Westminster Hall Sitting of 7 December 1999

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL J. MARTIN in the Chair]

BBC World and World Service
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
10 am
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have commenced the proceedings in this Chamber dead on 10 o'clock. On a matter of personal interest, why do we begin deliberation and debate without prayers? I do not want to take up a great deal of time, but I would like to put on record that we are breaking a tradition that goes back to 1558. I hope that serious consideration will be given to the commencement of parliamentary proceedings in the House of Commons, by having prayers at the start of every sitting.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Prayers will be said at the normal time of 2.30 pm in the Chamber of the House of Commons, and there is therefore no break with tradition. My colleague in the Chair, the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), gave a ruling on this matter in which he made it clear that, if hon. Members have any queries, they should be taken up with the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons.
10.1 am
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I am glad to have an opportunity to raise this important issue, which is of great concern to public policy.
Like many hon. Members, I attended the lobby a few weeks ago that drew our attention to the implications of the decision by the BBC to discontinue the broadcasting of current affairs comment and analysis on the BBC World television service. The main thrust of my remarks today will be about BBC World television, although I will allude to the BBC World Service for comparison and example.
BBC World television was launched in 1991. At that time, the BBC wanted to run a television service along the lines of BBC World Service radio provision. This debate is a throwback to Mrs. Thatcher, as she was then known. She was hostile to the World Service, and cut its budget; she was also completely opposed to the BBC launching a TV channel internationally. She said that the channel had to be commercial, or that there should be no channel at all. On that basis, the BBC, anxious to respond to the challenge of Cable News Network—CNN—decided to set up a commercial channel. It started in the far east, and has now extended its coverage to all major parts of the world. The problem with that, as the Minister will be aware, is that one cannot run a world-class, worldwide television broadcasting service on buttons. Last year, the BBC World television service lost £15.6 million. As a result, the management of the BBC has decided to cut its losses by removing in-depth current affairs comment and analysis from its programming.
164WH
Many hon. Members will find that an astonishing decision, because if the BBC has a unique selling point—if the BBC means anything in the world—it is its world-quality comment and analysis in the English language, which are trusted and seen to be objective. A BBC World channel without those does not merit the description of meeting the BBC's international standard and aspiration.
Part of the problem is that the BBC is between director generals, and it is hard for it to focus on the point of decision. There is no doubt that the BBC is split internally over this decision. I have received strong representations from people who insist that their interest is not simply as programme makers being deprived of the opportunity to ply their craft, but as people who feel that something very valuable is being removed from the service. The BBC says that it wants to concentrate the service on entertainment and sport.
The NATO spokesman, Jamie Shea, said at the briefing a few weeks ago that there was no shortage of television channels offering entertainment and sport—in fact, that there was a glut of them; they were everywhere. Although such an option may be more commercial, there is a conflict between commercial pressure and public policy interest, which must be resolved as a matter of urgency, in the national interest—and in Britain's interest abroad—and not in the interest of short-term accountancy pressures in the organisation of the BBC.
It is worth stating that Sky—perhaps not a major competitor, but working in the same sphere—has made it clear how important it believes news to be, and that it never expects news to make a profit. A Sky news spokesman said:
"The news is a key strategic asset within Sky, as it adds a lot of kudos and authority. We see it as a public service first and foremost."
That is the ethic of Sky, for heaven's sake. We must question whether the BBC shares it—which is shameful. My honest view is that the BBC not only shares that ethic but can exceed it. However, it finds itself unable to do so in the current circumstances.
It is also worth recording the scale of success achieved by BBC World. It is estimated to reach 150 million homes in nearly 200 countries and territories. It has its own website and has made a feature of current affairs and analysis. If one visits the BBC World website, and asks for information for advertisers on this commercial channel, one finds key facts about BBC World, apart from its penetration. Item 3 states:
"BBC World provides news, business and weather 24 hours a day, plus the best of the BBC's current affairs, documentary and lifestyle programming."
Item 5 states:
"BBC World provides unmatched, impartial, in-depth analysis of breaking news, as well as looking at the stories behind the news and important live events—explaining not only what is happening but why."
That is BBC World today, but that will not be BBC World in six months' time if the cuts go ahead. That the BBC management is about to withdraw two of the key claims on the website, allowing people to commit to advertising on the basis of such assurances, is a slight breach of undertaking.
The specific success and distinctive character of the BBC mean that it reaches where comparable and competitive channels choose not to go. It has

165WH
distinguished itself in the coverage of Kosovo—from a European rather than an American perspective—of East Timor, of the Indian general election and of the coup in Pakistan. There were 4,000 hits on the BBC World website within an hour of the first international broadcast by the new leader of Pakistan. It has also given coverage in sub-Saharan Africa. At the briefing a few weeks ago, a representative from Médecins Sans Frontières said that, without the attention that BBC World gives to those theatres, its work would not necessarily reach the same proportion of opinion-formers and supporters to enable it to continue effectively. We are talking about a serious loss of coverage, because without BBC World's distinguished coverage in such areas, who else would offer it? How else would the world get to know what was going on?
The NATO spokesman, Jamie Shea, who became famous as a result of his role commenting on the war in Kosovo, said:
"Very frequently, where once in a foreign ministry I would see CNN on all day, now I see BBC World, including the State Department and the White House in the United States, and I can't think of a higher accolade than that."
But will it still be switched on in six months' time if this in-depth analysis, which the State Department does not feel that it can get from other sources, is withdrawn from BBC World?
I shall not detain hon. Members with a string of comments. I shall simply say that there are many testimonials from people who have been directly affected by the coverage of their area, their conflict and their problems. East Timor is a case in point. A viewer in Portugal described BBC World as having shown the world, throughout the crisis, what the United Nations and the USA pretended did not exist, and urged the service not to stop doing so until Indonesia stopped. Such comments are extremely valuable, and should not be discounted lightly.
Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Gentleman mentioned CNN. What is his view of the move by CNN and MSNBC—the Microsoft and NBC Network—into the World Service's traditional domain, and, in particular, their development of new services in new languages? Is that a threat to the first class world service of the BBC?
Mr. Bruce: It may be a threat, but the subject of the debate is the threat from inside the BBC. If the BBC pulls out of core services when other channels are expanding into them, it will not find it easy to return and re-establish itself in a few years' time—if that is its plan—when the channel has become commercially viable. I agree with the thrust of the hon. Lady's intervention, which is that the BBC's decision is very poorly timed.
When John Tusa was head of the BBC World Service, there was an organised campaign to persuade the Government to reverse the cuts that were imposed. That was only partially successful—the service still suffered significant reductions—and I give total credit to the Government for reinstating the funding in the comprehensive spending review. Although BBC World would argue, given the range of challenges that it has to
166WH
meet, that it is operating on a tight budget, at least it is now broadly protected. That is in contrast to the cuts under latter Conservative Governments.
BBC World receives not a penny of public subsidy—its losses are funded by the BBC—whereas the BBC World Service received £161.5 million in 1998–99, directly from the Foreign Office grant. That is welcome and important, and, under the comprehensive spending review, it will receive an additional £44 million over the next three years. That has enabled the World Service to notch up 143 million listeners, which means it is the most successful international world broadcaster. All of us are proud of that, and the Government recognise and support it. If the Government acknowledge the importance of the World Service as part of foreign policy, should they not explain why the BBC World television service—even though it reaches a different mix of viewers—should be denied even a penny of support? I do not mind whether the money comes from the Foreign Office, the BBC or a commercial partnership; I mind if the service is cut, and if the Government stand back and allow that to happen. I challenge the Minister to assure us that that is not the Government's intention.
I have had discussions with the BBC, and was told the accountancy reasons behind the decision, which are understandable but not acceptable. Several questions arise as a result. BBC World is not a trading corporation, but is supported by BBC Worldwide, which is such a corporation. Therefore, why should BBC internal management not continue to fund the losses if it chooses?
Questions have been raised about the extent to which the BBC's cross-subsidising might constitute unfair competition. The evidence does not suggest that, however, as a commercial arm of the BBC is involved. Could not the Foreign Office offer ring-fenced funding for current affairs and analysis programmes that are not on commercial channels?
In the long term, a BBC World television service that is too dependent on commercial advertising might be open to commercial pressure, which could compromise independence. That could be important on a controverisal international issue, such as genetically modified foods. Monsanto might choose to offer advertising contracts worth several million pounds to the BBC in order to gain leverage in coverage of its activities. It would be more likely, however, that advertisers would withdraw or threaten to withdraw if they felt that the BBC had hit a raw nerve.
Sir Robert Smith: My hon. Friend touches on an important point. Even if there is no threat, there is a risk that the viewer will perceive one. I found it strange that a business programme was sponsored by the Welsh Development Agency. It provoked the nagging doubt that people might question impartiality.
Mr. Bruce: That is true, although I am more concerned about solutions. I am exploring a number of possible avenues and problems. If I had my way, the Government would argue that the BBC World television service was a proper complement to the BBC World Service, and should be funded as the BBC originally wanted.

167WH
As time is critical, my main concern is to find a solution to the short-term problem and to ensure that analysis and comment continues; the long-term solution can be addressed on a more relaxed time scale. The figures that we are considering are extremely small—Sir Michael Alexander commented that it was extraordinary that the core component and fundamental justification for BBC World would be cut for the sake of £5 million. Do the Government accept that the future of comment and analysis on BBC World is key to the national interest?
Some slightly defensive commentators in the BBC say, "We hope you will do something, but we know that there are no votes in it." I do not accept that there are no votes in the issue, for two reasons. First, the British travel quite a lot, and those who have encountered BBC World and who can choose it against any of its competitors know that it is of superior quality. As the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) pointed out, other broadcasters are starting to try to compete, and we may receive representations from British travellers if they feel that the quality of the service is falling. The Minister might want to reflect on the fact that, if the decisions are taken in April, the complaints will be made in the run-up to the next election.
Secondly, Ministers, Governments, business people and the wider public are proud of the reputation of the BBC across the world. The BBC stands for reliability, objectivity, trustworthiness and in-depth comment and analysis. That has served the British interest extremely well, and it would be extraordinary if we were to surrender our English language comment to interior competitors.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, those American-oriented competing channels will pursue the English language interest as determined by the Americans. I am not anti-American, but I am pro-British; I support our role in the English-speaking world. We must match the Americans in the English-speaking world, because we play our role so much better.
In a speech on 22 November, the Prime Minister said that he had a vision of Britain as
"a power at the crux of alliances such as the Commonwealth, the United Nations and the European Union—engaged, open and dynamic, a partner and, where possible a leader in areas and influence".
How on earth will that be achieved if BBC World is not there to provide such things? I hope that the Prime Minister will agree on reflection that £5 million is not a lot to pay to support that noble aspiration.
At the briefing, Sir Michael Alexander said:
"No one should be surprised if CNN ignores meetings in which UK and European interests are foremost; crises in which UK and European interests are primarily at issue; conflicts in which European forces are more important than those of the Americans."
That is what we are up against. A worldwide English language service that is generated in Britain, and which does not promote British propaganda but examines the world from the perspective of Britain and the English language, is competing with a growing number of channels with far greater commercial backing than the BBC, which are determined to dominate the airways and promote a different agenda to a different English-speaking world with different priorities.
168WH
I am glad that a Foreign Office Minister is replying to this debate; that is entirely appropriate. I hope that he will accept that this is a serious and important public policy issue. I am also glad that the Government recognise the value of the radio arm of the World Service, and have supported it properly and adequately. However, I shall be disappointed if they stand back and allow BBC World television to become something far less than it aspires to be, should be, and is capable of being, given the resources at our disposal.
10.22 am
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I speak in support of BBC World television, although not uncritically. As a consumer of that service, I have often felt frustrated by the lack of sufficient coverage of United Kingdom domestic politics. That is a problem not only for those of us who travel abroad, but for residents and citizens of countries with a rapacious appetite for United Kingdom political news. Having said that, I value the service, and it is one on which we can build, so I am deeply concerned by the BBC's proposed short-term decision-making cuts.
I may be doing the Minister an injustice, but I predict that his briefing notes will counsel that he tell this Chamber that the Government sympathise with the broad thrust of what is said this morning, but that the decision is a commercial one, to be taken exclusively by the BBC. Each time that he says that, I shall say "Gong!", like the gong that used to be struck on the television programme "Take your Pick", which was hosted by Michael Miles. I ask the Minister to pull back from that brief and say that he, the Foreign Secretary and, indeed, the Prime Minister will reconsider the matter, as the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) urged so eloquently.
Although I regret the commercial dimension, which is a legacy of the dogmatic attitude of Margaret Thatcher, I should say that other parts of government become involved in commercial considerations. The Government ensure that we are at the cutting edge of technology. The Prime Minister himself has trespassed into the question of genetically modified foods. The Government have a hands-on involvement in privately owned aerospace industries, and in defence procurement. The Government need to protect the United Kingdom's wider commercial interests and our capacity to pack a punch on the world stage. For power projection and our longer-term commercial interests, this matter is one in which the Government and, indeed, the Prime Minister, should be involved. If they take the opposite view, the decision will be impossible to reverse and the loss will be permanent.
To use an historic analogy, as Minister of Technology, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) saved the British regional jet. That was a critical decision, and he has been proven right. In broadcasting and political terms, if the Government use their good offices to intervene with the BBC, or to find interim finance, they will be making a comparably wise decision on behalf of the UK.
We are at a critical moment in world history. We and our allies are desperately trying to build civil societies in a number of fragile parts of the world. I am thinking in particular of the Russian Federation, where young

169WH
people hunger to learn about British society, our parliamentary traditions, our free media, and all aspects of the English language. That is reflected in other parts of the world, particularly in those for which the Minister has responsibility, such as west Africa.
Also, of course, there are some 80 million people in the principal European Union applicant countries—Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Estonia. If we build our bridges now, we shall reap long-term political advantages in European Councils, but we are not doing enough in that regard. I regret to say that the Prime Minister has not visited one of those countries, which is somewhat indicative of our laid-back attitude. That could be offset in a small way if the Government were to demonstrate commitment towards those people, who are our potential political allies and love our common language.
The hon. Member for Gordon has rightly pointed out that the problems associated with BBC World are a legacy of Margaret Thatcher's dogma, but we have to live with them. BBC Worldwide needs BBC World to generate advertising revenue. Part of the problem is the Asia crisis, which reduced revenue, but here there is a potential gilt-edged investment. As the global economy inexorably expands, there will be tremendous scope for pan-world advertising. At some stage, BBC World will be capable of making a profit—we must simply hang on in there. According to the BBC's own conservative commercial projections, that stage will be reached in approximately eight years. I think that it may be reached sooner, but eight years is in any case a short time in which to bridge the financial gap. If we do not bridge it, the political, economic and cultural loss will be enormous.
I emphasise that the substitution of "fun" programmes for the quality analysis programmes that the present structure provides will not meet people's needs, particularly those in central and eastern Europe, who want to learn and understand the political, economic and business language that is inherent in such programmes.
We should also pause and take note of what the hon. Member for Gordon said about BBC World radio, which is an extremely important, highly valued service, with a tremendous reputation. I realised only recently BBC radio's inherent technological difficulties in reaching various parts of the world; the potential for BBC World television is limitless because of satellite technology.
The Minister of State should note that the Foreign Affairs Committee was horrified to realise that, for instance, large parts of the Russian Federation cannot receive BBC radio. This weekend, my wife and I were in Krakov in Poland—at the heart of Europe—and we could not receive BBC radio. Perhaps we did not properly understand the radio dials, but BBC radio was not easily accessible. However, television demonstrably is. The Government should seize this great opportunity to advance the interests of the United Kingdom.
What can the Government do? The hon. Member for Gordon suggested that they should consider bridging the financial gap, and I support him in that. At the highest level—the Foreign Secretary or the Prime
170WH
Minister should be involved—the Government should, at the very least, call in BBC representatives to bang heads together and use their good offices to persuade the BBC of its long-term commercial interests and its duty to the United Kingdom. I might be doing the Foreign Secretary an injustice, but I am concerned by reports that, when the issue was put to him, he expressed sympathy—that will be in the Minister's brief—but said that funding should not come from his Department's budget. There is the rub. It would be a tragedy if a tranche of money to bridge the gap could not be found from the estimates for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or from other sources.
I hope that the Prime Minister will personally addresss that matter. I told the Minister before the debate that I had raised the matter with the Prime Minister at an informal private meeting last Wednesday week. To be fair, I should say that the Prime Minister made no commitment, but he said that he would consider it. I then wrote to him; he would have received that letter on 29 November. So far as I am aware, and despite our interest in joined-up government, I am not sure whether the Foreign Office knows that No. 10 is involved. That is another compelling reason why the Minister should disregard his brief, and tell us that he will trot along to see his chief later today to discuss the matter with him.
The Prime Minister should be reminded that the people in Pristina who turned out to acclaim him knew him not from CNN, but from BBC World television. As the hon. Member for Gordon said, if we are to reach the goal of being a pivotal power that the Prime Minister spelled out in his Mansion House speech, we must ensure that the United Kingdom's valuable, but relatively cheap, high-quality flagship projects, such as the British Council, BBC radio and BBC television, should be buttressed, supported and encouraged by the Government.
10.34 am
Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes): The BBC mark is one of the nation's most tremendous marks overseas. Everyone accepts that it has enabled us to retain our broadcasting reputation abroad and to punch above our weight both diplomatically and politically. In other words, it is a priceless asset in both radio and television. The future of BBC World is therefore a matter not simply for the BBC or for its advertisers, but for everyone. Indeed, it is a matter for the Foreign Secretary and his Ministers of State, because, whether the Government like it or not, a cut in BBC World will be seen as a foreign policy decision.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) referred to the reach of BBC World Service and BBC World television. BBC World Service started in 1932 and now reaches 200 million homes. That is a tremendous achievement. The BBC is regarded internationally as superior to all other international broadcasters. That reflects wonderfully on the country's reputation abroad. BBC World Service has high ratings for trustworthiness and quality, and it is doing well with modern media: it is accessed more than 50 million times a month on the internet.
You will notice, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am interweaving BBC World Service and BBC World. That is because they are two sides of the same coin: they are

171WH
the face of the country abroad; they are provided by the same organisation; and they have the same reasons for existence. The fact that they are separately funded—one through Foreign Office grant in aid and the other by advertising revenue—is, as other hon. Members have already said, an historic accident. I shall return to that point later.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon said, BBC World television now reaches 160 million homes in nearly 200 countries and territories. It reaches 50 per cent. of United States households with televison sets—even in CNN's home nation, BBC World is making great strides. I agree with the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) that BBC World is not perfect, I, too, have watched it when abroad: one can see the joins. Nevertheless, it is a very good product for the amount of money spent on it, so it is an asset that should not be easily and lightly thrown away. One should not spoil a ship for a ha'p'orth of tar.
BBC World losses amounted to £16 million last year. I know that one can lose £16 million a year quite easily: for example, the Treasury is spending £113 million on refurbishing its building in Whitehall. I do not know how many BBC World years that would buy—my arithmetic is not quite perfect—but it seems that money is available for pet projects. I suggest that it is more important for BBC World to be funded than it is for the Treasury to be refurbished—and it is in the UK's interests, both internationally and domestically.
The loss has been reduced by 36 per cent. and advertising revenues have increased by 100 per cent. since September last year. It took 12 years for CNN to turn a profit, so it is unrealistic to expect BBC World to break even soon. A further question is whether cutting back will help the service to meet its commercial targets, or whether it will make it less attractive to advertisers. Advertisers use BBC World because they want to be associated with the BBC's good qualities, but if BBC World becomes a third rate version of CNN, advertisers will ask whether it is worth using it.
A similar argument was made for cutting back the railways in the Beeching years. It was said that, if one cut unprofitable railway lines, the lines that were left would be profitable and that—hey presto—the railways would go into profit. However, once the branch lines were cut, it was discovered that passengers could not get to the terminuses of the profitable lines, which then became unprofitable. Sometimes, financial equations that appear to work do not make sense in practice. The best way to attract advertising revenue is to produce a quality product that attracts a premium in the market.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and the hon. Member for Thurrock referred to the artificial division that took place in 1986 in the funding of the BBC World Service. That funding was long established as grant in aid from the Foreign Office, but the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, insisted that it receive public funding over her dead body. A number of the former Prime Minister's dogmas and prejudices have subsequently been discredited, and there is no reason to believe that we need to hold on to them. We might even lose that inheritance entirely as we move into the 21st century.
What is the reason for insisting that BBC World should be commercial? Those who wish to defend the status quo must answer that question. The former Prime
172WH
Minister did so because of her unnecessary and illogical hatred of the BBC, but she also hated public services generally and wanted to make them commercially oriented and, as far as possible, not dependent on public funding. That was her agenda. It is not my party's agenda, and I do not believe that it is the Government's. We need to revisit that debate, and say why BBC World should not be publicly funded. My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon put the matter in a nutshell when he said that, if there is a case for the BBC World Service to receive grant in aid in recognition of its value overseas, how can it be different for television? It is logical for both or neither to be commercially funded. The present position makes no sense.
Another problem arose back in 1994 when John Birt, Director General of the BBC, split BBC World from the BBC World Service and combined it with BBC Worldwide. That also makes no sense. The outlets, countries and people are the same, as are the news gatherers—the journalists. The fact that one service can be heard on the airwaves, and the other seen on television, is an artificial distinction. The BBC should consider carefully whether it would be more efficient for BBC World and the BBC World Service to be reunited.
BBC World performed commendably well on a shoestring during its initial years. It was asked to compete in a top-class race against CNN and others while having to carry a loaded rucksack. That situation was inherited by the Government and current BBC management. Instead of trying to remove that rucksack, allowing BBC World to flourish, adding extra weight is proposed, by removing some of its credibility and world reputation. We cannot expect BBC World to retain its reputation if cuts are made to essential parts of it, such as current affairs and news. International viewers will not be fooled for ever.
The BBC said that it is not possible to transfer resources from its domestic operations to BBC World. Is that correct? If so, it is wrong in principle. BBC News 24 spent more than £50 million in 1998–99. Perhaps hon. Members will forgive me for suggesting again that News 24 is so called because of the number of its viewers. Such spending is an extraordinary waste of money given that BBC World performs so much better and with greater impact on a larger audience.
Mr. Malcom Bruce: Does my hon. Friend find it eccentric that the BBC is touting around the House for support for additional charges to fund its digital channels when it is discontinuing the news service on BBC World for the sake of £5 million?
Mr. Baker: I absolutely agree. The BBC should answer hon. Members' questions on BBC World and BBC World Service before they ask for more money for ephemeral projects that could be funded in other ways. I hope that that will happen when the Government reply to the Davies report.
The BBC World Service and BBC World should be linked again and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon suggested, BBC World should qualify for grant in aid. There should be a ring-fenced arrangement, at least for current affairs and news, so that the independence, financial stability and full planning of BBC World can be guaranteed. BBC World should be

173WH
given a free rein and proper support to perform well. That would not cost a fortune and it would be money well spent, which would be more than repaid by the maintenance of the United Kingdom's interest in the world. It is a foreign policy issue and I hope that the Minister wil recognise that in his response.
10.44 am
Mr. Martin Bell: I shall be brief, as always. These are important matters, in which I have an interest to declare. I was a chair of the briefing, which was conducted not by representatives of the BBC's management, which at times of difficulty affect the stance of the pre-emptive cringe, deflecting blows that have not yet been aimed, but by the workers at the coal face and people such as Jamie Shea, who know full well the importance of BBC World in the world. I also worked for the BBC for 30 years, so I should know a little whereof I speak.
It is interesting, and says a lot about the service, that it has drawn the hostility of both Mr. Ted Turner and Mr. Rupert Murdoch—two of the great predators of our time. They are threatened by its quality, truthfulness and commitment to values other than the merely commercial. I was present at the birth of BBC World; there was a long gestation of around eight years before the fragile infant was finally delivered. The infant has grown in strength and has become one the BBC's unsung success stories. As Jamie Shea testified, at times of international crisis, the world now turns to the BBC. That was certainly so during the Kosovo crisis, when millions of people, especially in the Balkans, depended on what the BBC was telling them.
The BBC is necessary for a number of reasons, one being the nature of ITN—[Interruption.] I withdraw that. I mean CNN, with apologies to my former rivals. The BBC cannot be a third-rate CNN because CNN is already a third-rate CNN. It is insular and ignorant. I remember when it failed to distinguish between the Irish Republican Army and the army of the Irish Republic. Hon. Members will know that that is no slight distinction. It is Americocentric and nothing in the world matters to it except the United States and its interests in a way that the BBC is not Anglocentric. The BBC takes a wider view of the world and its responsibilities to the world, its domestic and foreign audience and the truth.
Mention has been made of News 24. It is astonishing the the BBC should celebrate 75 years in broadcasting with the greatest waste of money in all that time—£30 million blown away on that invisible service, which is viewed by 0.1 per cent. of the population and dilutes the BBC's journalism. I know what effect it has on people in the field who are required to devote their energies to broadcasting to a non-existent audience when there is a huge audience and an even greater potential audience for BBC World. The comment and analysis function must not be stripped from BBC World.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the BBC might serve two purposes if it withdrew
174WH
News 24 and allowed the British public to see BBC World and to understand the quality that it is missing at home?
Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The British public would be extremely well served if that were to happen.
BBC World must not be allowed to become a rip and read service, thereby emulating some of the worst features of its main American rival. Reference has been made to a common Foreign Office phrase—the United Kingdom's ability to punch above its weight. Two institutions are able to do that. One is the armed forces, with their singular quality and effectiveness, and the other is British broadcasting abroad, by which we mean, almost exclusively, the BBC.
Hon. Members may remember that, when the new Government came to power, they set up Panel 2000 to project Britain abroad—Britain as it is. I was a member of that panel—I do not know whether it still exists—and remember that our most effective instrument for projecting this country, its values and a concept of truthful broadcasting that people can believe was the BBC, in both radio and television. I make no distinction between those services because, as the radio's audience declines and fewer people listen on short-wave, more people are tuning in to television. I urge the Minister to think carefully about that.
I cannot think of a more important area in which the expenditure of a relatively small amount of money would have a greater effect. It would do the country good, and the world good, to keep BBC World broadcasting truthfully and effectively as a beacon of light and truth.
10.50 am
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: First, I welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe that it is your first time in the Chair in this Chamber, and on behalf of all hon. Members present, I welcome you. It is good to call you Madam Deputy Speaker.
At the instigation of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), we have so far had an interesting albeit short debate. I am surprised that so few people have participated in a debate on such a serious subject as BBC World and the BBC World Service. I hope that that will not be reflected in all the debates in this Chamber. I made my personal views known earlier about the efficacy of this second modern Chamber—or, as I have been calling it, the secondary modern Chamber. I am sad that there are not more hon. Members from all parties present for this important subject.
I share the views of many people in the world in that, when I have travelled in far-flung places, I have turned to the BBC for news, information, security and comfort. I have not been in war-torn regions, as the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) has been, but I have worked in some inhospitable places, such as Moscow soon after the iron curtain came down, where it was impossible to receive any information. At times, we would sit for five hours trying to dial a number outside Moscow, just to send a telex. However, we could turn on the radio and listen to the BBC; to hear the chimes of Big Ben was a great comfort to me and many others, not only the British in our community.

175WH
The BBC World Service is a great source of pride. It broadcasts in 44 languages. Since 1979, its audience has grown from about 75 million to more than 133 million, which is twice the audience of its nearest competitor, The Voice of America. I agree with the hon. Member for Tatton about the quality of some of the broadcasting that we receive around the world, which has its roots in America. The standard and accuracy of reporting and the one-sided view that is put across is damaging to those who listen to such broadcasts, whereas with the BBC there is a true feeling of independence and objectivity, which we all hope will be maintained. The Tories have come in for some criticism in this debate.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Only Mrs. Thatcher.
Mrs. Gillan: When I last looked, she was a Conservative. Yes, Mrs. Thatcher has come in for some criticism. But when the Tories were in government, we increased spending on the World Service by 53 per cent. in real terms. That record stands extremely well, particularly against the record of the Labour Government from 1974 to 1979, when fewer languages were broadcast and there was no real-terms increase in the funding that was given to the World Service.
I am disturbed about the funding of the BBC World Service and I asked the House of Commons Library for some relevant information. The figures that I obtained show the Foreign and Commonwealth Office grant in aid for broadcasting and, given that a Foreign Office Minister is replying to the debate on behalf of the Government, it is apposite that I share the information that I received. The Library said that the World Service
"receives Government money for its monitoring services. Prior to 1997–98 this was in the form of grants from the FCO and Ministry of Defence. From 1997–98 all official users of BBC Monitoring pay a subscription charge. The total Government support to the monitoring service remains broadly the same (£18.8 million in 1997–98 compared with £19.1 million in 1996–97) but the FCO contribution has fallen."
In 1996–97, the contribution fell in real terms by 7.6 per cent. and, from 1997–98, it fell in real terms by 4.4 per cent. Although expenditure in 2001–02 is planned to be higher in real terms than it was in 1997–98, during the run-up to the general election, the plans show real terms decreases in 2000–01 and 2001–02. I see that the Minister is making a note of the Library's figures and I hope that he will have a good explanation for such substantial drops in the grant in aid.
Mr. Bruce: I understand from my briefing that the monitoring service made a profit of £1.3 million, which might explain why the Government are withdrawing funding. That is understandable, but it also demonstrates the potential for money from that source to be rediverted to make up the BBC World Service deficit. The hon. Lady is making a telling point, to which it would be interesting to hear the Minister's reply. If the BBC can make a profit, is it not logical that it could go towards filling that hole?
Mrs. Gillan: I am not known to hunt in pairs with Liberal Democrats, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The Minister certainly has some serious questions to answer.
176WH
I draw the Minister's attention to the fifth report of the Foreign Affairs Committee on Foreign and Commonwealth Office resources dated 22 June 1999. The section on the BBC World Service budget in paragraph 30 of the report raises a serious point. The Committee stated:
"The World Service is an invaluable asset to the United Kingdom. The World Service is facing increasing competition and is required to keep pace with changing technology. On its present and projected budget it will fail to meet both. We recommend the FCO ensures that the World Service is adequately financed to respond to these challenges, with its funding being increased at least to the level in real terms that was achieved in the 1993–94 and 1995–96 period."
That was a serious indictment from the Foreign Affairs Committee, which, I believe, has a Government majority. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) is nodding his head and he was a member of that Committee. The Minister must tell us what the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is doing about the Committee's recommendation. We hear rumours about the Chancellor of the Exchequer storing up billions of pounds. We are debating one of our most powerful diplomatic tools in the globe and, for the sake of a small amount of money, we could preserve not only a British institution, but a world institution.
There was another telling section in that same report. When I intervened on the hon. Member for Gordon, I referred to the double jeopardy of increased investment in competition by second-rate American broadcasting outfits. There is also a triple jeopardy, because of the diminution of one of our other world-class organisations, the British Council. Hon. Members are nodding; we may even have cross-party consensus in this new Chamber.
The Committee makes a serious point in paragraph 42 of that report, stating:
"We believe that the British Council is seriously underfunded and that the promotion of Britain's language, education and culture, in which the British Council has a key role to play, is of enormous benefit to the UK. The British Council's target of £160 million in real terms by 2002–03 represents only a 10 per cent. increase in real terms on the level achieved in the early to mid 1990s"—
under Conservative Governments. It continues:
"We consider that an increase of such a magnitude is both affordable and fully justified, and we recommend it to the FCO."
I want to know what is going on at the Foreign Office. It seems that British institutions that have provided a first-class service around the world for many moons are being starved of funds by a mean Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It is not only Conservative Members, but hon. Members from all parties who believe that the Minister must answer some serious questions. The Minister has a long time in which to respond to the many issues that have been raised.
Mr. Baker: Before the hon. Lady ends her speech, will she clarify whether it is Conservative policy for BBC World to benefit from grant in aid in the way in which the BBC World Service does?
Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Gentleman does not believe that I am as green as I am cabbage-looking. I do not intend to make Conservative policy on the hoof in an annexe to Westminster Hall. However, I can tell him

177WH
that the Conservative party, when in government, put its money where its mouth was and supported the BBC World Service. Any future Conservative Government will do so, and they will support the British Council. The current Government have effectively withdrawn funds from both organisations. I hope that the Minister will now furnish us with a suitable explanation.
11.1 am
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): I, too, welcome you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulate you on your accession to that title, which is well deserved in this Chamber at least—[Interruption.] I should like you to have that title in all Chambers, but that is out of personal respect.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) has given me the opportunity to speak on behalf of one of Britain's finest national assets—the BBC. I acknowledge his passion for the BBC, and that expressed by other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and the hon. Members for Lewes (Mr. Baker) and for Tatton (Mr. Bell), whose esteemed professional career in the BBC I acknowledge. Regrettably, I am not tempted to abandon my brief, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock invited me to do. I also acknowledge the statements in support of the BBC made by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan).
I shall begin by drawing a distinction between the BBC World Service, which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office funds through grant in aid, and BBC World television—I pause for the gong—which is a commercial operation funded by subscription and advertising.
I shall start with the BBC World Service, because the Foreign and Commonwealth Office funds it. The World Service aims to be the world's leading international broadcaster. As others have acknowledged, its audience reach—143 million people—is the highest ever. No less a figure than Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, said last year that it is a service to the world as a whole and is perhaps Britain's greatest gift to the world this century.
The Government are fully committed to a bright future for the World Service. As the hon. Member for Gordon said, that was why last year we announced an additional £44 million in grant in aid to the World Service for the three years 1999–2002. I commend the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham on her cheek in calling that funding mean, given that the Government that she supported through the 1980s and 1990s progressively attacked the World Service against massive popular opposition, including from within the House.
Mrs. Gillan: Will the Minister confirm that approximately £40 million of that sum went towards building the new transmitter in Oman?
Mr. Hain: The World Service spends the grant in aid that the Foreign Office gives it on improving its services, and one form of the expenditure may well have been that
178WH
transmitter. If so, it would have extended services across the world, and I am sure the hon. Lady would not want to quarrel with any extension of the World Service, which she has spent so much time praising.
Mrs. Gillan: The Minister is most generous in giving way, but as he has half an hour in which to speak, I am sure that he will be grateful to any hon. Member who intervenes. Is he happy that the grant in aid from the Foreign Office to the World Service fell by 7.6 per cent. in 1996–97 and 4.4 per cent. in 1997–98? Will he confirm that those figures, which come from the Library, are correct and that there will be a real-terms decrease for 2000–01 and 2001–02? I see that inspiration has arrived.
Mr. Hain: The first figure that the hon. Lady quotes relates to the last Conservative Government, and I am not happy about it. The second year came within a financial framework that had been set by the last Conservative Government. She does not dispute that we are providing an extra £44 million, which represents a substantial increase in funding for the World Service.
Mr. Mackinlay: Hon. Members obviously applaud that additional funding, but the Minister's brief does not tell him that BBC radio cannot, and never will, reach large parts of the world for which he has personal responsibility in his ministerial portfolio, whereas television will be able to reach those people and provide all the services to which reference has been made this morning. I welcome that money, but a slice of it would be much better directed towards such services so that they reach the folk in respect of whom he has some jurisdiction—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): Order. Interventions must be brief, even if we think that we can be generous with the time.
Mr. Hain: I am aware of some things that are not in my brief, and I acknowledge the fact that BBC World does not reach some parts of the world, including some for which I have policy responsibility. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about BBC World, and I shall deal with it. I should like it to reach many more parts of the globe.
Before generously allowing those interventions, I was making the point that the increase in funding that the Government are happily providing is intended to enable the World Service to implement an ambitious strategy of embracing the latest technology. We want to ensure that it remains the most respected and most widely listened to voice in international broadcasting. I am sure that there is unanimity on that in this Chamber.
The World Service faces stern challenges, both competitively and technologically. The speed of change in broadcasting is breathtaking, but I am confident that the World Service will meet those challenges—indeed, it is already doing so. I am delighted that it is exploiting to the full the fast growing medium of the digital age—on-line broadcasting. Internet users throughout the world can listen to the World Service's English programmes live. By embracing that new technology and the distribution opportunities that FM and rebroadcasting offer, the World Service aims to become a leading-edge multimedia broadcaster.

179WH
Some things will not change. Many audiences around the world—tens of millions of people—will remain heavily dependent on the World Service's traditional core radio services for many years to come. The World Service is developing its FM output, but there will be a continuing focus on short-wave delivery. I have seen for myself how dependent many audiences—for example, those in India, which I visited last month—are on the World Service's short-wave broadcasts and will be for some time to come. The World Service is striking exactly the right balance between the old and the new. Its concern for all its listeners will ensure its continued success.
The World Service's programmes will continue to be underpinned by the BBC's core strengths and values: trust, reliability and independence; quality, expertise and relevance; truth, accuracy and impartiality. The hon. Member for Tatton rightly referred to those values as being far superior to those of its rivals because the BBC is a beacon of light and truth.
The World Service is, importantly, editorially and managerially independent of Government, and will remain so. I shall quote the Secretary-General of the United Nations. He said:
"It serves Britain and the world by being independent and, therefore, credible."
He continued:
"What is remarkable is that successive British Governments have understood that."
Mr. Baker: Will the Minister give a straight answer to a key question? Where is the logic in requiring the World Service to be 100 per cent. funded by the FCO, including the real increases to which he referred, while requiring BBC World to be 100 per cent. commercially funded?
Mr. Hain: I am about to give a straight answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. The broadcasting values, which I was describing and which we all agree apply to the BBC World Service, also govern BBC World television. Everybody knows that BBC World is a commercial operation funded by subscription and advertising. The Government do not fund BBC World; it is part of the BBC's commercial arm, and is separate from the World Service. The decision was taken in 1988 that there should be no public funding for the BBC's proposed international television service. That decision has been vindicated by the success of what has followed. [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"]
We have all been celebrating that success. BBC World is available in 150 million homes across 200 countries, which is a credible and creditable achievement on which the BBC is to be congratulated. As hon. Members have said, BBC World has faced difficulties in recent months, and I share their concern about those difficulties. It is a long-standing principle that the Government do not intervene in the BBC's decisions on programme content, and I doubt that hon. Members would invite a Minister to do so; nor do we interfere in scheduling or staffing. I am pleased that the BBC's board of governors, which has both the duty and the means to represent the public interest, has expressed its commitment publicly to the continuance of BBC World television. I have relied on it during my ministerial travels all over the world in recent
180WH
months. It is far superior to CNN—I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Tatton in that respect—and to any other world television service.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Why does the Minister believe that it does not matter if the BBC withdraws from comment and analysis? We are trying to press him on this matter. He is stating the self-evident, but will he say whether the Government, as a matter of policy, are concerned that that aspect of BBC World is about to be discontinued? Do the Government care or not? Will they do anything about it?
Mr. Hain: By definition, the Government care a great deal about all the policies for which they are responsible. I agree with the hon. Member for Gordon that it is a matter of concern that the comment and analysis sections of BBC World will disappear. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock is well taken. BBC World television reaches where other channels choose not to go. To be fair, I think that it was the hon. Member for Gordon who said that first. Both hon. Members were making the point that BBC World covers issues such as Kosovo, East Timor and other matters of great international concern in a way that is unrivalled by other channels.
The cut in the comment and analysis section of BBC World is based on a programming decision. According to the BBC's chief executive, the market will not bear hour-long analysis programmes, which CNN and Sky do not broadcast. Hon. Members may challenge that view and they are entitled to do so directly to the BBC's chief executive. He says that BBC World will lose market share because people will not wish to—
Mr. Bruce rose—
Mr. Hain: I am just explaining the chief executive's point of view. He says that people will not want to concentrate or continue to watch BBC World, but will turn to its competitors.
Mr. Bruce: I understand that it is the chief executive's view, but the collision between commercial interests and public service broadcasting is exactly the issue that we are debating. The BBC is between a rock and a hard place: either it can be a commercial channel, of which there are hundreds, if not thousands, or it can be a public service broadcasting channel, with or without commercial funding. The Minister seems to be evading these fundamental points: do the Government have a view; do they have a policy; do they care; and will they even talk to the BBC about the proposed cuts?
Mr. Hain: I have been explaining the Government's view and I shall continue to do so in more detail.
Mr. Clive Soley (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush): My understanding is that the BBC feels that it has to cut the programmes that are specifically produced for BBC World, but that it will fill up the available time slots with in-depth programmes drawn from its home-based news production. We are not getting a clear message from the BBC about whether it is programming replacements from its home-based programmes, or whether it is just cutting out such programmes. That needs to be clarified.
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, which the board of governors and the BBC's management will, no doubt, want to answer.

181WH
I understand the concens that have been expressed, but there are two points to make. First, licence fee money or other income could be shifted across to BBC World. In the case of licence fee income, it would have to be requested by the BBC by way of a representation to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. Secondly, we recall that Sky Television's early years were loss-making years and that Rupert Murdoch decided to bear those losses by what became a booming, profitable service. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock described it, for the BBC to do the same would be a gilt-edged investment. I do not think that anyone would disagree with that.
The BBC may decide that that is the policy that it wants to pursue. It may be able to treat BBC World as a loss leader, on the basis that it will make substantial profits as its range extends and its reputation is more appreciated across the world.
Mrs. Gillan: I find it rather depressing that the Minister is reading his brief so well. We are talking about cuts, which, if they were made to Radio 4, would affect "Today", "The World at One" and "The World Tonight". More important is the question of what the Minister is going to do about the proposed cuts. Will the Foreign Office give the BBC some support, to encourage it to rescind the cuts that are anticipated in the next two weeks? Will the Minister get off his brief and do what we all want him to do, which is support the BBC, so that when he next meets Xanana Gusmao, the East Timorese leader who has pleaded specificially for the service to continue, he will be able to look him in the face and say, "I saved the World Service"?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is an important debate and I hope that hon. Members will remember that interventions should be such, interventions, and not secondary speeches.
Mr. Hain: I am sure that the BBC will have taken note of the points made by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, as I have done. I have expressed my commitment to BBC World television repeatedly. It is an extremely important service, and I want it to be expanded and investment in it to increase. It has expanded very successfully under this regime. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) pointed out, there is a choice involved. It is not a question of a big black hole appearing in BBC World's services.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce rose—
Mrs. Gillan rose—
Mr. Hain: I shall give way in a moment, but I want to come to my point, which answers all the points that have been made. Several hon. Members have sought to draw a parallel between the role of BBC World and the World Service and to argue that that means that the Government should be more financially supportive of BBC World. As I said, BBC World was established as a commercial operation, whereas the World Service is first
182WH
and foremost a public sector, subsidised broadcaster. The Government see no grounds for publicly funding BBC World, which has been hugely successful without public subsidy, from either the licence fee or parliamentary grant in aid. We strongly support its effort to project Britain to a mass international audience.
Mrs. Gillan rose—
Mr. Hain: I want to finish this point, after which I shall be happy to respond to any interventions that may come my way.
A fundamental point, which has not so far been acknowledged in the debate, is that the BBC World Service competes in a subsidised market. Its competitors are the Voice of America, Radio France Internationale and Deutsche Welle. In contrast, BBC World television competes in an unsubsidised market against CNN, Sky and ITN. Parliament has never given authority for grants in aid to go to BBC Worldwide.
If the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham is allowed to intervene, she must respond to my point or answer my question, although I accept that it is not her responsibility to answer questions. We are proud to give Foreign and Commonwealth Office grants in aid to the BBC World Service, but if we gave them to BBC World television, we should invite immediate and strong commercial protests from, for example, ITN, Sky and CNN. Does the hon. Lady accept that those protests would make it difficult to continue to implement our policy?
Mrs. Gillan: When did the Minister last meet BBC representatives, and when did he discuss this matter with them?
Mr. Hain: I have not met BBC representatives recently to discuss this matter because it has only just arisen. I hope that all hon. Members reflect on my point: does any hon. Member want the Government to adopt a position that would involve attracting immediate commercial and, conceivably, legal challenges to BBC World television from commercial rivals that are direct competitors? Some of those competitors are based in Britain.
Mr. Mackinlay: The message from this debate—I shall paint it on the Minister's eyelids, if necessary—is that the Minister, the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister should talk to the BBC about this matter. At the very least, the Minister should give a commitment this morning to do so.
Mr. Hain: I am happy to give that commitment and to convey to BBC World television the strong feelings that hon. Members have expressed about the cuts in this debate. However, in that meeting I shall not seek to intervene in the BBC's management decisions or programme content, because it would be wrong for any Minister to do so. Those matters are the BBC's responsibility, and it is publicly accountable for its decisions.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The Minister has made his position clear. Hon. Members who have already spoken

183WH
may be unhappy about that position, but at least we had a clear, if regrettable, statement of policy. However, the Minister should accept that many people believe that the Foreign Office should have a view on the service's future. The Minister and other Foreign Office Ministers—and, if possible, the Prime Minister, as the hon. Member for Thurrock suggested—should have discussions with the BBC. It had the freedom to take the decision, and it has the freedom to reverse it. Persuasion from the top might help.
Mr. Hain: I shall emphasise several points. First, no hon. Member has so far disputed the essential point that I made about the difference between the BBC World Service, which operates in a context that includes other subsidised services, and BBC World television, which does not operate in such a context.
Secondly, I am happy to report the views that have been expressed during this debate, to engage in discussions with the BBC and to seek an explanation from it of its adopted course of action, which concerns all of us. However, I shall not give a commitment to interfere with the BBC's managerial ability to determine programmes, the way in which it schedules its services, or its programme content or priorities.
Mr. Baker: Do not the Voice of America, Deutsche Welle and Radio France Internationale supply television services? Is the Minister convinced that none of those services receives a public Government subsidy?
Mr. Hain: I have already discussed the comparison, and my point has not been challenged. [Interruption.] No, it has not been challenged. Britain's reputation for diversity and independence in international broadcasting is the envy of the world, and we should do our utmost to preserve that reputation. The continued success of the BBC World Service and of BBC World television is vital to that objective.
I stress the fact that the Government are committed to the continued success of BBC World television. We hope that it will expand its coverage and reach parts of the world that it has not yet reached. We shall support it in that objective, but I shall not interfere in the BBC's detailed programming or managerial decisions. No doubt it will take account—
Sir Robert Smith: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hain: No, I have dealt generously with interventions.
We shall not interfere in the BBC's detailed decisions, but we want BBC World television to expand. I must stress that we are giving more money to the BBC World Service than has ever been given before, and that we have been much more generous than our Conservative predecessors. We are committed to the service—wherever I go, I support it and I listen to it across the world—and we shall continue to support it. It is vital to Britain's role in the world. The BBC's policy of providing the highest quality broadcasting services in radio and television throughout Britain and the rest of the world must continue to be successful.
11.26 am
Sir Robert Smith: Although the Minister would not give way, there is sufficient time in this debate to emphasise what I was trying to say in my intervention. He said that he was committed to BBC World, but he also said that he should have no influence on or interest in BBC World. He did not show any practical commitment to it; we have heard only soft words.
The Minister said that the 1988 decision had been vindicated, but this debate would tend to suggest that it has not been. He must think carefully about the way in which this country projects itself abroad. BBC World is an integral part of that image. It and the BBC World Service provide the same service, but on different platforms and using different technologies.
The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) rightly said that the way in which Britain projects itself abroad, through the British Council and the World Service, pays dividends in all sorts of ways, and that many benefits are returned to our economy. If we project our culture, methods and society abroad and engage foreign countries effectively, we can develop industries and other commercial activities on the back of that success.
Mrs. Gillan: In the time that remains, I must stress that the Minister was disingenuous in the way in which he—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has already spoken once. We should at least give the Minister the opportunity to say the odd word.
11.29 am
Mr. Hain: I want to respond to the comments of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), who seemed to suggest that the service was going downhill and collapsing. It now reaches 150 million homes in 200 countries, and BBC World television is going from strength to strength. It does so with the Government's active support and backing.
This morning, we discussed a decision about which hon. Members and I are concerned. BBC managers say that the decision was taken in order to protect the BBC's competitive position in relation to audience reach. Hon. Members are free to disagree, and have disagreed, with that decision.
The idea that the Government are turning their back on BBC World television or radio services is a total travesty. We give more support to the BBC than has been given previously; we back the service in every way that we can, and we shall continue to do so. Our debate will allow BBC managers to take account of the real concerns that have been expressed about BBC World television. No doubt, they will want to reflect on the points that have been made. I shall happily meet them but—if I may be forgiven for putting it this way—I

185WH
cannot accept lectures from the Liberal Democrats, and certainly not from the Conservatives, who spent year after year attacking the BBC's domestic and international services. An unrivalled expansion of the BBC World Service and of BBC World television occurred under the present Government, and we shall continue—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We must now move on to the next debate.

Benzodiazepines
11.30 am
Mr. Phil Woolas: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the privilege of opening this debate. This is the first time that I have spoken in the new Chamber. Westminster Hall is not bad as lean-tos go. I shall be grateful for your guidance.
The debate has been given weight by the recent report of the Select Committee on Health on procedures related to adverse clinical incidence and outcomes in medical care. I draw that report and the evidence gathered by the Committee to the attention of hon. Members.
The story of benzodiazepines is of awesome proportions and has been described as a national scandal. The impact is so large that it is too big for Governments, regulatory authorities and the pharmaceutical industry to address head on, so the scandal has been swept under the carpet. My reasons for bringing the debate to the Chamber are numerous and reflect the many strands that weave through the issue.
I was first alerted to the matter when a constituent, Mr. Barry Haslam, wrote to me describing the nightmare in which he has lived as a result of having taken benzodiazepines. He was prescribed Ativan—one of the family of benzodiazepine drugs—for 10 years. As a result, he suffered permanent brain damage, hearing and thyroid problems, fatigue and mood swings, bad circulation, pains in his limbs, slurred speech and memory loss so severe that he cannot remember the past 10 years of his two daughters' growing up: he has lost 10 years of his life. He and other members of the Oldham Tranx support group would have been here today had that been possible.
There are good days between the bad days for the victims of tranquilliser addiction. Like many others of the Victims of Tranquillisers group, Barry is a campaigner. My first impression was that he was a member of the green spidery ink brigade—he bombarded me with letters, documents, quotations and research that he and others had painstakingly eked out of officialdom. However, my constituent is not an obsessive, but a highly intelligent and articulate man with enormous courage and a loving wife who has supported him throughout his campaign. He is a victim of damage to his brain caused by years of heavy dosages of benzodiazepines. There are in this country many thousands of similar cases in which harm has been done, not only to individuals who take the drugs, but to the children of mothers addicted to benzodiazepines while pregnant.
I have permission to cite the case of Mrs. Jackie Gillard, a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith). Mrs. Gillard wrote to me:
"My life is in the pits. I am unable to go out. I get panic attacks. I go to bed and ask God to let me die in my sleep."
Mrs. Gillard's is an especially difficult situation, as her two sons also appear to be victims of the addiction.
Angela Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having given way; I want not to detract from his excellent comments, but to place on record my gratitude that he has mentioned my constituent.

187WH
I have been distressed by the letters that I have received from my constituent on the matter, in which she details not only the impact of the drugs on her, but the effect on her family. She could not even attend her father when he died in hospital, because she could not go out. I ask my hon. Friend for his comments on something else that she has said:
"Life just frightens me every day."
Mr. Woolas: I have received correspondence from hon. Members on both sides of the House describing awful and heart-rending cases such as Mrs. Gillard's from round the country. Recent media interest includes documentaries by the respected "You and Yours" programme on Radio 4 and Tyne Tees Television, and numerous television and radio news reports supported by press reports.
Evidence submitted to the Select Committee by Dr. Peart, national co-ordinator of Victims of Tranquillisers, details the story of benzodiazepines for the past 40 years. In his introduction to that evidence, he says:
"the catalogue of misprescribing, misdiagnosis and mistreatment … has cost this country billions of pounds."
The side effects of benzodiazepines are not widely known, despite publicity. Patients are not given the full information about the side effects and are, therefore, unable to make an informed choice. My constituent, Mr. Haslam, would never have taken the drugs had he known the problems that they cause, despite the difficulties that they were originally intended to cure.
As early as 1980, a report in this country on the use of benzodiazepine-based drugs suggested that they were effective for only 10 days, after which they were no longer effective against the wide variety of problems for which they were originally prescribed. It is now an established fact in the medical profession that it takes only seven to 14 days for addiction to take hold of someone taking benzodiazepines. The problem is twofold: the addiction and the paradoxical side effects.
Guidelines on the prescription of benzo-based drugs suggest that patients should be closely monitored while using them, but that does not happen in practice. Patients are able to obtain repeat prescriptions of the medicine without seeing a health care professional, which can lead to patients being prescribed benzos for many years without being offered an opportunity to lower the dosage or try alternative treatments.
There are many problems related to the drugs beyond addiction and side effects. They can have catastrophic effects on children born to women prescribed them, such as congenital defects, and physical and mental handicaps; there is evidence that they can cause attention deficit disorder and autism. Increasing problems related to the black market and street use of benzodiazepines are emerging. In 1996, the previous Government made the benzodiazepine Halcion illegal. However, there is an increasing street market in other benzodiazepines: Rohypnol—the date rape drug—is a benzodiazepine. Benzodiazepines are increasingly used and abused with alcohol and opiate-based drugs.
The group that campaigns for action on the issue claims that there has been a contravention of the Medicines Act 1968 by drug companies producing these pharmaceuticals. It is claimed that they knew about the
188WH
cases of addiction, toxicity and side effects before the drugs were even licensed. The Journal of the American Medical Associations reported the problems as early as 1969. The Department of Health must increase its funding of research into the after effects and consequences of the drugs.
My constituent, Barry Haslam, has permanent neurological damage and other disabling conditions, yet he has recently been refused disability living allowance, which he had received for many years. On most days, he would fail all seven tests for mobility allowance and all four tests for care allowance, but on other days he is perfectly articulate and able to look after himself, get about and hold down part-time work, were any available.
The issue also concerns the Department of Social Security, which must urgently improve the disability benefits handbook on the matter. I remind hon. Members that MIND estimates that 1.2 million people are affected by addiction to benzodiazepines. For 20 years or so, benzos, including Valium, Ativan and Lorazepam, were fashionable drugs. They were prescribed in abundance on both sides of the Atlantic and considered to be the cure-all for depression, sleepless nights and a range of problems thought to be associated with the modern world. However, it took more than 25 years for United Kingdom medical authorities to issue guidelines, and it was not until 1988 that the committee on review of medicines toughened up the prescription guidelines for general practitioners.
In 1979, some 30 million prescriptions for benzos were issued in this country. Drug manufacturers, led by the company Roche Products Ltd., launched an onslaught on the medical profession, including 1,000 visits a week made by company representatives to general practitioners. Despite the 1980 review, prescriptions continued to be issued at similar levels throughout the 1980s. Even today, on the latest figures available, MIND estimates that 16 million prescriptions are issued each year. The drugs are being prescribed to one in four adults, to women more commonly than to men—indeed, twice as often. More than 1 million pensioners take benzodiazepines every night, supposedly to help them sleep. Despite the weight of evidence from both sides of the Atlantic and the current guidelines on prescriptions, no victim from those 20 to 30 years has ever been compensated. All collective legal actions have been withdrawn as legal aid licences have ended. A solicitor of Drummond Miller of Edinburgh, a well-known law firm in Edinburgh city, described as impossible the fight that the campaign has waged against the
"might of the multinational drug companies".
Indeed, in the United Kingdom, only one individual's legal case remains outstanding—and all power to his elbow.
I have no doubt that controlled and time-limited use of benzodiazepines can bring enormous relief to some patients. However, 40 years after their introduction, 30 years after the first warnings, and 10 years after the UK authorities put on the brakes, they remain commonplace and are still prescribed above the recommended level. The blight on our streets is getting worse. Home Office statistics show that such class C drugs are now a commonplace commodity in the street

189WH
market. In the past three months in my constituency, benzos have been the target in two burglaries of pharmacies, and there are hundreds of such cases throughout the country. The 1998 Home Office statistical bulletin shows that, from 1990 to 1995, 1,602 deaths were directly related to benzodiazepines, including 683 suicides. In the same period, 218 deaths were linked to heroin, and 483 to methadone. That is the scale of the problem.
In a recent Home Office pilot project undertaken in five locations throughout England, 61 per cent. of people arrested tested positive for drugs, one fifth of whom—12 per cent. of the total—tested positive for benzodiazepines, compared with only 10 per cent. for crack and cocaine combined and 8 per cent. for methadone. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has recommended the introduction of additional controls on the import, export and possession of benzodiazepines, which, according to parliamentary written answer No. 93720, the Home Office is "actively considering". I believe that, in the lexicon of Sir Humphrey, "actively considering" means "probably". Let us hope that the Home Office acts forcefully and quickly.
We need joined-up policy. Leading academics on the subject have presented evidence to the drugs tsar, Mr. Keith Hellawell. We need recognition of the harm done to thousands of people, robust guidelines that are forcefully promoted and a review of the classification of benzodiazepines. We need stringent support for addicts in the NHS, social services and the voluntary sector, to ensure that the withdrawal from such drugs is beneficial and does not increase the pain and suffering of many addicts. The problem of benzodiazepines is an iceberg, involving, according to accepted figures, 1.2 millon people addicted as a result of over-long prescription of the drugs. It involves an increasingly dangerous street trade and a level of ignorance and lack of awareness that is perpetuating the problem rather than solving it, 40 years after the first warnings of the effects of Valium.
11.46 am
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas) on having raised this important issue. I assure him and my hon. Friends the Members for Basildon (Angela Smith) and for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn)—he takes a close interest in such matters—that we treat the issues raised extremely seriously, and have no intention of sweeping them under the carpet.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth said, a great deal of research has been conducted and much has been written on the topic over the past 25 years or so. In the past three years, the Medical Research Council has commissioned more than £1.5 million-worth of research into benzodiazepine use. The largest project, which is worth more than £1 million, deals specifically with benzodiazepine addiction.
Based on the findings of existing research, current advice from the Committee on Safety of Medicines is in the British National Formulary, which as my hon. Friend will know, is distributed regularly to all doctors.
190WH
It states clearly that benzodiazepines are indicated for the short-term relief of anxiety that is severe, disabling or subjecting the individual to unacceptable distress, occurring alone or in association with insomnia or short-term psychosomatic, organic or psychotic illness. The use of benzodiazepines to treat short-term mild anxiety is now considered inappropriate and unsuitable. The Committee on Safety of Medicines advises that benzodiazepines should be used to treat insomnia only when it is severe, disabling or subjecting the individual to extreme distress.
My Department has taken several measures to support the appropriate use of such drugs, a matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth referred in his thoughtful and well-constructed remarks. We recently published a new national service framework for mental health services, in which we spell out national standards for mental health, taking into account mental health promotion, primary care, access to services, effective services for people with severe mental illness, and other issues. Of particular relevance to this debate is that primary care services in the national service framework are required to work with specialist care providers to develop and implement assessment and management protocols for several mental health problems, including anxiety disorders, for which benzodiazepine is prescribed. Those protocols will draw on the best available evidence and will help to establish proper consistency in managing such conditions throughout the country.
My Department has also been focusing on preventing addiction or dependence from ever occurring, by warning GPs and other prescribers of the potential side effects of prescribed medicines and in particular of the dangers of addiction to benzodiazepines.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of the side effects of pregnant women using benzodiazepine. I understand and am currently advised, that there is no proven link between benzodiazepine use and damage to developing foetuses. Current advice is that all drugs should be avoided in pregnancy if at all possible. The Government keep the issue of benzodiazepine use in pregnancy under close review, as we do the use of other drugs, through organisations such as the Advisory Council on Drug Misuse.
Doctors have an ethical responsibility to inform patients about any treatment proposed, including possible side effects of prescribed medicines. It is the responsibility of health authorities to ensure that adequate prescribing controls are in place. Conspicuous poor prescribing would result in disciplinary action from either the health authority or the General Medical Council. The use of clinical audit and peer review has also provided a powerful incentive for local clinicians to study their patterns of care and improve prescribing standards, which is now part of the Government's clinical governance agenda.
The Department funds a number of publications that provide up-to-date information on a variety of treatments. Those are made readily available to GPs, pharmacists and other health professionals. As my hon. Friend will know, the British National Formulary is published by the British Medical Association and the Royal Society of Great Britain and is issued every six months, free of charge to all GPs, pharmacists and other health professionals. The medicines resource centre

191WH
publishes a monthly bulletin giving up-to-date information on the treatment of various conditions and the drugs involved in such treatment.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Does my hon. Friend agree that our knowledge of the chemistry of the brain is in its infancy, and that the rash, vast over-prescribing of benzodiazepines has done damage that dwarfs all that done by illegal drugs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas) made clear? We are repeating those experiments now with the prescription of Prozac and Ritalin. Ritalin is prescribed to 2 million children in America. Should we not tell pharmaceutical companies that they should not be allowed to use dangerous drugs with unknown consequences in an experiment that serves not the public's need, but companies' profits?
Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Of course, the subject of the debate is benzodiazepines, but he raises the subject of Prozac. I am quite happy to correspond with him about his concerns, or he could come into the Department and discuss them with officials and with me. If possible, I would like to confine my remarks today to the issue of benzodiazepines.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): Order. That is indeed the subject to which the Minister must confine his remarks.
Mr. Hutton: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am trying hard to do so, tempting though my hon. Friend's intervention is.
In addition to the literature available to GPs, most health authorities employ professional advisers, both medical and pharmaceutical, whose role is to provide another source of advice and information on medical and prescribing issues to GPs in the area. Those arrangements have had tangible success in the sense that the number of prescriptions for tranquillisers continues to fall. That focus on preventing people from becoming dependent on these drugs has resulted in the number of prescriptions of benzodiazepines dispensed in the community falling steadily from more than 20 million in 1985 to a little more than 13 million in 1998, which is lower than the figure quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth.
The volume of benzodiazepine prescribing in the community is monitored and has this year been included as a national indicator of performance of the national health service through the performance assessment framework. That should allow health authorities to compare how they perform against national averages, and to benchmark themselves against similar organisations within the NHS, so as to identify where they can improve their performance. The monitoring of prescriptions of benzodiazepines is further developed in our recently published national service framework. Local clinical audit programmes are being asked to focus on prescribing rates for a range of drugs, including the benzodiazepines. As the mental health minimum dataset, which is being piloted, is rolled out across the country, the prescription of benzodiazepines will be monitored in relation to hospital, as well as community, prescribing. I hope that my hon. Friend welcomes that.
192WH
What have we been able to do to tackle dependence on these drugs? Treatment may be offered in primary care or in more specialised settings. Clear advice is given in the British National Formulary that withdrawal of benzodiazepines from patients who have developed dependence problems must be gradual. In some cases, a withdrawal programme may extend over many weeks. It is important that people are well supported during the process and helped to develop other ways of coping with their anxiety, sleeplessness and other symptoms.
For those who have developed dependence on tranquillisers, treatment may be offered in primary or secondary care settings. Anxiety management, which may be provided on an individual or group basis, often includes a focus on cessation of usage of tranquillisers. Therapy in secondary care may be made available in clinical psychology departments by way of a day hospital or community mental health team. Counselling and psychotherapy are available on the NHS and form an important part of the range of medical and non-medical provision for people with mental health problems. All such issues are covered by the national service framework. We know that such treatments can be effective. They are increasingly popular and are in great demand. That is why we are committed to ensuring that the right treatments are delivered where they are needed most.
The Department issued "Drug Misuse and Dependence—Guidelines on Clinical Management" to all GPs in April. Those guidelines were written and peer-reviewed by experts. They give advice on treating misuse of a range of drugs, including benzodiazepines, and will reflect best evidence and knowledge of what works in treating drug misusers. For example, they contain advice on the best way to manage benzodiazepine withdrawal. Given that the only source of benzodiazepines is through diversion of prescribed medication, the guidelines stress to doctors and professionals the importance of appropriate and secure prescribing.
There are, of course, several organisations working to help people to overcome benzodiazepine addiction and that includes voluntary sector bodies. In 1994, the Mental Health Foundation produced an excellent publication entitled "Guidelines for the Prevention and Treatment of Benzodiazepine Dependence", which was aimed at general practice. It not only gives a summary of good practice in prescribing, but sets out a protocol in the management of benzodiazepine withdrawal. It remains as valid today as it was in 1994, and those working in general practice would be well advised to apply the principles that it sets out. The Mental Health Foundation also issued a booklet aimed at people who use tranquillisers, entitled "A Guide to Starting and Stopping Tranquillisers and Sleeping Tablets", which contains good, practical advice.
Apart from the Mental Health Foundation, I should like to mention the Council for Involuntary Tranquilliser Addiction. CITA aims to raise awareness of the problems of drug addiction and to support the withdrawal and rehabilitation of those addicted to tranquillisers. It helps to train doctors and other health workers in respect of benzodiazepine withdrawal, and provides support to a variety of health professionals. It does that by running 27 clinics in GP practices and by providing training through workshops, conferences and

193WH
literature, as well as a helpline that is open five days a week. In addition, it provides a valuable resource for the media, fielding inquiries and providing information.
I mention that because my Department helped to maintain and consolidate CITA's helpline with funding of more than £30,000 over three years. In addition, earlier this year, my officials met representatives of CITA to discuss its current work programme and to see what further help we could give. I am pleased to say that CITA has now made an application for further assistance from next April to help to establish a number of clinics on Merseyside. That will build on its existing good work, most notably in Wigan and Bolton, and provide for face-to-face counselling coupled with the innovative use of natural therapies in helping patients to cope with withdrawal. I am not in a position to say today what the outcome of the application will be, but I hope that we will be able to include it in our wider programme of support for the voluntary sector.
I now want to concentrate on the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth about our part of the world, the northwest. He raised concern about the proportion of people attending drug misuse treatment in his constituency who report benzodiazepines as their main drug. Nationally, that proportion is relatively low—about 2 per cent. I understand that that figure is roughly the same in my hon. Friend's local health authority—the West Pennine health authority—and the north-west region as a whole.
Much more worrying is the proportion of people who report using benzodiazepines as a subsidiary or secondary drug. Nationally, that figure is about 16 per
194WH
cent. I understand that the figure for the West Pennine authority is much higher, at about 40 per cent. That is also higher than figures for elsewhere in the north-west region.
I assure my hon. Friend that we are acting to reduce high levels of prescribing. For example, in the West Pennine authority, audits have been carried out of GP practices. In addition, the health authority intends to run a series of workshops aimed at primary care staff to inform the way in which they prescribe benzodiazepines. The West Pennine health authority plans to relaunch its guidelines for planned benzodiazepine withdrawal, and that will be fully audited to determine the success of GP withdrawal programmes. There will also be a review of the evidence for use of benzodiazepines by drug misusers to develop further guidance for GPs. As part of the Department of Health's north-west regional offices's performance review of its health authorities, benzodiazepine prescribing will be monitored very carefully.
I fully understand my hon. Friend's concerns about benzodiazepine prescribing in his constituency and I hope that he will be reassured about the action we are taking. The regional office and the health authority will continue to consider the issue closely in future. We are aware that, although a lot of good work is already under way, there is more to be done to ensure that everyone has access to the best possible services.
Although benzodiazepines will continue to have a place in treating short-term mental health problems, alongside counselling and other psychological interventions, I can assure my hon. Friend—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Public Transport (South Gloucestershire)
12 noon
Mr. Steve Webb: I am grateful to have this opportunity to raise the issue of public transport in south Gloucestershire, and in my constitutency of Northavon in particular, because the issue affects the quality of life of my constituents more than many others. Because Northavon is a mixed rural and edge-of-city constituency, car use is not a luxury, but a necessity in many cases. I frequently receive letters about public transport, so I am grateful to have the chance to draw the issue to the Minister's attention today.
At the outset, it is important to acknowledge and welcome what has been done during the past few years. Although I have many criticisms of the current situation, there have been some small steps in the right direction. We were grateful to receive funding through the rural bus grant scheme and the rural bus challenge scheme, which has funded some vitally needed community transport initiatives in south Gloucestershire. Those initiatives have identified an untapped demand and have been overwhelmed by interest from people who need those services, but have hitherto been unable to access them.
A preliminary skim—I confess to no more—of the Transport Bill suggests that its measures on bus services will be a modest step in the right direction. However, my contention is that the measures that have been taken, welcome though they are, are insufficient to deal with the scale of the problem. I shall talk about bus services in south Gloucestershire and say a few words about train services and rapid transit schemes to highlight my concerns, in the hope that the Minister can reassure me that the Government's strategy is adequate to deal with the scale of the problem.
One of my main concerns is that bus subsidy arrangements are not providing the taxpayer with good value for money, because bus companies have councils over a barrel. I shall give one example of how I believe that things have gone wrong. Recently, a new out-of-town shopping centre, The Mall at Cribbs Causeway, opened in my constituency. Many of my constituents shop or work there; one of the smaller private bus operators in the area spotted the potential for a new commercial route from Yate, the largest town in my constituency, to The Mall, and it set up a bus service. The dominant bus company spotted this and decided that it, too, would run a service along the same route. Before long the inevitable happened, and the first company was driven—almost literally—out of business.
The slightly sinister twist to the story is that the dominant bus company then decided that it could not continue to run the service either and told the council that it could not keep the service going. The council was then faced with the problem of shoppers who wanted to go to The Mall and workers who wanted to get to their jobs; both groups had established patterns of travel by bus. The council was faced with something similar to blackmail: either it could let the service die, with the result that the shoppers and workers would clog up the roads even more, or it could step in and provide subsidy. Sure enough, public money was found to subsidise what had previously been a commercial service.
Public money should be used to provide better bus services, but it is only lining the pockets of the bus operators. The inequality of power between the bus
196WH
company and the local authority greatly concerns me. At the start of the process, the private operator decides which services it can run on a commercial basis. That leaves the council to identify from among the remainder routes where tendering is required, but that tendering process is almost a joke. In parts of my constituency, 80 per cent. of tenders go to one company, so there is one dominant group—the First Group, in various incarnations. That company knows that, if it does not identify a route as a commercial route, there is a good chance that the council will pay it to run a service on that route anyway. I am concerned that, in that way, money that should be used to improve services is being used to help bus companies.
What about the quality of services? There is a traffic commissioner, who, in principle, is supposed to keep an eye on such things. However, I am reliably informed that, if I were to say that he had a handful of inspectors in my constituency, I would be guilty of gross exaggeration. He does not have adequate resources to deal with the task. I am not convinced that public subsidy for bus services in south Gloucestershire is good value for money. I believe that to be is a legacy from the deregulation that took place 10 to 15 years ago. I accept that some modest steps in the other direction may have been taken, but I have reservations about whether those steps have gone far enough.
I have mentioned the rural bus grant, which I welcome, but it takes a long time to change people's patterns of travel, especially in rural areas. People move to rural areas in the knowledge that they can get to work by car, and the availability of a bus service for a year or two will not change that pattern. Only if people know that a service will continue, year in and year out, and be reliable and dependable, will they have the incentive to change their habits. Therefore, I should be grateful if the Minister would outline for south Gloucestershire's residents what the future holds for services provided through the rural bus grant when the money runs out. What will happen in two or three years' time? Will those services simply cease, or can my constituents base their travelling patterns on the assumption that the services will continue?
I understand the need for the rural bus grant to produce new services, but that rule has created some anomalies. I understand that money cannot be used for services that were in place on 1 May 1998, but that services started then and subsequently discontinued can be resurrected under the scheme. That creates an arbitrary distinction between services that are borderline—those which have been running for a few years and need to be kept going in the interests of the public transport infrastructure, but which cannot be supported through the scheme—and new services, for which there is not much demand, but which can be funded. I wonder whether that arbitrary cut-off date should be reconsidered.
Other arbitrary features of the scheme affect south Gloucestershire. The limit on communities numbering 10,000 or fewer has some odd consequences for my constituency. In neighbouring parishes, one can have a bus service and another cannot because of population density. In towns such as Thornbury, which is probably the second largest town in my constituency, the public transport network is poor. The area is rural, on any

197WH
understanding of that term, but it cannot benefit from the grant. Clearly, there mut be a cut-off point, but I am not convinced that it has been drawn in the right place.
I should like to make one final observation on bus services before I move on to consider rail issues. The community transport support has been warmly welcomed. The Thornbury-Severn Vale link was opened by the previous Minister of Transport and, as I said earlier, demand for those services has been considerable. However, once again, we are faced with the question of what will happen in the long term. The money has bought the buses, hired the office and provided someone to run the scheme, but what is the future for the pensioners and disabled people who have become dependent on those services? In two or three years' time, will they still be able to go to their lunch clubs, visit their relatives or get to hospital? Some indication of the longterm position would be very valuable. I contend that people will change their behaviour only if they have security, predictability and reliability, and if they know that services will continue, rather than just exist for a while and then disappear. Indeed, the very act of taking away the subsidy at the end of a certain period demoralises people and causes them to think that they cannot rely on bus services.
I have dwelt at some lengths on buses because they are often seen as the poor relation of the transport network, but I want to touch on two other categories of local public transport. The local train services in my constituency—there are stations at Pilning, Severn Beach and Yate—are the Cinderella services. To give one example, when the rugby world cup was held in south Wales, trains were taken off the Severn Beach to Bristol line in order to take passengers to Cardiff. There is often a lack of investment in track and the quality of service is unreliable, so people give up using rail. Once people have given up using the railway, it is an almost impossible task to persuade them to come back. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will offer some reassurance that those local networks that are not mainline networks will have a key place in the future.
In that context, I must mention one issue that affects south Gloucestershire and many areas beyond, where a crisis is imminent. That is the threat by British Rail, or its successor, Rail Property Ltd., to sell off land adjoining stations and land that previously contained rail track. I understand that, in January 2000, 14 sites in south Gloucestershire may be sold off to the highest bidder. I should like to read from a letter from the public transport manager of South Gloucestershire council to the chief executive of Rail Property Ltd., sent in mid-November, in which the public transport manager expressed his concern. It states:
"It appears … incongrous and … disappointing to a local authority that two different agencies of central government are working towards apparently diametrically opposite ends. One, the British Rail Property Board … has a remit to sell off former rail land to the highest bidder. The other, the DETR … has objectives of increasing use of the rail network (an objective which is clearly not helped if some of the most valuable land required to expand the rail network has been sold off for other development)."
Once that land is sold and there are houses on it, it will not be used for rail again and an opportunity will be gone. We need a clear steer from the Government, demonstrating that they are aware of the urgency of this
198WH
issue and that they have it in hand. My local council's planning committee will meet on Thursday to consider the issue. All it can do to preserve those sites is to buy them at market value, but there is no money in the budget to do so, so what can it do? Must it watch the sites being sold and lose any hope of improving services, rather than withdrawing them? This is an urgent issue and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
Finally, I turn to the light rapid transit scheme from south Gloucestershire into Bristol, which has been a long-standing dream of many in the south Gloucestershire public transport sector—although a nightmare for others. Last year, I attended a presentation on that scheme. An experienced councillor said to me afterwards, "That was all very interesting, but I heard the same thing five years ago." People simply do not believe that it is going to happen. Trying to work out the Government's approach to this matter is akin to Kremlinology—we get a nudge here and a wink there. First, the new Government are assumed to be pro-public transport, then we hear that there is no money for light rail; now we hear that an area that might have road charges, such as Bristol, may get some money. We do not know what is really going on or when we will hear for sure. I would be grateful for a clear answer—whatever it is—so that we can plan local public transport services.
The problems I have described have deep roots. There is no overall strategy to address growth in road traffic in south Gloucestershire, yet still more houses are being built, still more people are moving in and dependence on the private car is increasing, not decreasing. I am unclear whether the Government's strategy for south Gloucestershire is that road traffic should fall, remain at current levels or rise by only a certain percentage; I am not even sure that they have said what their current strategy is. The pattern of development—that is, where houses and businesses are located—is reinforcing the pressure on the area's roads. I welcome what has been done so far, and we are grateful for it, but I feel that the scale of what has been done is not up to the scale of the problem. I hope that the Minister can convince me otherwise.
12.13 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on securing the debate. I am grateful for his reference to the modest benefits and advances resulting from Government policies to date; I suppose that we should be grateful for small mercies.
Local public transport is a popular and topical theme; indeed, I was dealing with the same subject only yesterday evening in a debate introduced by the hon. Gentleman's west country colleague, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter). This debate is also timely in the light of last Wednesday's publication of the Government's radical and wide-ranging Transport Bill. The Bill is a significant step towards a safer, more integrated and better quality transport system. It puts into practice many of the measures that we set out in our White Paper on the future of transport, the first comprehensive Government statement on transport in 20 years, which we published within 18 months of being elected.

199WH
Before I discuss the provisions of the Transport Bill, I shall respond to some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised about transport in his constituency. I am sure that he will know that each local transport authority is now required to prepare a local transport plan setting out its transport strategy and the measures necessary to carry that strategy forward. The provisional local transport plan for south Gloucestershire is being assessed by my officials in the Government office for the south-west, so I must be careful not to comment on the merits of its proposals or to speculate on the likely allocation of resources. I can make some general comments on the plan, but before I do so, it is important to set the scene in south Gloucestershire.
I know that there has been a great deal of new development in the district over the past 20 years, particularly in the north fringe of Bristol. The result has been growing traffic congestion, a trend that South Gloucestershire council is anxious to reverse through a variety of measures designed to increase the use of public transport. The provisional local transport plan identifies a wide range of opportunities to improve public transport in the district, including a scheme—to which the hon. Gentleman alluded—to establish a light rail system from Bradley Stoke on the northern fringe of Bristol to the city centre. It is being promoted jointly by Bristol city council and South Gloucestershire council and is envisaged as the first in a network of such links across Bristol and the surrounding area. The scheme's estimated capital cost is about £102 million, some 60 per cent. of which is expected to come from the private sector. The preferred method of meeting the remainder is through the private finance initiative; both councils are seeking support for that from the Government.
A full assessment of all local transport plans is under way. All major schemes, including light rapid transit systems, are being considered on their transport merits and on how they are integrated with the plans' objectives and strategies. We expect to announce very soon a shortlist of projects that might be supported over the next five years. Although I am unable to give a commitment on this particular LRT proposal, the Government welcome Bristol's innovative approach, especially its interest in piloting a congestion charging system. Given the long-standing enthusiasm of the hon. Gentleman's party for congestion charging, I hope that the Liberal Democrat-led South Gloucestershire council will maintain its support for that proposal.
South Gloucestershire council has an evolving quality bus partnership, which is designed to improve the quality and quantity of bus services. In developing that partnership, the council will address issues of fares and through ticketing for multi-stage journeys. Work is also under way in the north fringe of Bristol to establish an infrastructure for bus priority junctions through the introduction of urban traffic control systems. That will lessen delays and enable more accurate timetabling.
I recognise that conventional public transport cannot always meet the diverse accessibility needs of all in our communities. Voluntary action is the strength of local communities everywhere, so we are conducting a review of voluntary and community transport activity to gain a better understanding of the role played by the voluntary sector. We envisage parish councils in England as valuable partners in improving accessibility in rural
200WH
areas. We would like them to take an increasing role in community transport and to use their powers to fund community bus services.
South Gloucestershire council is also working with Railtrack and the train operators to improve facilities and services and to investigate the potential for making better use of under-used rail infrastructure. In particular, the line to Severnside could be reinstated to service existing development at Cribbs Causeway. Interchanges between public transport and other modes form the key nodes of the transport system. By establishing and improving those interchanges, the council will try to achieve a more integrated public transport system with a greater focus within south Gloucestershire.
Mr. Webb: The Minister mentioned the route to Cribbs Causeway. That would go through Henbury, which is currently closed; moreover, it is one of the sites that the British Rail Property Board wants to sell off. Can the Minister tell me how the council might set about preventing that, given that there is no budget for it to buy the land itself?
Mr. Hill: I fully intend to address the issue of British Rail property in due course.
The council is committed to making information on public transport services readily available through a variety of media in a user-friendly format. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's concerns about bus services, I note that he welcomes the benefits that the rural bus grant initiative has brought to south Gloucestershire. The area has received nearly £200,000 through the initiative, which has produced 31 entirely new or improved bus services in country districts. One of the conditions of the new rural bus subsidy grant was that it could not be used to fund services that were running on 1 May 1998; in other words, it cannot be used to fund withdrawn services. Therefore, an operator threatening to withdraw a service could not expect to be rewarded by receiving a contract that is funded by a rural bus subsidy.
There might be cases in which an operator has to withdraw from a contract because it is no longer economic for it to provide the service under the terms of that contract. The 1 May 1998 rule for the rural bus service grant has caused some difficulties, but it is an important principle that new funding must be used to support new services. I do not apologise for that. Local authority associations were fully consulted on all the grant conditions and they specifically supported the 1 May principle.
The Government did not want the new money to leak into maintaining the status quo—for example, operators withdrawing services in the expectation of subsidy, or authorities with many conflicting priorities cutting their subsidy spending. However, we will consider whether the rules should be changed in future. The Government are carefully monitoring the effects of the rural bus grant initiative with a view to taking decisions in due course about its future operation.

201WH
Local bus services operate in a deregulated market: 85 per cent. of services are run by commercial operators and only 15 per cent. are subsidised by local authorities. It is for commercial operators to decide which services they wish to operate. Local authorities have the power to plug gaps, but we recognise that they often have to make difficult choices between conflicting calls on resources. The Government also propose to strengthen the powers of the traffic commissioners with regard to bus companies, as part of the new Transport Bill.
The hon. Member for Northavon expressed concern about developments on disused railway tracks. That matter has been considered by the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs—a most distinguished Select Committee, if I may say so, Madam Deputy Speaker. As a result of the Committee's recommendations, we have taken steps to ensure that Railtrack, railway companies and local authorities will be kept informed of land sales, giving them the opportunity to acquire sites that could be used to reestablish the rail network.
The Government have now taken a major step in promoting a more integrated transport system through the publication last week of the Transport Bill. The centrepiece of the Bill is better public transport, which will offer more choice for motorists and for everyone else. The Bill contains radical measures designed to deliver the safe, modern, high-quality transport system that this country needs and deserves. These include promoting the use of railways through the Strategic Rail Authority, improving bus services and reducing road congestion and pollution. The Bill is the most comprehensive piece of transport legislation for 30 years.
The question of the apparent delay in introducing this legislation has been raised. However, there are no instantaneous solutions, and much preparatory work has been required to enable us to identify the policies needed to overcome the failures of the past 20 years. We inherited high and growing levels of road traffic congestion, poor public transport, inadequate provision for pedestrians and cyclists, and significant under-investment in road maintenance. Nevertheless, we have already made significant headway through increased investment, especially in public transport and road maintenance. The measures in the Bill pave the way for the modern, effective transport system that the country needs and deserves.
Mr. Webb: I sense that the Minister has moved away from the issue of the sale of rail-owned land. He said that the local authorities had been notified about the land sales. Certainly, they have been told that there is a threat of certain routes being sold off, and that they will never be able to use them, but what can they do about that?
Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. However, we do not envisage local authorities acting unilaterally to acquire land that might be used for either rail or alternative public transport purposes. We certainly do not expect the full burden of any financial responsibility accruing from the acquisition of such sites to fall entirely or even largely on local authorities. The
202WH
Government's committment in transport policy is towards partnership: we certainly expect local authorities to operate in partnership with private operators, developers and other interested parties in such disposals in future.
The Government recognise that motorists will not readily switch to public transport unless it is significantly better and more reliable. We also realise that we cannot achieve these measures unless we are prepared to put more resources into public transport. That is why the comprehensive spending review allocated a further £700 million over the next three years. We are also spending an extra £170 million on rural buses, which has so far resulted in an extra 1,800 new and enhanced services in England.
A key measure in the Bill is the establishment of the Strategic Rail Authority, which will make railway regulation more effective and make sure that the fragmented rail companies provide a decent national service. We also recognise that buses are crucial to the success of our integrated transport system and that they can provide a real alternative to car use. Local authorities will be given the tools necessary to develop quality public transport in their areas, and to tackle road congestion and pollution. The Bill will enable authorities and bus operators to deliver more through ticketing, higher quality buses, more frequent services and better information. About 130 quality partnerships have already been established on a voluntary basis with bus operators throughout the country, the result of which has been an increase in bus usage of between 10 and 40 per cent. in the areas involved.
To deal with congestion and pollution, the Bill gives local authorities new powers to introduce charges on congested roads and to introduce workplace parking charges. The money raised will be put back into improving local transport, improving choice and tackling congestion. We welcome the strong interest expressed by the city of Bristol in the opportunities offered by this scheme.
The Transport Bill will set the national framework, but the onus will be on local authorities to put the measures into practice. We believe that local people are best placed to find local solutions to local transport problems. The hon. Member for Northavon will be aware that we have introduced local transport plans as a centrepiece of our proposals. Those set out authorities' strategies for transport and are the key mechanism for pulling all local activity together. Authorities will also have to prepare a bus strategy and will be given powers to make effective changes to benefit bus passengers. Together, the local transport plan and the bus strategy will provide a solid basis for implementing integrated transport policies at local level.
As a first stage in this process, all county and unitary authorities have now submitted their provisional five-year transport plans, on the basis of which resources will be allocated for the next financial year. Authorities will then roll on their plans by one year and submit full plans next summer for the period 2001 to 2006. We are assessing the provisional plans and will shortly announce the allocation of resources for next year.

203WH
From the feedback that we have received so far, authorities seem to be responding positively to the challenge of producing local transport plans. They have overwhelmingly welcomed the national policy framework, and the process of preparing plans is acting as a positive force for change.
The Transport Bill now provides a solid framework for creating a more integrated transport system in this country. It will now be up to the local authorities to take measures forward. South Gloucestershire council is clearly committed to creating a more integrated
204WH
transport system in its district. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is too early for me to speculate on the outcome of the local transport plan process in south Gloucestershire, but the position will become clearer when the allocations are made for the new financial year.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): Order. As the hon. Member raising the next Adjournment debate is present, and the Minister is also with us, we shall now move on.

Methadone
12.30 pm
Dr. Brian Iddon: Rehabilitation centres have relied on methadone as the primary treatment for drug addiction from the national health service for almost 30 years. I believe that there is a place for methadone in the clinic. However, although it is commonly used in the treatment of opiate addiction, and its use is endorsed in "Drug Misuse and Dependence: Guidelines on Clinical Management", it is now widely recognised as a street drug in its own right. It was solely responsible for 48 deaths in a six-month period in 1998. Nearly 59 per cent. of those who died had obtained the drug illegally, demonstrating clearly the view that methadone now has its own street currency.
Methadone is implicated as a drug of misuse, often associated with other drugs, in more than 400 deaths a year in the United Kingdom. Many addicts have reported that they find methadone harder to give up than heroin.
In Scotland, the use of methadone as a treatment for opiate addiction has been hailed as a state-sponsored drugs plague. It appears that methadone has been misused and over-used as the only pharmaceutical method of treating opiate addiction. Therefore, why is methadone widely advocated in this country as the optimum method for the treatment of opiate addiction? There are a number of reasons, and cost is not among them.
First, an inadequate appraisal has been made of the research evidence available on methadone. Secondly, we are too accustomed to the drug. It has been prescribed for more than 20 years for the treatment of opiate addicts, and doctors are not encouraged to prescribe alternatives. There is a lack of will to change prescribing habits in the United Kingdom. If we are to reduce the number of deaths each year in which methadone is cited as the sole drug used, those habits must change.
In France, where Buprenorphine has been widely prescribed since 1996, the experience is different. Buprenorphine is the generic name for a drug branded as Subutex by Schering-Plough, which distributes the drug in the United Kingdom. It is a partial opioid agonist, unlike heroin and methadone, which are full agonists. The effect of that difference is realised in the treatment of opiate addiction. As a partial agonist, Buprenorphine decreases cravings for street heroin, tempers withdrawal symptoms and, importantly, negates any effect if street heroin is used simultaneously. It also carries a significantly lower risk of overdose, especially in polypharmacy cases.
By prescribing methadone alternatives, it is possible to save lives and encourage the rehabilitation of addicts. Since Buprenorphine was licensed in 1996 in France, the number of deaths from heroin overdoses has fallen year on year—from 336 in 1996 to 92 in 1998. Clearly, any pharmaceutical treatment must be given in the context of other therapy that helps addicts to sustain their treatment and find a new life for themselves. Even if the drug was administered in a multi-therapeutic context, a degree of success must still be attributed to the use of Buprenorphine.
206WH
However, the use of Buprenorphine is not clearly endorsed in the Department of Health clinical guidelines to which I referred. That is because of previous research highlighting the potential for its abuse, especially as the analgesic Temagesic. Although a degree of risk exists, it is comparatively less than that associated with the use of methadone. In France in 1997, six deaths occurred among the 49,000 people treated with Buprenorphine. There were more deaths in the same period among only 2,350 patients treated with methadone.
An economic gain can also be realised indirectly from the wider use of Buprenorphine, through a reduction in the need for health care and a reduction in the impact on the criminal justice system. Schering-Plough estimates the cost to the state as nearly £10,000 per addict per year, but the annual cost of treatment with Buprenorphine would be £2,000, with some added cost for additional suppport.
In France, 300 heroin addicts who were treated with Buprenorphine took part in a longitudinal study that demonstrated a 70 per cent. reduction in heroin use, a 25 per cent. improvement in housing and a 15 per cent. improvement in employment. Other indicators are available that demonstrate a shift to social reintegration—there was a 14 per cent. decline in drug dealing, a 7 per cent. decline in criminal activity and more than 40 per cent. of those who took part in the study reported improved personal relationships. Such a relatively small study easily demonstrates how effective treatment of opiate addicts can provide real benefits to the individuals concerned and society at large.
I should stress that Buprenorphine is not the only currently available alternative to methadone to combat opiate addiction. Indeed, two other drugs have been shown to be effective—laevo-alpha-acetylmethadol, which is commonly known as LAAM, and laevo-methadone. Unfortunately, those drugs are not licensed for such use in this country, although their efficacy is acknowledged in the clinical guidelines. LAAM is now licensed for use in Australia and the United States of America. Because the two drugs are longer-acting, it is claimed that they are much safer. They can also be administered orally, thereby minimising the injection culture and the consequent risk from hepatitis and HIV. As the new biotransformation process proposed by a north-west research laboratory now significantly reduces the cost of production of LAAM and laevo-methadone, the two drugs offer not only a clinically effective but a cost-effective alternative to methadone. One thing is clear: we must stimulate primary research and clinical trials in this area. I ask the Minister to give his attention to that.
The French experience is remarkable but not unique. Another large study in New South Wales showed that LAAM and Buprenorphine are at least as effective as methadone, and safer. In the United States of America, a study of the two drugs conducted at the John Hopkins School of Medicine showed that heroin use could be reduced by 80 per cent. The market for methadone alternatives is improving all the time. In two years' time, Buprenorphine will be available in a form that includes Naloxone, which will greatly reduce any risk of overdose. It is estimated that 1,000 lives could be saved by the wider prescription of methadone alternatives such as Buprenorphine.

207WH
To prescribe Buprenorphine for the treatment of an opiate addict within the guidelines, however, a doctor must write 14 separate prescriptions for a fortnight's supply—one every day. That is because Buprenorphine, while licensed under the UK Medicines Control Agency and recognised by the clinical guidelines, is not included on the FPIO form used by general practitioners. Until it is included on that form, use of Buprenorphine will be unnecessarily hindered in this country. I ask the Minister to examine that issue urgently.
I applied for this debate in order to urge the Minister to widen the choice of drugs available for the treatment of opiate addiction, and to ask him to stimulate research into the discovery and use of other opiate substitutes that are safer than methadone. If the Government are to succeed in reducing drug misuse and associated criminal behaviour, they must take the issue of drug rehabilitation seriously. They must remove any barriers to choice, in a safe and supportive way, for addicts and health professionals who treat them. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
12.38pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on raising such serious issues, and on his thoughtful comments. I am aware of his personal interest in the issues and of the good work that he does as chairman of the all-party group on drugs misuse.
My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government take the issue of drugs misuse seriously. One of the key objectives of the Government's 10-year strategy, set out in "Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain", is to enable people with drug problems to overcome them and live healthy and crime-free lives. That is why we will have allocated, over the next three years, an additional £50 million to health authorities and more than £20 million to social services departments for the provision of effective treatment services. The aim of any treatment, ultimately, is to enable the patient to achieve the goal of abstinence. We recognise, however, that drugs dependence is a chronic, relapsing condition, and that patients will need support, at times, when they relapse into drugs misuse after periods of abstinence. As my hon. Friend recognised, long-term methadone maintenance may help the patient to reduce or stop using illicit opiates.
Methadone is used internationally in the treatment of people who are dependent on opiates such as heroin. A substantial body of research supports the use of drugs such as methadone in managing dependence. For example, the national treatment outcome research study showed that both in-patient and community methadone programmes dramatically reduced patients' involvement in crime, and use of heroin and other illicit drugs. Furthermore, about one fifth of those on methadone abstained from opiates after two years' treatment. That shows that some drug misusers who enter methadone substitution programmes can abstain and are not necessarily maintained on the medication for long periods without reduction.
Prescribing should be seen as an enhancement of other medical and social interventions, rather than the sole treatment component. Support and advice on issues
208WH
such as housing, education and training are important elements in enabling people to improve their lives and end dependence on illegal drugs.
We also recognise the other benefits of taking medications orally. As my hon. Friend noted, injecting behaviour, which is physically damaging, is reduced. In turn, that can reduce the spread of blood-borne diseases such as HIV and hepatitis B and C, which can be spread through sharing injecting equipment. Regular appointments with prescribing doctors and drug workers also keep drug misusers in contact with treatment services, and provide a better opportunity to meet their general physical and mental health needs. The 1993 update report by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs concluded that
"the benefit to be gained from oral methadone maintenance programmes both in terms of individual and public health and cost effectiveness has now been clearly demonstrated".
Much good work is being undertaken around the country to improve prescribing and dispensing practice. For example, we are aware of the four-way agreement in Berkshire, which links general practitioner, pharmacist, community drugs team and patient through a contract agreed by all the parties before any methadone is prescribed. The contract includes dispensing details such as supervised consumption and frequency of dispensing. The scheme is based on clear, commonly agreed protocols and a real partnership. It has at heart the needs of patients, but does not compromise the safety of the community and the professionals involved.
Although schemes such as this are very encouraging, we recognise that methadone is a powerful drug that, like any opiate, has addictive properties. Prescribing should not be undertaken without full assessment and regular reviews of the patient. Naturally, treatment should be tailored to the specific clinical needs of individual patients. That is why, in April, the Department of Health published "Drug Misuse and Dependence: Guidelines on Clinical Management", which guides all doctors on appropriate clinical interventions for drug misuse, including assessment, management of withdrawal and dependence, and prevention of relapse.
Those guidelines were drawn up by an expert working group and are based on a number of sources, including expert committee reports. We also took written evidence from professional bodies such as the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. The guidelines were also peer reviewed, and all incorporated research was extensively examined.
The guidelines lay out the principles of safe and responsible prescribing to ensure maximum safety and benefit for the individual and the community. They state that, as a general principle, substitute drugs should initially be dispensed daily, which reduces the possibility of accidental overdose. In addition, they recommend the supervision of methadone consumption, which will help to prevent leakage on to the illicit market.
My hon. Friend referred to deaths linked to methadone and the percentage of people who obtain it illicitly, rather than on prescription. Although the figures are worrying, better prescribing and dispensing practices, informed by the clinical guidelines, will help to

209WH
bring about improvements. Nevertheless, I assure my hon. Friend that we are not complacent about what is a serious problem.
In addition to the advice given in the clinical guidelines, £12 million was distributed to health authorities earlier this year from the drug misuse special allocation element of the modernisation fund. In using that money, priority was given to the introduction of supervised consumption schemes, particularly in community pharmacies. The nationwide implementation of those measures should substantially reduce methadone-related deaths.
There are also difficulties associated with attributing drug-related deaths to specific substances. As my hon. Friend will know, many deaths involve a mixture of drugs and alcohol, and it is not easy always to determine the relative quantities of different substances, or which was responsible for the individual's death. The reduction in injecting behaviour resulting from the use of such prescribed substitute drugs will help to reduce deaths from blood-borne diseases such as hepatitis B and C, in conjunction with other harm-minimisation measures such as needle and syringe exchange programmes. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs prevention working group is producing a report on reducing drug-related deaths. Its findings will form the basis of a comprehensive action plan to reduce such deaths, which is a target of the drug strategy.
As my hon. Friend said, although liquid methadone is currently the most commonly used drug in maintenance prescribing, it is important that a full range of effective medications is available to doctors. We welcome the introduction and use of appropriate and effective new drug treatments, and we will carefully review evidence of their effectiveness. The clinical guidelines provided information on alternative opiates and other drugs used in treating drug dependence that were available at the time of publication, including Lofexidine, Naltrexone, LAAM and Buprenorphine.
With regard to reducing illicit drug misuse, criminality and risk behaviour, such as sharing injecting equipment, LAAM's results have been comparable to methadone. However, as my hon. Friend, who has a relevant professional interest and expertise, will know, it is a longer acting drug and can be dispensed less frequently. So far, it has not been licensed for use in the UK for opioid dependence, but it shows promise as an alternative form of treatment. Buprenorphine, however, was licensed in the UK last year for the treatment of opioid dependence. Trials suggest that it may have an efficacy similar to methadone 50 to 60 mg, and we are sure that it has a valuable place in the overall treatment of opioid dependence.
The Department of Health is actively considering including Buprenorphine in the list of drugs on the special prescription form to which my hon. Friend referred. That form enables doctors to prescribe the dispensing of drugs on one prescription in daily instalments for up to a fortnight. My hon. Friend asked
210WH
me to consider prescription on an instalment basis, and the measure may lead to that. We anticipate a decision in the near future.
Like methadone, Buprenorphine is a powerful drug and not without its problems. It has potential for diversion and misuse, and it will not be suitable for all patients. It must be used carefully for patients with higher levels of opiate use, because it may precipitate partial withdrawal. It is also readily soluble, so dispensing must be carefully supervised to minimise the risk of injection. There is literature to suggest that, in other parts of the world, it has been used for injection.
My hon. Friend referred to the French experience with Buprenorphine. We understand that, on its introduction in France, there was considerable leakage on to the illicit market and substantial intravenous use. Furthermore, its use in the UK during the early 1980s resulted in similar concerns about safety and suitability. It is likely that only a relatively small percentage of patients who are currently treated with methadone would be treated instead with Buprenorphine, although some patients who are thought unsuitable for methadone may be suitable. However, we are pleased that another medication is now available to doctors in the treatment of drug dependence.
I assure my hon. Friend that we are not unaware of the importance of the issues that he has raised today, and we are looking at them carefully. He also asked for further research into other substitute medications in this country. There is a research base for LAAM and Buprenorphine, but most research has been conducted in north America, and we recognise the need for further research in this area in the UK. The United Kingdom deputy drugs tsar, Mike Trace, has confirmed that he will seek a meeting with the Medical Research Council to discuss research into alternative drug substitutes.
Although substitute prescribing has an important role, it should not be pursued in isolation. Drug dependence is a complex issue, and a full range of services should be available to meet all needs, including those of non-opiate users. Those services should include giving advice and information, needle exchange programmes, counselling, prescribing services and residential rehabilitation. Treatment should be carried out in a shared care scheme, involving specialists, general practitioners and other professionals such as community psychiatric nurses, pharmacists and general drug workers. That should ensure that all patients receive appropriate treatment and care, although we are aware that there are gaps in service provision in some areas of the country. That is why we have made an additional £70 million available to health authorities and local authorities over the next three years to enable the development of important new services across the country.
We are also concerned to maintain the quality of all treatment types. In addition to the clinical guidelines, the Department of Health has funded the substance misuse advisory service to produce a document entitled "Commissioning Standards for Drug and Alcohol Treatment and Care", which was published earlier this

211WH
year. We have also assisted the Standing Conference on Drug Abuse in producing a set of quality standards for treatment services.
Providing good quality all-round treatment is key to the success of our strategy. It is probable that substitute prescribing will remain a key part of treatment for many drug misusers who are currently dependent on heroin. Methadone's effectiveness is proven, and we are taking seriously and acting on the problem of deaths linked to
212WH
its use. Although methadone is currently the most commonly used drug, and will probably remain so, we appreciate the importance of making available a wide range of effective drugs, including Buprenorphine. We remain open-minded, and would welcome other new substitutes that are shown to be effective in the management of drug dependence.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to One o'clock.