being made. [82513]

  Mr. Battle
  My Department had no such discussions with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on this matter.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he was first informed of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd's investment in Pangea Resources Ltd; and if he will make a statement. [82510]

  Mr. Battle
  I was informed of BNFL's involvement in the Pangea project by my officials in September 1997.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the companies in which British Nuclear Fuels Limited has invested. [82509]

  Mr. Battle
  Details of BNFL's fixed asset and current asset investments, including its subsidiary and associated undertakings, are given in the notes to BNFL's 1998 Annual Report and Accounts, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment his Department has made of the valuations assigned by the Japanese utilities to separated plutonium and mixed oxide fuel. [82468]

  Mr. Battle
  None. This is a matter for the commercial judgment of the Japanese utilities concerned as owners of the plutonium.

  Lung Diseases (Miners)
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the impact of the miners' compensation package for lung-related diseases in Wales. [82113]

  Mr. Battle
  Agreement on the handling arrangements for claims from former British Coal miners suffering from lung related diseases, in both Wales and England was announced in the High Court in Cardiff on 26 March. A contract for the delivery of a national spirometry programme has now been awarded, which will enable miners to receive fair compensation. We aim to have thirty centres, the first of which opened in Newport during April, operating throughout the coalfield communities by the Summer. Results from these testing centres will enable offers of interim payments and some full and final payments to be made later this month whilst we tender for the medical services needed to deliver the medical assessment process. I am hopeful that significant numbers of full and final settlement offers for valid claims will start flowing early in the second half of this year.

  In the meantime, the Government have made payments totalling £28 million to former coal miners and widows, £6.83 million being made to claimants living in Wales.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Intelligence (External Agencies)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to change the methods used to assess intelligence from external agencies. [71833]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I would refer the hon. Member to the Government's response, which I presented to the House on 13 April (Cmnd 4325), to paragraph 21 of the second report from the Foreign Affairs Committee on Sierra Leone.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral answer of 20 April 1999, Official Report, column 681, on Kosovo, if he will define the term "organised resistance"; and if he will make a statement. [82480]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer the hon Member to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 26 April 1999,Official Report, columns 21–36.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has
  413
  received from his officials in Sri Lanka about mass graves at Chemanni and at the Jaffna football stadium; and if he will make a statement. [83125]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We are deeply concerned about reports that several hundred bodies of people who "disappeared" in army custody in 1996–97 may be in a mass grave at Chemmani in Jaffna. I raised this subject with the Sri Lankan authorities while 1 was in Colombo in November last year. Our High Commissioner in Colombo has pressed on numerous occasions for a prompt and thorough investigation. The magisterial inquiry into the mass graves will reconvene in mid-June.

  We are aware of reports that a further mass grave was uncovered at the Duraiyappah football stadium in Jaffna in March. A preliminary investigation of the site took place on 7 April. We understand that further excavations will take place on 14 May. We will continue to monitor events closely.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what part the United Kingdom is to play in the international monitoring of the forthcoming elections in Sri Lanka; and if he will make a statement. [83124]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Southern Provincial Council elections are scheduled to take place on 10 June. These will not be subject to international monitoring. However, the UK is following the election process closely and will stay in touch with local election monitors.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requests he has made to the Sri Lankan Government for information on the mass graves found in the Duraiyappah stadium in Jaffna; and if he will make a statement. [83127]

  Mr. Fatchett
  A preliminary investigation of the site took place on 7 April. We understand that further excavations will take place on 14 May. We will continue to monitor events closely.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will review the British Government's policy on the granting of export licences for arms sales to Sri Lanka. [83150]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Each licence application is considered scrupulously on a case by case basis against our national criteria and the EU Code of Conduct. We pay particular attention to the Sri Lankan Government's human rights record and its legitimate defence and domestic security interests. HMG do not issue licences if there is a clearly identifiable risk that the equipment might be used for internal repression or international aggression.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria he uses to assess the human rights records of foreign Governments; and whether they include the number of disappeared people. [83126]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We assess the human rights records of all countries according to their adherence to, and implementation of, the standards laid down in international human rights instruments. As stated in the 1992 Declaration of the UN General Assembly on the Protection of All 414
  Persons from Enforced Disappearance, any act of enforced disappearance is a grave and flagrant violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reaffirmed and developed in other international instruments. We support the work of the UN Working Group of Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances which raises individual cases with Governments and reports annually to the UN Commission on Human Rights.

  Colombia
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Colombia concerning the abduction of human rights workers Julio Ernesto Gonzalez and Everado de Jesus Puertas in January. [82889]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Julio Ernesto Gonzalez and Everado de Jesus Puerta were murdered on 30 January by suspected paramilitaries. Although our Embassy in Bogota raises specific cases with the Colombian Government, this case was not raised with them.

  The Colombian authorities are, however, aware of our concern about the safety of all human rights activists in Colombia. We raise the subject of human rights on a regular basis with the Colombian Government, most recently when Vice-President Gustavo Bell called on me at the Foreign Office on 27 April.

  Birth Certificates
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those purposes for which his Department and its executive agencies require a birth certificate to be furnished by(a) employees, (b) contractors, (c) those applying for employment or contracts and (d)others. [82898]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Department requires those applying for employment to provide confirmation of their identity as part of the recruitment process. Most provide a passport. Contractors are required to provide confirmation of identity in order to obtain security clearance.

  JMT Charlesworth
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the involvement of JMT Charlesworth Ltd. in the attempted transfer of military equipment from Belgium to Eritrea; and what discussions he has had with his(a) Belgian, (b) Dutch and (c) German counterparts in this matter. [83008]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on 16 January 1999,Official Report, column 752.

  We have had no subsequent Government to Government discussions with European partners over this matter but we continue to monitor this case.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the delay in answering the hon. Member for Leicester, East's
  415
  letter dated 8 March, concerning Mr. Solanki, of 49 Yorkshire Road, whose wife has been refused admission under reference R/98/3895. [82935]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I regret the delay in answering my hon. Friend's letter. This was caused by staff shortages in the Migration and Visa Division Correspondence Unit during the month of March.

  Edgar Fernandes
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin) will take up the case of Edgar Fernandes on her forthcoming visit to Malta. [82936]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My right hon. Friend is currently in Malta. She has been briefed on this case and will raise it. Our High Commissioner and Vice-Consul in Valletta continue to take every opportunity to remind the Maltese Government of our interest in the extradition of Mr. Mohammed Abdul Monem Abbas Aly.

  British Council (Damascus)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 19 January 1999,Official Report, column 436, what was the cost of damage to the British Council offices in Damascus; and if it has been repaired. [83175]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 4 May 1999]The cost of repairs to the damage to the British Council offices in Damascus was £90,000; the office has been repaired.

  Peacekeeping (UN)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 29 April 1999,Official Report, column 266, if he will identify the articles of the UN Charter where provision is made for those circumstances relating to justifiable use of force, in support of purposes laid down by the Security Council, but which are not subject to specific ratification by the Security Council. [83306]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 4 May 1999]There is no general doctrine of humanitarian necessity in international law. Cases have nevertheless arisen (as in Kosovo) when, in the light of all the circumstances, a limited use of force is justifiable under international law in support of purposes laid down by the Security Council but without the council's express authorisation when that is the only means to avert an immediate and overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe. Such cases would in the nature of things be exceptional and would depend on an objective assessment of the factual circumstances at the time and on the terms of relevant decisions of the Security Council bearing on the situation in question.

  Iraq
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest position on the provision of food and medicines in Iraq; what reports he has received on the number of children 416
  suffering in Iraq because of the lack of adequate medicines and other health supplies; and what plans he has to assist them. [83293]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 4 May 1999]The export of food and medicines has never been prohibited under sanctions. We are aware of claims that large numbers of children are dying every month. We have some concerns about the original sources of this information and the way the data have been interpreted. According to the most recent UN report on the implementation of "oil for food", the UN humanitarian programme is making a real difference to the humanitarian situation in Iraq. It made clear that in the north, where the UN is responsible for distribution, there were very few if any shortages of essential drugs, and malnutrition was decreasing. In the centre and south, however, the Iraqi Government refuse to engage constructively in the programme. They refuse to make efforts to prioritise properly what is purchased for the programme, to target it towards the most vulnerable, or to improve the poor distribution system.

  We are determined to do what we can to improve all aspects of the humanitarian situation. Together with the Netherlands, the UK has tabled a draft Security Council resolution which attempts to translate the work of the three UN Iraq panels into action. On the humanitarian side, our draft resolution brings together a whole range of measures including lifting the ceiling on Iraqi oil exports under "oil for food", streamlining Sanctions Committee approval procedures, allowing local procurement and the payment of local costs, and commissioning expert advice on how to increase Iraq's oil production. These measures should make significant improvements to the humanitarian situation in Iraq.

  Venice Commission
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the United Kingdom will join the Council of Europe's European Commission for Democracy through Law, the Venice Commission. [83556]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  HMG have given thorough consideration to the merits of the United Kingdom becoming a member of the Venice Commission and have decided to do so with immediate effect.

  The Commission is a consultative body of independent experts whose principal work is in advising the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe on constitutional reform. It provided legal advice to the international negotiators in the run-up to and during the Kosovar negotiations in France in February and March this year. The Commission has been a major contributor to electoral and constitutional reform in Albania and Croatia, and is assisting the Office of the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina on constitutional reform and the revision of the Parliamentary Electoral Law.

  Tibetan Hunger Strikers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will request the First
  417
  Secretary based in Geneva to visit the three Tibetans on hunger strike in Place des Nations.[82827]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We are concerned about the well-being of the hunger strikers who have drawn attention to the issue of human rights in Tibet. We hope that they will end their fast. We have no plans to visit them.

  Tibet
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reference he made to the situation in Tibet in his verbal address to the 55 UN Commission on Human Rights. [82859]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Along with our EU partners, we remain deeply concerned about the human rights situation in Tibet. In Geneva, these concerns were expressed in statements by the EU Presidency, on behalf of all EU Member States, on 23 March, 31 March and 23 April.

  Japan
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many employees of BNFL are employed in, or attached to, the British Embassy in Japan; and if he will list such persons and the nature of their relationship to the embassy. [83039]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The British Embassy in Tokyo has one secondee from BNFL, Mr. Tom McLaughlan, who serves as Counsellor (Atomic Energy).

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had with Tokyo Electric Power Company concerning the possibility of allowing Japanese intermediate nuclear waste to be stored at Sellafield indefinitely. [83264]

  Mr. Fatchett
  There have been no discussions between my Department and the Tokyo Electric Power Company concerning the indefinite storage of Japanese intermediate nuclear waste at Sellafield.

HEALTH

  Children's Hospice Services
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the(a) allocation by his Department and (b) expenditure by each health authority for supporting children's hospice services in each of the last four years. [78877]

  Mr. Hutton
  Health authorities receive general allocations to allow them to commission health services for their resident populations, including services to meet the needs of children suffering from life threatening and terminal conditions provided through children's hospices. Information on the amount health authorities spend from their general allocation on these services is not collected centrally.

  Pollution
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies his Department has(a) carried out and (b) commissioned on the effects of pollution on health since January 1998; which of these have been published to date; and when he expects the remainder to be published. [82679]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department has carried out and commissioned a number of studies on the health effects of pollution since January 1998, some through the Medical Research Council and others jointly with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Copies of the details of these studies have been placed in the Library. It is not the Department's policy to publish the findings separately, though researchers are encouraged to publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals and in the scientific press on completion of the studies. The vast majority are disseminated in this way.

  The Department together with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has co-funded an indoor air pollution research programme as well as research into the non-auditory health effects of noise and the health effects of chemicals in the environment. Together with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Health and Safety Executive, the Scottish Office, the Welsh Office and the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland, the Department has agreed to contribute towards a contract with the Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine to form the Small Area Health Statistics Unit (SAHSU). SAHSU has carried out research on the effects of air pollution on health since January 1998.

  The Department also manages the National Health Service research and development levy which is used to support research and development of relevance to the National Health Service in hospitals, general practice and other health care settings, and to fund the NHS research and development programme. In addition, the Medical Research Council—which receives most of its income via grant-in-aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—funds medical research as part of the Government's funding of the science and engineering base.

  In addition to those projects lists, the Department expects to issue a major call for proposals on the effects of air pollution on health over the summer.

  Advertising (Medicines)
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what procedure a substantive issue could be brought before the courts by(a) the Licensing Authority, (b) the advertiser and (c) other parties once a determination had been made and a notice issued to cease advertising under Schedule 13 of the Medicines (Advertising and Monitoring) Amendment Regulations 1999 (SI 267). [82824]

  Ms Jowell
  Where a determination has been made and a notice issued to an advertiser to refrain from publishing an advertisement, but the advertiser fails to comply with
  419
  the notice, the Medicines Control Agency, on behalf of Health Ministers, may prosecute him under paragraph 7 of the Schedule for failure to comply with the notice. The MCA may also apply to the courts for an injunction under regulation 6 of the Monitoring Regulations. The advertiser, or any party who can demonstrate to the courts that he has a legitimate interest, may apply under Order 53 of Schedule 1 to the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 for judicial review of decisions made at any stage of the procedure laid down in the Schedule to the Monitoring Regulations. Parties may also seek a declaration from the High Court that an action of theirs is lawful under Order 15 rule 16 of Schedule 1 to the Civil Procedure Rules.

  National Blood Service
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made with the reform of the National Blood Service. [83390]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Blood Service is a vital part of the National Health Service and, as such, is expected to provide high quality, cost efficient services. Over the past year, following the report we commissioned from Professor Cash on the Liverpool Blood Centre, the NBS has been working to improve the quality of the services it provides to blood donors, clinicians and patients. But, to achieve lasting improvement, it also needs to modernise the management of the service, both nationally and locally and to develop a clear strategic direction within which all parts of the service can operate. We have therefore approved proposals, submitted by the National Blood Authority, to effect these changes and to ensure a first class future for the National Blood Service.

  The existing 3 zone structure into which the National Blood Service is currently organised will be replaced by a single integrated structure. This will improve the performance of the service by creating a greater sense of strategic direction, shared ownership of priorities with the wider NHS and clearer accountabilities. In addition, local services will be enhanced by the appointment of a Blood Centre Head who will lead local service delivery to hospitals and patients.

  Copies of the National Blood Authority's plans have been placed in the Library.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Information Meetings
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what network will provide the services provided by the information meeting pilots after 31 May. [82917]

  Mr. Hoon
  After the pilot information meetings have ceased to operate on 31 May, the Government will consider the lessons to be drawn from the pilot projects, including any lessons as to the types of suppliers best suited to providing such meetings in the future. No decisions on this subject have yet been taken.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has 420
  for future forms of information meetings following the pilot testing; and when the new system will be established. [82916]

  Mr. Hoon
  The pilot information meetings are the subject of a major research project. It is, therefore, premature to specify any form for information meetings or date for implementation.

  Courts (Disabled Persons)
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if the proposed new helpline for court users with disabilities will be accessible for hearing impaired and speech impaired people through the provision of(a) a textphone facility and (b) the acceptance of calls via the RNID Typetalk service. [83068]

  Mr. Hoon
  The helpline is not accessible through a textphone service. However, Court Service Users do have access to a textphone service situated at a number of locations, although they are not linked to the helpline. The Court Service disability helpline will accept calls through the RNID Typetalk service.

  Office for the Supervision of Solicitors
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has made to the Law Society about investment in the improvements to the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. [82756]

  Mr. Hoon
  Spending by the Law Society on the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors is a matter for the Law Society. However, the Lord Chancellor and I have met the President of the Law Society to discuss the performance of the Office in general terms. The Government propose to take powers in the Access to Justice Bill to establish a new office which will be able to intervene effectively to improve complaints handling by the legal professional bodies.

  Sandeep Kaur
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to the letter dated 22 March from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), when he expects a hearing before the Immigration Appeal Tribunal in the matter of Sandeep Kaur v the Secretary of State for the Home Department. [83093]

  Mr. Hoon
  Although no fixed date has been given, the Appeal will be heard during June in Birmingham.

  Public Record Office
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list(a) the storage space occupied by the enumerators' books for the 1921–1971 decennial censuses for England and (b) the estimated cost of micro-filming each of these censuses at current prices. [83308]

  Mr. Hoon
  (a) The storage space occupied by the enumerators' books for the 1921–1971 decennial censuses for England and Wales is 662 linear metres. It is not possible to provide a separate figure for England. (b) It

  421
  would not be possible to estimate the cost of micro-filming each of these censuses at current prices without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list those hon. Members who, since September 1998 have communicated with the Lord Chancellor's Department about the 1921, 1951 and 1961 census returns and have been informed by the Public Record Office that access to these census returns is covered by the Census Act 1920, as amended by the Census (Confidentiality) Act 1991. [83309]

  Mr. Hoon
  Since September 1998, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Public Record Office have corresponded with the following hon. Members concerning public access to the 1921, 1951 and 1961 census returns and informed them that access to these census returns is covered by the Census Act 1920, as amended by Census (Confidentiality) Act 1991: the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), and the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. J. M. Taylor).

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how many linear metres of storage space at the Public Record Office are now(a) occupied by records and (b) vacant. [83307]

  Mr. Hoon
  At the Public Record Office, Kew(a) 153,300 linear metres of storage space are occupied by records and (b) 29,100 linear metres are vacant.

WALES

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about class sizes in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in Wales. [82090]

  Mr. Michael
  In January 1998, the average class size in primary schools was 27 pupils for ordinary classes, 26 for nursery classes and 10 for special classes. Overall, 33 per cent. (97,508) of primary school pupils were in classes with 31 pupils or more. The average class size in secondary schools was 21 pupils.

  Significant progress has been made in implementing our commitment to reduce all infant class sizes to 30 pupils or less by the end of this Parliament. £11.3 million has been awarded in grant for 1999–2000. It is estimated that this will solve almost 90 per cent. of the problem of large infant classes in Wales.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Public Services
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the earliest date on which the Government will reconsider the powers allowed to the Welsh Assembly to raise additional resources for public services. [82094]
  422
  Mr. Michael
  The Government have no plans to alter the financing arrangements for the National Assembly as set out in the 1998 Government of Wales Act.

  My priority is to make the Assembly deliver bread today not jam tomorrow. The first challenge to the Assembly is to prove itself by being imaginative and effective with the powers it has been given.

  Farming Incomes
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about farming incomes in Wales. [82096]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The latest estimates of incomes for full-time farmers in Wales were published in February 1999. The figures show the Cash Income for dairy and livestock farms in Wales is forecast to fall by 21 per cent. in 1998–99, to £17,900.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Small Firms
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of the Federation of Small Businesses to discuss the situation of small firms. [82097]

  Mr. Michael
  The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), met representatives of FSB Wales formally on 15 February for the launch of their Manifesto for the National Assembly. We both meet representatives of small businesses regularly, including the FSB at both the all Wales and regional branch levels. I expect this constructive dialogue to continue under the National Assembly for Wales which will have the prime responsibility for consultation with business.

  Minimum Wage
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the impact of the national minimum wage on the average income in Wales. [82099]

  Mr. Michael
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) today,Official Report, column 932.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many 18 to 25-year-olds in Wales are in full-time work, training, education or on the environment task force as a result of their participation in the New Deal. [82101]

  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many 18 to 25-year-olds in Wales are in full-time work, training, education or on the environment task force as a result of their participation in the New Deal. [82103]

  Mr. Hain
  The latest information indicates that, under the New Deal for 18–24 year olds, some 3,800 young people have found work, over 1,300 are in full-time
  423
  education and training, almost 700 are on the Environment Task Force, and some 400 are improving their employability through work with the Voluntary Sector.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Official Representation (Brussels)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what preparatory work his Department has undertaken to establish official representation for Wales in Brussels once the National Assembly has come into existence; and if he will make a statement. [82102]

  Mr. Hain
  Welsh Office officials are in discussion with the various parties involved in order to present proposals to the Assembly.

  Women (Political Opportunities)
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to increase opportunities for women in political life in Wales. [821041]

  Mr. Michael
  I am committed to increasing the representation of women at all levels of Government. Our White Paper called on local government to consider how they could best schedule meetings to allow councillors to combine elected office with work and family commitments and undertook to work with the Equal Opportunities Commission to consider how more women councillors can be encouraged.

  We have agreed that official meetings of the National Assembly should be timetabled between 9.00am and 5.30pm to make it easier to combine politics with family life.

  I also believe political parties must rise to the challenge of securing greater representation of women amongst their candidates for election.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to promote the Welsh language. [82105]

  Mr. Michael
  Steps to promote the Welsh language include providing £5.9 million in grant in aid to the Welsh Language Board in 1999–2000, and putting in place the necessary arrangements to establish the National Assembly as an effective bilingual institution.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Concessionary Travel
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of pensioners in Wales who will benefit from the introduction of the concessionary half fare for bus travel. [82106]

  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of pensioners in Wales who will benefit from the introduction of the concessionary half fare for bus travel. [82114]
  424
  Mr. Hain
  There are some 580,000 people over the retirement age in Wales. We are keen for them all to have access to concessionary fares schemes which provide at least half-price travel for a bus pass costing no more than £5, and we have ensured that all local authorities are now in a position to operate schemes which meet this minimum standard.

  Furthermore, we are working with local authorities and bus operators to prepare the way for the introduction of free bus travel for pensioners over the next two to three years.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Health Spending
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the level of health spending per head of population in Wales in 1999–2000 relative to that in England. [82107]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Projected spending per head in 1999–2000 is £907 in Wales; in England it is £806.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Haulage Industry
  21. Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the future of the haulage industry in Wales. [82108]

  Mr. Hain
  The future of the haulage industry in Wales is closely linked with that of the Welsh economy. The prospects for both are excellent. I am aware of the concerns about taxation and competition issues which have been expressed by the industry, which the Government will consider in the recently established Haulage Forum.

  Following the transfer of functions, the National Assembly will take a close interest in the haulage industry in Wales.

  Milk Marque
  22. Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many letters he has received from farmers concerned about the future of Milk Marque. [82109]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  I have received nine letters. I have passed the letters to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to take the comments into account in his consideration of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's (MMC, now known as the Competitions Commission (CC)) report into the Dairy Industry.

  Following the transfer of functions, the Dairy Industry in Wales will be a matter for the National Assembly but decisions in respect of recommendations from the Competitions Commission (MMC) will remain the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  Agenda 2000
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he met representatives of the farming unions in Wales to discuss the impact of Agenda 2000 on Welsh agriculture. [82110]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have met with representatives of the farming unions in Wales on numerous occasions during the negotiations on the Common Agricultural Policy reform component of Agenda 2000. Welsh Office officials are currently assessing how the proposed reforms will affect farmers in Wales and we will be discussing this further with the industry in due course.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Chambers of Commerce
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of the chambers of commerce of Wales to discuss the costs of(a) tax and (b) regulations to business. [82111]

  Mr. Michael
  I have met a wide range of business representatives to discuss issues affecting business. My predecessor met representatives of the South Wales Chambers of Commerce Group formally during his time as Secretary of State for Wales and I am due to meet representatives of the Cardiff Chamber of Commerce in the near future.

  Outdoor Education
  25. Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on provision of outdoor education for pupils in Wales. [82112]

  Mr. Hain
  Physical Education forms an integral part of the National Curriculum in Wales. Outdoor and adventurous activities form part of the programmes of study for Physical Education at Key Stages 2 to 4. There is compelling evidence that habits formed by young children at primary school age persist into later life and that fit and active children will be much better placed to enjoy a fulfilling and healthy adult life. Elements of "games", such as running, throwing and jumping, that are taught as a compulsory part of the primary school curriculum, help address concerns that some areas of Wales have the highest rates of heart disease in Britain. In other areas of the curriculum, schools use outdoor environments to support programmes of study as appropriate. Awdurdod Cymwysterau, Cwricwlwm ac Asesu Cymru/The Qualifications, Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales (ACCAC) will be consulting in the summer term on proposals for a new curriculum to be introduced from September 2000.

  Following the transfer of functions, responsibility for education matters in Wales will pass to the National Assembly.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his funding of voluntary organisations in Wales. [82727]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  On 6 April, my right hon. Friend announced nearly £3 million funding for the voluntary sector organisations listed for the current financial year. This represents a five per cent. increase for the organisations over the previous year and demonstrates our commitment to a vigorous voluntary sector.

  Grants awarded:

  £000

  Local Voluntary Services Scheme (LVS)

  1,719

  Transitional Funding LVS

  35

  Wales Council for Voluntary Action (WCVA) Administration of LVS

  43

  WCVA

  441

  Volunteering in Wales Fund

  557

  Community Enterprise Wales

  54

  Business in the Community Wales

  21

  Community Services Volunteers (CSV)

  35

  Student Community Action

  21

  Welsh Black Voluntary Sector Network

  21

  CSV and Senior Volunteers Programme

  20

  ACCAC Budget
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total amount of money returned to his Department's budget from Awdurdod Cwricwlwm Cymwesterau ac Asesu Cymru (ACCAC) in 1998–99. [82698]

  Mr. Hain
  No money was returned to the Department's budget by ACCAC in 1998–99.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Rail Travel
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the potential for increased travel by rail. [82098]

  Mr. Michael
  One of the main objectives of the Government's integrated transport policy is to encourage greater use of public transport, including rail. The National Assembly will be contributing to the work which the shadow Strategic Rail Authority has under way to develop a strategic plan for the railways.

  Following the transfer of functions, responsibility for the regulation and financial support of rail services will remain with he Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  National Assembly
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about devolving additional powers to the Welsh Assembly. [82100]

  Mr. Michael
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) on 31 March 1999,Official Report, column 725.

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

Transport: Local Authority Subsidies
Lord Islwyn Lord Islwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions they have had with local authorities concerning subsidies for rail and bus services, following the recent Audit Commission report.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, no specific discussions have taken place. The report's recommendations are largely for action by local authorities; but departmental officials have regular meetings with local government representatives on a range of policy issues and stand ready to discuss any specific concerns they may wish to raise.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, has the Minister seen a recent Audit Commission report which points out that our local authorities are wasting hundreds of millions of pounds in subsidising bus and rail services, which are described as unreliable, inconvenient and a poor alternative to the motor car? Railtrack is making massive profits and receiving huge public subsidies yet it cannot properly maintain the Severn Tunnel, which is the main rail artery in and out of Wales. What are the Government doing about the situation? Surely it is time for action.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as to the general point about local authority subsidies, those concern mainly bus services; there is very little local authority direct subsidy of railways. We are encouraging local authorities to enter into closer partnerships with the operators. A number of local authorities have seen significant improvements to their bus services. There is still public resistance to using buses as often as would be useful to an integrated transport policy. Partnerships can deliver better bus services and, for the first time in some time, there has been a turnaround of late in the number of people using buses.
As far as concerns the Severn Tunnel, which I know is of concern to a number of your Lordships from the Principality and elsewhere, Railtrack is faced with the problem that maintenance has not been as effective as it should have been. Noble Lords will be aware that the Health and Safety Executive has insisted that the broken rails are maintained to a higher standard and that, as a result, the speed limit through the tunnel has been
676
reduced. The responsibility lies clearly with Railtrack. We hope that it can meet the maintenance standards required by the Health and Safety Executive.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the present travel pass system in London—like many other noble Lords, I must of course declare an interest—will continue under the Greater London Authority? Can he further assure the House that there will be sufficient powers in that Bill to ensure that a single borough withdrawing from the system will not cancel it? Does he agree that payment for the travel pass can never be valued accurately by the Audit Commission and that it provides a great social service and keeps people mobile in London?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I fully agree with the noble Baroness about the importance and benefits of the London scheme. The legislation currently passing through another place will provide for the continuation of the system within the new context. It is not just a question of pounds, shillings and pence; the travel pass makes an enormous difference to the mobility, well-being and quality of life of many millions of Londoners.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the problem of the Severn Rail Tunnel. Trains are now restricted to speeds of 20 miles an hour. We were told in a debate earlier in the year that Railtrack was laying new track through the tunnel. Presumably those tracks were relaid in the five weekends that the tunnel was closed. Now we are told there is a danger of derailment if trains exceed speeds of 20 miles an hour. Is not that totally unsatisfactory? What do the Government intend to do about it?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct; it is a totally unsatisfactory situation. During the past seven months there have been four broken rails in the tunnel, which may reflect the failure to replace the tracks every six years, which used to be the practice. The Health and Safety Executive has asked Railtrack to demonstrate that it is taking sufficient steps to manage the risk. That has required imposing a lower speed limit. Under the privatised railway system, it is the responsibility of Railtrack to put the matter right. It is the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that it does so.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, what is the Government's response to the statement from the Transport Select Committee in another place, which is not exactly overwhelmed with Conservative Members, that the plans to implement the transport White Paper, which has a lot to do with local authority subsidies for the next three years, are totally inadequate? The committee commented that the gap between the £333 billion pounds a year that is taken in taxes from road users and the £6 billion that is spent on transport undermines the political acceptability of the taxes. What do the Government have to say about that?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure that I follow the noble Lord's figures. It has been the case that

677
successive governments over decades have not agreed to the hypothecation of road fuel duty or vehicle excise duty. Nevertheless, the Government have shifted substantial resources into the improvement of public transport; we have changed the priorities in terms of road maintenance and better use of the trunk road network; and we are giving greater powers and resources to local authorities so that they can tackle their transport problems themselves. In general, the Select Committee in another place supported that strategy and wanted to see it delivered as rapidly as possible, as indeed do the Government.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, are not the Government tackling transport problems the wrong way round? Surely it would be better, first, to get together with local authorities and the private sector to concentrate on building an efficient public transport network. Then. with some justification, they could ask the motorist to leave his or her car at home.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as regards association with local authorities, we have established a whole new system of local transport planning which will, for the first time, provide local authorities and businesses within their areas with a five-year local transport plan. We have moved rapidly on that. As regards fuel duty, I remind the House that the policy on which we are building was introduced by the previous administration for very good reasons relating primarily to environmental considerations. It is very important that those environmental targets are met. The fuel duty is one of the measures that will ensure that they are met. The Government are putting other measures into place to ensure that we do our bit to restrict the pollution as well as the congestion caused by road traffic.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene in respect of local transport, to which he has just referred? May I ask his assistance in regard to the working group that is starting the Tisbury community bus service? This kind of project is of great importance to the nation, and particularly to the area of Tisbury. I declare an interest as a member of the working party. We are intending to take advantage of many of the substantive forms of assistance that the Government will provide. Will the Minister pay particular attention, in the Salisbury district, to the Tisbury community bus service?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am gratified that Tisbury is taking advantage of the rural grants. My noble friend Lord Carter reminds me that Tisbury is in Wiltshire, only just down the road from Shaftesbury, in Dorset, where I live. Therefore, I am grateful that the rural services are improving. All power to the elbow of the noble Earl and his working group.

Amnesty International Document EUR 45/23/98
2.45 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will publish, or place in the Library, their response to the Amnesty International document EUR 45/23/98 UK Briefing for the UN Committee Against Torture.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Amnesty International document was not addressed to the Government. It was submitted direct to the UN Committee Against Torture for its oral examination regarding the United Kingdom's Third Periodic Report on the Convention. That examination took place on 16th November 1998, when the UK supplemented its written report with answers to the questions raised by the committee. Unfortunately, the UN has not yet published a record of the hearing. When it is available, the noble Lord will be able to see the detailed answers supplied to the committee. I understand that the committee complimented the UK on its Third Report and noted some positive developments since the previous report, including the introduction of the Human Rights Act and the Northern Ireland peace process.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply and pay tribute to his personal concern for prisons and prisoners. Will he accept that the Amnesty report illustrated clearly the wide-ranging dangers to the most vulnerable people in this country, whether they are in custody or at liberty? Will the noble Lord give some examples of current progress in providing better safeguards for such people?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I accept the noble Lord's congratulations on behalf of my noble friend Lord Williams, who is abroad at present. He is the Prisons Minister and certainly deserves the noble Lord's tribute.
Perhaps I may give a single example, referred to in the Amnesty report; namely, that of Category A prisoners. Category A prisoners are now no longer held in separate prisons but in units in five dispersal prisons, where they have rights to education, employment, physical education and recreation, offending behaviour programmes and rights of association.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, did my noble friend observe in the Amnesty report the worrying number of deaths in police custody arising from asphyxia caused by inappropriate restraint techniques? Are the Government taking action to ensure that all forces receive regular training in techniques which are effective but are much safer? While my noble friend is reflecting on that, can he shed any light on the curious statistic from the Government's own research report that

679
someone arrested by the Metropolitan Police is over six times more likely to die in custody than someone arrested by a provincial force?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on the first question, regarding deaths in custody from asphyxia, in the study to which my noble friend refers, in only 8 per cent of the cases examined between 1990 and 1996 may another person's actions, which may include restraint leading to asphyxia, have been associated with the death. However, my noble friend is right. We need better figures on restraint. We have been carrying out a full review which will be available next year. There is a new training syllabus, and 80 senior investigating officers have been trained. On the issue of the higher proportion as regards the Metropolitan Police, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to write to him.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the delay in the publication of the transcript of this hearing an outcome of the decision of the United Nations not to publish any documents until they are translated into all working languages of the UN? Will the Government work for the reversal of that inane decision?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not aware that that is the reason for it. I understand that, although it is not unusual for UN documents to take some time to appear, this delay is due to pressure of work at the office of the High Commission where priority has been given to publication of the written findings of the committee.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, as this Question relates to torture, is the noble Lord aware that many noble Lords have been considerably gratified by the Government's announcement to increase the number of Kosovan refugees who come to this country?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not believe that I should respond to that, but I do with gratitude. I believe that the noble Lord expresses a view that is widely shared throughout the country.

National Attack Warning System
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made on bringing in the National Attack Warning System.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, the noble Baroness refers to the National Attack Warning System which the Home Office is developing in conjunction with the British Broadcasting Corporation. We are reviewing the system with the aim of achieving the most cost-effective implementation of the final elements by the end of the current financial year.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House I warmly welcome the noble Lord to the Dispatch
680
Box. A system was selected in 1995 and work began to develop the air warning attack system. Can the Minister explain why there appears to be tension between the Home Office, the MoD, the BBC and the ITC which is preventing that work coming to fruition? Is the money still in the budget? What is the priority now in the Home Office for this project?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. The system has been around for some time. The BBC was commissioned to begin work on the system in 1994, with a planned implementation date in 1998. The noble Baroness is probably much more aware than I am of the problems and delays that have arisen during the period between initiation of the project and the present. Having said that, I assure the noble Baroness that the whole project is still on course and the financial implications remain. It has been indicated that with a few minor tweaks to the system it is possible that the whole process will be rounded off by the end of this year.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, can my noble friend say how the system will work?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, the system has been developed by the British Broadcasting Corporation around existing transmission arrangements. In a time of tension the system provides, additionally, a back-up transmission of British Telecom and private wires to give resilience and uses remotely controlled switching equipment to connect the warning centre to dedicated transmitters instantaneously. This also gives the ability to use alternate paths to the transmitters in the event of damage to the network following an air attack. The system is based in the main on the BBC transmission of both television and radio, plus the British Telecom back-up in certain areas.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that whatever system is decided upon and however penetrating it may be it will not work properly unless people understand it? Therefore, what steps will the Government take to ensure that people do understand it?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the system needs to be fully understood. As it is a warning system, it is important that those involved—the nation generally—are forewarned and educated about the likelihood of an attack and how the system will work. It is important that the noble Lord's point is got across as effectively as possible. That is part of the build-up to the scheme. The indications are that once the system is in place there will be a process of education based mainly on television and radio to inform people of exactly what preparations are necessary to tune in to the system and how they should react once the system has been activated.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House what kind of attack this message will be about?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, the system will operate on the basis of a national emergency. We are not

681
considering local arrangements, but a national system. In the event of an air attack—it is recognised that we would have knowledge of its likelihood—the whole nation will need to be informed. It is to be hoped that when the system is in operation it will provide that kind of information and warning.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, if the warning system is activated because of an air attack, what is the population meant to do? What do the Government suggest that people should do?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, the system has been designed to ensure that warning of an attack is given throughout the land. In the event of the system being attacked and becoming unworkable, it would be very difficult for it to operate on the basis presently envisaged. The system is designed with safeguards. If it is partially disabled following an air attack—that is about as much as it can be—the rest of the system will still function on the basis that warnings and post-warnings will be given throughout the nation or to those parts not affected by the attack.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, it is my understanding that this system was intended not only to warn of the attacks of which the Minister speaks, but also major civil emergencies of one kind or another. Is that still the case?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, the answer to that is a qualified "yes", on the basis that the system is designed to be a national attack warning system. I envisage very few civil scenarios which will require a national warning system. I can think of occasions when, for example, floods may affect particular areas and therefore warnings need to be given. On a national basis in peacetime, I find it very difficult to envisage the need for such a system. In the event of it being necessary to use it on the basis suggested, I believe that this could be achieved by means of the well-rehearsed systems that already exist under parts of the scheme. In answer to the noble Lord's question of whether the system can be used in civil or peacetime circumstances, I find great difficulty in envisaging such circumstances. Having said that, the system exists. If the noble Lord can think of circumstances in which it may be used, I am sure that the system can be applied them.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, does the Minister accept the particular urgency to get this system operational given that it is the essential organisation to co-ordinate many different government departments and agencies?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, it is hoped that the system is now well on the way. As I indicated previously, a little more work needs to be done in the lead-up to some of the outlying transmitters. It is envisaged that that will be done by the end of the year. We hope that the whole system will be ready then.

Air Carrier Liability Order 1998
3 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their reaction to the judgment in the High Court of Justice on 21st April in Regina v. Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions ex parte International Air Transport Association.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government welcome the judgment given by the honourable Mr. Justice Jowitt since he expressed "complete confidence" in the validity of the Council Regulation 2027/97. He declined to refer the question of its validity to the European Court of Justice and he dismissed IATA's request for judicial review.
Furthermore, since the judgment made no order as to the validity of the Air Carrier Liability Order 1998, that order remains in force.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response. How could it be that the commission could propose, and the Government agree, to a regulation which was found to be incompatible with the prior treaty commitments of member states under the Warsaw Convention? Now that the judge has concluded that the European Council regulation is held in suspense, what therefore is the status of the Air Carrier Liability Order 1998 that was pushed through both Houses despite strong and reasoned protest from all sides and when we were the only country in the whole of the European Union to make non-compliance a criminal offence, which was a real case of gold plating?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I indicated, our interpretation of the judgment is that the Air Carrier Liability Order remains in force. The judge did not rule otherwise. The European Union has been completely united on this matter. The regulation was passed unanimously and it is being applied in each of the member states. It is true that we have implemented it in terms of a criminal sanction and that other states have different methods. Nevertheless, we are all committed in the European Union to ensuring that this measure of consumer protection for airline passengers is achieved.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, in that case can the Minister explain to the House his concept of the judge's decision that the EU regulation should be set aside? There appears to be some conflict here. Going a little further, can the Minister tell the House how many other members of the EU have implemented the regulations and whether any of them have done so in the way which we have adopted by adjusting their own laws? Further, can he say what is going on within IATA in the Passenger Services Conference which was trying to deal with the subject of waiving carriers' rights and limited liability on a fully international basis?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we and IATA have ostensibly the same end in mind; namely, that we

683
require airlines to provide full compensation to passengers and that the degree of liability should be conveyed to them when they purchase their tickets. Therefore, we regret that IATA felt it necessary to take this step against the implementation by the United Kingdom of the EU regulation. As I said, other member states in the EU have dealt with the implementation in a different way, mainly through administrative actions. Most of them are in the process of transposing them. It is correct to say that uniquely we have used a criminal sanction. That was largely because we believed that an administrative sanction, such as the withdrawal of landing rights, would have been disproportionate.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved. That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank and the Viscount Falkland set down for today shall each be limited to two and a half hours. —(Lord Carter.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Council of Europe
3.4 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank rose to call attention to the 50th Anniversary of the Council of Europe; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this debate might well have been held in government time. I say that not to complain, but to define what I see to be the nature of the occasion. This is essentially a parliamentary debate to match the ceremonies that many of us attended this morning and the event which is to take place from six o'clock this evening. Indeed, we might have found more time for the debate had it not been for the knowledge that many noble Lords wish to be elsewhere to continue the celebrations at the close of this debate.
At the time when we were considering what we might put on the Order Paper today, I had representations not only from my noble friend Lord Russell-Johnston whom we welcome today not only as a Member of this House, but as president of the Assembly of the Council of Europe, but also from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, who will be contributing to this debate along with representations from the Conservative and Cross-Benches. I see this as essentially a Cross-Bench occasion. Although I hesitate to use a rather ugly phrase taken from marketing, I see this debate as an opportunity to "show case" the question of the contribution of the Council of Europe over the past 50 years and perhaps, as some noble Lords may choose to do, reflect on its future. I am sure that the Minister will be glad to know that I have no questions to ask of her and no awkward statements to make, which she may feel it necessary to disown.
I am particularly pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, in his place. Noble Lords may not know that he was substituting, if I may put it that way, for Herbert Morrison, the leader of the United Kingdom delegation at the first assembly in 1949. He has been associated with the development of European policies since that time. I am also very glad to note that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, intends to contribute to this debate. Although he may not remember, exactly 50 years ago to the day on 5th May 1949, he was also speaking in this Chamber. He was not speaking then on the matter of this debate, but on civil aviation. He has taken a close interest in European affairs since that time.
This is an occasion for personal memories as well as reflecting on the purpose, role, achievements and future of the European Council. I admit to making something of a sentimental journey of my own. Just over 30 years ago when I was the Parliamentary Secretary at the Foreign Office doing the job now done by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, I suddenly found myself leading the United Kingdom delegation to the assembly of the Council of Europe. Indeed, I believe that I was the first Minister to do so since the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, in 1949. My position was anomalous. I was unpopular because the leadership of the delegation had essentially become a Back-Bench role and a rather prized one. In the aftermath of De Gaulle's second veto in December 1966, the Government, of which I was a Member, thought of ways of showing their continued European commitment. They did not wish to be seen retiring out of pique. So I was launched at Strasbourg not as a secret weapon but as perhaps a rather tiny symbol of the Government's direction and interest.
I went there convinced that there would be many opportunities to speak about a cause in which I strongly believed, but when I arrived there I found that the leading questions were where to take the French delegation to lunch; how much was to be spent on it given the tight-fisted attitude of the Treasury; what should be chosen for the menu and how long a speech I should make on the importance of Franco-British relations.
Apart from that, what I remember of that time was that I kept Robert Maxwell off the delegation. I refused to have him despite the representations of the Chief Whip. I also remember the kindness of Sir Alec Douglas-Home as he then was. He had been Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative representatives to the assembly. He was infinitely more senior than me. Those who have been junior Ministers will well remember the occasions when, arriving at a meeting perhaps looking a little less scruffy than junior Ministers do in the present Government, and accompanied by senior civil servants, the delegation being met would leap forward to shake the hansd of the civil servants while the junior Minister stood by not quite knowing how to assert his authority. My relationship was with Sir Alec Douglas-Home at that time, but he always took immense care to be many paces behind me; and if anyone looked in his direction he always pointed them sharply in mine. So I remember with great appreciation his consideration at that time. The third aspect

685
I remember was the quality of the asparagus in season. I enjoyed my time as leader but I did not change the course of history one little bit.
Others from the United Kingdom have in their way done so. I refer to my noble friend Lord Russell-Johnston, now President of the Assembly; and Sir Geoffrey de Freitas, remembered by a number of noble Lords, was the president in my time, as, briefly, was Lord Finsberg seven years ago. John Edwards, a Treasury Minister in the Attlee Government, became President of the Assembly in 1959 and died in office, but he was held in great regard by all our partners in the Council of Europe for his commitment to his purposes. Indeed—I think that it is still the case—a road in Strasbourg was named after him, the only one of which I know. He was the Labour Member for Brighouse and Spenborough and deserves a reference on this occasion.
In many different ways, UK delegates of all parties have contributed to the assembly and made a major and constructive contribution to its affairs. We have to remember in particular the contribution made by Duncan Sandys at the birth of the Council of Europe; and indeed at the Hague Congress which preceded it the year before. We remember also the contribution—it was referred to this morning—of Sir Peter Smithers formerly the Conservative Member of Parliament for Winchester who became Secretary-General of the Council.
Looking back at those times—it is worth reading about them—at The Hague Congress in 1948, to which I referred, we find that most of the arguments pre-figured discussion about European unity and Britain's part in it. At the beginning the French wanted to call the new institution the European Union. That was rejected I think largely at the United Kingdom's insistence, in favour of—I have to say that it is bland and innocuous despite its record since—the Council of Europe.
Harold Macmillan referred to the assembly as a European parliament in embryo. That did not please Ernest Bevin. He hardly more than acquiesced in its establishment fearing that it would become a platform for federalists and opposition parties, to both of which he was greatly opposed.
Issues which have echoed down the years have included the following: what can Europe do for itself? What do we want the United States to do for Europe? It is a dilemma which we have seen during the troubled and tragic events in former Yugoslavia. We have considered whether new European institutions should have a defence dimension. The Council of Europe has none. All too often British governments have shown a persistent scepticism about whether Western Europe was capable of taking another step forward towards economic and political union, and a belief in standing aside until the unexpected happened. Policy has often been "better be late than bold".
We also recognised—they are real issues—the problem that being a member of the Commonwealth confronted us with in the early years; our special relationship with the United States; and arguments about Britain and the open seas. Those arguments are in the bound debates of those times, in minutes of meetings
686
and in Foreign Office papers. We also see at that time the debate about sovereignty. It is not the great overlooked issue that critics of Britain's participation in a more united Europe claim. Indeed, the declaration of the Hague Congress said that the nations of Europe,
"must agree to merge certain of their sovereign rights".
That was an issue in debates in 1948–49. It was an issue at the time of application for membership of the European Economic Community. It was an issue, as I remember well, in the long debates in another place in 1971–72 about Britain's successful application; and it was an issue during the referendum. Whatever view one takes of it, the question of sovereignty has not been hidden, ignored or denied. It has been an issue upon which we in this country in particular have had to make up our minds.
However, the most characteristic, most abiding achievement of the Council of Europe—its centrepiece—has been the European Convention on Human Rights. It sprang from Article 3 of the statute with its reference to the principles of the rule of law and enjoyment by all persons within their jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental freedoms. If I have had anxieties over the years, they have been only about the desire of the European assembly to be inclusive, to welcome enlargement. It has not always been as rigorous as it should have been in applying those principles when considering applicant states. There have also been problems—we have to recognise that—for Greece, one of the founding members of the Council of Europe. We were too slow to expel it at the time of the colonels; and, in some respects, that applies to Turkey also. That having been said, the convention is the important, central achievement, and a remarkable one indeed, of the Council of Europe down the years.
After the establishment of the Council on 5th May, on 6th May a leader in The Times said of the assembly that it was at once the most daring and most dubious part of the plan. It said:
"The Assembly itself, and indeed the whole Council of Europe, is frankly an experiment. It may provide an expression of unity, as its advocates hope, or it may reveal the many differences which still divide the nations of Europe…It is at present a roomy ship, holding comfortably [both] federalists and functionists, west Europeans and east Europeans, democrats of many shades, and sailing no man knows whither…If the Council of Europe succeeds in reconciling France to Germany and Germany to France, this alone will justify its creation. If it does more and provides the foundations for a true European union, no one would be better pleased than those who are now, for good reasons, most sceptical".
I wonder what The Times will say tomorrow, if it says anything. I hope that it will say that the Council of Europe has worn remarkably well. Perhaps it might say, in the language of which only The Times is master, that the Council of Europe is the quiet and somewhat self-effacing elder brother of what is now the European Union. Whatever The Times may say, and whatever history may eventually record, the Council of Europe was a product of a hope and idealism of Europe in the immediate post-war world. As Kosovo—to mention only one example—shows, there is still much, indeed too much, left for it still to do. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.18 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for introducing the Motion, and for having the debate in his party's time. The House may wish to take note of his complaints about the lack of government time, but I cannot help noticing that there seems considerably more interest in the debate on the Council of Europe than in the following debate. I was somewhat astonished by his comments about the scruffiness of government Ministers. Looking at Members on our Front Bench and other Front Benches, it was an amazing comment.
Nevertheless. I suppose I have been chosen to follow the noble Lord because I have been asked to be the chairman of the 50th anniversary celebrations in the United Kingdom. We have organised a number of events over the past few weeks. In those events we have tried to pick up the various themes to which the noble Lord referred in his speech and to talk about the strengths of the Council of Europe.
When I came into the House from lunch at the Foreign Office and saw the list of speakers for today's debate, I was struck by the huge amount of experience of the Council of Europe among Members of this House. I refer both to noble Lords who have gained that experience through the House of Lords and to those who gained it while Members of the other place. It is an institution in which I, as a relatively new member of the Council of Europe, find a distinct parallel. Both institutions derive their authority through a moral authority rather than a literal legislative authority. As a Member of the House of Lords going to the Council of Europe, I immediately found myself at home because the debates there are in many ways of a very similar tenor to those in this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, spoke about the various official events which happened this morning and which are happening at the moment. In addition, there will be a reception at St. James's Palace this evening. They have attracted a huge amount of interest. Eight Foreign Ministers will have attended the events of yesterday and today, as well as 300 parliamentarians and ambassadors. It is a tribute that they all felt it important to be here in London to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Council of Europe.
The committee of which I had the privilege to be chairman arranged a number of events to celebrate the achievements of the Council of Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, referred to the centrepiece of those achievements, which is the European Convention on Human Rights. We had a conference the week before last in which we talked about the incorporation and how rights are coming home to British public life. We had a huge amount of interest from the police, health authorities, local authorities and public utilities, which recognised the immense importance of the immediate application of the incorporation of the convention into British law.
The other events which my committee organised were various cultural events. The cultural role of the Council of Europe is often forgotten in terms of celebrating the diversity of culture within its member states. We took
688
over four youth groups. To ensure that we were properly celebrating and representing the cultural diversity of the United Kingdom, we had some drummers from Northern Ireland as well as some Irish dancers from Hampshire. That event was a great success.
However, perhaps the greatest success was the youth parliament which we held last Friday, to which we sent 18 youth delegates. The youth delegates turned up and were presented with a wodge of papers asking them to debate education, the importance of health, and democracy in the next century. They were not Interested in that. The only thing that they wanted to debate was Kosovo. They insisted on having a debate on Kosovo in the morning. Not only that, but they went against the recommendations of the secretariat and insisted on voting on the result of the debate. It so happens that there was a substantial majority in favour of the NATO intervention in Kosovo.
However, I do not think that that is the important point. What I think is important is that all the speakers in the debate on Friday made the point that Yugoslavia is surrounded by member states of the Council of Europe and that the only future for Yugoslavia is within the family of the Council of Europe. They did everything that they could to encourage a resolution of that crisis. Indeed, two young delegates from Kosovo took part in the debate.
One of my committee's responsibilities was to publicise the role of the Council of Europe. I have to say that that was by far my most difficult role. There was not a lot of interest in the institution itself; it does not generate publicity. Therefore, everything that we did had to be in the context of achievements.
I have recently written articles for the Council of Europe about the abolition of the death penalty and the incorporation into our law of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The next 50 years of the Council of Europe will he its most important. I believe that the Council of Europe must be an institution which grows in its own right and which is not just seen as a waiting room of NATO or the European Union. We can make it grow in its own right only by attaching proper importance to its achievements both today and for the next 50 years.
3.25 p.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I, too, add my thanks to those of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for introducing the debate. On this 50th anniversary, amid all the very proper references to the Parliamentary Assembly, perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe, referred to this morning by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and, indeed, by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe.
Set up as the Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities in 1957, it became a congress in 1994. The congress, like its predecessors. brings together local and regional authorities from all the member states. Unlike the former standing conference, the congress is organised into two chambers, one

689
representing local authorities and one representing regional authorities. It also meets together as one in plenary session.
My own involvement was as a member, and latterly, as political fortunes waxed or waned depending on your point of view in the United Kingdom, a substitute member of the United Kingdom delegation. It was an involvement which I greatly valued. The organisation of the standing conference was, in my view, preferable to that of the congress in a number of ways. However, I particularly have in mind the division into the two chambers which, in the opinion of a number of members, rather than strengthening the organisation weakened the whole.
It is interesting to note that the Committee of Regions of the European Union rejected such a split, despite early moves by some regional representatives at the beginning of its existence.
My own role was a small one, but United Kingdom members from local government and our delegation made significant contributions to the work of the Council of Europe through the conference and the congress. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, who is not in her place, chaired the education committee of the standing conference with great distinction and, indeed, put enormous effort into the interests of Albania at the time of that country's admission to the Council of Europe. Sir Gordon Pirie of Westminster and Mr. John Morgan of Test Valley were distinguished presidents of the standing conference.
When I joined the delegation, there were those, of course, who asked "Why do you want to do that?". It was a question which I suggest would not have been asked by anyone who was present at the time when the emerging democracies from central and eastern Europe started to join, first as observers and then as members.
The congress gave much practical help and guidance in the establishment and organisation of local democracy in those countries. The enthusiasm and pleasure which the new members brought to participation in the affairs of the congress, as they enjoyed their new-found political freedom, served as a reminder to all of us of how easy it is to take personal and political freedom for granted.
The rate of change was considerable. I recall sitting next to the mayor of a Bulgarian city just after his country's admission, who gave me his business card. It set out his business, his municipal offices and the membership of his local rotary club. It was a pen picture of what would be the norm in Western Europe but which would have been unthinkable just a few months before that meeting in his own country.
I suggest that there is an ongoing role for the Council of Europe and, I am sure, for the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities to ensure that democracy and freedom are the norm in the countries of Europe. To advance the common and shared hopes of the free nations of Europe, the Council of Europe would have to be invented if it did not exist.
690
As with so many European matters, the commitment of the United Kingdom to the ideals of the Council of Europe and the practical implementation of those ideals is vital. It is all very much in our interests and we should pursue it with enthusiasm and not reluctance. The work of the congress, in helping the new democracies develop free and democratic local government, will continue and ensuring the maintenance of such free and democratic local government in the member states will remain a task vital to the work of the Council of Europe into the 21st century.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I believe that I have the least knowledge and experience of the Council of Europe of any Member of your Lordships' House who will be contributing to today's debate. However, I wish to bring greetings from the European Select Committee of your Lordships' House to the Council of Europe on its birthday.
I am most grateful to my noble friend for introducing the debate. It comes at an appropriate moment. I believe that the Council of Europe deserves more attention from your Lordships' House than it receives. I shall return to that in a few moments.
Although its role is quite different from the European Union, it is seen as a much gentler and less threatening body. That may he good on some occasions although it may make it seem rather porridge-like on others. Nevertheless, as my noble friend pointed out, the work it has done in relation to human rights has been inestimable and something of which it can be proud and which we should support. It produces some extremely valuable reports but I fear that many of them gather dust in your Lordships' Library and are rarely brought to the Floor of the House.
One of the good things it has done is to extend the boundaries of Europe towards the true boundaries of Europe. Again, I agree with my noble friend that it was perhaps rather precipitate in inviting some countries into membership whose record on human rights is not as great as it should be. But, on balance, I believe that that has been an incentive for many of those countries to improve those human rights records.
Members of this Chamber have a very good record of attendance and contribution to the Council of Europe over many years. A goodly number of noble Lords speaking today have been or still are members. I know that my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie would have spoken had he not been fighting off the nationalist hordes in the north of this great country. I suspect that perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, is doing the same because although his name is on the list, I do not see him in his place.
I wish to mention my late lamented friend, Lord Ross of Newport, who was a member of the Council for many years, and the late lamented Lord Finsberg, whose work has already been mentioned. Those people make a contribution which is not widely recognised. I believe that there should be more praise for them. My only contact has occurred when I have had the good fortune to stand in for the noble and learned Lord the Lord

691
Chancellor at Speakers conferences. I have found it extremely valuable to meet people from countries outside the European Union but still within Europe with whom I do not normally have contact in my role as chairman of your Lordships' Select Committee.
As I said, it is a pity that the work of the Council of Europe is not more widely appreciated in your Lordships' House. It has been put to me in the past by various noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Newall, the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the noble Lord, Lord Pon. sonby of Shulbrede—that perhaps the European Select Committee might somehow take up a role in the direction of the Council of Europe. That would be difficult because the role of scrutiny of legislation which your Lordships undertake is rather different from what is necessary in relation to the Council of Europe. But I suggest—and I have done so to noble Lords—that perhaps the British delegation from your Lordships' House should, from time to time, table the sort of Motion we have before us today on specific subjects relating to particular reports which have been published so that this House has a proper opportunity to debate the reports and get to know better the results of the activities of the Council of Europe.
I look forward very much to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston. I congratulate him on the success he has now achieved because I know the amount of work he has contributed and the passion with which he has supported the European ideal over many years. He is a little younger than I; nevertheless, he is doing well.
We must look to the future. We must consider what will happen to the second pillar of the European Union and its relationship with the Western European Union on defence matters. We need to tackle and consider a number of problems in relation to the expansion of the European Union in conjunction with the Council of Europe. But this is a day for celebration, and it is a day to say to the Council of Europe, "Well done".
3.38 p.m.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for initiating a debate which is entirely appropriate on an occasion such as this. We are in his debt for an extremely interesting trip down memory lane. But the Council of Europe is a very different body, in terms of its membership, from that to which the noble Lord made significant reference.
Perhaps I may speak on a personal note for a few moments. I have been a representative in the Parliamentary Assembly for 12 years. I was chairman of its committee on legal affairs and human rights for a four-year period between 1991 and 1995, during which period the accession of the emerging countries began. I am currently chairman of the ad hoc committee which has been created to make recommendations as to the appointment of the judges to the new full-time Court of Human Rights.
Therefore, the Council of Europe is a body for which I have considerable affection. I was present in the hemi-cycle on that day approximately 10 years ago
692
when Gorbachev made his celebrated declaration that the Council of Europe would become a European common home. It was less true at the time, but it is; so patently true today as to be worth just a mention. Those emerging countries cannot link to the EU; they cannot really link to NATO; they can barely link to the Western European Union; and they are unhappy about the OSCE. Where do they find themselves; where do they go; where do they have their European link? They have it within the Council of Europe. So to that extent today, the Council of Europe is a political necessity for those emerging countries.
I pay tribute as others have—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, did so just a few moments ago—to the presidency of the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston. It is a new presidency, but it is already a distinguished presidency because those noble Lords who know him, as I do, will recognise that his is a unique personality.
Mention has been made, and properly so, of the decisive role which the European Convention on Human Rights plays in the affairs of the Council of Europe. It is, I suppose, the council's linchpin. There are, however, considerable differences between it and, for example, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The most important difference is that here the individual citizen can bring an action against his or her own country if he or she feels that one of his or her fundamental rights has been infringed, making the convention, in my view, very much more than just an empty token.
The Council of Europe has constantly striven to reunite Europe as a whole. That remained an impossible dream until the collapse of the Berlin Wall. The political transformation which occurred as a consequence of that event meant that the Council of Europe was immediately put in what might be called a test situation. The Council acted immediately to establish itself as an East-West forum for Europe and to help the central and eastern European countries along the difficult path to the rule of law. It did so by engaging in close co-operation. Nevertheless, the enlargement process is no easy road. Prospective members' respect for the rule of law, constitutional reality and understanding of democracy stood severe tests during the accession procedures. I was very much part of them, and therefore I know what was taking place.
The membership bids of the Ukraine, Russia and Croatia were, and remain, particularly controversial because of serious misgivings about the rule of law and the standard of democracy in those countries. Many of the newest members have yet to attain the high standards which the older democracies would consider to be the basic minimum. Those countries must therefore be monitored, and they are being monitored. We hope that co-operation with those emerging: countries will result in their being brought to a position of true democracy. There is some way yet to go.
To highlight the difficulties is important; to point out the framework within which the Council of Europe operates is also important. Unlike the situation in the European Union, where executive decisions acquire the immediate force of law in all member states and as a

693
consequence attract media attention, Council of Europe treaties, as has already been mentioned, must first be incorporated by each individual member state into its national law. This is a slow process and does not lend itself to very much media scrutiny. Yet, allied to an effective monitoring procedure, this surely is the way forward for the Council of Europe into the 21st century.
I add one caveat especially for the Minister's benefit. The creation of the new full-time court vastly increases the expenditure of the Council of Europe. It is inevitable. We now have more than 120 judges in full-time residence in Strasbourg. Zero growth is predicted in budgetary terms, not only for this year, but also for next year. It is a situation which needs to be addressed.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I offer no depth of history or, I suspect, of understanding when it comes to the Council of Europe. I offer merely the first impressions of a new boy in his first year as a member of the Council.
My principal impression is that the Council of Europe is an organisation of immense importance and immense worth, and one to which we should give our unrestricted and unremitting support. An organisation dedicated to the promotion of democracy, the rule of law and human rights; one which members join voluntarily and where they are willing to submit themselves to open and very courteous, but often critical, debate; one where they are prepared to subject themselves to criticism and to accept it; and an organisation in which members work towards improving things in their own countries, and towards promulgating the same values in other countries is of immense worth to us all. At a cost every year of a couple of hours or so of the war in Kosovo, we are achieving a great deal more than that war ever looks likely to achieve in the many months that it may last.
But the Council of Europe is not without its faults. The first thing that struck me about the Council was that it is suffering from a severe case of mission drift. What is an organisation whose home is in human rights, justice and the rule of law doing producing reports on European transport policy, the Russian economy, the information society and xenotransplantation? What is it doing producing the wonderful publication that I am holding, The Council of Europe with Sue and Max, and putting words into the mouth of Gus, the "know-all" hamster, who says that the Council of Europe aims,
"to solve the main problems of our times (drugs, Aids, racism, violence, etc)"?
The organisation has lost its way. It is trying to solve all the problems of the world, when the problems at its core are much the most important and ones on which it should be focusing its entire existence. I applaud the decision of the Council of Ministers to curb the organisation's budget. I see no other way in which it can be brought to focus on what it should be doing. A committee of wise men was set up to plot the organisation's future. It produced an empty and fatuous report which is of little value in deciding where the Council goes in the future. The only way is for the
694
Council of Ministers to take its responsibilities seriously and put a severe budgetary restriction on the Council until it is doing what it should be doing and not spending a great deal of money doing things which are of little value and which it certainly has no business doing.
There is another aspect of the Council that requires serious attention, and I suspect that it is a matter for those of us who are members. It should not indulge in horsetrading to produce verdicts and results. It is of immense importance that if, for instance, we are to censure Turkey for its human rights record, the Turks do not feel that we, the British, voted against them because we had done a deal with Greece that we would so vote on condition that Greece supported us in our arguments about Gibraltar. It must be an organisation in which decisions are taken on their individual merits, openly and in true individual faith.
The current election for Secretary-General is riddled with horsetrading. The word among members is all about deals being done and who is supporting what, for what benefit. That is not the way in which the organisation should be run. We should be putting a great deal of effort into making sure that that sort of spirit is not promulgated in the Council.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, like others of your Lordships, I thank my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank for initiating the debate and congratulate my noble friend Lord Russell-Johnston on the distinction with which he carries out his task.
I hope it will not be felt that my comments in any way spoil the birthday party. It is often forgotten that when the European Economic Community was founded in 1957 many regarded it as being a distinctly second-best instrument to bring Europe together. It was chosen because a number of other attempts had not led far enough, if indeed anywhere. Some never progressed beyond design. A number of foreign policy schemes, promoted in particular by successive French governments, never assumed institutional form. There was the European Defence Community—ill-fated, the wrong idea at the wrong time and one that came to nothing.
Some attempts at bringing Europe together disappointed the founders. The European Coal and Steel Community was intended to build on the industries of the future, but it soon turned out to be an institution presiding over the decline of major industries of the past. Some institutions changed almost out of recognition. The Western European Union is the prime example, originally founded by the wartime allies to prevent any revival, let alone military revival, of Germany. Subsequently, it included Germany and has since turned into the institution that it is today.
Then there is the Council of Europe. The Council had two special features. One was the full, active membership of the United Kingdom; the other was the concentration on the rule of law.
The Council of Europe had its moments. I remember one such moment very well. In December 1969, I was, in another incarnation, in the ministerial council,

695
representing another country. This country was being represented by George Thomson, now my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth. We discussed the suspension of Greece, of which the two of us were strongly in favour. It is uncertain whether we would have achieved a majority in the ministerial council, but the Greek foreign minister left and suspended his country.
Europe is nothing if it is not a liberal order in which the rule of law and democracy are respected. That is why the year 1989 was so important for the Council of Europe. To some extent the Council has used that important moment. If we look at the new members in the early years—Hungary, Poland, Estonia, Lithuania and Slovenia—we can see that there was a genuine attempt to include countries which subscribed to the rules for which the Council of Europe stood.
I cannot say that in more recent years that has been equally clear. We find that the extension of membership in recent years includes Albania, Moldavia, Ukraine, Russia, Croatia and, last week, Georgia. Georgia is fighting a war in Abchasia which is similar to the Kosovo war except that there are fewer journalists present. Georgia has promised to allow the Meschetes to return to their country, but it has not kept that promise. It is a country in which there is much evidence of torture of detained prisoners; a country in which there is considerable evidence of the corruption of judges; a country which is now a member of the Council of Europe.
For many years I have defended the Council of Europe precisely because I regarded it as the guardian of the rule of law. I no longer find that so easy. More recently, I have come to wonder whether we need some other instrument to ensure that membership and defence of the rule of law coincide. I have wondered whether, instead of the European Union becoming a member of the Council of Europe, we should read the convention into the treaties that bind the European Union. We need such a defence of the rule of law and we need it to be carried out by institutions which take seriously what we believe in, if and when we say it. Europe is nothing if not a liberal order.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, in joining with those who have thanked the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for initiating this debate, I am sure that I speak for all noble Lords in expressing my appreciation to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede for the work that he has carried out to prepare for the celebrations.
So far in the debate the importance of the Council of Europe as regards human rights has rightly been stressed. That is, of course, the most important and significant contribution that the Council has made to European and world affairs. I am one of those who believes that if this Government are remembered for nothing else—I am sure that they will be remembered for many other things—they will be remembered for the way in which they have firmly incorporated all that the Council of Europe has stood for into domestic legislation and the administration of our justice system.
696
Perhaps I may make a few remarks as a member of the present delegation. I know that I speak for all the members of the delegation when I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, on his election as president of the assembly. I have been impressed by the way in which he has set about his task. I have reason to know how firm he can be in the Chair, but he has also brought a great deal of imagination to the task. His incisiveness sometimes belies his rather relaxed appearance.
Looking at the success and work of the delegation. all noble Lords will want to put on record their appreciation of the leadership by my honourable friend Terry Davis in another place. He is ably and consistently supported by his wife, Anne. People often remark over coffee and drinks that we have two for the expenses of one!
The work and success of the delegation also owes a great deal to others less often seen. They should be mentioned. The mission in Strasbourg is ably led by Andrew Carter and supported by the Foreign Office team. The overseas office in Westminster and the travel office in Westminster carry out amazing feats to enable everybody to arrive wherever they should on time.
I am in my second innings in the Council of Europe. I was a member of the delegation at the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s. The contrast is total. In those days we were locked into the Cold War. Now it is interesting to see the whole family of Europe represented and to see the politicians and representatives of former communist countries participating in democratic debate, strengthening the art of democratic debate and taking that back to their countries. Indeed, we also learn from them, at first hand, about their preoccupations.
However, Kosovo has underlined discussions. In the very good debates on Kosovo last week, Russian parliamentarians participated as did Albanians, Macedonians, Greeks and Turks. Representatives from Hungary and Romania were also present. lit is very important, when holding a debate on a problem that faces us all in Europe, that we stand for the principles of parliamentary democracy and that parliamentarians from all those countries share their perspective on the problem.
Recently I participated in a small mission to Albania and Macedonia and it was very important for me that I was with colleagues from Spain, Turkey and Poland. Therefore, I was looking at the problem not just from the British perspective, but from the point of view of people from other parts of the continent.
With the enlargement of NATO and the enlargement of the European Union, the challenge has been to bring a wider Europe into a political assembly and a political dialogue of this kind. That cannot be overstated. The Council of Europe makes an important contribution to that.
When the Minister replies, will she give an undertaking that at some stage the Government will publish a list of those conventions of the Council of Europe which have not yet been ratified? Will she tell us for how long they have not been ratified in the United Kingdom and when we can expect them to be ratified?

697
It would also be extremely helpful if the Minister could say, now that the economic and social fund of the Council of Europe is supporting the practical expression of solidarity of the European Community to the people of Kosovo, Albania and Macedonia, whether it is time for us to consider our position and think about joining that fund as a practical expression of our commitment.
I agree with all noble Lords who have spoken. If the Council of Europe had never been invented, we would need to invent it today. It is good that it is there and it is tremendously important that today we have had an opportunity to underline the importance of its contribution.
3.58 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, like many noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon, it was my privilege when I was a Minister to participate in and represent this country at meetings of the Council of Europe's Council of Ministers in the areas of education and health and particularly on the important Pompidou initiative on drug abuse.
Subsequently, I served as a member of the United Kingdom parliamentary delegation between 1992 and 1997, a time which saw the remarkable expansion of the Council of Europe from 26 countries to what it is today, a grouping of 41 countries.
That was a great and enlightening experience. Having been brought up and educated during the period when the countries of central and eastern Europe seemed so far away, so closed off to us, it came as quite a shock to realise that Prague was further west than Rome and that Warsaw as close to London as Madrid. Holding meetings for the first time in Budapest in their beautiful parliament building, which reminds us so much of this building, being of the same style and vintage, and overlooking the river—in that case the River Danube—gave us a true recognition of what it is to be European.
I served on the Committee for Education, Culture and Sport, which was then chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, whom I look forward to hearing. He immediately follows me. I eventually became chairman of the Sub-Committee on Cultural Heritage where we blenched at the news that was coming out of the former Yugoslavia of the destruction of bridges, churches, Mostar, and the beautiful city of Dubrovnik during those early days of the disturbance and break-up of the former Yugoslavia.
My interest in heritage found a home in the European Cultural Convention which was signed in 1954 with signatories and members from countries outside and beyond even the 41 countries of the Council of Europe. The essence of that convention was to establish a framework to ensure that the diversity at the heart of Europe's cultural richness is respected as our common heritage and the basis of our unity. Many initiatives and fascinating projects have been built on that convention.
As an ongoing link with the work of the Council of Europe in this area, I have been fortunate in being asked to become president of the European Foundation for Heritage Skills, an organisation which, in its
698
incarnation, owes a great deal to the late Lord Duncan Sandys. The role of the European Foundation for Heritage Skills is to ensure that in the future there will continue to be people who care about our heritage in all its forms and who are capable of passing on their skills to further generations.
We in the foundation hope that the networking system which we provide, which brings together all the partners concerned in cultural heritage conservation, as well as our objective to communicate and disseminate information, will assist in the renaissance of crafts throughout Europe. We also believe that that in turn can contribute both to local sustainable development and to the wider aim of increasing mutual understanding in Europe. I am happy, no longer being a member of the parliamentary delegation, to be able to carry on the work in which I was involved in this way.
As a final remark I should like to say that in this, as in other areas, it is vitally important that the Council of Europe works in conjunction with, and complementary to, other European organisations. We do not want duplication and unnecessary overlap. I always believed it to be vital that we co-ordinated as much as possible with the European Union, the relevant parliamentary committee, the OECD, UNESCO's European division and so forth. I hope that in the future development of the Council of Europe's activities that will continue to be the way forward.
The Council of Europe provides a forum for the meeting of minds and hearts in Europe. I sincerely hope that on this, its 50th birthday, it will continue to do so.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Russell-Johnston: My Lords, I want to make a short and I hope concise speech. On 25th January I was elected president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I am both honoured and excited. My first predecessor was Paul Henri Spaak. To follow a man of his distinction and commitment to a united Europe is a great honour. The job offers great opportunities to do good. That is really exciting for me after a long time in politics. Perhaps I might be permitted to express a collective thank you to all members who have said nice things about me, some of them unjustified, but some of them quite well justified.
Being president even for three months has given me a much clearer and sharper understanding of the Council than I was able to gain as a member for 15 years. Some of my comments will be less emollient than those of my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. First, despite all the high formalities and recognition given by the Government to the 50th anniversary, it is a fact that British governments—this applies equally to the present Government as it did to the last—have not for a long time given any priority to the Council of Europe. They hardly ever say anything about it and certainly nothing favourable. In my opinion—I will return to this—it is not a good thing that within the Foreign Office, the Council of Europe and OSCE are handled by the same desk.
Secondly, members will know that the system of financing the Council derives from its establishment and the way it happened, with 60 per cent of costs being met

699
by what are called the grands payeurs —the big payers; that is, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy and now Russia paying each roughly 13 per cent, the remainder being divided on a GDP-population formula among the other 36 states. It is an out-of-date system. There should be a new system relating only to GDP and population.
Thirdly, the political effect of the grands payeurs system is that those who pay most are against any adjustment. In that they are against the majority of the other 36 states. They are seeking, as mentioned by the noble Lord. Lord Kirkhill, a zero growth budget which in reality is a minus growth budget. France leads the campaign, followed by the United Kingdom, with Germany dithering a bit and Russia naturally against because it should not be a grand payeur anyway. Italy seems to be our only friend.
What budget are we talking about? For the entirety of its programmes and activities the Council spends in British money £104 million a year, or, to put it differently, 12p per annum for each person in the Council of Europe—less than the cost of a second-class stamp. Of that the Parliamentary Assembly, which I represent and which has huge potential for finding ways of reducing tension, takes 8 per cent. Let me give an example. On 15th March I had a meeting with the presidents of the parliaments of Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia. They signed a common agreement. It was the first time Armenia and Azerbaijan had signed any paper about anything. It does not solve Nagorno-Karabakh but it is a step towards reducing tension.
Fourthly, the OSCE is a valuable organisation. Its budget has trebled three times in the past year. No one seems to mention that. But it does not have a developed acquis as we have. Fifthly, the Court of Human Rights is a wonderful achievement but it costs a lot of money and would consume the budget. It must therefore have a separate budget.
Sixthly and finally, there are some specific steps the Government could take if they believed in real celebration and real recognition. They could join the social fund. Britain has never been a member of the social fund. They could correct something done by the previous government and rejoin the European Youth Federation. I fail to understand also why the United Kingdom is not a member of the Venice Commission, particularly when one considers the wealth of legal arid constitutional experience in this House and knowing what the commission has already done.
We were certainly a founder member of the Council of Europe and encouraged its creation. But we are not supporting it as we should. We ought to do better.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston. Over the years, we have from time to time disagreed at Strasbourg but we have always been reasonable friends. It is a great pleasure also to find that the noble Lord has been elected president of the Parliamentary Assembly. I might marginally have preferred someone from the Socialist group but no doubt
700
the noble Lord will be replaced appropriately. I am sure that we will hear and understand much more about the Council of Europe as a result of the noble Lord's presidency. I hope that his argument about resources will be listened to carefully. I thank the noble Lord for securing this debate. He knows, because we had a word about this, that I would have preferred another day. I would have preferred using today to celebrate the past and have a full day's debate soon to talk about the future. Perhaps we will get one.
I hesitated to speak because of a subsequent engagement, but as I served on the Council of Europe longer than any other British parliamentarian in the past 50 years it seemed appropriate to say a few words. Few of us recall the Council of Europe in its pre-war, prefab building. I remember being there when there 16 members. When I left the Council in 1997, there were 39. That extension is significant, and it is why I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He seems to imagine that the Council of Europe should talk only about human rights. That subject is vital, fundamental and deserves the emphasis that the Lord Chancellor placed on it this morning. However, I chaired the Environment Committee and in the 1980s the Brussels bureaucrats took an extremely unpleasant, overbearing and arrogant view in demanding that Austria—not then a member state—and Switzerland should devote far more resources to ensuring that the roads through their alpine valleys could more swiftly allow the passage of EU vehicles. Life in those alpine valleys was wretched because of road transport. Brussels seemed to ignore the fact that neither of those two countries were at that time member states and took a high-handed view. If it had not been for the Council of Europe, there would have been no international voice to balance the pressures that Brussels is able to bring to bear.
The European Union will expand, but that will be a lengthy process, during which time it is important that there is a broadly based organisation. It may be that the wise men, or whichever Ministers are disposed to say this, will suggest that the Council's role should be curtailed. As a chairman of its Environment Committee for four years and of its Natural Environment Sub-Committee for 14 years, I emphasise that the Council of Europe embraces territory from the arctic tundras of Siberia to the volcanic islands of the tropical Atlantic. It is the only organisation that can place the whole environmental scene in the proper perspective.
I do not wish to say more, and I do not have the time anyway, but two points need to be addressed. One is the budget, to which the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, referred. In particular, the public relations budget is absurd. It will pay for someone to get from London to Strasbourg twice a year. Whoever is to be in charge of PR can go to Strasbourg a couple of times, but then will not have a penny piece to spend. If the Council of Europe does anything or achieves anything useful, invariably the British media refer to that as a result of the work of the European Union. I am not anti-EU but it made me angry, when, for example, the EU decided' to duplicate the arrangement for awards and prizes established by the Council of Europe and which was working well. I raised that matter in the Political

701
Committee during the Belgian presidency. The Belgian foreign secretary said they were going to stop it. They did not. So we have that absurd duplication, which should stop if there is any meaning to the new, better relationship between the EU and Council of Europe.
The Government themselves would benefit if British people were more fully aware of the Council of Europe's achievements, many of which accrue from the work of British Members of Parliament and officials. I do not know why the Government allow Brussels to take the credit when that can properly be directed at the Council of Europe.
I am delighted to see my noble friend Lord Callaghan in his place. Many of us on this side of the House owe him a debt of gratitude. When I joined the Council of Europe, no Labour MP or Peer was allowed to serve on it for more than three years, and no Labour MP or Peer got anywhere near a chairmanship of importance and significance. As soon as my noble friend became Foreign Secretary, I was able to stay on the Council of Europe and to spend the next 18 years in opposition rather more usefully than I may have done in the other place. I felt that particular tribute should be paid. Many others have received tributes, and they are deserved. I hope that over the next 50 years more British parliamentarians will take an interest in and receive useful advice as a result of the existence of the Council of Europe.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I am fortunate to speak immediately after the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath and my noble friend Lord Russell-Johnston. As an ex-leader of the British delegation, I am delighted that the abilities of our numbers have been fully recognised. I am sure that my noble friend will perform his responsibilities with great efficiency and to the delight of all. I first met the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, at the Council of Europe, became a friend and we were able to coincide to a certain extent in working together, as we do in this House, on the environment. The Council of Europe is a great place for friendships. The noble Lord, Lord Hardy, will remember, as I do, a very unusual friendship between Ray Carter and Jim Lester across the ranks of the House of Commons, when they found themselves in Strasbourg. They were given an extra fillip at the very beginning because Sir John Rodgers could not believe that any Conservative member of the delegation could possibly have a regional accent and therefore, that Jim Lester must be a member of the Labour delegation.
As well as friendship there was the opposite of friendship. It was at the Council of Europe that I first learnt the practical problems of not having proportional representation. The Council was bedevilled in those days by Labour and Conservative delegations haranguing each other across the Floor of the hemicycle, whereas none of the same inter-party disputes was seen among the delegations of other countries. That is where I learnt that proportional representation was not only theoretically right but practically right.
702
There were stars in every delegation and those whom their parties wished to send to exile in Strasbourg. I will not comment on any of the latter. Among the former were Peter Hardy; David Steel, who kindly handed over to me at one moment the leadership of the delegation; and members of the Conservative delegation such as Julian Critchley. I believe that it was in the Western European Union, not the Council of Europe, that Julian Critchley quoted that well-known remark about the languages in which one talks to one's wife, one's mistress, one's colleagues and one's horse—which, in the course of being translated, meant that every delegate in the WEU had been insulted by the end of the speech.
I was also very grateful to my noble friend Lord Steel for letting me have the leadership because, as everyone knows, the point about being the leader of a delegation is that you actually have a car at your disposal. Indeed, if you have a car at your disposal you become extremely popular. I managed to be very popular during my time as leader of the delegation.
I believe that my main contribution was made when it came to our turn to give a party. We received much help from the food and drink industry in this country and we managed to get all the food and drink across all the boundaries in large pantechnicons and gave a very good party. One of the highlights of the party was the French appreciation of the pâté en croûte anglais, which was veal and ham pie with an egg in the middle. The French really appreciated it and did not know that we could produce such delicacies.
I am afraid that I did not contribute all that much during the time I was there. I visited Delphi in order to institute a cultural centre there on behalf of the committee upon which I was serving at the time. I hope that there is a plaque somewhere in Delphi, among its great historical monuments, recording that particular fact.
Before I close, I should like to add to the comments made by those who talked about the work of the Clerks of both Houses who accompanied us. Indeed, they looked after us so well and had such important abilities to offer. I am not the kind of supporter of the European Union as most of the rest of my party are on these Benches. I see the Council of Europe as a much more worthy organisation and an organisation of which I was very pleased to be a part. I hope that it will be taken very seriously in the future.
4.22 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, all of us will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for introducing this debate. I should also like to mention the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. As a long-serving member, he continues to make a very significant contribution to the work of the Council of Europe. I am particularly glad to have been a colleague of his on its Parliamentary Assembly, from which I retired this January after seven years' service.
In connection with the Council of Europe's 50th anniversary, I should like briefly to mention three themes. The first of these is evident from the period of 40 years from 1949 to 1989. It relates to the consensus

703
represented through NATO of western foreign policy in Europe. This was political idealism backed by force. While not conjoined in function, nevertheless, between 1949 and 1989, NATO and the Council of Europe were closely associated in purpose. In fact, in this House Gladwyn Jebb, as many of us know, played a major part in helping to form both those institutions. Practically all the member states of the one organisation were also members of the other. Their purpose in Europe was to replace Soviet totalitarianism with human rights and democracy. Their military strategy was this form of political idealism backed by force. The measure of its success was the end of the Cold War in 1989.
Then came the last 10 years between 1989 and 1999. In Europe, and however much latent earlier on, ethnic violence and regional instability did not become manifest until after 1989. The irony, as we are aware, has been that the lesser problem caused trouble almost as soon as the greater one appeared to have been solved. It is also inconsistent that NATO and Warsaw Pact states should have possessed the ability to bury conventional nuclear hatchets among themselves, yet, in particular the Balkans, lacked the aptitude to avert or control violence and civil war between and within minor European states. Thus the second theme relates to the wrong turning which western foreign policy took at the end of the Cold War. The mistake was to assume that political idealism no longer required to be backed by force. Although intervention came at last in 1995 and then in this year of 1999, each time it did not do so until the worst crimes and excesses of brutality and ethnic cleansing had already been perpetrated.
Following from the first two, the third theme is how the Council of Europe should be able to progress its work in Europe, free from the inconsistencies which have obtained hitherto. For, from 1949 to 1989, the anomaly was that while NATO states practised democracy, Warsaw Pact states did not. Equally, from 1989 to 1999 the anomaly has been that the majority of Europe, including the powerful states, was at peace, whereas, confined to minor states, a small part of Europe was intent upon civil war.
The Council of Europe has already achieved a great deal. Indeed, as we have heard, 18 states have joined since 1989. Now 41 states in Europe are committed to its principles and accept its moral authority. Paradoxically, this authority is all the greater since the Council of Europe has no executive power. Nevertheless, it is unencumbered as a result by such power which otherwise would distract its purpose. Equally, while its business is addressed by European politicians, its work is not undermined by the dogmas of party politics.
The European Convention on Human Rights, the committee for the prevention of torture and the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine are, as has been said, all examples of how the Council of Europe has provided protection against exploitation. Among a great many areas of involvement for its future, perhaps three should be mentioned today: first, mending the scars of war in the former Yugoslavia. Already in Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia and Slovenia the Council has contributed as an arbiter and with its endeavour to
704
re-establish communities and to assist the needs of families and children. Secondly, there is the invaluable work it does on legal matters, health and education in the rest of Europe. Not least, thirdly, there is the moral backing which it can bring to partnerships with other bodies and institutions. These are often designed as projects to establish best practice for social problems, including the control of drugs, the motivation of young people and the management of prisons.
For its first 50 years the Council of Europe has been low key and disproportionately effective. It should remain so. Yet its work should be publicised much more. It addresses the priorities of life. Its continuing success will also reflect that of Europe in the next century.
4.26 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Rodgers for his introduction to the debate and also to my noble friends as a whole for deciding to allocate part of our time to this important subject. Like all other noble Lords who have spoken, I share the view that the Council of Europe is an excellent and worthwhile collection of institutions and activity. I wholeheartedly support its aims and objectives.
I have never served as a member of the delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly. My reason for joining today's debate is to mention the role that my grandfather, Arnold McNair, played in the formation of the process which only came to full fruition last year. Of course, my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill has played a significant role in that respect.
Arnold McNair was actually the first president of the European Court of Human Rights. He played a significant role in the decision of the Wilson Government to accept the optional clauses of the European Convention on Human Rights. I believe that the European Convention and the European Court of Human Rights are the two most important and significant achievements of the Council of Europe.
The optional clauses refer to the right of individual petition to and compulsory jurisdiction—or the acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction—of the European Court of Human Rights. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill for drawing my attention to an article he wrote for the summer 1998 edition of Public Law. I cannot hope to do either my noble friend or his article or, indeed, my late grandfather justice in the matter. But I felt that it would add a different historical note to today's debate.
Another player in this small drama was the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, who also attended the lecture which my noble friend delivered last year and which subsequently appeared in Public Law. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, had several times pressed the Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, about when his government would accept the optional clauses.
As my noble friend discovered when the official papers were made available for inspection in 1995, discussions between Ministers were proceeding, though rather slowly, in the direction of the acceptance of the optional clauses. The chief stumbling-block was

705
whether the clauses should apply to Britain's still considerable number of dependent territories at that time. This was the case until a Foreign Office official wrote to the Treasury to point out that there was a possibility that if the two optional clauses were accepted and if the War Damage Bill, which was then before Parliament, was passed, the Burmah Oil Company might be tempted to bring proceedings under the convention—which in fact happened.
I do not propose to go into the details but Lord McNair made a very powerful speech on Second Reading against the War Damage Bill, and in defence of the rule of law and against retrospective legislation. He had been active behind the scenes in attempting to persuade the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Gardiner, and the Foreign Secretary, Michael Stewart, to accept the optional clauses. He was excellently placed to do so because he had a possibly unrivalled reputation as a jurist. In fact, he was the first judge at the International Court of Justice ever to vote against his own country's position in a case in which the judge's country was a party. This was the case following the nationalisation by the Persian Government of the foreign oil companies operating in that country.
I would also like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Russell-Johnston on his election as president of the Parliamentary Assembly. I wish him enormous success in what he referred to as his great opportunity to do good.
I cannot top the anecdote of my noble friend Lord Beaumont on the problems of translation. However, I conclude with one told by my father. He remembered hearing an Irish senator refer to the "Protestant work ethic." This was translated by a German Bundestag member as "the Protestant labour moral."
4.34 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord McNair. As he rightly says, the achievements of his grandfather will never be forgotten. I am quick to say that no one could be better qualified than the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, to initiate this debate. He was very close to Hugh Gaitskell. The first time I ever met him, 40 years ago or more, was when Hugh Gaitskell sent him down from the platform to find out what we delegates from the Labour Conference thought about the "fight, fight and fight again" speech.
Later, of course, after the tragic death of Hugh Gaitskell, who was potentially a great Prime Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, became acquainted with Roy Jenkins, who held exactly the opposite view on Europe. I say "the opposite view" because at the end of Hugh's life he was generally regarded as anti-Europe and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, would be able to tell us what I believe to be the truth, that, 40 years on, Hugh's mind might have developed very considerably and in fact he might have thought quite differently now.
Indeed the whole situation is so completely different and the economic situation is so different as between this country and the European countries. In 1950 I made
706
a courtesy call on Doctor Adenauer, who later became the famous German Chancellor. I knew him because I had been Minister for Germany and therefore I was able to make this courtesy call, although by that time I was Minister of Civil Aviation. He took the opportunity to beg me to go back to London and persuade the Prime Minister, Clem Attlee, and the Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, to join with France and Germany in the Franco-German iron and steel pact, which in many ways was the foundation of the modern European economic organisation.
Of course he completely over-estimated my influence. I was brushed aside and a high Treasury official summed up the general estimate in Whitehall that to tie ourselves in such a way would be to tie ourselves to a corpse. Well, the "corpse", has shown some animation since then, and I suppose that some people would say that the standard of life in those countries was rather higher than in this one. So the situation has completely changed in 50 years, but that is how things were seen in official and governmental circles in 1950.
Today, if anyone asks me whether I am in favour of joining the single currency, I say that my knowledge of this matter, however closely I try to follow these things as a Member of this House, is small compared with that of many others. I would try to consult the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and also the noble Lord, Lord Healey, who was another Chancellor of the Exchequer. I may add that I have great confidence in the judgment of the present Government. It is very difficult to know whether it is in our interest or not. I do not think that an outsider, or even a Member of this House, if not right behind the scenes, can form a worthwhile opinion without advice from those who are much better informed. I have an open mind on that question.
4.35 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, it is a great pleasure and privilege to follow the noble Earl, Lord Longford. He referred to himself as a former Minister for Germany. He was Minister for Germany, as we called it, three years before I was born. He presided over a smashed, defeated and disgraced nation. Twenty-one years later I was proud to be for six years a member of the British Army of the Rhine. I was not a member of an army of occupation. That, I believe, is due largely to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and his team, and indeed those who set up the Council of Europe and the European institutions.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for introducing this debate. He stated that he would ask no questions, that he would not be awkward and that he would not on this occasion look to the future. Perhaps I may be permitted to ask the Minister a couple of questions, promising of course, as always, not to be awkward and to look to the future. I also commend the noble Baroness and her colleagues for their marvellous dress sense, their performance and indeed for their elegance in speech and dress.
I was disappointed to note that today the press have paid very little attention to the events that have taken place in the Royal Gallery and in the Foreign Office and

707
St. James's Palace later today. I hope that will be rectified tomorrow morning. One way to do it—and I hope the Foreign Office will take the lead in this—is to give the widest dissemination of that quite outstanding piece of oratory by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who, in his outstanding and excellent speech, put human rights and the rule of law at the centre of the Council of Europe.
My noble friend Lord Russell-Johnston notably asked a rhetorical question: in the light of Kosovo, has the Council of Europe failed? He reminded us that the ceremony commemorating half a century of the Council of Europe showed that there was a need for continued commitment to the principles of the Council of Europe. I hope that the people of Kosovo draw some consolation and inspiration from the point that he made.
I would draw attention to what happened in 1960 in relation to central and eastern Europe. We have many visitors in our capital city today—notably, for me, the delegation led by his Excellency Mr. Toomas Hendrik fives, the Foreign Minister of Estonia. He has come to pay tribute to the work of the Council of Europe, not only since Estonia joined it five years ago but since its foundation in 1949.
I spoke earlier this morning with Madame Eve Sirp, the Second Secretary in the political department of the Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I asked her what she thought were the highlights of the Council of Europe to the nations of the Baltic states over the last 50 years. I also asked what they expected of it. The highlights were, first, the foundation of the Council of Europe in 1949, even though they were denied, through no fault of their own, admittance as full members for 44 years.
Secondly, in 1960 the Council passed a resolution concerning the three Baltic states, which are small in geographical area and have some of the smallest populations among the free nations of Europe. That resolution expressed the hope that one day the Baltic states would become full members. It is difficult for us to realise what that resolution meant to the people of those countries. It was a signal not only to the world but to the Baltic states and to the tyranny that oppressed those people.
The third highlight was the day they joined as full members. Tributes have been offered; I offer mine to Sir Frederic Bennett, chairman between 1979 and 1987. He told me with, I think, mock humour that he brought the Baltic states in as associate members on a Friday afternoon when everyone else had gone home. Sir Frederick is a hero in central Europe, particularly in the Baltic states.
Fourthly, in 1996, for six months Estonia occupied the chairmanship of the Council. The irony is that during that period of chairmanship Estonia pushed for Georgia to be admitted. We have heard about Georgia from my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf. He has issued a caution. Georgia was, indeed, the birthplace of Stalin. One therefore had the situation where a nation that was persecuted between 1918 and 1953, primarily on the orders of Stalin, was working to admit the nation that produced that monster.
708
What of the future? Yes, it will help those nations to prepare for the EU, but they recognise there are no short cuts. They know that, because they have met fellow delegates such as my noble friend Lord Russell-Johnston, in the Council of Europe. They have accepted already 25 per cent of the 176 conventions and wish to go quickly to accepting all the others. But these matters take time. They wish to include—I do not like the word "integrate"—the participation of their own governments at every level the 28 per cent Russian minorities.
I started with publicity. As I walked back from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, where I had taken Madame Eve Sirp, I passed through Westminster Hall. I noted the display, "Council of Europe: The democratic conscience of Europe", showing that the Council costs us £157 million or 20 pence per head. There were five soundbites: co-operation, discussion, meeting, respecting and deciding. In the light of the last 50 years and in a vision of the next 50 years, 20 pence per head is not, as the Foreign Office might say, money for old rope; it is value for money.
4.42 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, as the 17th speaker in this interesting debate I add my congratulations to the, noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, not only on his lucid introduction but on his masterly timing. It is exactly 50 years today that the inception of the Council took place, at a ceremony at St. James's Palace. It seems very appropriate that this year the Council has the luck to have a British/Scottish president. I was delighted to hear his pungent speech in the debate and I wish him every success during the next three years.
Like many others, I have served on the British delegation. I retired seven years ago. The experience left me with the very strong impression that the concept of the 1949 innovators of forging stronger links with Europe was a brilliant vision. It is a challenging role which the Council of Europe, over the past 50 years, has worked hard to achieve. I hope that in years to come it will become even more effective.
Many of us will know that the Parliamentary Assembly works hard in the plenary session debates and produces excellent committee reports. Being a member involves a great deal of travelling to interesting cities throughout Europe. I recall that there were certain hazards involved in serving on the delegation, one of which was the "Strasbourg expanding girth syndrome." I notice that my noble friend Lord Dundee, who succeeded me, did not suffer from that.
The value of the assembly is not only the unique chance it provides for parliamentarians to meet each other—today there are parliamentarians from 41 European countries—but also its remarkable influence. I recall that at the time the eastern European countries were turning from communism to Western-style economies, which was no easy task, passage through the democratic gate at Strasbourg was a tremendous achievement for them. Even more of an influence was the support, advice and encouragement which the Council gave to many of those countries. The noble

709
Lord, Lord Kirkhill, who served valiantly as chairman of the legal affairs committee during that period, visited many, many countries and conducted many, many interviews. He mentioned today, rightly, his concern that some of the entrants do not have true democracy.
For all the good work of the assembly, it is disappointing that very few people—including the press—know anything about the Council. As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby reminded us, the Council in many ways is a parallel to the House. It enjoys excellent debates; it has brilliant reports; its members are part-time and unpaid; and there is little public awareness. But there is the invisible asset of the strong value of influence. The hideous daily atrocities committed by European people upon European people in Kosovo must be very galling for the Council and for those serving in the assembly. I was delighted to hear today of the powerful debate that took place in Strasbourg last Friday. I hope it will have some influence on a very dangerous European peace situation.
A lesson for the Council today—indeed, it was in the vision of 1949—is that woven into the Council's texture over the next 50 years will be not only the Court of Human Rights and the European Court but also perhaps a European force, a successor to NATO, which will be less remote than a United Nations force.
There have been many achievements over the past 50 years. The centrepiece is the European Court of Human Rights. The entry of the eastern countries is another great achievement. Finally, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby mentioned, there is the important achievement of European cultures. It is perhaps a less glamorous achievement but it is very important. The twinning of towns and villages within Europe is very important. Many of us are aware of the benefits.
Towards the end of his speech, the president of the assembly took the Government to task over the budget, as did the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. I am concerned that the Council should always have sufficient funds to run itself in a proper and sensible manner. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that that will be achieved. I wish the Council well during the next 50 years.
4.49 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I. too, wish to add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank for what has been a crucial occasion. It would have been a great shame if, on the 50th anniversary of the Council of Europe, there had been no recognition by debate in either House of the Council's achievements and the challenges that still confront it. Perhaps we may suggest to the Government that at least occasional debates in government time on the Council of Europe would be a useful way of bringing more attention to bear on the remarkable work of this organisation. That is partly the message of this debate. I note that more than half of those who have participated have at one time or another been members of either the Council of Europe or the Parliamentary Assembly, or have in other ways played an active and important part in the Council's deliberations.
710
In that context, I wish to add a word about the noble Earl, Lord Longford. He is the only speaker in this debate who recalls playing an active part when the Council of Europe was first established. I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Carlisle in placing on record the deep gratitude that any European owes to the noble Earl for the sterling and brilliant work that he undertook in what was then called the British Zone of Germany, helping to make Germany one of the pillars of democracy in the modern Europe. I pay tribute to the noble Earl for what he did.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am overwhelmed and I thank the noble Baroness. However, I must make it plain that I am only one of three Members of this House who were members of the Attlee Government. The others were the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, who does not attend the House very often now, and the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. I should not like people to think that I am the only one who is still about the place!
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am more than happy to pay tribute to the other two noble Lords who were members of that great administration.
We should be careful about avoiding too self-congratulatory a note on this occasion. I remember attending, in 1948, the conference at The Hague, as a schoolchild in the company of my family. There was a speech that electrified the whole of Europe. It was given by Winston Churchill. It set before that conference a vision of a united Europe that has never been matched in practice from that day to this. It managed to inspire most of the nations of Europe, and it gave Britain an opportunity which I am afraid she totally failed to take further. It has taken us 48 years even to arrive at the point where our own country accepts the right of individual petition in our own courts with regard to the European Convention on Human Rights. That, even by the relatively incremental progress associated with British democracy, is extraordinarily slow progress.
In addition, we have been in a sense, even today, not a totally full-hearted member of the collectivity of countries concerned with human rights. To my great regret, we have still not signed the International Covenant of Political and Civil Rights; we have not signed the protocol; we have not signed the protocol to the Convention Against Torture; we have not signed the protocol to the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Yet we rightly feel as a country that we should be one of the great champions of no racial discrimination and no acts against human beings that reduce them to little more than animals. So on this occasion I urge the Government to complete the long step forward that they have taken by incorporating the convention into British law and by also signing those conventions, at a time when the lessons of Kosovo and its refugees show how vital it is that we line up on the right side of the international community on these matters.
It is also extremely important to recognise that the great achievement of the European Convention on Human Rights is that it has made Europe one of the only two areas of the world where an individual can bring a

711
case against his or her own government. That ought to be one of the building blocks of the moral and legal order to which the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, referred. Unless an individual can seek justice at some level of a system of law, the attempt to argue that countries are behaving in a fully democratic way is vitiated from the very beginning. I believe that too much cannot be made of that right of individual petition. However, I add one warning word. A right of individual petition is as strong as the ability of a man or woman without means to receive justice. That is why legal aid in countries is an absolutely indissoluble element of the true recognition and acceptance of human rights.
Perhaps I may refer briefly to what was said, in a strong speech, by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I see the point of the noble Lord's remarks about the need to focus the work of the Council of Europe. But it would be a great pity if that meant that we pulled back almost entirely onto its legal and judicial work. The creation of a culture of human rights rests firmly in education. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, referred to the youth parliament, which is one of the remarkable achievements of the Council of Europe. My noble friend Lord Russell-Johnston has been closely associated with trying to train and educate young people in the member states in the concept of democracy. It is also vital to mention that the collective responsibility that members of the Council of Europe accept for creating that culture is of crucial importance.
I also wish to refer to the work done in central and eastern Europe and the former states of the Soviet Union. I have seen something of the work of the Council of Europe at a modest level in helping the Moscow School of Political Studies to establish a series of seminars for parliamentarians in Russia. It does that work in a way that makes it acceptable to those parliamentarians to listen and discuss the slow and gradual building of democracy in their own country. I contrast that with some of the high-handed and patronising attitudes taken by all too many western consultants who visit central and eastern Europe or the former states of the Soviet Union knowing nothing of their history or language and often lacking the humility to show willingness to learn.
The Council of Europe has consistently been a listening, moderate and humble organisation. Tragically, that may well be why it has received so little publicity. In my view the work of the Council of Europe is crucial to the survival and flourishing of democracy, as the noble Lords, Lord Hardy of Wath and Lord Judd, pointed out, if we are to see democracy flourish in that part of Europe which is still not fully within the structures of democracy so far. The Council of Europe is working today on the Russian judiciary to try to help it become independent of the state and able to act according to the highest standards of equity and justice. It is working on the constitution of Albania, to take another crucial example.
Perhaps I may turn briefly to the magisterial words of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. The noble Lord raised two issues that we cannot neglect. The first is how far some of the new members wholly understand and incorporate a strong sense of what it is to have a
712
democratic and liberal civic society. The noble Lord mentioned Georgia. I wish to place on record my respect for some extremely courageous Georgians who have fought very hard for democracy. In that context, I would say a favourable word about Mr. Shevardnadze, who has twice survived assassination attempts in his own efforts to modernise Georgia. I share some of his concerns, not least about Croatia and Moldavia, where there is a very great of work to be done. It would be a tragedy if the Council of Europe allowed itself to be diluted in an attempt to extend the umbrella just a little too far. The noble Lord may be right in suggesting that the European Convention on Human Rights might be incorporated into the treaties of the European Union—a view that I share as a former member of the Comité des Sages which examined this issue.
The danger remains if a fortress Europe, prosperous, democratic and strong, left outside it what might be described as the bigger nations of Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and others referred to the danger of a Balkans which is simply outwith what might be called the circle of comfortable, civilised and relatively easy living. It is crucial that the judges who come from those new states are trained and persuaded to accept the highest standards of judicial independence, or the whole court might itself be diluted. Its tradition has been of vital importance in establishing the Council of Europe.
I conclude by pointing to the new statute on the role of minorities that was passed in 1998. My noble friend Lord Russell-Johnston spoke of his future responsibilities. There are few more serious or difficult than upholding the attempt to create a tolerant culture towards minorities. As is all too evident from Kosovo onwards, it is a goal that we have to go a very long way to achieve.
5 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to wind up this debate from the Opposition Benches and to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for initiating the debate. From a position of substantially less experience and insight than him and many other noble Lords this evening, and with apparently rather less emphasis on my appearance in comparison with his Front Bench and the noble Lord the Minister, I am in the pleasant position of agreeing with a great deal of what the noble Lord said this evening and the comments just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. My only regret is that I am suffering from gastro-enteritis. For the much hoped-for temporary respite I thank the parliamentary nurse. But the emphasis from the noble Lord's Benches on asparagus, in or out of season, menus, foods and, even from my own Benches, expanding girths, has not aided my recovery. But I wish the noble Lord and all other noble Lords who are to attend the reception tonight at St. James's Palace a wonderful and memorable evening.
Today's contributions have rendered me deeply sensible of the expertise, first-hand knowledge and experience brought to the debate today, which in itself is a tribute to the contribution that Members of your Lordships' House have made to the work of the Council

713
of Europe during its lifetime. It is fitting that in your Lordships' House we should have the opportunity to remember and celebrate the achievements of the Council of Europe over the five decades of its existence and to anticipate and discuss its future development and the role that this country should play in directing that development. It is also timely to assess the Council's contribution to European and world society and its future role as a focus for democratic security and the proponent of a European model of society, particularly in the light of the challenges that Europe currently faces in Kosovo which act as an all-too-stark reminder of the importance of the values propounded by the Council.
Today's debate builds upon the useful discussion that took place when the House last considered the Council of Europe just under a year ago. That debate focused both upon the ways in which the important and unique work of the Council could be brought to a wider audience—a point made by a number of noble Lords this evening—and the means by which this country could and should continue to play a central role in furthering the Council's key aims; namely, to promote human rights, democracy and the rule of law and to develop a continent-wide common response to social, cultural and legal challenges.
On that note, I come to my only question this evening. Since the matter was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, last year, can the Minister inform the House what progress has been made on the suggestion that those Members of your Lordships' House who are also members of the European Council, could and should submit a report, perhaps to the Library of the House, and then table a Motion to debate that report in the House?
The debate has been particularly interesting. It is right that it has not been simply a mood of celebration. There has been sombre and wise reflection rather than celebration, inevitably overshadowed by the crisis in Kosovo and the horrific scenes of ethnic cleansing and atrocities in that region. These are scenes which the architects of the post-Second World War Europe hoped that their construction of interlocking European institutions would ensure this continent would never again witness. I shall return to that point which is critical to today's debate.
It is important to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the Council of Europe over the past five decades and to offer a warm welcome to its most recent new member. Georgia became the Council of Europe's 41st member at an official ceremony held at the Palais de l'Europe eight days ago. Precisely what organisation has Georgia joined? The 41st member now belongs to a unique pan-European institution which plays an unparalleled and indispensable political role in Europe, with one aim above all: to unite the whole of Europe into one family of democratic nations. The Council has sought to protect and strengthen pluralist and parliamentary democracy as part of its goal towards an integrated Europe, underpinned by democratic security. The Council has been one of the strongest champions of the indivisibility and universality of human rights, in
714
particular through the principles set out in the European Convention on Human Rights, and the pre-eminence of the rule of law.
Here I agree with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath. It has been important for the Council to be among the foremost to seek common solutions to the evils that continue to bedevil our society—the abuse of minorities, xenophobia, exploitation, racism and intolerance, corruption and terrorism and AIDS and drugs—and to make important contributions in the field of environmental protection, bioethics and sustainable development.
Why are these issues important both in their own right and taken together? I believe that the answers can be found in the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. The Council aims to promote awareness of a genuine European cultural identity and to encourage the development of a culture of peace and dialogue among its member nations. These are vitally important steps on the road to wider education. In more recent years the Council has worked to develop a political partnership with Europe's new democracies and to assist central and eastern European countries with their political, legislative and constitutional reforms. As the Council strives towards its goal of the creation of
"a Europe under one roof',
with the exception of defence there is hardly one important area where member states have not sought to tackle their problems together. As the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, reminded us in his reflections, the new states of central and Eastern Europe, including Russia, have viewed membership of the Council of Europe as a prize that bestows valued entry to the European club. To join, these states have had to subscribe to the Council of Europe by accepting the principle of the rule of law and guaranteeing everyone under its jurisdiction the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
As a result, since 1989 the Council's main political focus has been co-operation with the countries of central and eastern Europe as membership has bloomed from 22 nations in 1988 to the 41 members we have today. Today, the Council of Europe stretches across the entire European continent from north to south and, more recently, from west to east, spreading the values of modern, pluralistic, free and open societies to the newly-democratic states of central and eastern Europe.
But in any debate on Europe and its institutions at the present time it is right that a number of your Lordships have given consideration to the crisis in Kosovo which demands our urgent and critical attention. The intransigence of Serbia, the defiance of President Milosevic and the subsequent NATO operation taking place on Europe's very back doorstep—unprecedented in the past 50 years—are a blow to the peace and democratic vision of a Europe truly whole and free that was so dear to the founding fathers of the Council of Europe. Today, we witness the very scenes of destruction and despair which those founding fathers strove to ensure could never tear this continent apart again.
As with the 50th anniversary of NATO, today is rightly a time for reflection, celebration, resoluteness and also rejoicing. It is a time to stand up for our values

715
of democracy, the rule of law, freedom and peace. It is key, therefore, to ask what role the Council of Europe can play in the resolution and post-resolution phases of this conflict. Last June the noble Lord, Lord Judd, told the House about how the Council of Europe provided a forum for debate on Kosovo where representatives from the region provided members of the Parliamentary Assembly with first-hand knowledge about what was at stake. Initiatives such as the colloquy on Kosovo's future status held in March, which are designed in part to promote dialogue between the various political forces of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia with a view to establishing democratic stability in this country, amply demonstrate the value of this approach.
Across Europe there was a hope that today, as the Council marks its 50th birthday, almost every European country would share in its democratic vision that has an impact on the lives of all its citizens of a free, more tolerant and just society based on the common values of freedom of expression and information, cultural diversity and the equal dignity of all human beings. Today's leadership of Europe must rise to the challenges that the Council of Europe faces today, challenges to the cohesion, stability and security of Europe, in order to continue the legacy of its founding fathers and to fulfil their vision of a hope-filled future. In this way the Council will be equipped to meet the challenges that it will face in the 21st century as it continues to act as the driving force in bringing the western, central and eastern reaches of our continent together beneath the single roof of a united, democratic and stable Europe.
5.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and others, I, too, would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for introducing this debate today. Your Lordships' contributions underscored the importance that we all attach to the work of the Council of Europe. I thank my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede for his very hard work in chairing the committee responsible for the 50th anniversary celebrations. Many thanks are due to him.
As your Lordships have rightly highlighted, today is a day of commemoration and celebration. As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, it is right that we are commemorating today the fact that it is 50 years since the signing of the statute of the Council of Europe in London. Today we celebrate the achievements of one of the oldest European organisations. Today we pay tribute to an organisation which has not simply survived for 50 years, but which has flourished and grown. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said, in the past 10 years the Council of Europe has undergone an astonishing transformation, expanding from 23 to 41 member states and representing nearly 800 million people.
Today my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has invited Foreign Ministers and representatives of the 41 member states to London to take part in a series of commemorative events to mark this anniversary. One of the events, to which a number
716
of your Lordships referred, took place in this House this morning when my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor addressed distinguished guests in the Royal Gallery.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, reminded us, today we have also not forgotten the significance of an institution such as the Council of Europe in a continent which is confronted by the crisis in Kosovo. Fifty years on from the birth of the Council of Europe one country has shown by its actions that it holds in contempt the values and standards which are accepted in a civilised world, a point made very forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan.
President Milosevic has shown through his actions that he regards law as merely a tool for repression, and freedom as something which he is entitled to remove at will. He has shown his contempt for human rights, and how little value he puts on the truth or on the independent media.
But most of all, he has shown, through the ethnic cleansing on Kosovo, that he regards ethnic diversity as a threat and ethnic hatred as an asset to be stoked up and used. The images we have seen in recent weeks are horribly familiar: the mass deportations by train; the shallow graves; the pathetic masses of refugees, their homes burnt and their papers destroyed for no other reason than their ethnic identity. They are scenes which, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, we hoped never to see again in Europe.
What President Milosevic is doing in Kosovo is the expression of values that we cannot accept in our continent. It is a rejection of everything that the Council of Europe stands for, as the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, emphasised. It is a direct challenge to our determination to build a Europe founded on democratic values, respect for human rights, and the rule of law, as the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, reminded us.
As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Danrendorf, the Council of Europe was established to protect and preserve values and standards which its founding members saw as defining part of their identity. The Council of Europe has now instituted over 170 conventions. These have codified in binding international law the ideals common to democratic societies.
The Council's first major convention, agreed in 1950, was the European Convention on Human Rights. Its importance lay not only in the breadth of the rights included but also in the protection machinery set up in Strasbourg to investigate alleged violations. Britain played a central role in the adoption of that convention and worked hard last year to shape the arrangements for a new full-time Court of Human Rights which came into operation in November. The new court will have to deal with a much expanded caseload of individual complaints from new member states such as Russia and the Ukraine.
As my noble friend Lord Kirkhill reminded us, the Council of Europe has proved time and again its relevance to the changing face of our continent. Many noble Lords remarked on the collapse of communism,

717
which 10 years ago gave the Council of Europe a new and central role in European unification. The new challenge was to reach out to the new democracies of eastern Europe to plan and help implement key reforms to their constitutions and their legal systems; to their civil services, judiciaries, and to that essential element in any democratic system, a free media.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, reminded us that the Council of Europe has helped to reduce tensions among communities, which, if unchecked, might lead to human rights violations. We supported the adoption of the Framework Convention on National Minorities, which gives important support for minority rights in Europe. It provides a flexible framework for countries to co-operate with one another to deal with national minority problems which often have very deep historical roots.
As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, the Council of Europe, for so long frustrated by the Iron Curtain, can now operate as it was always meant to in setting standards across Europe. The Council of Europe has provided a yardstick for former communist countries as they develop modern, pluralistic, free and open societies as the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, described to us. But at the same time it continues to work to keep the older established members up to the mark.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, I believe that the older member countries must not be complacent. We must constantly examine our own record to ensure that we are behaving as we ought. That is why this Government, in one of their first major policy initiatives in 1997, enacted legislation to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into British law, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, reminded us. This will mean profound and fundamental changes for our legal system and it will affect all areas of government work. These changes are so extensive that we cannot bring the Act into force immediately. But we are committed to this fundamental reform.
As my noble friend Lord Kirkhill said the Council of Europe's monitoring mechanisms help to ensure that all its member states, long-established and more recent, abide by the standards to which they pledged themselves when they first joined the Council. I give as one example the work of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture. That committee, composed of independent experts, may at any time visit any place of detention in states which are party to the Council of Europe torture convention. The committee has provided valuable reports on the situation in Turkey and on many other Council of Europe states.
I also congratulate very warmly the noble Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, as the newly elected president of the Parliamentary Assembly. In many ways I suppose it is an organisation which is the conscience of the Council of Europe. I am sure that we all look forward to that conscience flourishing under his presidency. The members of that assembly scrutinise the compliance of existing member states with Council of Europe standards and report on whether prospective members are yet ready to be admitted to the Council of Europe.
718
But monitoring on its own is not enough. A major challenge to the international community as a whole is how to stop the violation of human rights and bring offenders to book. That is where the Council of Europe offers the citizens of its member states an institutional basis for the protection of their rights. It is an institution which is unique and unparalleled, as was so clearly stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. For when countries become members of the Council of Europe they all sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights and they all accept the mandatory jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights.
The court is in many respects the jewel in the Council of Europe's crown. Its jurisprudence, with over 700 judgments, is immense and covers a vast field of human activity. It provides a guarantee for individual citizens that their governments will not get away with human rights violations. The fact that the caseload of registered applications to the court has increased sixfold in the past 10 years bears testimony to the importance of its work, but also to the respect in which it is held.
As my noble friend Lord Longford said, the international co-operation which has developed under Council of Europe auspices has touched many areas of public policy in this country and in all countries which are member states. I have spoken about the Council's fundamental role in the protection of human rights and the promotion of democracy and the rule of law. But the Council has also been a pioneer in many other fields.
The European Social Charter, setting out rights including the right to strike and the right to social protection, came into force in 1965. Today. the Council of Europe brings its members together to discuss policy in a whole host of areas—such as working out strategies for combating drug abuse, codifying medical ethics, protecting the rights of minorities, promoting Europe's cultural heritage, preventing corruption, and in the fields of education and local democracy. But the Council's work in drawing up conventions, and in encouraging its member states to incorporate those conventions into their domestic law is very great indeed.
I wish to touch on some of the issues raised by noble Lords in their contributions today. I refer to the points made forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about the Council's extension of its work and its organisation. The Council of Europe's Second Summit identified structural reform of the organisation as an area of concern. The noble Lord is right in some of what he said. A Committee of Wise Persons was set up to make recommendations about how that reorganisation could be dealt with. The Committee of Ministers' Deputies in Strasbourg, chaired by the British ambassador, has taken forward this work and is submitting its report to Ministers for endorsement in Budapest on Friday of this week.
The Government strongly support that process. We shall be working to ensure that the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers' Deputies are taken forward swiftly. We also believe that the Council of Europe must operate within existing resources, adhering to an annual budget ceiling of zero real growth.

719
That brings me to some of the points raised by my noble friend Lord Kirkhill. The budget settlement for 1999 included an element for the new Court of Human Rights but it remained within the zero real growth target. We believe that zero real growth is a useful management tool to encourage prioritisation and to refocus on some of the core objectives of the Council of Europe. However, I stress to my noble friend that we recognise that the court is an essential and important institution, and one which must function properly.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, also warned us to a certain extent about horse trading in the Council of Europe. I believe that those were his words. He made reference to the impending election of the Secretary-General. The Government have nominated Mr. Terry Davis, MP, not because of any form of horse trading but because we are convinced that Mr. Terry Davis is the best candidate for the job, that he has the qualities and, in particular, the management experience which will be so important to anyone holding down that position.
Questions of financing were also raised by my noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath, and in a different way by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. We are already a grand payeur. We pay 12.64 per cent of the budget. In 1999 that amounts to about £.15 million. While we and the other five grands payeurs pay the majority of the budget, other countries, for example the Scandinavians, also make significant voluntary contributions.
My noble friend also asked what we could do to give the Council of Europe a greater profile within the United Kingdom. I believe that today is an example of what we have sought to do. The 50th anniversary commemorations have had a high profile. The Government have supported the work of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and his UK national committee. We have put forward, we believe, a good, sound and credible candidate, Mr. Terry Davis, as Secretary-General. And noble Lords who read the Guardian have had today an interesting article from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State about the Council of Europe. So I believe that the Government have sought to raise the profile of the Council of Europe.
My noble friend Lord Judd asked specific questions about the social development fund. They were echoed by other noble Lords. The United Kingdom does not belong to the Council of Europe Social Development Fund. I must tell your Lordships that we do not have any plans to do so. The Government already are heavily committed financially to a European development programme in central and eastern Europe. We are committed multilaterally and bilaterally. We calculate that UK membership of the SDF would cost us about £27 million. The bilateral aid which we give to central and eastern Europe is already very considerably in excess of that figure.
My noble friend also asked about the list of conventions which we have not yet signed. Such a list was given in March this year by my honourable friend Mr. Lloyd in answer to a Parliamentary Question by Mr. Tom Cox. I do not have the date but I shall let my noble friend know where he can find the list.
720
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, indicated that she did not think that we had ratified the protocol on torture. I believe that we have ratified that protocol. I was slightly puzzled about her reference to a protocol on racial discrimination. We have ratified the Framework Convention for National Minorities which covers racial discrimination issues. I do not know whether that was the protocol to which the noble Baroness referred.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords. I am. grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene. I understood from an answer to a Question for Written Answer that we had not signed the protocol with regard to the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, nor the Convention on International Civil and Political Rights.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I was not referring to the Convention on International Civil and Political Rights. I shall check. I believe that there is some cross-cutting in the protocols and conventions; and some of the issues appear in some and not others. I shall write to the noble Baroness with details when I have had an opportunity to study in Hansard the specific points raised.
However, I can give the noble. Lord, Lord Russell-Johnston, what I hope he will consider two pieces of reasonably good news. I am pleased to be able to confirm that following the decision of the previous government to withdraw from the European Youth Foundation with effect from the end of 1996, the United Kingdom rejoined on 1st January of this year. The noble Lord also raised the issue of the Venice Commission. I am pleased to confirm again that following careful consideration the Government have decided to join the Council of Europe's commission for democracy through law: that is, the Venice Commission. It is important because it will enable the commission to pursue through the money we donate—it will be just under a quarter of a million pounds per year—important work on advising on constitutional and legal reform. I hope that that will give some pleasure to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised the question of assembly members submitting a report which might be debated in the House. I think that that is an extremely interesting suggestion. I should like to talk that through further with the noble Lord and others involved, and perhaps we may consider how best we can meet that point.
Our debate today has highlighted the essential role which the Council of Europe has to play in our continent today. The Government are firmly cornmitted to the values which the Council of Europe espouses. We are also firmly committed to ensuring that the Council of Europe is constantly improving and adapting its priorities and objectives to meet the challenges it faces.
In the follow-up to the Council of Europe's Second Summit in 1997 important work has been done to draw up plans as to how the Council of Europe should adapt and reform its working methods, as I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. When Ministers meet in

721
Budapest tomorrow and on Friday, they will endorse these measures to reform the Council. I am sure that we wish them all success in those efforts.
I would like to thank all your Lordships who in various ways have contributed to the success of the Council of Europe over the years. I hope that the noble Lords who have contributed in a variety of ways will forgive me if I particularly single out the contribution of my noble friends Lord Callaghan and Lord Longford.
The Council of Europe is indeed a unique institution. It brings its members together at local government and parliamentary levels to discuss, adopt and implement the standards which should be expected of civilised societies. We will do all that we can to ensure that these principles prevail over the forces of tyranny and arbitrary rule. We need only to consider the enormous expansion of the Council of Europe since 1989 to see that such ambitions can be achieved. It is a major goal of our foreign policy to work to ensure that soon the time and circumstances will be right to enable all European countries to meet the standards which are required and to join in the embrace of the European family that is the Council of Europe.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for her reply and to the 19 Members of your Lordships' House who have contributed to this debate. Perhaps I shall be remembered for, among other things, apparently confusing "scruffy old Labour", which I once was, with "elegant New Labour", which the noble Baroness so consistently represents.
There may have been too much reminiscence in the debate. I was responsible for that because I started it. However, I believe that it may in a way have been appropriate on this occasion. If I was not perhaps as critical as I might have been of some aspects of the Council of Europe's work—because every institution deserves scrutiny—I hope very much that there will be other opportunities of the kind suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, and picked up on by my noble friend Lady Williams, to debate the principle of the future of the Council of Europe. There are many issues still to be answered. I hope, as I said at the beginning, that it has a long life ahead of it.
My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Public Service Broadcasting
5.32 p.m.
Viscount Falkland Viscount Falkland rose to call attention to the case for preserving the quality and diversity of public service broadcasting in the digital age against the background of increasing global competition; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, we are facing an upheaval in broadcasting in this country which allows us to take a completely new look at what the future
722
holds, not just for the BBC, for that is the main thrust of the debate which I have the pleasure to introduce today, but what is the function of broadcasting in society and how the demands of the public will be met in future with the new technologies that are available to us.
I would not be opening this debate today were my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth here; he is away. With his enormous experience, I would perhaps have looked forward to winding up the debate, would have picked the brains of other speakers who had preceded me and may have suggested one or two ideas. It is a much more difficult job for me to open up the debate to the speakers, to all of whom I am extremely grateful for their participation in today's debate. I very much look forward to their contributions, which I am sure will be wide-ranging and full of the expertise which one expects in your Lordships' House.
I also have to say that I have received a number of letters from other noble Lords who are well known in the field of broadcasting. They were courteous and kind enough to write to me to say that they would have liked to have spoken in this debate but that, unfortunately, pressing matters made it impossible for them to do so.
Public service broadcasting—for that is the origin of British broadcasting—and a very particular public broadcasting culture in the shape of the BBC, performed a role over many years which made it a national cultural institution with standards to which it adhered, sometimes viewed as rather pompous but always offering quality, truthfulness and often innovation. There were perhaps occasional moments of pomposity and a certain prurience, but we forgave it that as we would forgive a well loved relative at times when we disagreed.
By and large, the record of the BBC as the public service broadcaster in this country has been outstanding. It has given it a brand image which is probably second to none in the world of public service broadcasting. The advent of the new digital spectrum technologies now causes us to review the future of public service broadcasting in this country. These new technologies, which will create a great deal of choice and technical quality, perhaps represent as important a development (if not more important) as did colour and commercial television in this country in the 1950s.
The role of the BBC has now had to be examined. The corporation has been scrupulous in taking every kind of advice and seeking to help wherever it can, within the constraints of its funding, which of course is through the licence fee, in arriving at decisions which will allow it to compete—for that is what it seeks to do—in an increasingly competitive national and global market.
We have run into difficulties. The difficulties, of course, start with the funding. The BBC is funded by the licence fee. The licence fee puts many financial constraints on the breadth and variety of public service broadcasting in a way which never previously was the case. Nowadays, young people do not look upon the BBC in the same way as perhaps some of us who are in our 50s do. Most of us think about broadcasting in terms of the BBC. Young people now know what they want,

723
they go out, they seek it and, when they find it, they will more often than not stick with it, whether it is in the form of commercial, satellite or any other kind of broadcasting. The difficulty is therefore one of the BBC facing changing audiences and changing roles.
Gone are the days when we were able to go into our offices or the homes of family and friends and discuss a programme which we had seen the previous night. That was always the habit, it was a cosy habit, and that has now gone. Nowadays people more usually watch a sports or music programme on satellite television or listen to the radio or engage in other activities within the general area of broadcasting. To that extent, the BBC has lost its natural constituency.
It seems to me that the BBC has lacked the confidence to be able to make any clear decision about its future role in broadcasting in this country. I believe that the perceived pressure put upon it by Parliament and Government to achieve a share of the market has been unfortunate. After all, we have never judged the quality and breadth of programming of our public service broadcasters according to their share of the market.
Even with the advent of commercial television, it was more the continuing quality and the reach of the programming which was important, whether it be drama, documentaries or comedy. Now it is necessary for the BBC to look closely at the competition and decide where it should be competing, if it should be competing at all. It is interesting that in one's talks with the senior management of the BBC, it is always evident that the word "ratings" will occur within the first few minutes.
It is natural that the BBC should be concerned about its loss of share. It is put at about 30 per cent and it is said that sinking below that would be unacceptable. I do not know why the figure of 30 per cent should be deemed to be a reasonable level. So what if it drops temporarily below 30 per cent provided that it maintains its quality? It seems to me that if the BBC is forced, or encouraged, or chooses itself to chase after ratings and market share, it can only fail and will not justify its licence fee. If it sticks to its remit and continues to provide the quality by which we are accustomed to judge it, it seems likely that it will not fail to the extent that it will if it chases market share. Parliament's role is to give the BBC the confidence to see that new development and to encourage it to look more closely at where its natural constituency lies.
The new technology that we have is unusual in that nobody asked for the new developments in digital television. It is unlike, for example, the motor industry where there was always a demand for cleaner, higher performance and safer motor cars. Even though the new technologies—for example, engine control systems—were expensive, the motoring public were prepared to pay for them. In some ways, the advances in radio and television technology have gone ahead of the market, requiring extremely costly marketing and sales exercises.
We are still seeing those battles being fought in terms of dominating that market where huge investments have been made. Only today we have
724
seen in the war over top boxes that BSkyB has offered free top boxes and the benefit of reduced telephone bills for people who subscribe to their programmes. That is bad luck for anyone who bought a box last week. But that is the game we are in. That has certainly put pressure on its main competitor, ONdigital, which has entered into that battle as regards top boxes, even to the extent of acting in a rather restrictive way—and one must have sympathy for BSkyB—by not allowing its ITV programmes on the satellite platform, which is a cause of heated discussion between the two operations.
It seems to me also that there are the problems of replacing income, certainly for independent commercial companies which seem to be contracting more and more. We may end up with one commercial operator. One can see reasons for a large predatory operator trying to take over to achieve the economies of scale in order to compete, particularly in an area of limited advertising revenue.
There is now a great spread of advertising revenue over more and more channels. Therefore, one must market and sell successfully and that has not been done very successfully, by British television programme-makers in the world at large. Certainly we are no match for the Americans or Australians in that field. There is a need for a new sales and marketing imperative. Also, there will be a drive to make up for that loss of income through pay-per-view television and subscription channels.
It is difficult to engender the kind of income needed to replace the income from advertising. It seems to me that there is only a limited possibility offered by sports channels, movie channels and soft porn. Pornography is a problem with which I shall not deal this evening. I am sure that we shall deal with it in the months to come because we have not entered into the debate on what is or is not acceptable to the extent to which other countries in Europe have. It is a sombre reality but it is one which must be faced.
To conclude on the general aspect, I hope that noble Lords will agree with me that the BBC must not spread itself too thinly. It must not be seen to be everywhere. Why is it absolutely necessary for the BBC to compete in every possible area where there is broadcasting activity? One example which springs to mind is BBC News 24. That costs a lot of money. It competes almost directly with Sky News and does not do it so well. What is the point? As a satellite programme, it is seen by relatively few of the licence fee payers. One may say the same of children's broadcasting. Without intending at all to cause a disagreement between the right reverend Prelate and myself, that may be so also in relation to religious broadcasting. The BBC has a role to play in religious broadcasting. Is it not likely—and I hope that the right reverend Prelate may deal with this—that specialist religious channels will proliferate with the new spectrum? That will make it necessary for the BBC to know exactly what it is doing, to do it effectively and to be careful in watching costs.
Radio is very important. If the BBC has a natural constituency, it is in radio, from where it sprang. It is culturally important. It is the natural successor in our literary tradition. Some of that tradition has gone into the quality of television, particularly in drama.
Local radio is now becoming a force. As the concept of nation becomes more difficult to define, more and more people are turning to their local communities. More and more people want to listen to local radio. Even with the restrictions of analogue, it is done extremely well. The new technologies will make it possible to improve the quality and service at great cost. The BBC has already invested a lot of money in the hardware but seems to be going cold on the programming, the software, if I may put it that way. It is necessary for the BBC to lead the way in local programming.
Commercial people want it because in that way more radio sets will be purchased. Manufacturers will have the confidence to make more radios and their unit price will go down. That can only be good for the country. I hope other noble Lords will address that issue. I shall be interested to hear what noble Lords say in what is a crucial period for broadcasting and a particularly crucial period for our well loved BBC. I hope that what noble Lords say now and later will give it the confidence to face the future and survive. If we succeed in that, we shall be doing a good job.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Patten: My Lords, I warmly congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, on what he said and the way in which he said it. He expressed an extremely balanced view.
I follow him immediately by saying that I agree with everything that he said in the closing moments of his speech about local radio and the importance of local radio. I wish that the clock had not cut him off in full flood on that issue because I believe that localism and regionalism will be reflected more and more in the broadcast media, whether in radio or on television.
I should like to begin by saying that in this place of all places we should seek to avoid any sense of cultural elitism or any attempt to be patronising, trying to impose on people what we think they should see or what they should listen to. So far in the debate we have managed to avoid that, and I hope that others will avoid it as well or at least justify it if they feel that the general public should be told what they should watch and the way in which they should respond to radio programmes.
Secondly, by way of background, it is very important that we all recognise that there is only one rationale for public sector, public service, broadcasting, and that is to provide what the market cannot or will not provide. If we go beyond that and say that there is a duty for the state to inform or educate, we enter a dangerous zone: therein lies the slow march towards totalitarianism.
I am not known for being a raving radical or someone who stuffs free markets down the throat of anyone who wishes to listen. But I think that the test for public
726
service broadcasting is whether it can be provided at a high quality by anyone else. If it cannot be provided at a high quality by anyone else in the market, there is a very strong case for the state continuing to provide it. I hope that there at least the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and I will agree.
I have only three points to make briefly against that background. First, we need to cut through all the modern buzzwords: "digital", "global" and all the rest. I congratulate the noble Viscount on not having given us a torrent of buzzwords about the new technologies. Thank heavens the speech came from the Liberal Benches and not from the Government Benches, or we would have had the word "modern" every third or fourth sentence. We would also have had "joined up thinking", "joined up government", "joined up broadcasting" and all the rest.
The noble Viscount put his finger on the matter: the key issue is the BBC; that is what we are talking about. He set the tone for the debate, and I intend to follow him absolutely.
It is extremely easy to criticise the BBC and score cheap points off it. That is wrong. The BBC has done an excellent job over the years, but times are changing, as they are changing in this Chamber. I am a great admirer of Sir Christopher Bland and many of his colleagues who are doing a very great deal.
On the other hand, it is also too easy to exalt the BBC and to stick it on a pedestal, saying that it is beyond all criticism, with the attitude that to criticise the BBC is like criticising the purposes of Her Majesty the Queen Mother or to doubt the integrity of the National Trust, or something else that is just too far-fetched for anyone even to think in the dead of night. It is possible to criticise the BBC without being anti-BBC. It is also possible to suggest that the BBC needs to go through a period of radical and carefully thought through change, without being thought to be against public service broadcasting. I am not against public service broadcasting in any way.
That leads me to my second point, which is that the BBC needs to focus on those things that no one else can provide. Therefore, I see absolutely no reason why the BBC seeks to provide the services of Radio 1. I see no reason why the BBC seeks to provide the services of Radio 2, and I see no reason why it seeks to provide the services of Radio 5. I am concentrating, if I may, on the radio channels.
It is clear that the market can provide the services that I have mentioned. To attempt to integrate those things that the market can provide within a public service framework is, frankly, wrong. We see in the present shape of the BBC an attempt to maintain a radio-visual welfare state, providing everything and sometimes, alas, not providing it very well. We do not and should not seek to have the BBC provide a radio-visual or televisual welfare state harking back to the days of the 1940s or when Lord Reith rightly ensured that BBC newscasters read the news in evening dress. There is an opportunity for a reformed BBC.

727
That leads me on, I am afraid, to my third and last point, which is the need for more radical action in relation to the BBC. I cannot imagine that BBC Radio 3 could be provided by anything other than the public service. It is of an extremely high standard, and I cannot imagine that if it were floated off, with all sorts of provisos and cultural golden shares and all the rest, it would not be dumbed down before one could say "Rachmaninov". It should be preserved in the public sector.
I have doubts about Radio 4, though not about the news service, which is extremely important, and a very important component part of our attitude to the English language. English culture and to world affairs. But I worry quite a lot about much of the rest of the output on Radio 4—quiz shows, chat shows and all the rest, which could easily be provided by market stations.
I should like to enter a note of caution, not over BBC news programmes, but over BBC news magazine programmes, where we have seen a reduction in the standards of politeness in interviewing politicians. I hasten to add that this is not a party political point. It often strikes me that interviewers on the "Today" programme are rude to people impartially. I sometimes listen to the "Today" programme because it is the only programme to which Ministers will go in the morning. Therefore, if one wants some political comment one must listen to the "Today" programme; it is a kind of monopoly.
But it is very sad when highly intelligent and motivated Ministers of the present Government are in the middle of saying something, are just pausing on the word "and" and then the interviewer suddenly says "Briefly" or asks another question. We are beginning to see the germ of the growth of yob radio on the BBC "Today" programme. It would be very good if it were possible for senior Government Ministers to go on a variety of programmes in the morning.
There are doubtless some people who like to hear Ministers being harassed, abused and irritated. There is nothing wrong with that. I sometimes enjoy it myself, secretly. But there may be some who would prefer the American interviewing style rather more, where people are allowed to talk for two or three minutes to explain themselves, and sometimes hang themselves on their own political arguments. Mr. Jimmy Young is a master of that sometimes on BBC Radio 2.
So I do not welcome the fact that the BBC seems to have a monopoly on our politicians and Ministers. I should like to see and listen to them on other programmes being interviewed in different ways.
We have been told from the Government Benches that things must change in this place, that the hereditary Peers must go. In the end, as things change, in due course probably much of the BBC will go, in our lifetimes or certainly in the lifetime of many of us. For I do not see why to provide public service broadcasting one has to have a BBC. If there is a licence fee for reception, which raises funds, why cannot it be distributed to any station which wishes to provide a public service element in what it is seeking to do, under strong safeguards and under tight regulatory control? To
728
take an example at random, why should not Talk Radio have an early morning programme on which politicians are asked to be interviewed and tortured in a different way from the way in which they are tortured on the "Today" programme? Why should there not be that opportunity for Sky or anyone else to say, "We are going to provide a public service element to what we are doing"?
There is nothing outrageous or wrong in asking that sometimes the public sector should subsidise the private sector. We do this all the time in the way in which, for example, we subsidise otherwise loss-making railway lines to provide railway services for people to get around in country areas.
The BBC has done an excellent job. Many parts of it continue to do an excellent job. But I think that the end of the BBC is on the horizon. It is perhaps not so close an end as the end that the Government plan for the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and other hereditary Peers, bat it is looming on the horizon. I shall be sorry if the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, is not here to address us in future years because I believe that he has done the House a great service in the way in which he has addressed us this evening.
6 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, on initiating this further debate on public service broadcasting and for so valuably placing within a digital and global context his concern to preserve its quality and diversity. Perhaps I may declare an interest. The subject of the debate is a concern I share as chairman of the Sandford St. Martin Trust. The trust exists to encourage quality and diversity in religious broadcasting. Our awards this year for outstanding religious programmes on radio and television will be presented, I am delighted to say, by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. invited my comments on religious broadcasting. Religious broadcasting is an integral part of the public service remit. Its quality and range, together with its scheduling, are a significant litmus test of the way that remit is discharged.
I recognise that public service broadcasting evolves. It has, understandably—as the noble Lord, Lord Patten noted—moved far from its once Reithian mode. The manner in which, for the most part, public service broadcasters now treat religion causes me dismay—a dismay I know to be shared in your Lorclships' House beyond these Benches. One would have expected that in the most widely distributed form of its seemingly visionary document entitled The BBC beyond 2000, the doyen of public service broadcasting would have made at least some specific reference to religion. But not a bit of it. There is no specific mention of religion for general consumption as the BBC looks into the third Christian millennium. That is disheartening to those of us who know from our personal visiting, from the care of our parishes and from our important and growing links with other faith communities, which, especially in a diocese,

729
like mine, are very important, that religion, especially Christianity, is a deeply significant factor in the life of our nation.
Even more disturbing is the incontrovertible fact that on the mainstream channels, religious programmes have, for the most part, been pushed from prime time to the margins of the broadcast schedules, making them potentially less accessible to audiences, thereby diminishing the status of religious programmes and endangering their quality. That is such a tragedy because some of the best examples of public service broadcasting have been religious programmes. Without them the ability of public service broadcasting to maintain its standards of creative and imaginative programmes, which inspire and enlighten, and to provide a range of broadcasts, which not only reflect, but also challenge, will be seriously undermined.
In talking about religion in this debate, I am addressing an area of broadcasting history of proven quality and engaging diversity that was in no small way responsible for the previously high reputation that public service broadcasting enjoyed in this country and for which it was admired abroad. The unwelcome trends I have noted have been increasingly evident over the past two decades. However, technological and regulatory developments now permit religious organisations to "narrowcast" on dedicated or satellite TV services.
There is a fundamental issue to be teased out. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for putting the point so directly to me. That point is whether religion will continue, for the most part, to be broadcast mainstream as part of a rich and varied diet accessible to everyone, or whether it will be moved to what eventually becomes a "pay ghetto". I do not believe that a move to the ghetto would be to the benefit of religion or of broadcasting. Dire warnings about manipulative tele-evangelists are probably overstated, but channels on which religion would become the raison d'être could be detrimental to the spirit of tolerant inquiry and balance which has long characterised religious programmes in public service broadcasting. Nor would consigning religion to dedicated channels reflect our current culture, and reflecting our current culture is an aim much vaunted by public service broadcasters. It is an indisputable fact that for millions of people of many faiths in this country religion is central to their lives. The BBC knows that from its own surveys and from the many occasions it mentions religion in its news bulletins. It knows it too from its own religious education programmes, which, in common with other mainstream channels, are done extremely well, covering in an effective and sensitive style all the main religions.
It is therefore all the more extraordinary that religion should so often be relegated from mainstream viewing and trivialised. The importance of religion to the viewing and listening public—I declare a further interest as president of the Churches Advisory Council for Local Broadcasting—is evident from the huge audiences which are increasingly attracted to the unprecedented number of religious programmes on regional and local television and radio. I welcome the points made by the noble Viscount and the noble Lord on the importance
730
of local broadcasting. There are 63 local radio stations currently providing programmes of daily or weekly worship.
Technologies may change, but human nature does not. That is why religion offers some of the greatest challenges and opportunities to programme makers. The best religious programmes offer insights into the complex and varied nature of religious belief, demonstrating its uncertainties and not giving easy answers or glib solutions. In those ways. we in this country have been, and continue to be, very well served.
The major series of the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, "Two Thousand Years", will be complemented later this year by the BBC's 12-week history of the Bible. Indeed, there are welcome signs that the BBC has accepted that chasing relentlessly down-market is not the way forward. However, the BBC continues to have the key responsibility of keeping religion alive in the mainstream media. No one doubts its ability to make good religious programmes. It does it so well. No dedicated channel and no imported programming could do better.
It is therefore tragic that the BBC should be marginalising what it is uniquely best at doing. I disagree with the suggestion, hinted at by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that the BBC should leave religion to dedicated channels. It is a question of commitment by the BBC, not of skill or ability. Those noble Lords who visited the Dome today will have been reminded that important tests of that commitment will come at the end of the year. I hope that there will be no repeat of last Christmas Day when not even one act of televised worship was shown.
The millennium celebrations offer an important opportunity for public service broadcasters. How they deal with it in terms of religious programming will be seen by these Benches and many other people as a yardstick, not least because of the recent and widely publicised opinion poll indicating that two-thirds of those who expect to be watching the celebrations at the Dome on New Year's Eve favour a specifically Christian element.
The noble Lord, Lord Bragg, said in an article for the Sandford St. Martin Trust that the main building blocks of our British culture should be seen on the main channels. He has said that religion should fight to be on the main channels. For that we will fight. And if, as I pray, we win, then the quality and diversity of public broadcasting as a whole will be enhanced. If we lose, faith will not fail. But I have to say that without religious programmes, the quality and diversity of public service broadcasting will be the poorer.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate, not least because he dealt so ably with the religious issues that he spares me trying to do so rather inadequately. The House will be in his debt for his remarks. I should declare an interest as deputy chairman of the commercial TV regulator, the ITC, and in a sense

731
therefore someone who operates from the no-man's land where technology, commercial competition and public service meet.
There is an implicit assumption in my noble friend's Motion—I, like others, am grateful to him for procuring this debate—that globalisation, competition and the technological proliferation which digitalisation makes possible are, by definition, the enemies of quality and diversity. We should be careful not to confuse quality with elitism—a point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Patten. There is a danger that they are the enemies of quality and diversity, but it ain't necessarily so.
Perhaps I can take three scenarios which point in an alternative direction. First, the interactivity which will be made possible by digital could transfer television, in close relation with the Internet, computer technology and IT, so that it becomes a more effective medium of public information and education.
The second scenario is that a world which now trades and increasingly communicates in English is hungry for media output—a point made by my noble friend—in English. It wants alternatives to the products of the Los Angeles dream factories. We are in pole position to supply them from this country. Points were made in a debate two weeks ago about the need for better marketing, and I am sure that is right, both for the BBC and independent companies. But we are in a position to take great advantage of world demand for good quality English broadcasting of programmes of one sort or another.
The third scenario—a counter-indicator perhaps—is that in this world of greater proliferation with more channels, we can all picture the people surfing their way nimbly up and down the repertoire of a much larger offering. But sooner or later our fingers have to stop. A friend of mine who is lucky enough to be the son of a very rich man, said that the best piece of advice his father gave him was that he could only wear one suit at a time. It is rather like that on television. We can surf to our heart's content. But sooner or later we have to alight on a channel and watch something. When we actually choose what we want to watch, then it could be that diversity, niche marketing and producing programmes specifically tailored to specific interests will fully come into their own when we move out of the duopoly of two very broad-scale broadcasters trying to compete totally across the range.
I merely say this by way of qualification to the rather easy assumption that all change is for the worst. That is not necessarily the case. On the other hand, there is a legitimate concern that the quantity that is made possible by digitalisation will not necessarily mean quality.
So, as we go into the digitalisation age, which was so well explored in your Lordships' House on 21st April in a debate procured by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, public service broadcasting is alive and kicking in the UK. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Patten, whose presentation perhaps elided this, that public service broadcasting is not confined to the BBC. Public service requirements are made on Channels 3 and 4, and up to a point Channel 5. As we look around, 30 per cent of homes have multi-channel pay channels. But
732
interestingly, though 30 per cent of homes can watch other than free-to-air programmes, 87 per cent of the actual viewing is of the traditional Channels 3, 4 and BBC channels. So they still have a crucial role in informing, educating and entertaining viewers.
Perhaps at this stage it will be helpful for me to attempt a definition of "public service". It means more than one thing. In this country it is made up of a whole web of legislation, statutory requirements, charters, codes, licence and other public obligations. But I identify the following elements in varying degrees, which both the BBC and main commercial channels share. They all have some requirement for impartiality and a balanced fairness of some sort, particularly in their reporting of contentious issues. I am sure they all accept that there is some need for authority, responsibility, verisimilitude in what they do. Interestingly, some of the cases on which the ITC had to regulate recently had to do with the simulation or faking of scenes. The concept that it is important to know that what we watch is the real thing is part of the notion of authority and responsibility.
The question of catering for a diversity of interests arises; the notion that, taking broadcasting as a whole, there should be something for everyone somewhere in the repertoire. The same phenomenon applies at the other end; that is, that minorities should be catered for and minority interests, particularly those of disadvantaged minorities, should not be neglected. There is the crucial concept of regionalism or community; that is, that television in this country should be connected to the geographic areas of the country. Licences awarded by ITV are still essentially awarded on a regional or, in the case of Scotland and Wales, a national basis, whatever the ownership of the company. Incidentally, the gloomy assumption that we may end up with one mega-company is certainly precluded at the moment by the ownership regulations that exist
There are fewer companies than there were, but even if those companies straddle two or three regions, they have to honour their obligations. That is how should be and, after tomorrow, when we have a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh Assembly and, we hope, arrive at a working Parliament in Northern Ireland, it will be crucial that that concept of being rooted in the nation or region of the United Kingdom is reflected in our definition of public service.
Finally, and crucially—and perhaps the point of my noble friend asking for this debate—we have the issue of quality. This is where confusion sometimes comes in. Quality does not necessarily mean highbrow; it means that it should be good of its kind. If it is a quiz show it should be well done; if it is a soap opera it should be well done. Anybody who has had to suffer in hotel rooms over the years snips of American soap operas as I have, knows how good British soap operas are of their kind. I do not expect that to find ready assent in your Lordships' House; I doubt many of your Lordships find time to watch them. But we produce good soap operas in Britain. I am trying to say that public service broadcasting should continue to set under the leadership

733
of the BBC and the independent companies, a general benchmarking which raises the game for all and provides substantial overseas revenue.
On public service channels, it is important that the regulator works with the grain of commercial pressures. Most people who work in free-to-air channels are happy and often keen to be seen as public service broadcasters in the wider sense. That important ethos, made up partly of culture and tradition in Britain and not merely regulation, could be destroyed by excessive and silly regulation of an intrusive and interfering kind, whether in respect of content or economic matters. It is important to see the regulator as coach rather than the nanny of the public service culture.
It is not for me to lay down the law for the BBC, but it and the independent free-to-air channels are both, in different ways, pillars of the public service ethos. The BBC, owing to the wisdom of licence financing, does not have to respond directly to commercial pressures. I draw two conclusions. First, I do not believe that the BBC necessarily has to lead on digitisation, although it should certainly not lag far behind. I am uneasy with the idea that there should be a special extra licence fee levied for the BBC to digitise. Secondly, in the more pluralistic world that broadcasting will have, the BBC should look at the balance between the pursuit of excellence and the pursuit of viewer numbers. Of course too small an audience would be a disaster but, by the same token, a reduction in quality would be an even greater disaster.
Money does not necessarily mean quality. If we look at the effective work of Channel 4 and Film on 4, we realise that there is in this country a great reservoir of creativity, originality and imagination that can be and should be mobilised by good creative management. It is not just a matter of big bucks.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, this debate follows relatively shortly after that of the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, on public service broadcasting in early March. Some might argue that it would have been better for a longer period to elapse between the two debates, but I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for introducing this debate because I want to use it to take forward some of the ideas that I raised on the earlier occasion.
We are moving into an era when there will not be spectrum scarcity and broadcasting, and telecommunications and on-line services will merge seamlessly. I do not know exactly when that will happen and cannot tell how it will occur. Neither can I precisely predict the effect that it may have on the viewer and user. But it will happen.
Of all parliamentary chambers, your Lordships' House is perhaps the most patrician and Reithian in its view of itself and the world. That is our strength—and our weakness. It is neither surprising nor misconceived for us to debate the concepts of quality and diversity. Having spent many a happy hour at the Dispatch Box when I had the privilege to be the Minister with responsibility for broadcasting, I know the importance that the House attaches to that subject.
734
There is an argument in favour of quality and diversity that stands alone. It is axiomatic and self-evident to a civilised society and I will not argue it further. A second argument also applies when there is spectrum scarcity. It is the basis on which the current rules are formulated, be they general or contained in the remits of various public service broadcasters—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, pointed out, cover not only the BBC but a number of other enterprises.
If we are to move into a world of spectrum abundance, the second argument loses a great deal of force. If we are in a world in which there is enough spectrum for all, why in a free society should specific rules about quality and diversity pertain? They do not exist in the world of books and newspapers. While there are plenty of bad books and newspapers, there are also good ones. There has always been more junk than quality. Great literature is rarely self-conscious.
Until recently, radio or television broadcasting has been special because a small number of point-to-multipoint broadcasts have provided entertainment and information to much of the population in their own homes, and from that arises the concept of the development of public service broadcasting. In the new era that will soon be on us, the advent of emerging digital technologies will change that. We shall live in a world in which almost limitless audio or visual material—and, if visual, still and moving—will be easily available in every household as and when it wants. The concept of a broadcaster as we know it will cease to exist. There will be no need for any point-to-multipoint broadcasting, as all information and material will be available on a point-to-point basis, with no constraint of spectrum shortage to limit reception.
In such a world, in which technology does not recognise the boundaries of separate jurisdictions—as experience of the Internet already shows—content regulation is extremely difficult. I welcome various voluntary efforts to curtail the anti-social consequences of untrammelled libertarianism in Internet material, and there should be a basic legal framework as far as our own jurisdiction is concerned against obscenity, racism and so on—as in the case with the written word. Equally, mandatory quality criteria will come to be seen as irrelevant. The real issue is whether there should be a supplier or suppliers of material on the new converged digital systems with a specific public service purpose, either exclusively or in addition to a wider commercial function.
In March 1997, only days before the last general election, I delivered a speech to the United Kingdom Association of European Law's Media Conference. I explained:
"Our view is that universally available free-to-air public service broadcasting still has an important role at the centre of broadcasting for two main reasons. First, it will act as a benchmark against which all other services will stand. It is not necessary to mandate 'high quality' everywhere across the spectrum. The major free-to-air channels, with universal coverage and their privileged place in analogue broadcasting and on the digital multiplexes, act as the datum point against which others will be judged. Given that such services remain universally available there seems no reason why people should not also choose to receive and pay for whatever TV

735
services they want—subject to taste and decency rules and other general legal criteria. Secondly, the free-to-air public service channels are part of the information infrastructure of contemporary society. Access to them is as much part of the citizen's right as access to the water main or telephone line—nobody need have either service but each must be generally accessible".
The world has moved on dramatically. In this case, it has much more to do with technology than politics. But those remarks of mine made in March 1997 were a diffident and groping realisation on my part of the need to change definitions and aspirations. In the comments that 1 shared with your Lordships on 3rd March in the context of the Davies Committee deliberations on the BBC licence fee, I said:
"Against that background, I believe there is a need for a re-definition of public service broadcasting for the next millennium because only then can one identify, for example, what the BBC might do, how it might do it and how in turn that will be paid for. What is true for the BBC is also true of Channels 3, 4, S4C and Channel 5 because a change on one part of the public service broadcasting waterfront reads across to, and has implications for, all the others". —[Official Report, 3/3/99; col.1670]
I am increasingly clarifying my own thoughts because broadcasting as we know it will become a dead or certainly a changed concept. We must think in terms of public service information provision without being hamstrung by the shadow of the technologies of the past. My initial and tentative conclusions are moving towards the development of the concept of a free-to-air information infrastructure within society.
Of what should that infrastructure comprise? First, there should be impartial and universally available news and information with appropriate comment. Secondly, somewhat similar to public libraries, there should be an educational and quasi-educational service. When we were in government, we were thinking about such things. The present Government have taken a number of those concepts forward in, for example, the National Grid for Learning. Finally, there could well be a case for some kind of what I might describe as an "arts and culture package", which would be the digital equivalent of those things in the museum and cultural area which are funded by the DCMS.
At first sight that might sound a trifle apocalyptic. After all, it is only one man's look into the future; but the future is not all that far away from here.
The existing BBC Charter and Agreement is due to expire at the end of the year 2006. By then a number of issues which are part of the story that I have been telling will, I believe, become commonplace reality. They will have to be addressed. If they are not, the existing structure of public service broadcasting may well be completely anachronistic and irrelevant to the needs of Britain's citizens as we approach the end of the first decade of the next millennium.
Taking their time, but in time to deliver their conclusions to coincide with the debate that will take place about charter and licence renewal, I believe that the Government should establish a Royal Commission—the latest in the succession of those which have set the course of United Kingdom broadcasting since the Second World War—to advise both Parliament and the Government. After all, let us not forget that it is we, the legislators, and government
736
who write the rules and not the broadcasters. We take the decisions. I believe that we need to know the form of the likely media landscape at that time and the place where what I quite deliberately call "public service information providers" ought to be, in what will be a very different media terrain from the one that we are in now.
6.31 p.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, perhaps I may also thank the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for introducing this debate. Like many others, I believe that it has given us an opportunity to speak about issues which we were not able to fit in on the last occasion when the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, tabled such a debate. First, I need to declare an interest. I am a non-executive director of Meridian broadcasting which is a regional ITV station, and a non-executive director of the Cable Corporation, which is also a regional cable provider.
Despite the vision of the future of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, with which I was not able to identify with during his speech—but perhaps, given time, we might all catch up with him—I feel that we are very fortunate in this country. In effect, we have four different types of television and radio broadcasting. This is because they are slightly differently, and, in some cases, very differently funded. We have the BBC, which we fund ourselves through the licence fee. It does not have to go to the market place to seek its funding. We have ITV, which is funded through sponsorship and advertising, and we have Channel 4, which has no shareholders. Therefore, its position is slightly different from the other ITV companies. It is able to invest all its revenue in its programme making. Further, we have cable and satellite, which is funded by subscription.
In my case, I believe that the latter is what leads to diversity in broadcasting in this country. The BBC's remit is, quite clearly, to set the bench-marks and to be the leader in quality and public service broadcasting. Because ITV has to provide for consumers—if they do not watch its programmes, there will be no income for the ITV companies—it has to provide populist programmes. However, it does much more than that. In its own words, it tries to achieve "quality, accessibility, popularity and regionality".
Speaking of regionality, I believe that ITV covers that very well. Being a non-executive director of a regional television company, I realise how important it is to meet the needs of the region in which the company is situated. Otherwise the company will not pay. It is very simple: if you do not provide what the local people want, you do not exist; as, indeed, the predecessor to Meridian found out.
Then there is Channel 4, which is unique. It is a strange combination of sponsorship and advertising. However, it has no shareholders. In its own words, it describes itself as being in the vanguard of creative industry in Britain; in other words, as the catalyst for its development.
So there we have it. As long as we have these different sources of funding, I hope that we will continue to receive the kind of diverse broadcasting that

737
we have become used to. We are spoilt in this country. Indeed, we all know that. When we visit other countries, we all realise how much better served we are here.
However, I should like to spend a few minutes talking about a different kind of diversity in broadcasting. I should like to talk about inclusive broadcasting, not a permeation of issues which are seen as separate and exclusive. There are television and radio stations which provide for the needs of, say, ethnic minorities, people with disabilities or the over-60s, but they provide it in programmes which are specifically aimed at those people. I have nothing against such programmes being specifically aimed at minorities and, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said, at disadvantaged minorities. I no longer like to think of us as being disadvantaged. The noble Lord will find that even people with disabilities are not so keen to think of themselves as disadvantaged. We all like to think of ourselves as being part of the society in which we live.
Although we like programmes that focus on specific issues which might be of concern only to us, we would also like to see ourselves as part of the mainstream programming. This can be done in many different ways; for example, it can be done through integrated casting. When a drama is being cast, why should it not have people with disabilities in it? Why should it not have people of different shades in it? After all, that is what society in Britain is today. This is not a sin of commission; indeed, I believe that it is only a sin of omission. I am not sure that the programme makers are as aware of the issue as they should be. I am not sure that they keep it as much in the forefront of their minds as they should. The time has now come to have overlap and not to see people as separate units in the community. People must be seen as being part of the total. To my way of thinking, that is a very important facet of broadcasting. It is also very important in educating all of us into being part of a whole rather than separate units.
There is also something else that I have noticed. When programmes are produced for minorities, they often do not have the production values which are applied to mainstream programming. They are poorly produced and the money that is spent on mainstream programming is not spent on them. There are two very good examples from the BBC about which I have been very excited. I have in mind the "Windrush" series, which went out last year, and the comedy series "Goodness Gracious Me". Both of those programmes have been scheduled at times when people would watch television. They have also been of the quality which has proved to be popular with the mainstream.
I should like to make a few comments about radio, because it seems to get wiped out by some noble Lords in one or two sentences. I have in mind commercial radio in particular. There is no one to monitor the performance of BBC radio; indeed, that is entirely in the hands of the BBC. Despite such major criticism as has been taking place recently, there has been no response from the BBC.
738
Programmers used to be told: "you will provide so many hours of this kind of programming, so many hours of the other kind of programming and six hours of minority programming". I am very pleased to see that the Radio Authority has decided to be more flexible now and it is a general promise that will be required and not "ticking the boxes" as to what has been provided. That does not make for quality: that simply makes for quantity.
It is very important to remember that commercial radio, like commercial television, is not funded by a licence fee. It must appeal to local people, because local independent radio belongs to local people. They pay for it by advertising on it and it is very, very close to them. Perhaps I may say to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, and the noble Lord, Lord Patten, who both wrote off local commercial radio, it is supposed to fill a particular niche in local radio and it does that by providing for local needs: otherwise local commercial radio stations will not get the advertising and they will not exist. Also, they are much closer to the community than the noble Lords imagine.
On Radio 4 there are two programmes which are designed for people with disabilities. One is "Does he take sugar?" and the other is "In Touch". They were meant to be mainstream but they have come to be really quite separate. That is wrong.
Finally, we have an ageing population in this country but we have no specific radio programmes for older people. There is a generation of radio listeners now growing older and they need to feel valued. They need radio and television which includes them as well.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I speak purely as a consumer of the broadcasting media. When we consider quality and diversity in the media. I initially think of the BBC and then I think of the other free-to-air services: definitely in that order. The last time I referred to this subject I concentrated on radio, and particularly on Radio 4. I believe it is so valuable because it has diversity, it informs and educates as well as entertains.
It can inform and educate because it is entertaining. I would certainly find myself at odds here with the noble Lord, Lord Patten, because if you are not entertaining you cannot do the other things. People, even if they do not switch off physically, switch off mentally. You have to be able to hold attention.
Another theme which has run through this debate is the fact that if we have specialist channels the world is lovely. It is not, because if you do not know it is there you cannot listen to it. The great strength of the BBC and the other free-to-air broadcasters is that they have a variety of subjects being broadcast on the same day. How many of your Lordships might perhaps switch on to some broadcast medium and switch on a little early, keep the channel open and find yourself listening to something else? That is the great strength of the diversity of programming.
We are in grave danger of surrendering to the anoraks at every single level if we say, "There is one thing we shall watch or listen to, and that's it". If he will allow

739
me, I would like to challenge the noble Lord, Lord Patten, on something that concerns Radio 1. It was probably about 1986 when I last knew what was in the charts, but at that time I was forming musical tastes in popular music. At that time the BBC, and in particular Radio 1, were the people who helped to form those tastes because they had little programmes at the edge containing things like world music, rhythm and blues, jazz and so on—an introductory service which allowed you to sample everything. If you suddenly say, "Here is something" and you know nothing about it, you will not touch it. How many people would consider watching a natural history channel on Cable if they had not seen David Attenborough playing catch with a bunch of gorillas at one point or watching a lion chase a zebra at another point? They just would not be interested: it would not appeal to them.
If you give people a diet which consists purely of gameshows, no matter how well made, then they will only watch gameshows. That is the only thing that they will understand. The same is true of other channels and of sport. The armchair athlete who sits back and watches nothing but sport—and usually only one or two sports—might be encouraged to watch other things. Possibly you can capture the news while you are waiting for a final score to come up.
We have to try to keep this function of public broadcasting going. The BBC is uniquely placed to do this because it should not have to worry too much about the watchers. It should become something which people go into and out of. They may be able to form tastes as a result of this, because they do not have to respond to commercial pressures.
I am totally in support of my noble friend Lord Falkland when he says that they should not continue to worry about market share. They should simply be worrying about making sure that quality comes across, and also that diversity comes with the quality. If we do this we will continue to justify having these programmes and these processes. If we decide that everything can be dealt with by a specialist channel eventually we shall end up making a broadcast media a great irrelevance. We might as well go out and buy whatever the equivalent is of a pile of CDs, tapes or other things and put them in whatever viewing or music generating machines there are at home and just listen to them: you would not need anything else. Unless we concentrate on diversity and trying to inform people we shall fail future generations.
We must accept the fact that we cannot say simply that because it is broadcast you have access to it. If you have a channel guide in front of you it is no more informative to you than if it was written in a language you do not understand, because you do not understand the point of reference. I could go on ad infinitum on this subject, but that is the only real point that I wanted to make.
Unless we are prepared to accept that public service broadcasting has an obligation to take risks, to try new things and to make available in an easy format to the general public a diversity of watching and listening experiences, we shall fundamentally let down our
740
population. We shall cut down their reference points to virtually all issues—news, current affairs and everything else—unless there is a framework to put it in.
For instance, how many times has the dramatisation on television of a book encouraged the sales of the book? For one thing, we do not always catch all the episodes. We might think, "Oh, that was good: I wonder what else this author has written". That is a well known phenomenon. The reason why people are interested is that the programme has caught their interest; it has been well produced or at least well enough produced to make them think about it.
Also, we must accept the fact that failure is guaranteed within a process of experimentation, so that the BBC and the other free-to-air broadcasting media must have something which says to them, "You are obliged to take risks and if you have one or two failures don't worry about them: that will always happen". Unless we manage to keep this in sight we are in danger of having 400 channels. I believe that my noble friend Lord McNally said to the House last year that they will all have repeats of "I Love Lucy". No, they will not: only about half of them. The rest of them will have solid repeats of a thousand-and-one chat shows made 20 years ago, with new follow-ups to them—and nobody will ever be aware of what is on the next channel.
6.49 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for introducing the debate. I should first declare an interest in that I am a director of ONdigital.
I intend to concentrate on issues related to the debate today and issues that derive from the Minister's reply on 21st April to my Unstarred Question on digital coverage. I shall try to move the debate forward rather than just repeat the previous performance and also deal with some of the technical issues.
The first issue that I should like to address is analogue switchover. Responsibility for digital coverage rests with the ITC, the BBC and the transmission providers. There will be a considerable increase in coverage when analogue switchover occurs. Prior to the switchover, there are a number of steps that could be taken to improve coverage for the BBC and ITV through the ITC: more relay transmitter sites and increasing the power of transmission. There were initial worries about interference but there seems to be less interference in practice than was originally feared.
When I pressed the Minister last month that the most important step was the setting of a target date for the switchover, he replied in his first point that we do not have much to learn from other countries. He then proceeded to list a series of other countries, the USA, Germany and Japan, all of which have target dates. We are the only country that has successfully launched digital terrestrial television and we do not have a target date. I suggest that perhaps we do have something to learn. We are leading the world in developing digital terrestrial television. If the Government do not set a target date, even if that date has strict conditions attached to it, we risk doing what has been done so

741
many times before in this country—leading the world with the introduction of new technology, then falling behind, losing the advantage and being overtaken by other countries.
The Minister also seemed to reject the concept of a rolling switch-over and then went on to say:
"We still have not really had field tests for switch-over in a small area to establish how to do it".
It is for the Government to encourage and for the ITC to implement. It is not that difficult, as some 100 relay sites have coverage of fewer than 100 homes in this country. The ball is in the court of the department and the ITC to go ahead and start field tests.
The Minister also said that a rolling switch-over would be very attractive to manufacturers, as if that was the only reason in its favour. Yes, of course it would be attractive to manufacturers, but the real benefit would be for the consumer and the industry as a whole. If digital television prices come down the industry itself can subsidise switch-over.
The Minister made one point with which I seriously disagree. He said:
"One of the real faults with the implementation of the 1996 Act was that insufficient pressure was put on the providers who obtained multiplexes to produce new and better quality programmes…we will not receive from digital significantly better quality of programming than we receive from analogue". —[Official Report, 21/4/99; col.1227.]
The Minister in another place, Janet Anderson, does not agree. Indeed, writing in the Parliamentary Monitor this month she stated:
"The advent of new channels will not lead to a reduction in the quality of programmes and not simply because the current regulatory regime places requirements on the broadcasters".
I should ask the Minister whether he has watched digital television. I fear he has not. If he had, he would have seen a wide range of programmes. One can watch free on digital television now BBC1, BBC2, ITV, ITV 2, Channel 4 and Channel 5; and also BBC 24-Hour News, an exceptionally good news service, and BBC Choice; and, shortly to be launched, BBC Knowledge and BBC Text. On subscription television one can watch Film 4, Carlton Cinema, UK Horizon, two Sky Movie Channels, Sky Sports 1 and 2, Sky 1 and 10 other channels. Those channels are not just repeats; many of them are new channels which are commissioning new programming.
I have taken the Minister to task for not watching digital television, but perhaps it is not his fault. Perhaps it is our fault on this side of the House for keeping him here, in his role as Deputy Chief Whip, from afternoon to late evening, guarding his flock against the possibility of a voting ambush. Less voting and more viewing is needed, I think. I can assure the Minister that I shall try to prevail upon my noble friends to give him more evenings off. If he has not seen digital television and does not have a set-top box, I shall be happy to lend him mine so that he can see for himself the quality and diversity of the programmes. I am glad that he is looking forward to that.
742
As the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, said, it is not only the BBC which has a public service remit; ITV companies also have a public service remit enshrined in their licence conditions and enforced by the ITC.
Perhaps I may say a few words about interoperability. I apologise for being technical, but it is an important point that has caused much debate both inside and outside the industry and, indeed, in Parliament. Oftel and the ITC will ensure that set-top boxes will be interoperable with the addition of a "sidecar box", as it is known. Digital televisions will also be interoperable. The adoption of "open systems" by all the digital terrestrial broadcasters, including the BBC, will ensure that all receivers of whatever type will be able to receive the full range of free-to-air and subscription services.
There is a certain lack of understanding of the Internet and e-mail and how exactly they will work in broadcasting. The main Internet access will not operate via a satellite or terrestrial transmission system for the transmission of data; it will be through a telephone line connected to the set-top box or digital television. If, today one buys a BSkyB satellite system, one has to plug the system into a telephone line, even though that link via the telephone system is not yet in use by the broadcaster. ONdigital boxes can also be plugged into a telephone line. For example, the e-mail service shortly to be launched works via a signal being sent via the transmission system to the set-top box, so that when one switches on the television it tells one that one has an e-mail. But access to that e-mail will be through the box, through a modem, via the telephone line for the collection of that e-mail. Terrestrial digital will offer the possibility of full Internet access, as will BSkyB, but with one difference: it will be a proprietary system and, therefore, subject to conditional access.
Perhaps I may briefly turn to the BBC and the idea of raising the licence fee to cover the implementation of digital television. That could kill the goose that has laid the golden egg. The BBC has more than £400 million available for digital. It asked for the money from the sale of transmitters; it got that money. The BBC then launched its digital services with a great fanfare. They are very good services and I would encourage all of your Lordships to watch them. But the BBC did not say that more money would be required. It must explain why £400 million is not enough; it must explain what has changed. Otherwise it will be seen as an unjustifiable back-door licence fee increase. I hope that the Government will reject the proposal or, at the very least, examine carefully why the extra money is needed.
Digital is very new; it is a success. The announcement today by BSkyB is good for the industry and good for the consumer. It is a step that shows confidence in digital television, whether it be satellite or terrestrial. Digital television was born out of the Broadcasting Act 1996 introduced by a Conservative government. The present Government have conducted their role as midwife well—I congratulate them on bringing in digital television. I am sure that the Government and the Minister's department will do everything they can to

743
support digital television—in the public interest and for the benefit of consumers—whether it be BBC, Channel 4 or any of the commercial operators.
6.58 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, as the debate revolves principally around the BBC, I should say that I am still contributing to a Radio 2 programme to which I have contributed for the past 24 years. It was gratifying to hear the noble Lord, Lord Patten, give a pat on the back to my old broadcasting partner, Jimmy Young—or "Sir" Jimmy Young, as I used to call him. If Margaret Thatcher had had a scintilla of gratitude, that is what he would be for all the interviews he so ably afforded her.
My proposition, shared by many noble Lords, is that public service broadcasting is an essential part of broadcasting as a whole; and the standard bearer is, and must remain, the BBC. I say that in full knowledge of the explosion referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, in the media world, including broadcasting. Spectrum scarcity is about to become a thing of the past. There has been an enormous increase in the number of programmes being made. The right reverend Prelate referred to "narrow casting". That is probably right. The question is: are there dangers in all this, as well as wonderful opportunities? Most would agree that there are particular dangers and that they relate to the quality and standards of broadcasting, particularly vis-à-vis current affairs.
One striking effect of the revolution of the past 10 or more years has been the commercialisation of broadcasting. I refer not merely to the growth of commercial companies, but to the growth of huge, immensely powerful global corporations with no fixed loyalty, run by individuals who, without ascribing to them either ill will or malice, are interested in dominance and profit and precious little else. It behoves us to look that reality fairly and squarely in the eye. Maintenance of quality and standards in broadcasting against a background of overweening preoccupation with capital and income profit is extremely difficult to achieve.
I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, as have other noble Lords, that the BBC has no monopoly on public service virtue. Indeed, in introducing the debate in this House on 3rd March, the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, gave some vivid examples of how the BBC has in some respects fallen behind the mainstream commercial companies in the public service element of its programmes. This debate provides an opportunity to express a certain anxiety as to the degree to which the BBC is today maintaining the best traditions of its inheritance. For example, reverting to current affairs, to remove "The Week in Westminster" and "Yesterday in Parliament" to what might be termed the margins of broadcasting may reflect ill upon the quality of the debates both here and in another place, but this is still the centre and focus of the democratic life of our nation. I, for one, believe that it was a bad sign, not merely that the BBC did that, but that it pretended that there would be no deterioration in the listening figures. It has taken only a short time to disprove those reassurances.
744
On the other hand, there is the "Today" programme and "Newsnight", although the noble Lord, Lord Patten, was apt to be somewhat critical of the performance of some of the "Today" presenters. But if journalists are prepared fiercely and rigorously to cross-examine experienced Ministers and politicians and men and women of affairs who are determined to give as little away as possible, inevitably there will be a degree of aggression and overstepping of the mark. The noble Lord referred to the near monopoly that the "Today" programme enjoys. We may ask why that is. The answer is simple. It is so good. It reaches the parts that other programmes do not reach.
Perhaps I may refer briefly to the importance to the commercial stations in terms of public service broadcasting of the standards that the BBC should, arid on the whole does, set. Some noble Lords may remember a notable speech by Sir Denis Forman at the Edinburgh Festival four or five years ago on this very issue. No one is more experienced in the ways of the world of commercial television than Sir Denis. He made it plain, and others have echoed him, as did speakers in the debate on 3rd March, that the commercial channels look to the BBC to maintain and enhance standards of public service broadcasting. Although the ITC is there to ensure that under their licences companies must maintain a balance and quality which serve public service interests, nonetheless the exemplar that the BBC should be, and is, is critical to the success of that whole programme.
I turn briefly to the BBC World Service. It exemplifies the standards of public service which most of us wish to see the BBC as a whole maintain. I should like to think that this debate is not confined to the public in this country. The importance of the BBC World Service to the public in other countries cannot be underestimated. The esteem in which this country is held in other parts of the world is critically affected by the work of the BBC World Service. Some noble Lords may not be aware that during the recent Kosovo crisis the BBC has penetrated through to all the communities within Serbia, Kosovo and the neighbouring countries by shortwave and also, importantly, for the first time via the Internet. Although I do not understand the technicalities, I am told that its Internet pages have been turned to in over 11 million on-line cases—the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, informs me that the word is "hits".
Access is crucial. There are so many other influences in our national life that are pulling us apart. The Government must do everything that needs to he done to ensure that the great changes that are coming upon us in broadcasting are not such as to rule out access by the less well-off. I commend the debate introduced in another place by Dr. George Turner dealing with precisely that point. I hope that the Government will heed the sentiment behind it.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. made some interesting comments on the ITC, as deputy chair of that institution. He was rather kind in saying that it should be "coach" rather than "nanny". Now and then, it needs to be "policeman". It needs to ensure that the extremely powerful institutions over which it is

745
supposed to preside do what their licences say they will do. I was extremely displeased when it allowed the removal of "News at Ten" and replaced it with a quarter of an hour of news at 11 o'clock. It will be interesting to see the consequences of that in terms of public access to a crucial news programme.
Finally, that trinity of letters, "BBC", still receives unparalleled universal recognition and respect. Although it is an immensely difficult job for the Director-General and Governors of the BBC to maintain the balancing act between appeal to a mass audience on the one hand and appeal to minorities and elites on the other, I believe that they can do it. Although there are aspects of their performance which give one less than total confidence, I believe that they have the mind and will to ensure that the integrity, independence, balance and quality for which the BBC is renowned will be maintained in the difficult era that lies ahead.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, when I saw the title of this evening's debate I believed that it would concentrate largely on television broadcasting. Therefore, it is appropriate that at this stage, given the excellent contributions on radio, I declare an interest. I am currently chairing a bid to the Radio Authority for a short area local licence in north west London aimed at students and young people aged between 15 and their mid-twenties.
The debate comes at a very interesting time. The headlines in today's papers made an admirable trail for the noble Viscount's debate. I am only sorry that I bought my Sky box a couple of months ago. Within the past year digital technology has given us dozens of new channels all receivable through existing aerials. Cable and satellite offer us even further choice. But still at the heart of television viewing remain the services provided by the BBC, ITV and Channel 4.
When we talk of public service television we are wrong to think only of the BBC. Several noble Lords have reminded us that ITV, under regulation by the ITC, also has specific public service responsibilities, and both ITV and Channel 4 make very substantial investments in quality domestic production.
The existing commercial companies have, along with the newcomers ONdigital, invested heavily in building the new digital terrestrial transmission network and producing new programme services. With the increase in channels, the broadcasting landscape has altered dramatically. The BBC provides only a minority of available television channels. The viewer has never had such a great choice of channels or ways to pay for them.
The BBC has also invested in the new digital transmission network. A reported £240 million raised from the sale of former BBC transmission facilities was specifically earmarked for investment in the new platform. To gain the benefits of more efficient use of the available broadcast spectrum, it is essential that BBC1 and 2 be available to the public as we migrate from analogue to digital and eventually close down the analogue system. I and, I suspect, many other noble
746
Lords, would applaud the use of public funds to guarantee the continuation of traditional BBC services in the new digital age.
However, before the benefits for the viewer and the nation can be enjoyed we must complete the coverage of the digital network so that it mirrors that of the existing analogue system. That will allow those who have invested in this new technology to promote its benefits to the whole nation and ensure widespread take-up of the set top boxes and the new generation of digital television sets. Ultimate success will, however, depend on the new content on offer to the viewer. New free-to-air services like ITV2 and subscription channels provided by Carlton, Granada, Channel 4, Sky and others are already attracting new digital customers at a rate that bodes well for the future. In the first few months since the launch of the ONdigital service, over 100,000 customers have signed up for a variety of new channels and Sky has also been successful in converting many of its customers to its new digital satellite services.
However, the role of the BBC is less clear. Not only has the BBC embarked on a number of commercial joint venture channels and services aimed at the overseas market; it has also launched two new domestic digital channels: "News 24" and BBC Choice. The current advertisement by the BBC to promote the fact that these new services are absolutely free is reassuring. They appear good value for anyone who wants to watch them. But the reality can be a little different. This debate comes at a time when the funding of the BBC is under review. My noble friend Lord Astor referred to one proposal backed, I believe, by the BBC which is very worrying. I understand that consideration is being given to a surcharge of up to £35 to be added to the licence fee for anyone who receives digital services. I hope that that does not happen for two important reasons.
First, a tax on the new digital technology would be a disincentive to consumers at the very time that television companies are trying to stimulate take-up of digital services. Recent research carried out by NOP suggests that as many as two-thirds of those likely to get digital television in the next 12 months are less likely to do so if a surcharge is imposed. This echoes previous findings by NERA and others that digital take-up could be seriously damaged by such a price penalty.
Secondly, one of the great benefits of the growth in the number of digital channels is the choice that viewers now enjoy, not only as to what they want to watch but also as to what they do and do not pay for. To impose a surcharge on the licence fee without giving viewers a choice as to whether or not they want the new BBC digital services flies in the face of the whole concept of multi-choice television. It cannot be right that viewers who wish to take up the many new services offered by the commercial broadcasters face prosecution if they do not wish to pay a universal licence fee surcharge to view just two new BBC channels. I urge those looking into the future funding of the BBC to ask searching questions about how the BBC has been able to launch its new digital channels without a clear idea about how they will be financed. To force the public to pay extra for services

747
it neither asks for nor may want to watch is both potentially damaging to the future of digital television and unfair to viewers.
The new world of digital television must have at its heart strong, creative and efficiently run public service television as offered by BBC1 and BBC2. However, I believe that the quality of these services can best be upheld if the BBC focuses on maintaining the standards of existing channels. We should be very careful before we ask the British public, under threat of prosecution, to give more money to the BBC to support its digital adventures. We need to understand much more how the BBC has got into its current predicament and how we can best secure its contribution to the future of quality digital television. I look forward very much to hearing the Minister. I only hope that the empty Benches behind him do not reflect the Government's interest in this subject.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. As is often the case, this debate has been extremely thought-provoking. Clearly, there are many areas of agreement. For example, we can all agree on the rapidly changing nature of broadcasting and what it means. We can also agree that the quality and diversity of public service broadcasting remains high, and we all wish it to continue.
I do not want to embark on a lengthy description of the strengths of public service broadcasting, but it is worth pausing briefly to look at the way in which the conflict in Kosovo has been covered to demonstrate the current situation. I take three examples: first, straightforward news broadcasting. Night after night journalists such as Bill Neely, Fergal Keene and John Simpson have reported events as they see them with a tremendous degree of integrity and commitment to get across the news agenda.
Secondly, there is the question of the ability to put across alternative views. It is probable that many noble Lords did not see "Counterblast" yesterday evening on BBC2 in which Harold Pinter launched a tirade—with which I profoundly disagreed—against the Government's current policy. Nonetheless, in a democracy, particularly one in which there is such an accomplished team to promote the government message, it is crucially important that free-to-air broadcasting puts across the opposition view as potently as possible.
Thirdly, I follow the comments of my noble friend Lord Phillips about the importance of the World Service in dealing with the current situation on the ground in a flexible way and helping to increase coverage through its vernacular services and short wave link to the areas of the conflict. Another area where it has proved its worth in the conflict is the Internet. While I cannot enlighten my noble friend as to how the Internet works, one thing I do know is that it is a lot less easy to jam than radio. That is important in situations like the conflict in Kosovo. The BBC has received from the war
748
zone some extraordinary testimonials. I hope that your Lordships will not mind if I quote briefly from a recent e-mail emanating from a man in Belgrade. He said,
"Every night I'm listening to your News on Serbian … and during the day I'm on your site checking the news. It is funny feeling to listening news on Serbian, broadcasting by some country that is dropping bombs around you. … do you think it would be normal … that I send some 'words of greetings' or anything positively to News company from 'invader' country? I think not. But, in this case I must be insane, because I think that you are doing great job in trying to show thing in right way. I'm not sure anymore where or which is a right way, but I'm sure that you are not pointing it to your listeners/readers, like other agencies here".
What better testimonial could one have as to the value of the World Service and on its on-line facilities?
I do not propose to go into detail about the raft of very specific points which have been raised by noble Lords this evening. However, I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield to the extent that anyone in the BBC who believes that enthusiastic listeners to religious broadcasting want a double Sunday service on Radio 4 at eight o'clock on Sunday morning neither understands the pattern of worship in this country nor indeed the audience for that particular service.
However, I would like to look at some of the key questions as to how we preserve public sector broadcasting in the digital age and with the ever-increasing competition that has been referred to. Before returning to the BBC, I say to my noble friend Lord Holme that I believe that there will be particularly difficult pressures over the coming years as regards the ITC. The ITC companies will inevitably press for a looser regulatory regime to allow them to generate flexibility and to compete with pay-to-view channels. While I understand that pressure, I am sure that the ITC will bear in mind that for many, for the foreseeable future, analogue free-to-air television is all that they will have the resources to watch.
Frankly, given the complexity which was in a sense demonstrated by the speech of the noble Viscount. Lord Astor, there is a real problem in my view as regards the confusion which arises in the minds of certainly the elderly and many others concerning the great plethora of new services. They need reassurance that they will continue to be able to watch familiar programmes on familiar channels. That is significant for the foreseeable future. It is part of their citizens' rights as the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, put it.
However, for the BBC the greatest challenge is how to maintain and fund the quality and diversity of the BBC's output in the light of the technological developments about which we have heard. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Patten, in his suggestion that the BBC should attempt only to do those things which no one else can do. That would lead to an odd and unsatisfactory animal.
There has been some considerable criticism in a debate about the BBC for spreading itself too thinly and to a certain extent in investing on BBC OnLine and perhaps more so for investing in digital broadcasting. In general terms I disagree with that analysis. The BBC is a tremendous national asset, but if it is to retain its position it must remain at the cutting edge of the

749
technology to which consumers are increasingly turning to get news and factual programmes. It must be at the core of the free-to-air information structure of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. It must also be prepared to take risks, as my noble friend Lord Addington pointed out.
I have already referred to the value of the Internet. It is a Reithian addition to the output of the BBC. It has many new educative functions to perform which cannot be performed by straightforward radio or television. Interestingly, it enables people to see and hear what is happening in Parliament with somewhat greater ease than is now the case on mainstream radio, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, but I do not believe that it is an adequate substitute for the BBC returning parliamentary broadcasting to greater prominence.
Taken as a whole, the Internet, with the BBC playing a major part in it, is absolutely core to what it should be doing, not least in its role as guardian of the English language and as its promoter internationally. The Internet is indeed becoming the third arm of broadcasting.
Digital television is clearly the more controversial area. There is no doubt in my mind that the BBC should be investing in digital TV. I believe that the BBC has still to answer satisfactorily the question as to whether it has gone in too soon and over too broad a front. I believe that the jury is still out on those questions, not least in relation to its 24-hours news service. One's view on that depends in part on how one believes the BBC should be funded in future. There have been some references to that in the debate.
I understand the criticism which has been made, not so much in the Chamber but generally, about the overtly commercial deals that the BBC has entered into, not least with Flextech. But equally, I believe we would agree that the BBC must look to new sources of funding to supplement the licence fee if it is to respond adequately to the new challenges it faces. I realise that this is an area that is being investigated by the Davies Committee. We look forward to seeing its proposals. For my part I hope that it looks at the widest possible range of possible partnership options and other funding mechanisms even if in the end it decides to reject quite a number of them. Here I share a significant number of the misgivings expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, about a digital surcharge.
I do not have time to say much about commercial radio other than that anyone who listens to it knows of its value in promoting community life. One hopes that as it adds digital stations to its local and analogue stations that tradition will be maintained. The world of broadcasting is changing at a tremendous rate. There is no reason why that change should not strengthen the public service component of broadcasting in the United Kingdom. But that will require innovative thinking from the broadcasters, regulators and Parliament alike. None of these bodies is blessed with perfect foresight and judgment, but on the evidence to date there is no reason to believe that we cannot all rise to that challenge.
7.26 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I too thank the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, for introducing this debate. It feels as though we are here tonight as friends continuing a half-finished conversation. Several noble Lords referred to the fact that this is our third debate on broadcasting in the digital age within a mere nine weeks. As I understand it, the question posed today by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, is whether quantity has to be the deathknell for quality and diversity, especially if consumer choice is only within a range of programmes supplied by one or two mega-media firms.
The noble Viscount naturally pitched his speech very much on the remit of the BBC, which is the main but, as noble Lords have said, by no means the only provider of public service broadcasting. I believe that my noble friends Lord Inglewood and Lord Patten both made valuable contributions to what could be the future pattern of public service broadcasting.
Several noble Lords referred to the first of our three debates—our trio—proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bragg. I believe that the fundamental issues that I addressed during that debate are still relevant today. Is public service broadcasting sustainable in the multichannel digital future? Is it merely an anachronism? Will markets on their own give us the media and the society we want? Is public service broadcasting an optional add-on or is it essential to the health of all broadcasting? Without such broadcasting, does the global media market risk homogenisation—the "Murdoch" world, perhaps?
Like my noble friend Lord Astor I do not want merely to repeat my previous two speeches so I shall stop there on that particular thread. I, too, today would like to take the debate one stage further. I shall concentrate on a theme to which I have referred briefly in previous debates but not so far developed. One question that I believe should underpin all our debates on digital broadcasting is the usefulness of fighting to retain quality and diversity of public service broadcasting if one does not at the same time ensure access to it for all, whether they want it or not.
Today I wish to highlight some of the current issues regarding access that we must overcome if public service broadcasting in the digital age is to be of value to our society. What if changes in society and technology mean that people either will not or cannot watch public service broadcasting, even if it is there?
Social changes could threaten the future of such broadcasting because they mean that viewers will not necessarily watch TV in the usual ways, at the traditional times, for the traditional reasons. I seek to please my noble friend Lord Patten by avoiding the word "modern". I think that I may have just managed to do so.
Whether we like it or not, we are becoming a 24-hour society in which daily routines are being eroded. Our approach to watching TV could be like the eating habits of the young today. We will snack, we will graze, rather than sitting down to watch a full length programme and absorb its finer points.

751
As other noble Lords have mentioned, the Internet is already establishing itself as the third broadcast medium world-wide. Soon the integrated content covering interactive TV, video on demand, the Internet, banking, shopping and a video phone will be available via the TV, the set-top box and the PCTV. Already Web television—television offering pictures and Internet text—has nearly half a million subscribers in the United States.
Experience in America shows that teenage boys are two to one more likely to use their television as a personal computer for games and the Internet. They are not watching traditional programming. If society continues to develop in that fashion, we are likely to see the use of the television as a personal computer dominated by the Internet, blocking access to public service broadcasting programmes—access which other family members may wish to obtain. That could happen even in a multi-set household. Other members will not necessarily be able to access different digital channels from the one showing on the main monitor. It will depend on the type of platform used and its level of technical development. How can we ensure that viewers of all ages continue to be able to watch public service broadcasting?
What are the implications of social changes for the way in which the Internet operates? How can or should public service broadcasting be part of it?
The second obstacle to overcome before public service broadcasting in the digital age can reach its audience is one which my noble friend Lord Colwyn covered so well. It is the problem of the patchy coverage by various forms of digital broadcasting. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Astor for his clear explanation of the intricacies of digital broadcasting not only today but previously in his Unstarred Question.
We are aware that for various reasons 30 per cent of households cannot have a satellite dish. Fifty-three per cent of all homes in England now have cable available to them, but transmission of digital TV by cable is not now likely to start until next year. We have heard of digital terrestrial TV. At present only 70 per cent of the population can receive it. Coverage will improve—but when and by how much? At the moment it is a muddle from the consumer's point of view which needs to be resolved before we have analogue switch-off.
Can the Minister tell the House what consideration the Government have given to the kind of public service commitments which should be built into future commercial TV licences when digital takes over from analogue? Bearing in mind the words of my noble friend Lord Inglewood, should there be such commitments?
Finally, I come to a group of people who face a triple whammy in their attempt to enjoy public service broadcasting in the digital age. Those people have control of the gateway; they have a television capable of receiving the digital signal and they actively want to watch the broadcasting, but they still cannot enjoy the programmes. Why, my Lords? I refer to the 20 million people who use subtitles. Five million people rely on them. A further 15 million use them occasionally. That is a significant proportion of the total viewing population.
752
I welcome comments made recently by the. Minister for Film outside the House that digital needs to be inclusive of all members of society and that we should ensure that we maximise the potential for digital to increase its accessibility. That is true. But how do we do it? There are no subtitling regulations for satellite and cable programme providers, so the majority provide no subtitling. BBC Choice, BBC News 24 and the new, about-to-be-launched BBC Knowledge currently subtitle 5 per cent of their programmes. That will take 10 years to rise to 50 per cent. The RNID is concerned that the BBC is not maximising the effective re-use of existing subtitles on its archive programming. I understand that previously subtitled programmes are too often broadcast without their subtitles on the free-to-air digital channels like BBC Choice.
Last week I visited the BBC and saw at first hand the public service digital transmission area. It was most impressive. It also made me appreciate the significant costs of adding in subtitles. But surely those are costs worth bearing.
What policies are the Government pursuing to ensure that hearing-impaired people are not excluded from the digital revolution in TV? Will they consider looking again at the question of subtitling targets? I am delighted that when we were in government those targets were put into legislation. It was an excellent first step. But I am aware that changes in technology mean that the issue should be kept under review.
In conclusion, I am fascinated but by no means mesmerised by the new technology. I recognise that the digital age brings with it risks as well as opportunities. It brings the risk that the globalisation of culture will threaten national identities. It brings the risk that the powerful gateway controllers will restrain rather than promote diversity. It brings the risk of a two-class society: the information rich, ready and able to pay for their increasingly expensive media, and the information poor who cannot. But if I am persuaded in favour of the merits of public service broadcasting by any argument, it remains quite simply this: that without it we could lose the opportunity of being surprised by programmes that we did not know we wanted.
I believe that we must do all we can to overcome the barriers to access to public service broadcasting and the threats posed by the development of global competition. It is a difficult challenge, but I think that it is worth the candle.
7.37 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, reminds us that this is the third debate on these issues within the past nine weeks. On 3rd March we had the debate introduced by ray noble friend Lord Bragg. On 21st April the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked an Unstarred Question. The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, teases me about empty Benches. Some of my noble friends feel that they made full contributions to those debates and have no more to say. I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, even more on having succeeded in teasing out a number of most interesting speeches to which I feel a duty to reply

753
on behalf of the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, is wrong. We are profoundly interested in the issues under debate today.
On 3rd March I set out my stand on the implications for broadcasting and in particular public service broadcasting of the changes in technology which will be brought about by digital television. I refer to cols.1712 to 1718 of Hansard of that day. Clearly, I cannot take up my time by doing so again. Perhaps the best contribution I can make is to race through the fundamental argument, relating it so far as I can to the debate this evening. Undoubtedly, the changing nature of broadcasting is bringing about changes in the way in which public policy can address these issues. Public policy, as we were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, was based on regulation which in turn was based on spectrum scarcity. With the end of spectrum scarcity in sight, there is indeed the prospect, I think, of product famine. It will be difficult to find people who will produce high quality product for unlimited spectrum on radio and television. Clearly, the power which Government had in the past to regulate has disappeared. The noble Lord, Holme of Cheltenham, made the same point. However, my argument then and today is that that increases the need for a public service broadcasting obligation rather than decreasing it. As I said on 3rd March, I think there are three elements of public service broadcasting that we have to consider: first, who produces the structure of the broadcast industry; secondly, the programmes themselves, the product; and, thirdly, the issues of access, that is, marketing and distribution.
Turning back to who produces it, unfortunately it is not the case that new technology necessarily brings into play new sources of good programming. The fundamental economics are the same. Good programming is expensive. It may be that there will in future be cheaper dissemination. I am sure that there will be below marginal costs but the fundamental original cost is the same, or perhaps even greater, with a shortage of first class producers and performers.
Therefore, it is not by any means evident that the digital revolution is going to bring into existence new players, new smaller broadcasters who, I would like to argue, are the kind we need to achieve greater diversity and greater pluralism. The key, coming back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Holme, is pluralism in the production of television and radio. A feature of convergence of prints, telecommunications, broadcasting, information and communications technology will be greater diversity but not necessarily greater quality. And there may indeed not be greater diversity.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, seems to think that the 1996 Broadcasting Act created the digital revolution. All that the 1996 Act did was allocate the digital spectrum. It did indeed—and I pay tribute to the Act—say that those with a public service remit would get space on the spectrum and that those who got space would have public service obligations. However, it did not secure the objectives so widely demanded in the debate today.
754
I turn to the issue of the programmes themselves which has, as on the last occasion, dominated a considerable part of the debate. I must start by profoundly disagreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Patten. I do not consider that public service broadcasting should be defined as a safety net, as being what commercial broadcasting does not do. I certainly do not think that it should be the negative definition of niche programming, which is what the noble Lord implied. I believe that the public service obligation should cover the whole spectrum of quality programming. As the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said, the definition should be whether it is good of its kind. In other words, it is an approach to broadcasting, not a special type of broadcasting.
The obligations on public service broadcasters to entertain, inform, educate and challenge the audience into new thinking—as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, to take risks—are fundamental to the public service broadcasting concept and apply not only to the BBC but to all broadcasters, commercial, free-to-air and, in so far as it can be achieved, to satellite, cable and the other converging technologies.
The third element of the definition is access. I have quoted Lady Plowden as saying, "Broadcasting is democratic, there are no reserved seats." There probably now are reserved seats; it is probably not democratic. We now have the existence on a large scale of subscription and pay-per-view, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, drew attention to the problem of the information rich and the information poor. As a number of noble Lords, notably the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said, we have whole new services with a much narrower geographical coverage. Indeed, there was a debate in the House of Commons on that issue.
We also have the issue to which the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Holme, referred: how do we find what we want? I have not time to go into the issue of the electronic programme guide. However, the Government are intensely conscious of these problems of access. I draw to your Lordships' attention the speech which Janet Anderson, the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, made to the Media Trust on Tuesday last week. She said:
"Digital needs to be inclusive to all members of society and we should ensure that we maximise the potential for digital to increase accessibility".
She went on to refer specifically to services for those with sensory disabilities and the need to have audio description and signing in order to ensure that digital broadcasting is made available to every part of our society.
She also said—and I give her remarks in full in response to those who urge an early decision on the switch-over to analogue broadcasting:
"The Government wants to move to as early an announcement as possible of a switch-over date. We need to announce a date with sufficient certainty to give industry and consumers confidence in making their investment and purchasing decisions. However, this can only be done on the basis of a properly considered strategy set against the background of actual digital services winning public acceptance—a strategy which protects those consumers who only

755
wish to receive free-to-air services as well as those who are potentially excluded from this new technology. We expect to say more about the switch-over before summer".
I cannot go further than that. My honourable friend's remarks make clear that there is a profound obligation on those who are entering into the provision of digital services, and presumably doing so in order to make money from it, to play their part in helping us to come to a decision which they so urgently want.
I cannot leave the issue of access without saying a few words about the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. She is right to say that habits may change, that there could be conflict in the home between broadcasting and narrow-casting, the use of PCs, the Internet and indeed telephones.
I am rather pleased that we may have reached a peak of daily viewing. I am rather pleased to think that a broadcasting viewership may be a zero sum gain, but what is gained by one channel will he lost by another. I do not like the thought of particularly young people spending four hours or more a day in front of a television set. However, the point that must be made is that households will behave as they wish. It is not the role of government or any other outside body to try and dictate to them.
I shall use the rest of the limited time I have available to try to refer to specific points raised in the debate. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, talked about specific obligations on the BBC. I believe he was implying that the BBC
should not be involved in a fight for ratings. I think we covered that fairly fully in the last debate. We certainly agree that we should be encouraging the BBC to identify its natural constituency, but that does not mean that it should not be concerned with ensuring that the good programmes it produces are viewed by as many people as possible. That, of course, will be part of the Charter debate.
I have referred to my disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Patten. He foresees the end of the BBC and, more urgently, the end of Radio 1, 2 and 5, although I was pleased to have his tribute to Radio 3. I was pleased to hear him say that there should also be a public service obligation for Sky. I was interested in the analogy as regards the public service obligation for the railways when they were in public ownership. From what I have said, it must be clear that we believe that there is a public service obligation for all broadcasters and that it should not be crowded into the ghetto of those programmes which the commercial sector cannot produce.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield complained about the lack of religious broadcasting. in particular by the BBC. He was very firm on the point. He said, and I agree with him, that religious broadcasting is an integral part of the public service broadcasting obligation. That is so under the BBC Charter. The Statement of Promise for this year refers to the need to cater for the diversity of religious and spiritual life of the United Kingdom.
The religious broadcasting department of the BBC in Manchester produces two hours a week of network television and 10 hours a week for radio. The governors
756
receive regular reports from independent advisory panels which have urged, in particular, religious programmes addressed to young people. I understand the right reverend Prelate's point about not confining religious broadcasting to the ghetto of purely religious channels.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, was concerned that digital may fail to produce the required range of quality and diversity. That is right. I hope that I have confirmed that I agree with him. The noble Lord was right to refer to opportunities for exports and right also to refer to the regional emphasis on ITV and the BBC.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for building on his thoughtful speech in the debate introduced by my noble friend Lord Bragg in which he referred to the end of spectrum scarcity. I thought his observations about the nature of public service information provision for impartial news and information, for educational provision and for an arts and culture package extremely wise. He was right to say that ideas produced by the previous government were being carried on by the present Government. I am pleased to find that continuity taking place.
I cannot refer to the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, because she is not here. I have some difficulty with the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. He quite properly declared his interest as a director of On-Digital. Perhaps I may say with all respect to him that he must be careful not. to speak on behalf of On-Digital. He must speak independently, having declared that interest. Almost everything that he said was in the interests of On-Digital.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my speech was about digital television as a whole. On-Digital is only one company. I emphasised that the BBC is a major player. One reason that I am a director of On-Digital is because it is a requirement of the company's licence, granted by the ITC, that it must have two independent directors.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I would never have doubted that. I still believe that we must all be extremely careful about the way in which the interests we have or have had are reflected in what we say in this Chamber.
My quotation from Janet Anderson's speech last week answers the fundamental points which the noble Viscount makes about the switch-over from analogue to digital. I shall be glad to write to him on any further points that I may have missed. I was interested in what he said about my own lack of experience of digital television. I am pleased to have his motto—less voting and more viewing. If he can persuade his noble friends to say that we can go home in the evenings, nothing would please me or my colleagues more. Everything he described as being available on digital is available in my home on cable. I do not believe that I am losing very much other than through being confined to the Palace of Westminster.
I was grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Phillips and Lord Newby, for their tributes to the World Service and in particular what it can do and is doing in Kosovo. I

757
thought the extract which the noble Lord, Lord Newby, read from a response to an Internet message from Belgrade was particularly effective.
A number of noble Lords, notably the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, but also the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, referred to the consideration being given by Gavyn Davies's committee to various alternatives for the funding of the BBC. They referred in particular to the prospect, which has been reported in the press, of a digital surcharge. All I can say is that Gavyn Davies and his colleagues will report in July and before the Government make up their mind there will be a very full consultation. I agree profoundly with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that Gavyn Davies should consider the widest possible range of options. I am sure that he is doing so.
I hope that I have addressed as many as possible of the issues which have been raised in the debate. I confirm that the Government believe profoundly, along with so many noble Lords, that public service broadcasting is an essential element in informed citizenship, like public safety or health education. It has a particular role to play in combating social exclusion and in bringing in those with various disadvantages, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said. We shall continue with our championship of public service broadcasting whatever the technology and whatever the commercial implications.
7.58 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, it only remains for me to thank all noble Lords who have spoken. It has been a debate in which each speaker has made an outstanding contribution. All the contributions have been well-informed and have raised important points.
Perhaps I may thank in particular the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield because I asked him a fairly direct question about religious broadcasting. He gave a robust and very full reply which I am sure will be read widely with interest.
Perhaps I may refer also to the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, who is not in her place. She understood me to dismiss, in a cavalier way, the contribution of commercial local radio. I intended to do just the opposite. I am a great admirer of the contribution it has made. There is a great future for commercial radio and also for the BBC. I hope that the BBC will take up the challenge because that will be welcomed by commercial radio and it will greatly strengthen the power of the BBC if it takes up that challenge. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Local Schools: Closure
7.59 p.m.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone Baroness Linklater of Butterstone rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what are the implications for rural communities of the closure of their local schools.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords I am aware that this is the last time it will be appropriate for a Question such as this, which also affects Scotland, to be asked in this House, and therefore this is something of a watershed.
I have raised this issue because I believe that our rural schools represent the most precious and important resource in our national life, one which must not be marginalised, but must be promoted. Not only does their existence have enormous implications for their particular rural communities, but they can also be exemplars of best practice in a wider community and in educational terms as well. Yet since the war, and in particular in the past 10 to 15 years, they have been in serious decline, as they have been closed or amalgamated in favour of larger and more urban schools.
Just over a year ago the Education Minister, Stephen Byers, announced a "presumption against closure" of rural schools, acknowledging that
"villages lose a vital focus, families come under pressure to move. and the knock on effect on other services sets up a spiral of decline."
He stated that any proposed closure should automatically be referred to the Secretary of State.
Similarly, Brian Wilson in Scotland stated that financial considerations alone should not determine the closure of a school, and that "proportionate advantage" in educational terms should also be demonstrated.
I applaud those statements, but I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us when he replies what the consequent package of help to rural schools in England and Wales, or in Scotland, has amounted to and what is being done to mitigate the crisis that rural communities are experiencing the length and breadth of the country.
My first school was a one-teacher school in the village of Butterstone, and was to me the best and most memorable part of my school experience. It was a single large room with a stove at one end and a high desk for Miss Menzies, our teacher, whom I shall never forget, while many another subsequently doomed to teach me has faded or has been blotted completely from my memory. The roll was around 12, but it fluctuated from the teens to, occasionally, as low as three or four children. It served the people of the tiny village and families who worked on surrounding farms and round about. Opposite were a shop and a post office. Dunkeld, the nearest town, or village, is about five miles away.
When that school was closed the heart went out of the village. On coming to this House I discovered that it was the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. who carried out the death sentence. The village no longer has a shop or a post office, and no longer has families with young children living there. Instead, there are some retired people, a few professionals and others with holiday homes.
It was a very small school, in a very small community, but that story is typical, and it is the sort of story which tells of how the whole nature of a community was changed by the loss of the school.
In England between 1983 and 1993 30 per cent. of all schools with fewer than a hundred pupils, a large proportion of them rural, were closed, with that kind of tragic story being repeated for similar communities all over the country.
A rural school attracts young families, whose presence in turn attracts and makes viable other services, sustains and holds the community together, and prevents what could be a terminal decline for the smallest and most vulnerable places. Importantly, its existence can also completely reverse such migration. For example, last year in Argyll a planned housing development was put in doubt as a result of the threat of the closure of a small school near Lochgilphead. After a fiercely fought battle, local people saved the school, the housing went ahead and now further development is planned; the community is actually growing, thanks to the existence and quality of this little school. The roll has grown from 26 to 33, and it is projected to reach 40 in the next two years.
Not all rural schools are perfect, any more than urban ones are, but the arguments for closure are invariably those of cost calculated on capacity, which is usually a function of physical space. Unused capacity is seen to represent a drain on resources, but it could be seen as an opportunity for more community education. One director of education told me that as the Government funding formula is based on the number of children in the system it automatically favours urban areas and economies of scale. The cost per pupil is far higher in rural areas than in urban ones, and 'when budgets are down and savings have to be made rural schools are the inevitable target.
Despite Brian Wilson's statement, that director has a target of three to four rationalisations annually in the next few years, and the issue of proportionate advantage is irrelevant, since he argues that all the schools in the authority are good, so moving the rural children could not possibly disadvantage them. It is this argument which indicates the continuing real threat to rural schools unless the capacity/cost issue is tackled. Why, I asked, if there is spare capacity could urban children not be moved to rural schools, with all that they have to offer, rather than always the other way round, and I was clearly thought to be mad. But, in fact, there is now evidence that parents are beginning to choose precisely that option for themselves.
The issue, therefore, for the Government is that while local education authorities have the responsibility for making the necessary decisions to cope with their allocated budgets, they are continuing to choose to close the rural schools, and the calculation of these financial costs overrides the vital social gain to their communities. The loss is particularly acute in really rural areas, and perhaps less so for semi-rural ones. The important study by Professor Nisbet from Aberdeen demonstrated clearly the broader social and community benefit from rural schools, and showed that pound for pound they bought far more than just a good education and that they have real community value.
If the Government are serious about their support for small rural schools, then they are duty bound to make funding specifically available so that those schools can
760
be sustained. This crucially includes, for example, money for visiting specialists to complement a staff of say, three teachers in subjects such as science, IT, and art; facilitating clusters of schools so that resources can be shared, but local identity sustained; and adequate funding for the repair of buildings. Without this practical support, statements favouring rural schools are no more than fine words.
Finally, my belief in the value of small rural schools is also because of the quality of the education they provide. There is evidence now that it is certainly as good as, and in many cases better than, that in larger urban schools. The received wisdom among some educationists and administrators is that it is necessary to have larger units in order to deliver better-quality provision. But, particularly in primary schools, which are what we are really discussing here, and where the most crucial foundations are laid, impacting on all subsequent learning, small schools are well equipped to deliver what children need—precisely because they are small. I have seen HM Inspectors' reports on this, and furthermore the quality of provision in small schools has been demonstrated by an objective study of HMI reports on primary schools in England and. Wales, to be published shortly.
When children, teachers and parents know each other well and the links in the community are automatic, it is so much easier to identify and meet children's needs; much easier for children to feel valued and to feel that they have a place; much easier to cope with the problems when they arise; much easier to bring about truly inclusive learning, when real potential can he realised. I have seen so many small rural schools where the standard of work has amazed me, where French and music are integral to the curriculum, where computer literacy seems quite natural, and where the needs of the very bright and those with learning difficulties are equally well met.
In other words, these are places where not only is closure unacceptable, but where their potential should be recognised as exemplars of what all schools should be aiming for. I hope that the Government can demonstrate their determination, unequivocally and practically, to give them this recognition.
8.9 p.m.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater of Butterstone, for introducing this important issue for consideration by your Lordships' House. My contribution to the debate will be short, uncomplicated and straightforward.
It seems to me that there are two features which must be simultaneously addressed when assessing the implications for rural communities of the closure of their local school. One is the well-being of the rural community and the second is the education of the children. On the well-being of the community, maintaining the local school is but one aspect, albeit an important one. The quality of life of those living in a rural community depends on the establishment cif a comprehensive, industrial, social and economic

761
infrastructure, which includes adequate healthcare, transport provision and employment opportunities, as well as educational facilities.
We must always ensure that those who live in rural communities are an inclusive part of our national development and are in no way excluded from the advantages of urban advancement; and that they are viewed with the same concern and attention as those who live in urban areas. That is absolutely essential for maintaining and improving a one-nation society, a society which ensures that all our people share in the advantages of progress at the same time as preserving and increasing the quality of life of our nation as a whole.
In regard to local schools in rural areas I say: yes, we must be mindful of the adverse impact that such school closures will have on local communities. We must be conscious of the integral nature and advantage that such schools have for the community, but we must also ensure that our focus is not so narrow as to concentrate wholly on the interests of communities so that we lose sight of and perhaps neglect the educational interests of the children.
By that I mean that it is not only necessary to retain rural schools wherever possible, but also to ensure that the educational standards are maintained and improved so that those receiving an education in rural schools are not at a disadvantage compared with those taught in urban areas. If that were the case, the retaining of schools in rural areas would be of no service whatsoever to the community or to the children.
I hasten to add that I am no longer fearful that that will be the case. The approach and the action taken by this Government give me confidence that they have rural communities and education in the forefront of their thinking.
The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater of Butterstone, referred to an announcement by the then education Minister, Stephen Byers, in March 1998. I shall quote from a different passage in the same announcement:
"Closing a village school can be a death-blow to the community. We have lost 450 of them since 1983".
I pause there to repeat that statement:
"We have lost 450 of them since 1983".
That was in 1998. The Minister went on to say:
"Today, I am announcing tough new protection for village schools to end this stream of closures".
The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, referred to the fact that any proposal to close those schools would go before the Secretary of State. At that time the Secretary of State said:
"Shire counties will have an extra £447 million in 1999 to boost standards".
That demonstrates to me that the Government are extremely concerned about education and schools in rural areas.
Perhaps more up to date is the announcement made in February of this year by both the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions when they
762
produced a discussion document, Rural England. That document is comprehensive. It responds to change and it believes in strong communities—a fair and inclusive society. The document talks about working in partnership and wants a debate on issues in rural areas such as transport, education, health, social services, housing, local business, childcare, community safety, access to justice, utilities, the provision of services, information and communication technology and access to culture. I believe that reflects the Government's plan for a comprehensive, industrial, social and economic structure for rural areas.
That clearly demonstrates the will of the Labour Government to represent all the people of this nation. I believe that the people of this nation know that and applaud the Government accordingly. I hope that this House will do exactly the same this evening.
8.14 p.m.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, I wish I could share the optimism of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity. I want to express my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater of Butterstone, for initiating this important debate. I endorse much of what she described so eloquently as the distressing results of the closure of our rural village schools.
The issue of closing rural schools is difficult and complicated. So much depends on individual circumstances. Clearly, it is not feasible or sensible to keep open tiny primary schools for a few pupils who may span the full age range. How can one teacher cope with a class of 30 children spanning all age groups between seven and 11 in the same room?
Australia solves the problem with radio schools. Perhaps they are a possibility. I wonder whether the Government have considered them. Perhaps at some time in the future the present Government's plan for launching a network of learning centres in the inner cities with modern ICT facilities—information and communication technology facilities, as I have to keep reminding myself—could be expanded into rural areas. At the moment the level of ICT needed is far too sophisticated and expensive and could not be justified on economic grounds. Virtual classrooms that enable teachers in one school to teach interactively pupils in another school that could be miles away require "real" time which, in its turn, requires broad-band technology. Doubtless that will happen one day, but not yet.
The Government have produced a cheerful Green Paper entitled Excellence in Cities. It clearly expresses the most laudable aims for special programmes, networking, learning centres in inner cities, radical expansion of specialist and what they call beacon school programmes, and extended opportunities for gifted and talented children in the inner cities.
As I said, that is a laudable priority, but it is directed explicitly at the inner cities. What are the Government planning for rural schools? Their needs are different but just as pressing. The trouble is that many such schools, often rather isolated, are invisible. The need for attention to rural schools cannot be separated from the need for

763
transport in rural areas, not only school buses, but buses to local shops, medical health centres and other amenities.
Cornwall, for instance, is fast becoming a crowded tourist centre, catering for its summer visitors but turning its back on its local residents. The principal at Landau Forte College, where I chair the board of governors, tells me that recently he interviewed a teacher from Cornwall for a teaching post at the college, which is in the former industrial centre of Derby. He asked her why on earth she wanted to move from such a beautiful county as Cornwall to the east Midlands. She replied: "From June to September I cannot move because of the crowds of tourists and from September to June the place is empty and dead". What an environment for the children, the teachers and the families who live year-round in the area.
The problem for rural communities is not just one of school closures. The Government must recognise what a dismal future lies ahead for the elderly, the poor and those tied to the land who cannot escape while all the families who can move to the inner cities, to the marvellous schools about which we are hearing, abandon the rural area in which they were brought up. It is a frightening prospect. I should like to hear what the Government's strategy is. What measures are they going to take not only to save our rural schools but also our rural communities?
I wonder how interested in rural schools are those on the Government Benches when I count only three noble Lords in their place on the Front Bench opposite.
8.21 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater of Butterstone, for enabling us to have this debate on an issue which is of great concern to so many in our rural communities.
As the new chairman of the General Synod's Board of Education, I am conscious that the Church of England has been and continues to be a provider of many village schools. That is a responsibility which we take seriously. In my diocese, around 60 of our 190 church schools are village schools, and many, I am pleased to say, offer a quality of education which an increasing number of parents living in urban areas choose for their children. Village schools are, without doubt, an indicator of the living village community and are clearly seen as such.
On these Benches we believe that confession is good for the soul. I must therefore admit that when I was diocesan director of education in the diocese of Durham in the 1970s I was involved with the Durham county LEA in the closure of a number of small rural schools. My criterion was then and is now a concern first and foremost with the educational viability of such schools and the ability of the school and its staff to deliver a rounded curriculum for the education of the whole child.
I do not regret most of those closures on such grounds. But I must admit also that on almost every occasion at the public meeting following the announcement of the intention to close the school, the charge was made that the LEA and Church were taking
764
the heart out of village life, even if the school was rarely used outside school hours. I want to suggest that when it reaches that stage and the proposal to close has been announced, it is too late. The rural communities whose schools remain need to be thinking of the value and the worth of their school to the community in the wider sense while that school is still functioning.
For example, the parish council, realising the higher unit cost per pupil in a village school--this has to be recognised—should be pressing governors, LEAs and Church authorities to see that the educational resources are being provided in a realistic way; suggesting appropriate clustering of village schools; arid sharing head teachers, staff, specialist staff and facilities with neighbouring village schools. There are a host of ways, when creative minds are applied, which would help to reduce the cost of rural schools but also increase the educational advantages and opportunities offered to the children.
However, that does not address the Question posed by the noble Baroness this evening. In a recent note on my vision for the countryside, which I wrote for the first meeting of the new Countryside Agency of which I am a member and must therefore declare an interest, I suggested that village communities should deliberately make their schools, with their often under-used school premises, a key focal point for village life. This is not easy, but with vision, will and determination it car be made to happen. There are examples of this, as the former RDC Report on Joint Provision of Rural Services shows; for example, at the James Bradfield Community Primary School at Stoke Ferry in Norfolk the hall serves as school hall, community centre, theatre and Methodist church and the school houses the doctor's twice-weekly surgery. The potential for such uses is enormous, not least when the question of social exclusion in rural areas is seriously addressed. The school complex could house post office, IT centre, information office and library, as well as pre-school and adult education opportunities, to say nothing of sporting facilities.
If that were to happen—it would be an excellent example of joined-up thinking on the use of precious resources in the service of rural communities—we would not be talking about the closure of rural schools; we would be extending them. I should like to see parish councils, Churches and voluntary groups working with the Government and the LEA to promote this. It needs the Department for Education and Employment, the DETR and other departments to work together at the very least to promote some pilot schemes, possibly under the guidance of the new Countryside Agency.
I do not believe this begs the question posed by our debate; it is one answer to it. But neither do I underestimate the problems which must be faced if it is to happen. Legislation about the safety and protection of children means that other activities on school premises must be well planned and managed. There are issues of security—sadly, a major concern with children in our times—and lack of storage, and unwelcome noise from other activities can be a problem. I know from personal experience that shared use is not: an easy option. However, none of the problems is insuperable if we believe that rural schools are an essential component

765
for a living and lively village life. I am going to do all in my power to see that our Church schools, based as they are in communities, use their premises to the full in the interests of those communities. I hope that the Minister will promise government encouragement and some resources for such initiatives, so that most remaining rural schools continue to serve and enhance their village communities.
8.27 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, on introducing this debate on a topic of such importance both to our education system and also to the well-being of rural communities.
I offer my brief contribution as someone who has consistently supported the principles of diversity and choice in education and who, in times past, before I spent so much of my time abroad on humanitarian aid work, often spoke in your Lordships' House on behalf of the rights of parents to have access to the schools which were best able to give their children the type of education they wished them to receive.
One of the categories of school which was frequently involved in those debates was local village schools which were often under the threat of closure on grounds of size, alleged financial inefficiency and concern as to whether they could offer an adequately broad-based curriculum.
In defending the right of those schools to survive, I frequently found that size was an irrelevant criterion. Small rural schools were often cost-effective, especially in the context of costs which would be incurred by closure and the relocation of pupils to urban or other rural schools. Such schools frequently succeeded in providing excellent, imaginative and high quality curricula many epitomised the spirit that small is beautiful. I will never forget visiting Hartland, a small school in North Devon, and being profoundly impressed by the quality of relationships in the school, the relationship with the local community and the breadth of curricula taught in highly imaginative and effective ways.
Parents are often passionately committed to keeping their local school open. The advantages to them and to the local community include the avoidance of the hassle for them and their children of travel to more distant schools; teaching staff who are more closely in touch with local families in the community; and accessibility which encourages more parental involvement in school activities, as well as the communal use of facilities provided by such schools so well outlined by the right reverend Prelate. Such schools continue to operate to the benefit of parents, children and the community.
The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, emphasised that the standards achieved in small rural schools are often higher than in other schools. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who expressed concern about whether such schools can maintain academic standards, that research undertaken by my colleague Dr. John Marks showed that in 1997 children aged seven in such schools
766
were three to four months ahead of pupils at schools in the rest of the country in respect of national curriculum tests for reading, spelling and mathematics. In 1998, the difference for children at age 11 were smaller. They were about two to three months ahead, as measured by national curriculum tests for English and mathematics. On average, 6 per cent more pupils in such schools reached the Government's target for 11 year-olds at level 4 in mathematics, compared with pupils at other types of schools in the rest of the country. There should be no concern about the ability of small rural schools to meet high academic standards.
In countries such as the Netherlands, if parents want to establish or preserve a local school, the Government are obliged to fund it, even if there are only 50 children—subject to adequate educational standards. That legal requirement demonstrates an understanding and commitment to the wishes and rights of parents that is highly commendable and accords with the European Convention on Human Rights, which enshrines the fundamental principle that parents should be provided with education for their children consistent with their fundamental values and principles.
Many parents in rural communities passionately wish to retain their local village school. They do not want their children to travel to towns for their education or for school links with communities to be severed. Will the Minister give an assurance that the rights of parents in this country will be similarly respected and that good rural schools will be preserved if parents want them? In so doing, the Government would demonstrate their commitment to the principles of diversity of provision, freedom of choice and accountability to local communities. That would have the double benefit of being both principled and popular. What more could the Government ask than a positive political philosophy and policy that simultaneously demonstrates respect for the rights of parents, children and local communities?
8.32 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I follow my noble friend Lady Linklater in reminiscing about my time at school when I was three. I used to cross the road to a little primary school in Llangollen. If one goes there today, one finds that school trips are made there, but they are not made because I attended that school. The children are dressed in period costume and a teacher sits at a high desk wearing a winged collar and frock coat and holding a cane. He terrifies today's children with teaching from the past and ties the Welsh knot around their neck—which in the old days used to forbid children from speaking in Welsh. That is not something I had to undertake. My recollection of that school is that I was put to sleep in the afternoon and had to take home my dog, an Airedale named Towser, when he visited to see what I was up to.
That rural school gave me a momentum that followed into the larger urban schools that I later attended. After the Butler Act in 1944, there came into being the philosophy that larger was better—exemplified by the Gittins Report in 1967 on primary education in Wales and the concurrent Plowden Report in England, which

767
suggested that any school having fewer than 50 pupils was unable to give the quality and range of educational facilities necessary.
That philosophy has been proved wrong. Rural schools are a success. They should be more confident about their success and broadcast it to the world. Their success is demonstrated by the reports of school inspectors in Wales. Parents, staff, governors and pupils know each other well. For that reason, the behaviour of the children and school discipline are always excellent. Attendance figures are always good. Parents say that their children love going to school. That atmosphere is good for learning. It fosters happy and successful children who do well at secondary level because they are self-reliant and down-to-earth. I was most interested to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, refer to 1997 and 1998 reports confirming that. That is certainly the experience in Wales.
There are certainly budgetary limitations but they can be overcome by forming clusters with similar schools in the area to pool expertise, share the cost of educational trips, form joint sports teams and even establish a joint governing body. Books and other resources can also be shared. New information technology should be intelligently used among rural schools. That does not necessarily require extra cash but just enthusiasm and organisation—the creative minds to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn referred.
In most rural communities in Wales, the whole community is made to feel involved. Local people are invited to the school to talk about the history and the way of life of their community. Everyone, regardless of whether they have children at the school, is pressed to attend its concerts, carol services, sports days and fairs. The parent teacher association is a major focus of social activity. If one takes away the school, the village quickly changes from a living community to just another dormitory suburb or, even worse, a cluster of holiday cottages and second homes where the Welsh language and culture die and nothing moves for half the year—as the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke said.
Mentor Powys, which is the rural community development organisation delivering the European Leader II programme in Powys, commented to me today:
"Small community schools are a key component of rural communities and often play an important role in keeping young families and attracting younger families to live in rural areas, which contributes to the de-acceleration of the general ageing trend that is characteristic of rural populations. Small community schools, particularly in Welsh-speaking areas, are vital in preserving the Welsh. language and culture, and many parents fear that such a cultural identity may be lost if a school closes and children have to travel to urban schools".
The closure of a village school must never be done simply to save money on the education budget. I was happy to hear the assurances given to the noble Lord, Lord. Davies, in referring to the statement of Stephen Byers, the Minister in another place, that a tough policy is to be adopted and that no school will be closed without the Secretary of State being involved. When that happens, the Secretary of State must take into account the impact and social costs of closure not just on the school itself but the whole community.
768
In Wales, we are of course concerned about the Welsh language. There is a strong case for having rural schools where, in one instance, Welsh is the main language and, in another instance and at a nearby school, English is the first language and children are taught accordingly. Those matters are being passed to the new Welsh Assembly and I sincerely trust—indeed, I know—that the national assembly will fulfil its responsibilities to rural schools.
8.39 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, for initiating this excellent debate—although for me it is somewhat painful. However, I will take courage, follow the advice of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn and confess my sins.
One of the hardest decisions that I had to take during my time as a county councillor was when we closed the village primary school. I had to defend the decision in a debate on television. I have to say to your Lordships that I was neither convincing, nor convinced, that: I was right. As noble Lords have said, closing a village school can devastate a community. Not only are local children brought up together, but parents are brought together by the school. It is not just the nativity play, the carol concert, the school fete or the jumble sale; nor is it just the work of the PTA which adds vibrance to village life. Often the cement of a small community is the chatter and the concern which are swapped at the school gates. These are the informal information systems which hold a community together and which often obviate the need for social services or visits from the doctor or the district nurse.
However, as councillors we had a problem. We received advice from officials about critical mass, about the introversion of a tiny school community, about the lack of competition and the absence of proper team games, all of which had some validity. But our problem in the 1970s was that, as councillors, we had no measurement as to whether the school was good or bad. Now we do have simple league tables to measure success. The whole village or community and the local authority can benefit from this knowledge.
Quite simply, parents do have more information on which to base choice as to whether to send their children to a good school or a poor one, whether to support their village at all costs or take their children to a better school elsewhere. In my experience they generally choose the school—the one that they perceive to be the best. We have liberated parents by giving them more freedom to choose. Most have transport and few are prepared to have their children handicapped for life by a poor education. Indeed, we have only to look at the league tables to see that there is often little correlation between size and success, new buildings or location, as was emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater of Butterstone, and my noble friend Lady Cox.
Conscientious parents will seek out the best schools for their children. They know that good schools, just as good village shops, good village churches, good sports clubs, scout troops, dramatic societies, pubs and post offices thrive if they are well led or managed.

769
We surely all know of village schools bursting at the seams and those which are hopeless, full of moans and their bad luck, or how they are misjudged. That is tough. Indeed, the world is tough. Parents live in a tough world and they know that their children will probably live in an even tougher one where competition is even more forceful than it is today.
Parents are not fooled by the caring, sharing politically correct "everybody is a winner", "the bright must wait for the thick"—in other words, the navel gazing of yesterday's teachers. The best schools provide the best education for everyone. Each child should be motivated to reach his or her potential. But that depends on leadership. I should like to ask the Minister where the Government are in their drive for performance-related pay. Do they believe that the best should be rewarded? That means not just being labelled a beacon school; it means real money in real pay packets, salaries and bonuses. Do the Government believe that governors should have more freedom to juggle the finances in order to secure the best head teachers by paying a bit more? Is there a case for weighting pay not only in terms of inner cities but also in terms of rurality? As my noble friend Lady Brigstocke said, the challenges, although different, are just as great in rural areas.
However, leadership should not come from full-time staff alone. It should also come from the governors. Does the Minister think that the calibre of governors is sufficient to raise standards in schools by retaining their personal independence and determination that their school will be top of the premier league? Chairmen of governors should be resolute in their quest to find the exceptional head teacher who attracts the best staff for a school, a school to which children will flock and which will enable the village to thrive. Does the Minister believe that we have the best system for appointing and electing governors? Should there be more scrutiny as to their ability and leadership skills? Many, I know, are outstanding in their commitment. I should like particularly to cite Church schools in that respect. But their responsibility is very great and it is important that they should demonstrate strong leadership skills and not just be a poodle of the LEA or the teaching staff, particularly the head.
People deserve excellence but, sadly, no government can deliver without a determined community. As an "Archers" addict, I know that the Minister will be aware of that fact. If I had to make a decision today to close a school, whether it had a handful of children or hundreds, I hope that I would close only a very poor one. I would recognise a good one because parents would choose to send their children there and the school would be one of those in the premier league.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, this debate is timely in that the effect of the class size rules for key stage 1 are beginning to be felt in our primary schools across the country. If government money is forthcoming for their continued implementation, the effects will inevitably
770
work their way up the school system. In theory, this should mean smaller classes throughout the primary sector, and more schools to cope with total school population. In practice, I believe that politicians and local government officers, the country over, will attempt to rationalise and move pupils to the point of delivery, rather than maintaining schools where they are needed.
Rural schools are at the centre of their communities, as many noble Lords have said. They are the place where children start their education, gain their knowledge and often move on to their larger urban secondary counterparts. But village schools are more than just simply a place of learning. As other speakers have said, they are the focal point. They are the daily meeting place for families, but mainly for the wives and mothers whose knowledge of the community is brought to bear on combating the problems of isolation, illness, bereavement and deprivation.
Much of the information that is exchanged within the confines of the rural school is strictly local, but here, too, lifts to the hospital, the doctor's surgery or the nearest town are arranged. Here alerts concerning those in need are given, invitations to parties or celebrations are handed out and activities involving the whole community are planned. Lifelong friends are made and living centres retained.
Rural schools are under threat. Even as we debate this issue there are people countrywide who are investigating the possibilities of closing yet more rural schools and bussing children into the towns. Further, if rural schools are closed the counties have to bear increased school transport charges. In October 1998, the county council network produced a briefing paper on home-to-school transport costs. The work was originally commissioned by Norfolk and then extended to other sparsely populated areas of the country. It was intended to relate the cost of home-school transport to the allowance for population density in the standard spending assessments. In the case of Norfolk, it had been discovered that the allowance did not fully compensate for all the effects of sparsity.
Population sparsity is calculated in a manner totally impenetrable to the normal mortal but yielding a table of sparsity factors which run from 0.83 for North Yorkshire, 0.70 in Lincolnshire, 0.33 for Northamptonshire, 0.31 for my own Leicestershire down to 0.16 for Surrey. Having applied these factors, the costs of primary school transport for 1998–99 for primary school children were £58.84 per child for North Yorkshire, £40.90 for Lincolnshire, £39.27 for Northamptonshire and £13.13 for Leicestershire. In Suffolk it was £85.18, but in Staffordshire it was £5.15. In other words, the cost of home-school transport varies widely and is not fully compensated for in the SSA.
At present, buses travel the rural bus lanes stopping to pick up sets of one or two children. They travel for miles, taking children from rural villages to urban schools. In thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, for making this debate possible, I nearly hesitated to do so because I thought that she was in fact stealing my thunder. Will the Minister tell us why things are arranged in this order—for example, taking children

771
from rural areas to urban schools when it would be in fact infinitely wiser, as I have suggested, on the transport side alone to do things in reverse? In other words, we should give children from a small area of town the opportunity to go to school in the country. The cost of transport would be lower than they are now and indeed the task of rationalising places in town would be made much easier by the fact that schools there are so close together.
Rural schools face many additional costs in providing facilities and specialisms to make them available for children. Traditional teaching of skills such as reading, writing and arithmetic are key, but modern technology can play a very real part.
I have touched on only two issues: the cost of providing schools for children living in rural areas and the importance I place on retaining rural schools not only as the centre of learning but in fact as the very centre of community life, as was so well referred to by earlier speakers. I have briefly touched on the need for modern technology and the way in which that can help rural schools: the shared resources, the clustering of schools.
The Government have stated that they believe in rural sustainability, but to make this possible money and ideas must: be forthcoming. If they fail to provide these, we will end up with many of our young people being sent out of their villages. The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, asked: what are the implications for our rural communities? The answers are many. The question is: have the Government the will to deliver or will this be yet another question of hopes raised but answers not provided?
8.51 p.m.
The Earl of Stair: My Lords, I join with others from all sides of the House in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, for asking this extremely relevant Question tonight. With the new Scottish Parliament and the Assembly in Wales about to start, the majority of the regions in this country covered by this Question will come under the control of other bodies. This matter, however, is still relevant in considering United Kingdom education matters as a whole,.
It is very easy to consider the cost of individual schools with vacancies and then to close one, combine two and thus save money. However, in a rural area, unlike an urban one, the school also provides, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said, a vital focal point in the community. In the first place, the school not only provides education for primary and secondary school children but also serves social and recreational purposes. Secondly, the school provides a link for adults easily to maintain contact with their children's primary education.
The Government have repeatedly expressed a wish not to abandon rural communities by improving transport links and encouraging business development and retraining. However, if a real effort to maintain effective schools in rural areas is not made, then parents who are not directly linked to agricultural or forestry employment will be forced out of the community in
772
order to be within reach of the schools they need for their children. The knock-on effect of this will undoubtedly affect other small businesses and thus cause depopulation of the countryside.
In Scotland there must now be ministerial approval before a council may close certain schools if the next nearest school is five miles away if it is a primary school or 10 miles away if it is a secondary school. The second reason would be if the school is denominational; and, thirdly, if the school is operating at greater than 80 per cent capacity.
The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, referred to a statement made in Scotland by a Scottish Office Minister who said that schools should be closed only for exceptional educational reasons and not for only financial reasons. It should not be necessary for a Minister to be consulted at all. The Government have been heard to make bold statements such as "education, education, education" and to state how there should be computers in every classroom. Both these aims are commendable but if in order to achieve this goal children have to travel long distances at both ends of the day, I suggest that this is counter-productive. The first point is that primary school children would have to travel longer distances in possibly unsupervised buses, possibly even without seatbelts correctly fitted. Secondly, older children would be travelling at times when they should be studying. Both problems are compounded in winter, with the long nights and often unpleasant weather.
Another favourite cry from all governments is for smaller classes. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said, it is often proved that the smaller rural schools and the additional teaching attention produce better results than the larger urban schools. With advancing technology there is no reason why there should not be computers in classrooms in rural schools linked to the Internet or even linked to other schools. Teachers should cost almost the same whether they are in urban or rural schools.
Finally, I hope the Minister will agree with me that: if the policies for maintaining the rural environment. developing small businesses, retraining for rural employment and improving transport are to be worth while, rural areas need education, education, education within the community, without the children having to travel for it.
8.55 p.m.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater of Butterstone, for introducing this very interesting debate. The rural community in many parts of the country has, sadly, declined but in some parts it is managing to keep going very well. The successful village will have a good strong fanning community, a good rural shop, a church, a school and a good pub. Unfortunately, many rural communities do not have these. Fanners need children in order to keep on farming. Children need education, and education brings about community spirit and pride in the local community. Communities need a focal point and that focal point is the school, which often doubles as the community centre, the sports centre and, indeed, the everything centre of the village.

773
My local village rejoices in the name of Moscow. The school is known as the Kremlin, and I must admit that it is extremely popular, despite its name. The village has nearly quadrupled in size in the space of the past 10 years, thanks to good governance, some extremely good teaching and a very able headmaster.
The problem with rural schools is that the pupil roll fluctuates with the age of the community. As the community ages, so the school's roll diminishes; and then the young get older and breed, and fill up the school again. There is an inevitability about a school in the rural community and that must be so if the communities are to survive. So it must be wrong when schools are closed on purely commercial grounds. Last year two schools in Perthshire were closed to save £60,000 per annum, despite having 33 pupils between them. That sum of £60,000 is actually less than the local authority's director of education receives as his annual salary. It does seem a little peculiar. This happened despite the fact that Mr. Brian Wilson, the education minister at the Scottish Office, stated quite clearly that schools should only be closed with educational, not commercial, justification.
The decision in that case certainly seemed to be very much based on commercial grounds, but the blame was placed on educational reasons. This must be a loophole in the diktat that has been laid down by the Scottish Office, and it must surely be looked at. In many cases, closure has meant long journeys along single-track roads, with the potential danger of a head-on smash round the bend. It has meant long journeys by fishing boats off islands which no longer have any schools whatsoever. It means that pupils have to travel to school in taxis or in buses, all costing extra money, whether it is in winter in snow and ice and in the dark. And all for what?—the saving of a few pounds in the huge realm of the educational budget.
It is, of course, extremely hard to sustain any practical argument for keeping a school open when its roll amounts to only one child. However, country schools have been a part of the education system for generations. It cannot be beyond the wit of our modern-day councillors and education authorities to work out that if schools are closed the local community does not have much of a future.
Currently, councils in Scotland can close primary schools without government permission if children do not have to travel more than five miles as a result of that closure. However, all closures should have to go to the education ministry, I would have thought, as they have to in England.
The survival of their primary schools really matters to rural people. They argue that that is why they pay their taxes. The Government say that they care for the rural community; that their raison d'être is education. Now they have the chance to prove it. Small local primary schools have a good reputation and an honourable record; they are free in the main from the social problems that all too often blight large schools in the middle of urban areas. Parents feel safe with their children in the bosom of the community. Children who
774
are bussed away never feel the same sense of belonging as those who have been educated in their local area, and they tend very often to drift away from that area. That in turn brings about the death knell for the community. Too many small communities—and not only the remote ones—have died as a result.
We cannot go on ignoring the situation. Many islands are now all but depopulated of people of child-bearing age because there are no schools to encourage new blood to come in or old-family blood to return. Good village schools with good, enthusiastic teachers give children the best possible start. I have been led to believe that a child learns 75 per cent of what he will learn in life before he is eight years old. We should give children a chance at the start by giving them a good local school—a school that is not part of the urban jungle—where they can learn respect for others; where they can learn respect for property, both theirs and other people's; and where they can learn about self-respect, all of which is sadly lacking in our modern society. However, because of the small size of the school and the undeniable self-interest of the community, there is a chance for children to acquire those attributes at their local school in the middle of their local rural economy.
9.1 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, in common with all the other speakers I thank my noble friend Lady Linklater for initiating an excellent, all too brief—if rather one-sided—debate. Perhaps I can thank her also for leaving it until the very last moment to give me what is likely to be my last opportunity to talk about Scottish and Welsh schools, although the problem we are discussing is common to all the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. It is clear that it is not a Scottish or Welsh debate, but a rural debate.
The right reverend Prelate started something of a trend for personal confession in the debate. I must make a personal confession: my only experience of small rural schools lies in my fiancée's teaching practice some years ago in rural Kent. I suspect that that does not really qualify for tonight's debate—although I must say that I learnt a great deal during that period. However, I am very pleased to say that in 13 years as the leader of a local education authority I have had no experience of closing schools of any size but I have had experience of building and opening three new schools. I feel peculiarly unqualified for the debate tonight, except that I have learnt a great deal during my time as my party's education spokesperson and in conversation and discussion with many colleagues who have considerable experience of rural education.
Much has been said about the effects that the closure of small rural schools—usually primary schools, as others have said—on rural communities. I wish briefly to summarise some of the effects, some of which have been mentioned; others less so. The first effect is that of the necessity for much greater travelling. That entails greater transport costs for the LEA and often for the parents; it means less walking to school for the children, with the consequent effects on the health of the children and the health and environment of the community; and

775
it means usually a longer day for the child. But it is not a longer day learning and enjoying school; quite the opposite. Quite often it means that the child will have a lower level of participation in after school activity simply because of transport requirements and all too often it means correspondingly less participation by parents in school activities because of similar distance and travelling problems. As many noble Lords have said, its implications go far wider than just for the child and the parent, important though they are; it has implications for the community as a whole—the loss of an extremely valuable community.
The closure of a school can affect, if you like, the profile of the village. It is arguable how long parents with children will remain in a village that loses its school. It is unarguable that very few, if any, parents with small children will move to a village that does not have its own school. That has an obvious effect over time—and not a very long time.
It has been clear in the debate—it is true in the country generally—that there is now a general consensus in favour of rural schools. Many noble Lords have asked—I will ask again—what are the Government doing to back their fine words, words that I accept in the good faith in which I am sure they were intended. The Minister said in his much quoted speech—the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, rightly quoted it—that all proposed rural school closures would be referred to the Secretary of State. I am interested to know how many have been referred to the Secretary of State since that time. I am even more interested to know what decisions have been taken on them. I am interested to know what will be the role of the Secretary of State in England now that we have school organisation committees—which we and others opposed when the matter was discussed in your Lordships' House—and adjudicators, who have some role to play in this.
The Liberal Democrat view is that if we must consider proposed school closures, they should be judged on three criteria. First, the quality of education provision for children. It has already been said that the old assumption that small schools are unable to provide the necessary breadth and quality of education is being increasingly challenged and increasingly there is evidence to show that all too often the opposite is the case. Of course there are bad rural schools, but I suspect there are a lot more bad urban schools. Very often that is not because of size but because of leadership and quality of teaching.
Secondly, the social and community implications of closure, which have been the subject of much debate today. Thirdly—inevitably in a time of much-pressurised budgets— the financial implications. I question whether closing a school is necessarily a financial saving. I have referred already to increased transport costs; there will probably be increased costs in the receiving schools, not to mention the more important but harder to quantify costs to the community as a whole.
A much more imaginative approach is now needed to review the importance of schools in the local community as a whole. I hesitate to use a phrase that I have come
776
to loathe but this Government love, but what is needed is "joined-up" thinking. The approach should not be the narrow one of the LEA budget. The matter should be viewed holistically, for the benefit of the whole community.
I am convinced that if there is the political will, a way will be found. A way is being found in many rural communities. I particularly welcome the clear and firm commitment from the right reverend Prelate on behalf of the Anglican Church. I hope and expect that we shall shortly receive an equally clear and firm commitment from the Government to support rural schools.
9.8 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, not only for introducing the debate but for her excellent opening remarks. It has been an incredibly good debate.
I was born in urban Britain, and lived most of my adult life in rural Britain. Like a number of noble Lords, I was a member of my local county council, and for eight years was chairman of what was then known as the toddler and play group, which served six villages in my county.
In terms of impact on rural communities, schools are central. The implementation of the class size pledge is one such issue. It also has a specific impact on schools, Evidence is coming in which confirms our fears about the application of a well-meaning but rigid policy.
Schools, especially those in rural areas, would rather have the money to provide flexibility to ease pressure! on class size. The present policy ignores the distinction between a class with a single age group and one with a mixed age group. For example, a school in the countryside with 80 children will have three classes, a wide range of ability, and often three age ranges in each class. Instead of bussing one or two children to other schools simply because the magical figure of 30 has been exceeded, if the school had the money it could provide for those children. The pressures in junior schools are now increasing, and the choice of schools is being limited.
I cannot emphasise too strongly the importance of pre-schools, which are members of the Pre-School Learning Alliance, and of private nursery provision. All those involved are concerned. The Pre-School Learning Alliance in particular has reported its concerns about the closure of its schools.
In the debate in another place on 28th April, the Minister, Mrs. Hodge, said:
"We know that pre-schools are concerned about closures; we know that they blame closures for the loss of four-year-olds to maintained nurseries; we know that they are worried about the minimum wage. We do not agree with them about the figures relating to closures, but my officials are holding discussions with the Pre-School Learning Alliance to see how we can reconcile our two views". —[Official Report, Commons, 28/4/99; col.300.]
Does the department believe the Pre-School Learning Alliance? After all, those are the people who are out. in the community, while DfEE officials are cocooned in Whitehall.

777
Criticism of the voucher scheme will not impress. Yes, there were some problems with its introduction. But the Government could have modified the policy rather than making matters worse. Many more pre-schools and private nurseries are under threat as a result of present government policies. The Pre-School Learning Alliance claims that about another 1, 700 of its schools are at risk of closure.
In the same debate, Mrs. Hodge said, at col.300:
"In my view, it does not matter where children are; what is important is the experience that they undergo, the qualifications of those who work with them and the adult-child ratios involved".
Again, that statement totally ignores the issue of whether the placement is appropriate for the child.
The Government's own figures for January 1998 indicate that of four year-olds in local authority, private and/or voluntary sector provision, 60 per cent were in infant classes in maintained schools and a large proportion of those were not in nursery classes at all.
There are other issues that impact on rural communities. The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, spoke of the financial pressures on LEAs. There has been a shift of moneys this year from rural authorities to urban areas. The difficulty for many county councils covering rural Britain is the way in which the Government are launching—and re-launching-spending commitments which involve massive top-slicing of funds at national level. They have placed relentless bureaucratic burdens on local authorities which also must retain the funds to meet their additional legal obligations, all of which impact on school budgets.
I wish to put a question to the Minister. My local authority is agonising over this issue. It spends well above its SSA on education. When money is passed down from the Government and they say that every pound must be passed on to the schools, and when another Minister in a different department insists that an authority should spend more on social services, what is the authority to do? Is it free to make its own decisions? Or is there now an unofficial but rigidly applied ring fence?
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, referred to closure decisions. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, took up that important point. It will not be the Secretary of State who makes the decision. It will be organisation committees and the adjudicator. Whatever be the tougher conditions proposed by the Minister, I hope that the distinction between schools will be that advocated by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege; namely, that it should be based on the quality of the school, the education provided and its value to the community, but not its size.
9.14 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, for allowing us to have this debate. I also join with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in congratulating the noble Baroness on the forceful manner in which she made her points. To
778
bring in Scotland and Wales two-and-three-quarter hours before polling day commences deserves commendation.
Rather like the noble Lord, Lord Tope, I have been searching for an experience to place before the House to qualify me to speak on this very important issue. Apart from being an addict of "The Archers" (which is made in Birmingham), as the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, suggested, I attended a rural primary school for two years and I do not believe that it did me any harm. I learnt from it the value of small rural schools both in educational terms and in terms of their contributions to communities. Tonight we have heard clearly and forcefully of the serious impact that the closure of a village school can have on its community. The village loses a vital focus; children spend longer travelling to other schools; and young families come under pressure to move elsewhere. School closures can have a knock-on effect on other services such as village shops and begin a spiral of decline.
Apart from the confession of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn—I suspect that many of us involved in large bureaucracies over the past 20 or 30 years should confess to certain inadequacies in dealing with the issue of "small" versus "big"-I was struck by his comments about the closeness of parish priests to their own local communities, in particular, his advice to schools to anticipate the future and focus on their contribution to their village communities.
We take this matter very seriously indeed. For that reason, in February 1998 we announced that all proposals to close rural schools would be called in for decision by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and that the presumption would be against closure. We did not say that no rural school would ever close, because all such proposals must be considered on their individual merits.
Noble Lords will also be aware that later this year we shall move to local decision-making. The statutory guidance to school organisation committees and adjudicators will ensure that the presumption against closing a rural school is maintained. The precise effects of the closure of a school will, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, said, differ according to the circumstances of the community. In some cases there may be a perfectly acceptable alternative school within easy reach that offers additional facilities and improves the quality of education on offer. In such circumstances, particularly if numbers in the village school are very small and unlikely to increase, everyone may agree that closure makes sense. On the other hand, if there is no alternative school within reasonable travelling distance and the school is an important community resource that would no longer be available, closure would have a much more serious effect. Those factors would need to be taken into account when considering the proposals.
At this stage it may be helpful if I review the procedures involved in closing a school. First, no such proposals originate with the Department for Education and Employment. For obvious reasons, they rarely originate with the governing body of the school in question. Almost always they are brought forward by

779
the local education authority. Clearly, this is something that local education authorities do not take lightly. They know that such proposals are not popular but they have a duty to deliver education in a cost-effective manner. They are aware that to maintain empty school places diverts resources away from areas where they could be put to good use. They must keep the balance of provision in their areas under review.
In order to publish proposals to close a school an LEA must first consult in the area and take into account any points made by those consulted. If it decides to go ahead with proposals, it must publish them by a notice in the local newspaper and by notices at the entrance to the school and in at least one other conspicuous place in the area. The notice must set out the procedure for making objections to the proposals and in addition state clearly what is intended. Any objections will then be taken into account by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in arriving at a decision on the proposals. In addition, the advice of Her Majesty's inspectors will always be sought.
Although, as I have said, each case is considered on its individual merits, it may be helpful if I rehearse briefly the main factors which would normally be considered relevant to the decision. These are the overall supply of school places in the area and the likely future demand for places; the standard of the school that is proposed for closure and the standards of the alternative schools; the accessibility of alternative schools; the overall effect of closure on the local community; the relative costs of the possible options; and the views of parents and other interested parties. I believe that noble Lords will see that in considering proposals the effects on the quality of education and on the local community are kept very much in mind.
Both the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Coity raised the issue of the quality of education provided in small rural schools. There are effective and weak schools in rural areas as elsewhere. Ofsted inspections show that there are many effective small schools and that they do not disadvantage pupils in terms of the curriculum or standards. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, reinforced that point. The good, effective small school will have good management and teaching. It is also likely to be characterised by a number of other factors including supportive parents and the community, the effective use of funds, good accommodation and resourcing, a supportive LEA and other networks. It is significant that seven rural schools were considered by Ofsted to be in the top 1 per cent nationally of schools inspected during 1997–98. From that one can conclude that although small schools sometimes find it more difficult to offer the range of activities available in larger schools, there are many examples of small rural schools which, with imagination and flair, offer a whole and wide range of experience. I agreed very much with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on that point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, asked about the support that can be given to small schools, as did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. Of course, we recognise the burdens and resourcing
780
problems faced by small schools. I believe that there are imaginative approaches that can be adopted. Some small schools might wish to pursue the option of federating under a single head. That could enable schools to share services that are not cost effective for one small school such as financial support, facilities management, technical support and professional development.
Some schools might wish to go further towards the concept of a one-stop community service bringing together education and other public services on a single site. I agreed very much with the point made by the noble Baroness about the clusters of support. More generally, arrangements for co-operation and support between rural schools are to be much encouraged. The right reverend Prelate asked about their promotion and suggested ways in which school links with the local community could be improved. The department is working with the Community Education Development Centre to produce a toolkit to encourage and promote school links with the local community and community use of school premises. Clearly, making schools more accessible and welcoming to parents and other village residents is an important part of that process.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, and the noble Earl, Lord Stair, raised the issue of information technology in schools. I confirm that we are committed to bringing the superhighway to schools as quickly and cheaply as possible. Making services affordable is just as important as providing new money. We are pioneering arrangements with BT and the cable companies to wire up schools to the superhighway free of charge. Oftel and the telecoms industry have now reached agreement on how the commitment will be implemented. Schools will have a choice of free connections and technologies. On-line charges will be as low as £1 per pupil per year. That low-cost package is intended to cover rural schools as well as those in urban areas.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, raised the important issue of how the views of parents will be taken into account. The views of parents are one of the key factors that the Secretary of State would take into account in deciding any proposal to close a rural school. We would expect LEAs to pay careful attention to their views when considering possible changes. We are ensuring that parents will continue to be able to make their views known under the new local decision-making process through commenting on the school organisation plan, objecting to proposals, and by inclusion in the school organisation committee.
I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, that parents are in a position to use the information about the performance of schools which is more readily available.
The noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, spoke about the dangers of forcing pupils to chase school places elsewhere, and the pressures that might come from local education authorities. There is a balance to be weighed up by LEAs about the quality, educational value and overall contribution that a rural school makes to the community with the cost of maintaining places and the need to

781
ensure overall value for money. Getting the balance right is the major challenge for LEAs. But I am convinced that the announcement by my right honourable friend in February 1998 of a presumption against closure will provide a framework for greater stability in the future.
I have much sympathy with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, about the implications of rural school closures on transport issues. The LEAs should take full account of the long-term home-to-school transport implications of any proposals to close rural schools. The Government are also convinced that more can be done to integrate public and school bus services.
A number of points were raised about funding. It is an important issue. The Government increased education SSAs by £1.1 billion this year—5.7 per cent more than last year. There will be further increases of 6 per cent in each of the next two years. I understand the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, about the extent to which the funding issues of rural schools are recognised. I suspect that no formula in terms of funding public services will ever be right. We accept that there are valid objections to the current formula. We are reviewing the system over the next three years to find long-term solutions to the problems that we inherited.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, raised the issue of teachers' pay. The Green Paper, Meeting the Challenge of Change, sets out the Government's proposals for the better rewarding of teachers, among other things. It proposes a close link between pay and appraisal. We intend to move towards a system of pay that attracts and retains good quality teachers in all schools, rural as well as urban.
I take the point about the need to strengthen leadership through new headship qualifications. The Green Paper mentions that we are to set up a national college for school leadership. I also take the point about governing bodies. We wish to support governing bodies and to see LEAs support them through training and guidance.
782
I noted with great interest the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Stair, and the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, about the differences of approach in Scotland. Clearly in the future those are matters for the Scottish Parliament. However, notwithstanding the differences, we see an emerging consensus about the value of rural schools in all the countries concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked about the number of schools closed since the announcement by my right honourable friend Mr. Byers, in February 1998. Seven proposals to close rural schools have been decided since the announcement in February. For five of those proposals the LEA was able to make a convincing case that closure of the school was in the overall educational interest of pupils in the area; and the proposals were therefore approved. Two of the proposals have been rejected. I understand that there are four undecided cases. Perhaps I may say also that there is some evidence, since the announcement, that LEAs have been considering particularly carefully proposals to close rural schools and bringing them forward only when there was a particularly strong case.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, mentioned the issue of class sizes. Our policy of reducing class sizes is central to our drive to raise standards in schools. Where, under the Government's class size policy, an isolated school finds that it has 30 children in infant classes and another child seeking a place for whom there is no alternative school within a reasonable distance, a place will be made available and any necessary funding for additional teachers will also be made available.
In relation to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, regarding the comments made by the Pre-School Learning Alliance, at this stage I merely echo the words of my honourable friend Mrs. Hodge in another place that discussions are taking place to provide the best possible vision for early years through partnerships and local plans.
Time moves on. I hope that I have answered most of the points that have been raised. I hope that, through the relatively brief but extremely interesting debate, I have convinced noble Lords that the Government are indeed very much aware of the value of small rural schools and are doing all they can to support them.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before ten o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Rating (Valuation) Bill
Wednesday, 5th May 1999.
The Committee met at half-past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee stage. Except in one important respect, our proceedings will be exactly the same as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause; noble Lords will speak standing; all noble Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard. The one difference is that the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in the Grand Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at the Report stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
I should explain what will happen if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting. This Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division bells are rung and will then resume after 10 minutes, although the likelihood of such an event is small.
Title postponed.
Clause 1 [Rateable value]:
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No.1:
Page 1, line 8, after ("etc)") insert—
("(a) after the words "year to year" there shall be inserted the words ", taking into account the physical state or physical enjoyment of the hereditament and its locality and the mode and category of occupation and use of the hereditament, " and
(b)")
The noble Earl said: I rise to move the amendment but before doing so I gather that the noble Baroness the Minister has a statement which she wishes to make. Therefore, if I may, I will defer to her statement. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, not only for formally moving his first amendment but in particular for the constructive and helpful way in which he has addressed his concerns about the Bill, both in this House and in meetings outside it. I am grateful to him and to his advisers who have also attended for the assistance that they have given me in considering the Bill and to ensuring that we have it right.
I apologise for the fact that the statement I am about to make is slightly lengthy, but it is my understanding, following the meetings since Second Reading, that it
CWH 2
should be helpful. The first amendment, and the others which have been tabled for discussion today, are aimed at addressing the noble Earl's concerns I believe that those concerns are misplaced and I hope that we will persuade him of that.
Before I deal with the effect of his first amendment it may be helpful to the noble Earl, and more widely to the Committee, if I explain the background and purpose of the Bill. This, together with a number of examples, will I hope serve to illustrate why the Bill will not alter well-established current valuation practice and reassure noble Lords about its effects. I apologise in advance for length of the remarks.
It is a well-known and accepted principle of rating valuation that the hereditament to be valued is always the actual property for the occupation of which the occupier is to be rated, and that hereditament is to be valued as it in fact is— rebus sic stantibus. This was stated by Lord Justice Scott in his decision in Robinson Brothers (Brewers) Ltd. v. Houghton and Chester-le-Street Assessment Committee 1937, reaffirming a principle long accepted by valuers and the courts.
An exception to this principle, however, was the treatment of disrepair. The effect of the two landmark decisions of Wexler v. Playle and Saunders v, Maltby was that whatever the actual state of repair of the property the landlord under the hypothetical tenancy was to be deemed to have put the property in a state of reasonable repair. It is that principle which has been applied by valuation officers in consequence of those decisions. Taken together, the two cases set out very clearly how disrepair was to be treated for valuation purposes and it is this position that we are seeking to restore. I shall refer to these cases briefly.
First, Wexler v. Playle confirmed a limited exception to the doctrine that a hereditament has to be valued in its actual physical state. That exception is that the notional rent of a hereditament should be assessed on the basis that the premises had, before the tenancy began, been put in a state of repair such as to make them reasonably habitable having regard to the class of property in question. This served to override the actual condition of the property.
Next, Saunders v. Maltby built on the principles established in Wexler v. Playle, but emphasised further the economic aspect of disrepair, establishing expressly that it could not be assumed that a reasonable landlord would be prepared to undertake repairs where it was not economic to do so. In such circumstances, he would let the premises at a reduced rent. The premises would accordingly be valued so as to reflect this.
The effect of these decisions, as summarised in the leading textbook on this matter, Ryde on Rating and the Council Tax, led to the principle that a hereditament was to be valued on the assumption that it was in reasonable repair, even if in fact it was not, unless the repairs would be regarded as uneconomic.
As the noble Earl will be aware, the 1988 Act does not contain any express reference to the hereditament's state of repair. I am aware that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, regards this as a lacuna. I agree with him that this lacuna lies at the heart of the Lands Tribunal

CWH 3
decision in Benjamin v. Anston Properties which determined that valuers should take account of disrepair in rating valuations. It is this lacuna, and this alone, that the Bill seeks to address.
The Bill seeks to build on the 1988 Act as it stands. We see no need to complicate matters by importing concepts which derive from gross value. So long as the premises are deemed to be in a similar state of repair for the purposes of the 1988 Act hypothetical tenancy, as they would have been deemed to be for the purposes of valuations to gross value under the General Rate Act 1967, it is of no matter who may hypothetically have been responsible, before the tenancy is assumed to have begun, for getting them into that state.
The Bill re-establishes the practical effects of previously decided cases, notwithstanding that these were decided in the context of gross value under the pre-1990 legislation. Case law going back well before 1990, and practice resulting from that case law, establishes that what it is reasonable to expect in relation to the repair condition of any hereditament will depend on the age, type and use of the property, the locality in which it is situated and all the surrounding circumstances.
This follows necessarily from the fundamental principles of valuation, to which I referred earlier, that matters which relate to the physical state of the property being valued are to be taken as they stand. In the case of Saunders v. Maltby, for example, in which it was established by the Court of Appeal that uneconomic repairs provided an exception to the usual assumption as to reasonable repair, the paramount question was what the reasonable landlord could be expected to do having regard to the value of the property. It was clear that the age, type and use of the property, and its locality, were highly relevant to applying this economic test—a test of what the reasonable landlord would do in the particular circumstances.
So, for example, in the case of a shop in a run-down inner city area, the standard of repair to be assumed, and the rateable value attributed to it, would reflect both the nature of the property and its locality. Neither the standard of repair to be assumed, nor the valuation itself, would be based on a similar shop in a prime retail area.
A further matter of concern was how, following enactment of the Bill, valuation officers would treat properties that would previously have had rateable values reduced—sometimes for short periods only—to take account of circumstances affecting the property. Examples are of a property which has been damaged by fire so that part of it becomes unusable, or a property undergoing substantial building works. There are others to which I shall refer in a moment.
I understand those concerns. However, the Government and the Valuation Office Agency have made it clear that they have only one intention. That is to ensure that the assumption as to repair is that which was established by earlier case law and made by the VOA in preparing rating valuations before the Lands Tribunal decision in Anston. It is nothing more and nothing less than that.
CWH 4
The current position is that if a property is incapable of beneficial occupation, in other words it is unusable, it will be removed from the rating list altogether and no rates will be payable. If only part of the property is rendered incapable of beneficial occupation, it has generally been the practice of valuation officers to reduce the rateable value of the premises for the period during which the damaged part of the property cannot be used. Furthermore, if the value of the part of the property remaining in use is reduced in consequence of the damage elsewhere, that too will continue to be reflected in the valuation.
I recognise the concerns expressed by the professional bodies that the Bill may affect this position. It is not the Government's intention to do so. I do not believe that it does so, and in discussions the Valuation Office Agency has made it clear that affected properties will continue to be valued in precisely the same way as before.
I offer the Committee some illustration. For example, let us consider a fire or other act of God—though this may not be the most appropriate term for such unfortunate circumstances. If a property is rendered incapable of beneficial occupation as a result of that fire the property will be removed from the rating list until the damage is repaired. If the property suffers only relatively minor damage and no part of it is put out of action, perhaps because the property requires little more than a coat of paint to bring it back up to standard, then the repair assumption in the Bill would bite and the rateable value would be unaffected. But this is no different from what would have happened by virtue of past practice.
As I have said, where part of a property is incapable of beneficial use, the rateable value has normally been reduced for the relevant period. An example would be where a store within an industrial site is substantially destroyed by fire. A reduction would be made in the rateable value to remove the store from the assessment until it is capable of use again. That is the general position now, and it is the general position that we expect to continue following enactment of this Bill.
Matters are not, of course, always in such black and white terms. There will, I am sure, be shades of grey but then there always have been. The action taken by the valuation officer will naturally depend on the facts and the degree of damage to the property, and the question of whether or not the cost of carrying out the repairs would be economic as set out in Saunders v. Maltby. However, it is not anticipated that the new provisions will result in any change of practice. Ratepayers, of course, also have the safeguard that if they are not satisfied with the action taken by the valuation officer in these cases, they can appeal to an independent body—the Valuation Tribunal—to have their rating assessment reduced.
As regards buildings undergoing works, where such works are being carried out on a building, the valuation approach will vary according to whether the works are internal or external to the hereditament. I shall deal first with works taking place within the hereditament.
The valuation officer will need first to distinguish whether the works being carried out are to correct a lack of repair. Where this is the case, the need for repair may

CWH 5
be disregarded in the valuation, subject as always to the question of whether or not the cost of carrying out the repairs would he economic as set out in Saunders v. Maltby.
3.45 p.m.
In some cases, the work required to make the property capable of beneficial occupation will involve the replacement and renewal of damaged parts. This work may go beyond repair and constitute an improvement to the property. It is well established in case law that repairs may contain an element of renewal and it is therefore a matter of fact and degree whether the work should be properly classed as repairs, renewal or improvement.
If the works are not considered to be repairs, the repair assumption in the Bill will not be appropriate and the property will be valued in its actual state on the material day.
I turn to buildings undergoing alterations and refurbishment. In a programme of extensive alterations, the works required to make the property capable of beneficial occupation are clearly not repairs. In many cases, properties are stripped back to the shell so that substantial reconstruction or improvement works can be carried out. In such cases, the property will be considered in its actual state on the material day and, if it i. s incapable of beneficial use, removed from the rating list.
A hereditament may also be affected by works taking place in the locality but external to the hereditament itself. Matters in the locality are not affected by this Bill. The assumption as to repair applies only to the hereditament itself. The locality will continue to be considered as it is on the compilation or material day as appropriate, and in combination with all other matters as at the valuation date.
There will be no change of valuation approach in respect of, for example, a development of new shops which results in a change in the pattern of value, the nuisance from construction work, the liability to flooding in an area, or the run-down state of an area both before and during a comprehensive redevelopment scheme. To the extent that these factors affect rental values, they will continue to be reflected in rateable values as material changes occur during the life of the list.
The assumption in the Bill relates solely to the state of repair. The meaning of "repair" in the context of property and property valuations is well understood by professionals in that field including, of course, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, himself. In particular, the differentiation between repair on the one hand and renewal, refurbishment or improvement on the other, is well established. The Bill will not make any changes in this area. This, I hope, answers any outstanding concerns over the comparison of refurbished hereditaments with similar properties that have not been refurbished.
Neither will the Bill make any change to current valuation practice in terms of taking into account the intrinsic qualities of the hereditament such as, to use
CWH 6
the examples mentioned by the noble Earl during our discussions, the presence of high alumina cement, or retail potential being restricted by the absence of a means of escape from fire.
Whether a property is refurbished or not will continue to be regarded as an intrinsic quality of the hereditament. Similarly, if significant works of refurbishment to a property are being undertaken on the material day, such works would continue to be taken into account in the valuation as they would not be works of repair.
As I explained previously to the House, it would not be appropriate to seek to address all of these issues, and possibly many others to be found in rating practice, specifically on the face of the Bill. They are genuine concerns and I concede that clarity is essential—I accept that totally—but it would simply not be a workable proposition.
The Bill deals with a single issue of principle in the field of valuation for rating by way of correcting a lacuna. The Government are anxious that what is in effect an old principle governing rating valuation should merely be restated and incorporated with the minimum of disturbance to the corpus of law and valuation practice, which has grown up and developed over the passage of time. It would be wholly impractical to legislate for all possibilities. In order to ensure a smooth reintroduction of the pre-1990 approach to the state of repair, to take account of the provisions of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and subsequent legislation, to aid the construction of this Bill when enacted, and to provide some reassurance to the House and to professionals in this field, the VOA has prepared a practice note, as I said at Second Reading. I have arranged for a current draft of the practice note to be placed in the Library of the House; it deals solely with the issues flowing from the principle restated by the Bill, drawing on existing valuation practice and law, none of which is affected by the Bill.
Discussions on the practice note are continuing with the wider profession and it may be amended in the light of comments received. I shall ensure that any revised drafts are placed in the Library as they become available. It is the intention of all concerned that a final version—which is intended for wide publication—will be available before Third Reading and I shall ensure that a copy of this is placed in the Library before the Bill completes its passage through your Lordship's House.
In concluding these remarks, I apologise again most deeply for the length of them. However,][hope that the noble Earl and the Committee have found them helpful in reassuring them about the effect of the Bill. I await the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, speaking to his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before inviting the noble Earl to speak to his amendment, I should point out that the corrections to which I was referring were to Amendment No.2. However, as the whole batch of amendments is being spoken to in one group, I hope that was clear at the time.
The Earl of Lytton: In speaking to Amendment No.1, I really wish to speak in generic terms to all the

CWH 7
other amendments in this group. I would stress that they are all probing amendments, so there is no dispute about that.
I thank the Minister most warmly for her statement which enormously helps the proceedings here this afternoon. It was a very comprehensive explanation of the Government's position, for which I am most grateful. For reasons which I shall explain a little later, I would perhaps wish that the Minister had gone a little further in one or two areas. I apologise to the Committee for the fact that my comments may, to some extent, cover points that have already been made. It is in the nature of the animal, but this is a technical issue and it is important that points are conveyed in the terminology which befits it and which itself is fairly technical.
The Minister has been as good as her word at Second Reading in that she has provided an opportunity for meeting her and her officials to discuss the issues. Only last week there was a further meeting with her departmental officials, enabling me and various advisers to go through issues in much greater detail. That was of enormous value and I wish to pay tribute to that process. I am also extremely grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and her noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, for their support and interest in this matter. It is a very technical issue, although, in global terms, it is quite straightforward in many respects.
I would also like to express my thanks to those in the various professions involved with rating valuation for their support and back-up in attending meetings, liasing with interested parties and answering technical queries of mine. This has been of incalculable worth, and, as a part-time parliamentarian, I have found this extremely important. The candid and constructive manner in which officials in the DETR and the Valuation Office Agency have answered queries has also been enormously helpful, and I should like to record publicly my appreciation of that.
The issues at stake, as I said, are essentially practical and to that extent they are simple, but the way in which they may be affected by the Bill are of course immensely technical. I apologise again for burdening the Committee with some further detail, but it is important to set out the matters for the record. I am sure the Minister will agree with that principle.
The concern with the Bill has throughout revolved around its apparent lack of transparency of purpose. This is important, for the certainty which has hitherto lain behind the assessment of annual value of non-domestic property for the purposes of a local tax is central to every business occupier. However, I recognise that the case of Anston Properties Limited v. Benjamin potentially gives rise to a valuation lacuna referred to by the Minister, which could be misinterpreted and with which the Government quite properly seek to deal. The fear was that the case was being used as a pretext for the alteration of the previous understandings on which the basis of valuation was arrived at with particular respect to the treatment of disrepair.
CWH 8
In another place, the various professions lobbied for changes to be made to the Bill because of this fear, but the understandings reached and the reassurances given in discussions with officials outside that place were not in the event translated into an amendment to the Bill nor into words of comfort given by the Minister on the Floor of the Chamber, for reasons which I entirely understand. I cast no aspersions about that. However, it has been left to this Chamber to remedy the situation.
I certainly accept that the intention of the Government has been no more or less than to recite in language relevant to the valuation basis of today—in other words, the post-Local Government Finance Act 1988 terms of phrase—the basis of valuation which has always been understood by valuers in practice. The question was: did the Bill actually do that? Certainly I was not at all sure.
While in rating valuation there is a hypothetical landlord and a hypothetical tenant under an assumed lease, the property of course is always in the real world, as the Minister has said, and the circumstances surrounding its notional rental value follow as near as possible to the real world as can be achieved in practice. That much is common ground, and was common ground at our meetings. In most cases the landlord is deemed to have put the property in a state of repair sufficient to command that rent, but specifically not at any cost. I think again that is a matter of common understanding and agreement.
In terms of alterations to rating valuations, there are four legs. I will deal first with the treatment of disrepair. It has always been the case that normal recurring repairs and maintenance such as decoration, attention to external joinery and the maintenance of a wind and watertight fabric, and indeed a tenantable interior, should not affect the rating assessment. So if the standard of decoration is neglected, for instance, the assessment should not be reduced for that reason alone. Beyond that there will be a need from time to time to carry out much more intrusive overhauls and modernisation to reverse obsolescence or perhaps to deal with serious inherent defects. These may well—but, it should be stressed, this depends on the merits of each case—fall outside the assumption that the property is in good repair and can, but do not invariably, have a bearing on the rating assessment.
As an example I have referred the Minister to situations where there is high alumina cement in reinforced concrete structures. The building is still usable up to a point but is severely devalued and may eventually have to be demolished. I referred also to situations where a terrace of retail properties might all have basements but only some of these basements might be damp-proofed and usable, and perhaps some could never be used because of a lack of adequate means of escape in the event of fire.
My concern was to ensure that these situations were not altered by the Bill. I am pleased to see the Minister nodding in affirmation of that. I wanted to make sure that properties would continue to be valued for what they are, rather than what they might become in the future. I wished to be certain that the real world values would apply reflecting all characteristics, advantages

CWH 9
and disadvantages and that these would not become the subject of extended statutory assumptions as to circumstances. I was pleased to note the introductory comments from the Minister in that respect.
The second leg relates to total destruction. There has never been any argument that if a property is totally destroyed by, say, a fire, the assessment would be reduced to a nominal level, or more likely still, the entry removed from the valuation list in which case no rates are payable. There is absolutely no issue before us on this point. I wish to make that clear to the Committee.
The third leg is the partial damage or destruction of the property. Just as for repairs, it has long been the practice that where part of a property is damaged or destroyed and cannot be used beneficially in part or in whole for a significant period of time, then the assessment could be reduced to the extent that the benefit of the actual occupation was damaged in reality. This could include, for instance, the consequential effects of destruction of one part of the property on the use and occupation of another part that remained. Here, too, am concerned to ensure that the practice remained intact.
The fourth leg is the deleterious effect on the beneficial occupation of the property. Losses in value because of a general recession are pure economic factors which are only dealt with at quinquennial revaluation, and that I am sure is an accurate and accepted statement of the facts. However, there can be situations during currency of the valuation list where an identifiable physical change not physically touching the property can trigger a loss in economic value. Adjacent development works referred to by the Minister are one example, or there could be specific changes in the locality for other reasons.
Assessments are often adjusted to take account of the duration and severity of such situations, so where sites are being assembled and the property is empty awaiting redevelopment the value of the property is often reduced— I do not say it is always reduced—but often reduced, because each case has to be dealt with on its merits, sometimes to a nominal figure if there is neither de facto beneficial occupation nor the intention to reoccupy in the future prior to redevelopment.
As I have said, each case has to be dealt with on its merits. and the Valuation Office Agency, if I may say so, has acquitted itself with considerable distinction—I do not just say that as a former employee of its predecessor body—in establishing fair and widely accepted ground rules for dealing with this.
I want that to continue. It would be disastrous if the Bill resulted in all that consensus being thrown away and the matter being thrashed out in the courts at enormous cost. That would be a failure of the process in which this Committee is involved.
So the object here is to ensure that the practice of the past, and in particular pre-Anston, is continued in the future in the new legislation when this Bill becomes law. With any change there is a risk of reinterpretation. That should be eliminated as far as possible and I make no apology for dwelling on some of the finer points for that reason.
CWH 10
My amendments set out to reconfirm on the face of the Bill the wording that would, as closely as possible, transfer the meaning of the General Rate Act 1967 provisions into the present situation in which we are dealing with an amendment of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, and which itself replaced the 1967 Act.
Turning very briefly to Amendment No.1, therefore, the context of this can clearly be seen. It would necessitate the valuation of a property on the facts of the case. It seeks to eliminate as far as possible an interpretation of the Bill that there might be a deemed or assumed state of repair rather than the actual state of repair. But as I now understand and believe, this is a long way from the intentions of the Government. I was very pleased to note that from the statement made by the Minister. I am grateful to the Minister and feel she has put my mind substantially at rest on this issue, although she may have some other comments to make.
I have one question that arises out of her statement. In the light of her comments, would she agree to go a little further and undertake to include what she has said to the Committee in a preface to the practice note?
Perhaps a verbatim account of what I hope will be a reasonably concise debate today could be published as an adjunct to the practice note. I suggested previously that it might be a preface. That may be putting the cart before the horse. I do not mind where it goes, but if it is in there it would certainly be important. I feel that what has been said in this Committee, which is an invaluable and crucial explanation of intent, ought to be an intrinsic part of the practice note and the valuation procedure that follows from that. It should not simply be left to be dug up at some subsequent event following a battle in the courts when, having reached the conclusion that the intention of the Act is uncertain, Hansard is studied in order to try and put in place certainty.
That concludes my remarks on this. I have already begged to move the amendment, but I commend it to the House. There will be an opportunity for other noble Lords to comment, but I would particularly welcome comments from the Minister on that last point about incorporating our deliberations today within the practice note itself.
4 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: I wish to speak to all the amendments standing in my name and in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I was interested to hear what the Minister had to say in her opening statement I shall need to read Hansard carefully before: commenting on that. As I said on Second Reading, when we reach the Committee stage we must ensure that the Bill is made to work properly to enable the property professions clearly to interpret the legislation. The industry needs law that gives certainty, simplicity and consistency and I hope that we are getting some way towards that now. Those are the aims of the amendments. I realise, of course, that the Minister may not agree that they achieve those aims but I look forward to hearing what she says in response.

CWH 11
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has made a very eloquent and informed speech and I do not intend to repeat everything he has already said. However, there are a number of areas in particular that I should like the Minister to explain; for example, definitions. She touched on that subject but I wonder whether she could clarify it a little further, particularly in relation to the definition of the word "reasonable" in respect of repair, and also the definition of the word "repair" itself. I know that this matter concerns many in the industry and I look forward to her reply.
I was also interested to hear what the noble Baroness had to say about the practice note. I wonder whether this could be expanded into a more formal code of practice because it is so important that the interpretation of the Bill is in accordance with what is being said here, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said today.
The Minister will be only too aware of problems concerning codes of practice and practice notes that arose when she was on the other side of the Chamber. It is an important issue and there were many serious debates and Divisions on it in the latter term of the previous government.
Will the noble Baroness also confirm that the Government remain committed to the previously unquestioned principle that every rateable property falls to be valued on an individual basis? Will she also confirm that there are no plans for the computerisation of the rateable value process because that would ignore the individuality of properties and the rating system? We have looked carefully at the various amendments and it is important that we get a clear response from Her Majesty's Government on this issue. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
Baroness Hamwee: The thanks usually come at a later stage of the Bill, but I will add my thanks at this point as well. Of course I thank the noble Earl who has done a sterling job. He was well assisted by the professionals who, to put it colloquially, have "got stuck in there" and "kept stuck in there" and are to be congratulated. I congratulate also the Minister and her officials because it must be quite hard to be challenged in the way they have been. They have dealt with the matter in a dignified fashion.
My honourable friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, Mr. Burstow, tabled a number of amendments in another place couched in almost exactly the same terms as several of the noble Earl's amendments. Therefore it will be no surprise to the Committee to hear that I support the thrust of these amendments. However, I should like to ask three short questions of very different types. The first, which arises from the first of his amendments, concerns the role of locality in assessments for rating purposes. I was not surprised to see this in the amendment because it seems to me it is part of the normal exercise of rating to take into account the question of locality. I merely ask about this matter because in the debate in another place on 11th January (at col.66 of the Official Report) there seemed to be a suggestion on the part of the Minister that locality was not a matter to be taken into account.
CWH 12
Secondly, as regards the status of the proposed practice note, the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, referred to a code of practice, as distinct perhaps from a practice note. I would have thought—although I do not know the technical details—that that was what the professionals drew up on the basis of the statute, statutory instruments and so on. I am, however, particularly concerned to know what status the practice note as issued by the Government has, as and when it is issued.
Finally—and I do not wish by any means to detract from the work that has been done by the professionals who have been involved—can the Minister assure the Committee that before the practice note is finalised the three professional organisations will be formally consulted? I think the main organisations are the RICS, the IRRV and the Rating Surveyors Association. Will they be formally consulted and will any comments that they may have be taken into account, at least so far as the Minister and her officials consider to be appropriate? I would like to feel that they have been formally consulted.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment No.1 would insert into the Bill an express requirement for the valuer to take account of the physical state or physical enjoyment of the hereditament and its locality and the mode, category and use of the hereditament.
I am sure that the noble Earl intends this amendment to be helpful in clarifying the meaning of the Bill. However, and sadly this may well become a recurring theme during our consideration of the Bill this afternoon, the amendment goes slightly further and could have the unintended effect of undermining price rating valuation practice. As the noble Earl will be aware, Schedule 6 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 sets out the standard rule as to the way rating valuations are to be carried out. Paragraph 2(7) sets out the matters to be taken into account as they are made on the day by reference to which the valuation is to be made. This will either be the day on which the list must be compiled for the forthcoming revaluation—for example, this is 1st April 2000—or the material day for any alterations to the rating list which are made after that day.
These matters include, at paragraph 2(7)(a) and (b):
(a) matters affecting the physical state or physical enjoyment of the hereditament, "
and
(b) the mode or category of occupation of the hereditament".
If that were as far as the amendment went, then it might not affect existing valuation practice. It would, however, be superfluous. There is no question of valuation officers not taking these matters into account and, in so far as the noble Earl is seeking that assurance, I am happy to give it.
The measure might have other unforeseen effects. It is not clear why it is thought that duplicating the existing provision would be helpful. On the contrary, it could lead to confusion and undermine what the Bill is seeking to achieve, which is, of course, to establish a very limited departure from the general principle that a hereditament is to be valued in its actual physical statement.

CWH 13
However, the amendment would additionally require that the use of the hereditament should be taken into account. While the use of a property is, of course, a relevant consideration when ascertaining its rateable value, it is not entirely clear whether the amendment seeks to change existing practice by limiting consideration to actual use only.
At present valuations for non-domestic rating are carried out on the assumption that the hereditament could be used for a purpose within the same mode or category of use as the existing use to which the property is put. This approach, which within rebus sic stantibus permits limited consideration of alternative uses, is well establashed by case law. If the amendment were accepted, it could lead to a significant departure from present practice. This would create uncertainty and could therefore lead to litigation.
I was asked several specific questions. The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, asked whether I could add to the definition of "reasonable repair" and alongside that "accidental damage". It has been suggested to us that since we are planning to require valuers to assume a state of reasonable repair, we should define what the term means within the Bill and that we should define the circumstances in which any damage should be taken into account in the valuation. Noble Lords may think this would be innocuous, but we believe that it would be dangerous.
There is a body of case law which elucidates what is meant by a reasonable state of repair. I also believe that if we were to try to define what the term means in statute, we would run the significant risk of introducing unintended restriction and so lose the flexibility which valuers and the courts need in deciding what is reasonable in the particular circumstances of each case. Similar arguments apply to the treatment of damaged properties under the rating system.
A further question was put by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and I thank him for raising comments about the possibility of including the verbatim from Hansard. As I have said, I believe it is important that. our intentions in bringing forward the Bill are as clear as possible. I am happy for my statement to the Committee today to be incorporated into the practice note and understand that the Valuation Office Agency will arrange for its inclusion in the next draft which, as I have indicated, will be placed in the Library of the House when it becomes available.
The status of the practice note was, I believe, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. There is no need for enhancing the status of the practice note. It expresses how valuation officers will, in fact, carry out their valuations, but it is important that we retain a degree of flexibility. Making it more formal would inhibit the development of practice in the future.
I have dealt with the point about reasonableness. There is no question of locality not being taken into account. It is an integral part of valuation practice and there is nothing in the Bill which will damage this.
I have sought to answer the points raised by noble Lords. Perhaps it would be helpful if I say at this stage that no-one is more grateful than I am for the assistance
CWH 14
of noble Lords with a deep interest in the Bill and their advisers and the officials. Should there be any need for further clarification between the Committee and Report stages, I would be only too happy to do so by letter if that would be helpful.
I hope that what I have said explains to the noble Earl why I cannot accept an amendment which runs the risks outlined and, therefore, I trust he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: I have already spoken to all of these amendments in their generic terms because, of course, they are all linked. Therefore, I have not gone into some of the detail that the noble Baroness has gone into in telling me why it is that Amendment No.1 is not a good amendment.
In light of what she has said, I am very sympathetic to that line of argument, I must admit. I was particularly glad that, in commenting on the amendment, she referred to the physical state and category of occupation and the fact that it would be unnecessary because the amendment would undermine, if anything, current rating practice.
I am not so sure about that but I was comforted by her point that there would be no question of valuation officers not taking these matters into account and therefore it was a duplication, which is something to which I was sympathetic. Also as to whether it would change the existing practice and therefore depart from the rebus sic stantibus rule is, again, perhaps open to doubt. I draw great comfort from the fact that, if we can deal with the large issues then, with a little luck and a fair wind, the small ones will fall into place. At this stage, I could not have asked for either a more cogent account of the Government's intentions or for a clearer explanation of the effects that the Minister thinks the Bill will have in practice. I repeat the words of my ancestor, George Gordon, Lord Byron, who said:
"I deny nothing, but doubt everything".
The noble Baroness will understand that I come from a long line of men with an extremely healthy suspicion of the motives of all official bodies and government organs.
The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, raised two points. One was on the subject of the word "reasonable", and the Minister replied that it was difficult to define "reasonable" in statute. I certainly had concerns about this from inception. I asked myself whether the term "a reasonable state of repair" was in fact the same as "the state of repair reasonably to be expected". I was told at our meeting with the Minister and her officials that the terms were more or less one and the same. I accept the gist of the Minister's answer that, for the purposes of this Bill at any rate, the effect is the same. In my broader professional experience, however, I can conceive of other circumstances where it might be different. However, I am happy to leave that for the purposes of this Bill for the moment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I wonder whether the noble Earl would find it helpful if I went

CWH 15
slightly further. As I have already said, "reasonable" requires having regard to the age, type and use of the property concerned and its locality.
With regard to the noble Earl's reference to his ancestors, occasionally the officials and those in authority have cause to be critical in his direction. There was just the odd bit of vandalism in Greece.
The Earl of Lytton: I am sorry to say that, when I was in Greece over the Easter period, I did not go to Cape Sounion to inspect the inscription of my noble ancestor on the columns of the temple there. However, I do appreciate what the noble Baroness said, and I think and hope we are on the same track here. The whole basket of issues is surrounded by a concept of "reasonableness" and I think that we have got that right. Provided that is the case, then the fact that it attaches itself to one word or the other is of lesser importance so far as I am concerned.
The second point to which the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, referred was that of repair. As I understand it, the Minister used this in her statement in the narrower sense to mean specifically those works which fall within the assumption that they are economic, practical and fall within the normal maintenance obligation and are not exceptional. While I accept that definition for the purpose of the Bill, if I have divined her intention correctly, I can foresee other circumstances where the term "repair" could be taken to cover a much wider category of work, including not only things in the nature of minor maintenance, but also those which are so far reaching as to be uneconomic. The point I am making is that the term "repair" in the wider world is a broad term which covers all sorts of things, and is used fairly loosely. Clearly a more specific meaning is intended here.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As the noble Earl is aware, the meaning of "repair" is a well understood term in both rating case law and landlord and tenant case law. I am glad he has reminded me that the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, asked about the definition of the word repair, and I apologise to the noble Earl. Repair is well understood to be different from refurbishment and improvement, as I made clear in my earlier statement.
The Earl of Lytton: I am very grateful for that. To some extent, we are doing some "wordsmithing" here. Going back to the graffiti of my noble ancestor, what might be described as a "stopping-up" job with some filler might be described as a "repair", while putting the roof back on that particular monument would not. The difficulty, as the Minister referred to in her statement, is that there is a large grey area here, and we are trying to achieve a degree of certainty in this. I do not want to press the point too far because it is undesirable that consideration of these matters on a case-by-case basis should be fettered unduly. That is important. The only thing I have in mind is that there have been cases in the past where valuation officers have tried to argue, probably unsuccessfully, that inherent structural defects such as degradation due to high alumina cement, for
CWH 16
instance, were mere repair and so could not be taken into account in valuation. However, in our meetings I was glad to note that the point was clarified in quite different terms. I am pleased to record that.
However, it must never be assumed that simply because something is called "repair" as a general term of art as opposed to some other label, that it thereby has no effect on rating valuation. Clearly it may do so, and that is why the economic test is so important in all this.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to the question of locality. The locality is simply part of what might be called the environmental circumstance in which a particular property falls to be valued. I do not believe there was ever any question of a shop in a run-down area being valued on the same basis as a prime shop. That is probably not what the noble Baroness had intended to point out, but locality clearly is—and always has been—part of standard valuation practice. Because the whole valuation process follows the real world, the real rents that arise in Peckham as opposed to South Molton Street, to give two examples, are a locality matter which are reflected in the valuation. I have not discerned that there is any question which has arisen over this in discussions with Minister and her officials.
As to the status of the practice note, I would dearly like the practice note to be more firmly cemented in place. I am mindful of the fact that there have been decisions on practice notes in relation to community charge or perhaps council tax valuations where these were held to have no effect. The practice note ought to have a more definite application than that.
If I may go back to the question of locality just for a second, I believe it is taken as the area in which properties of the same kind would let at the same kind of rents. The case of Kay Shoes v. Hardy VO is probably the conclusive precedent.
The final point that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made, which I support, is whether the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation and the Rating Surveyors Association would be consulted on the final form of the practice note, I believe she said before Third Reading. I ought to declare an interest as a member of all three bodies, which must be of some benefit. I hope they will be part of the discussions.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I thank the noble Earl for giving way. The Valuation Office is awaiting the response of the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation. The Valuation Office has had a response from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Rating Surveyors Association. Representatives of all three bodies will meet with the Valuation Office soon.
The Earl of Lytton: I thank the Minister; that is wonderful. It sounds as though everyone is being consulted. For the present, I am glad to record that my concerns may have been misplaced as regards the intentions of this Bill, but I make no apology for insisting on having clarity restored to what is a fairly technical aspect of the proposed legislation. I would say in my defence that that is at least one reason for my

CWH 17
being in this place at all—in the hope that I can apply some of what I have learnt over the past two or three decades to the benefit of legislation. It is to the credit of all concerned that discussions have been conducted in an extremely workmanlike spirit of co-operation and goodwill. That approach should be a benchmark for parliamentary scrutiny generally. As I said earlier, I am enormously grateful to the noble Baroness the Minister for what she said to her officials. Without further ado, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.2 to 7 not moved.]
Clause I agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: That concludes the Committee's proceedings on the Bill.
The Committee adjourned at twenty-nine minutes before five o'clock.

  Armenian Massacre,1915–16
  Armenian Massacre,1915–16
  Amsterdam Treaty: Role of EU Institutions
  Amsterdam Treaty: Role of EU Institutions
  Yugoslavia: Eventual Reconstruction
  Yugoslavia: Eventual Reconstruction
  Sudan
  Sudan
  Prevlaka Demilitarised Zone
  Prevlaka Demilitarised Zone
  North Korea: Ballistic Missile Related Technology
  North Korea: Ballistic Missile Related Technology
  EU Policy: Wye Agreement
  EU Policy: Wye Agreement
  Turkey: Kurdish Areas
  Turkey: Kurdish Areas
  China: Human Rights
  China: Human Rights
  China: Human Rights and Tibet
  China: Human Rights and Tibet
  Venice Commission
  Venice Commission
  Balkans: Reconstruction
  Balkans: Reconstruction
  Sudan
  Sudan
  Human Rights Act 1998: Statements on Compatibility
  Human Rights Act 1998: Statements on Compatibility
  Human Rights. Act 1998: Implementation
  Human Rights. Act 1998: Implementation
  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  National Blood Service
  National Blood Service
  Human Cloning
  Human Cloning
  NHS: Public Interest
  NHS: Public Interest
  Osteoporosis Strategies
  Osteoporosis Strategies
  Asbestos Fibre Dust: Chrysotile
  Asbestos Fibre Dust: Chrysotile
  Museums and Galleries: Trustee Governance
  Museums and Galleries: Trustee Governance
  Broadcasting Act 1996: MED TV
  Broadcasting Act 1996: MED TV