Westminster Hall Sitting of 18 November 2003

Preamble
[SIR NICHOLAS WINNTERTON in the Chair]

Zimbabwe
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Derek Twigg.]
9.30 am
Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is a very topical debate. If Members show self-discipline, I am sure that everybody who wishes to speak will be able to do so. It is my intention to call the first wind-up speaker at 10.30 am.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall show some self-discipline, although I have much to say. I welcome the opportunity, especially this week, to debate Zimbabwe, having discussed it in two forums in the House of Commons last week when we heard from many people, including representatives of the Movement for Democratic Change and the editor of The Daily News.
I particularly welcome the Minister. Although I suspect that he and I disagree profoundly about a great many issues, I pay tribute to the fact that he has built a career on the pursuit of justice, and I believe that this debate is about justice. More than two years ago, the Prime Minister said in his conference speech that there would be
"no tolerance of bad governance"
in Africa, including the activities of
"Mr. Mugabe's henchmen in Zimbabwe",
yet the situation goes from bad to worse and people in Zimbabwe are dying of starvation.
When Mugabe was elected nearly a quarter of a century ago, people were both surprised and delighted that he did not pursue the Marxism that ZANU-PF had previously espoused. We did not appreciate how fearful Zimbabweans were of a return to violence, which ZANU-PF had threatened if it did not win that election—perhaps that is why it won. In the early 1980s, we in Europe heard little of the activities in Matabeleland of the notorious Fifth Brigade, which emulated the North Koreans who trained it. It is estimated that about 20,000 Matabele were massacred.
Instead, in Britain and the west, we were pleased that Zimbabwe remained a country in which we could do business, where we could go as a tourist and in which we could hold a Commonwealth conference, as we did in 1991. It was a rich country, exporting food around southern Africa. However, by 1999 the economy was in crisis, and it was obvious to all that the Government of Mugabe was acting like a dictatorship: people were being murdered and farmland was being seized. By 2000, many of us were calling for an end to all aid to the regime. The Prime Minister's speech that I quoted was made in 2001, and the Commonwealth suspended Zimbabwe after disputed elections in March 2002.
Today, Zimbabwe has 70 per cent. unemployment and 460 per cent. inflation—difficult to judge, I would guess—fuel prices have risen six-fold in a year and the
192WH
majority of the population depends on food aid. There have been 267 politically motivated murders reported this year and nearly 4,000 people reported tortured, but nobody knows the extent of the repression. Rich and fertile farm land lies idle while the security forces run amok and the only source of independent news, The Daily News, has been closed down.
Mr. Peter Pike: When asked about the land that lies sterile and is not being used, President Mugabe refers to the Lancaster house agreement, and says that he is not getting the money. Is it not a fact that the first tranche of land that he took has still not been redistributed, other than to his cronies, and most of it is not being used at all?
Mr. Robathan: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, Mugabe's cronies sit on their stolen farms and get ever richer while other people starve. That is partly because the Zimbabwean army is looting diamonds and other minerals in the Congo. Yesterday, Welshman Ncube, the secretary-general of the Movement for Democratic Change, spoke of the militarisation of Zimbabwe. He mentioned particularly the machinery of repression that controls the country.
We are told by Africans that the western world and Europe should keep their noses out of Zimbabwe's affairs. On a recent visit to the House, the Nigerian high commissioner said that the issue is an African problem that needs an African solution. He said that it is a task for South Africa, Nigeria or the African Union, and that quiet diplomacy is needed. President Mbeki has said that the situation needs to be understood in the context of Zimbabwe's hard won liberation from white minority rule, while South Africa's Foreign Minister, Dr. Zuma, has said that she will never condemn Zimbabwe. Sadly, the African National Congress in South Africa believes that it owes ZANU-PF support in exchange for its backing against the apartheid regime.
The Inter-Parliamentary Union was due to meet in March next year in Westminster. Kofi Annan and Nelson Mandela had been invited, and the Queen would have opened the session. However, because the Government, to their credit, would not give some members of the Zimbabwean regime visas to attend, the assembly has been moved to, I understand, Thailand—perhaps a more attractive venue in March. The meeting was moved only because African countries demanded that there be no hindrance to members of the Zimbabwean regime. Indeed, it was only because John Howard of Australia was so forthright in condemning the Zimbabwean elections last year that the other two members of the Commonwealth troika, Nigeria and South Africa, were prevailed upon similarly to condemn the elections. Does anyone really believe that the African Union, founded by Colonel Gaddafi, is likely to press for the restoration of the rule of law and human rights in Zimbabwe?
The Minister has recently returned from South Africa, and a high level South African delegation has just been in London. Will he say what results have been obtained by quiet diplomacy? Will the Minister assure us that the Government will have no part in any deal struck to allow Mugabe to perpetuate the repressive ZANU-PF regime—for instance by retiring, yet nominating his successor without free and fair elections?

193WH
How do we see Zimbabwe in Britain? It is not a far away land of which we know little—we were the colonial government that ceded power to Mugabe in 1980. There are more than 30,000 Zimbabweans in this country, mostly black, and there are 23,000 British subjects in Zimbabwe, which is exactly half the number of a year ago—partial evidence of the increasingly hostile and deteriorating situation. We have not only an historical but a moral obligation to the people of Zimbabwe. Innumerable individuals and the opposition want Britain to stand up for the crushed Zimbabwean people.
Peter Bottomley: I hope that the whole country will listen to what my hon. Friend is saying. Will he take it from me that members of the opposition parties in Zimbabwe are not the only ones who want that? Those who 25 years ago were doing much for ZANU-PF, and who were still with it in the first 10 years after full independence, also oppose what is being done in their name. Those who want to work for the people of Zimbabwe should understand that they are fighting for the people, rather than against the regime per se, although that regime must go to allow the people and parties in Zimbabwe to work.
Mr. Robathan: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Whatever opinion we may have taken at the time, many who fought for liberation now feel betrayed by the activities of ZANU-PF.
Sadly, too many in the west believe Mugabe's rhetoric. Last week at one of the forums that I mentioned, a representative from a non-governmental organisation talked about the need to dismantle the infrastructure of colonialism. Similarly, the Government seem to fear the accusation that they are acting in a neo-colonialist manner or as an imperialist power. I urge the Government to listen to the people of Zimbabwe, who want Britain and the west to speak up for them. Over the past week I have heard many Zimbabweans who are desperate for support from Britain. To those on the left who suffer from post-colonial guilt, I quote the mayor of Harare, who said in March:
"The world must know this is not a black and white issue. It is an issue of the blacks in Zimbabwe suffering".
The Government have been slow to react to Mugabe's crimes and loth to accept the reality that is Zimbabwe. In a reply to a question from me, the Secretary of State for Defence said that
"the Zimbabwean armed forces … have continued to make a stable and mature contribution to Zimbabwean society, which may well have something to do with the training that they have received from British forces. There is therefore good news from Zimbabwe, and it is important to put that in the right context."—[Official Report, 4 May 2000; Vol. 349, c. 306.]
Is that an example of the soft bigotry of low expectations? Those very armed forces were then already looting in the Congo and spreading the AIDS pandemic around the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Government have too often failed to condemn what they would consider intolerable from a European Government.
194WH
The use of food aid as a political tool by ZANU-PF is another important issue. That food aid is delivered via the World Food Programme, but paid for in part by the British taxpayer—by our constituents. This year, the Department for International Development expects to spend £29 million on aid to Zimbabwe—double last year's contribution. According to the WFP emergency report of 24 January, there have been
"several reports of theft of WFP … commodities in the region".
Besides stealing the aid, ZANU-PF claims credit for the aid programme and pretends that there would be no food aid without ZANU-PF.
At the same time, the WFP and NGOs rely for the distribution of food on information provided by local authorities. That all too often results in the unwitting politicisation of aid, as party officials determine who is deserving and who is not. In effect, no one without a ZANU-PF party card can register for food aid. Vast numbers are excluded from aid distribution because party officials deny their need, and the existing monitoring systems of the WFP and others are failing because they do not show up those who have been excluded from the lists.
Kate Hoey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that another problem that has emerged recently, which was made known to us by members of the Movement for Democratic Change who were here this week, is that some of the aid that South Africa is meant to be giving to NGOs and the World Food Programme is being sold direct to the Zimbabwean Government, who then control it under their food programme? That food definitely goes only to ZANU-PF members.
Mr. Robathan: Indeed, the hon. Lady has come up with a good point. The grain marketing board is used as an arm of ZANU-PF—certainly not as an impartial distributor of aid.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree with Peter Takirambudde, executive director of the Africa division of Human Rights Watch? He says:
"Select groups of people are being denied access to food".
He further comments:
"This is a human rights violation as serious as arbitrary imprisonment or torture."
Mr. Robathan: I do agree, and I will quote a report commissioned by Oxfam on the practical implementation of food aid. It is dated 8 April and states:
"Recent field research indicates that practices"—
that is, of impartial delivery of relief—
"are not upheld with consistency in the field … food aid furnished by USAID and through the WFP is being manipulated by the Mugabe regime and its supporters, unbeknownst to headquarters in Washington and Rome."
Rome is where the WFP has its headquarters. The report continues:
"World Vision's distribution system plays directly into the hands of the ZANU-PF leadership. Based on WV's own explanation of their distribution process it would appear that local officials have complete control over who receives food aid at local level."

195WH
It refers to
"extensive accounts of the inability of members or supporters of opposition parties to access food aid".
I urge the Government to scrutinise and question the system by which British taxpayers—our constituents—are helping the people of Zimbabwe. They need help, but it appears that at the moment we may be, to quote again from the report,
"unwitting partners in preserving political power for the Mugabe regime".
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin ): Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that food aid to Zimbabwe should be cut off?
Mr. Robathan: As the Minister will know, I did not say that. The people of Zimbabwe need food aid. However, it must be delivered so that it goes to those who need it, not via the Government, who use it as a political tool.
President Mugabe has more willing partners than those unwitting ones of whom I have spoken: that is, the businessmen who prop up his regime. The EU has a list of 79 individuals whose assets have been frozen and who are banned from travel. By contrast, New Zealand lists 133 individuals on its sanctions list. It is interesting and salutary to note the differences. For instance, Leo Mugabe does not feature on the EU list. Neither do the wife of the Defence Minister or many members of the families of senior ZANU-PF politicians.
Of greater importance are the names of business people that are omitted from the EU sanctions list. Welshman Ncube, secretary general of the MDC, said that the international community will not be shown to be serious about standing up to Mugabe until it freezes the assets of the businessmen who prop up the regime.
I shall give an example from Wiltshire. According to a report from The Observer on 24 November last year—the Minister probably reads The Observer more widely than I do—British citizen Andrew Smith was named in a UN report for organising bombing raids in the Democratic Republic of the Congo on behalf of President Kabila. He side-stepped EU sanctions by operating through his Zimbabwean registered company, Avient.
John Bredenkamp, one of three Bredenkamps on the New Zealand list, is of greater significance. He has been mentioned in the House on many occasions. As well as many other allegations, it was reported in May 2000 that he provided half the initial capital for a diamonds-for-arms deal that involved the Zimbabwean defence force in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The UN panel of experts on the illegal exploitation of natural resources in the Congo uncovered a memorandum of understanding signed by Emmerson Mnangagwa, the Speaker of Zimbabwe, guaranteeing a $1.5 million loan to Oryx Natural Resources from Python Services Ltd., one of Bredenkamp's companies. Bredenkamp is registered in the UK as a director of 11 companies. It is highly likely that Mugabe's personal wealth, and that of other ZANU-PF officials, is held offshore through companies owned in part by Bredenkamp.
196WH
Bredenkamp represents Tremalt, a company owned by trusts registered in the British Virgin Islands and the Isle of Wight. Tremalt is believed to procure military equipment and provide cash payments to Zimbabwean and Congolese defence forces. Bredenkamp acts as Tremalt's representative at monthly meetings with Vitalis Zvinavashe, head of the Zimbabwean armed forces. That shows his close personal relationship with ZANU-PF.
Furthermore, according to a report by the same UN panel on 16 October last year, Bredenkamp's Raceview Enterprises supplied the Zimbabwean defence force with $3.5 million-worth of military supplies. Our great ally, the USA, whose President is coming here today, has banned Bredenkamp from entry. However, he is not banned from the UK. Why not?
Does the Minister share my disappointment that, in the latest UN panel report on corruption in the Congo, Bredenkamp somehow succeeded in having his name removed from the list of people recommended for a travel ban and financial restrictions? Apparently, Bredenkamp has also recently met the British high commissioner in Harare. Could the Minister tell us why, without hiding behind some nonsense about the code of practice on access to Government information, as happened with a recent parliamentary question?
The Minister and the Government have it within their power to undermine the backers of the dictatorial regime in Zimbabwe. Many of the same men backed Ian Smith. Why has the Minister not taken action against people who so clearly profit from the evil of Mugabe's regime? Kofi Annan—an African, let us remember—said to the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva on 7 April 1999:
"No government has the right to hide behind national sovereignty in order to violate the human rights or fundamental freedoms of its peoples."
It is time that the UN paid attention to that and considered the situation in Zimbabwe. However, the Minister yesterday wrote to me in reply to a parliamentary question to say that
"we would only go to the United Nations Security Council for a resolution when we believed that we would win one. Tabling a resolution on UN sanctions would be certain to fail and would only hand Mugabe a gratuitous victory."
Perhaps the Minister would like to explain how Mugabe would consider it a victory to be condemned by many in the UN? His opponents in Zimbabwe would like to see such public condemnation by the international community, even if it does not lead to a resolution.
Mugabe's knighthood is within our power. In 1994, the previous Government gave Mugabe an honorary knighthood. I do not remember the Labour Opposition protesting. In the Government response to the Eighth Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the last Session, they said that they would keep the knighthood under review. They said:
"We may revisit this question in the future."
In reply to my question on 4 November, the Minister said that that was not an immediate priority. Does he accept that that would be a clear signal to all in Zimbabwe that Mugabe no longer merits the respect that ought to be due to a President?

197WH
The time for prevarication has passed. Quiet diplomacy has failed. I suspect that there is very little disagreement in the Chamber about what I have said. Action should follow words. It discredits this Government that there has still been no Government debate on the crisis in Zimbabwe. On 17 September 2002—almost 11 months ago—my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) said exactly the same in this Chamber.
I have asked many questions this morning, which I hope the Minister will answer directly. I hope especially that he will reassure hon. Members that no taxpayers' money will be spent on food aid that can be used as a political tool by this repressive regime, and that sanctions will be extended to families of members of the regime and to businessmen implicated in its corrupt dealings and shady operations in the Democratic Republic of Congo and elsewhere.
I also hope that he will reassure us that the issue will be raised at the United Nations and kept at the top of the international agenda, and that, contrary to BBC reports yesterday, Zimbabwe will continue to be excluded from next month's Commonwealth summit. Will he also reassure us that Mugabe will be stripped of his knighthood, and that the UK supports free and fair elections? Above all, the international community must ensure that there is no fudge that allows Mugabe to retire and the oppressive regime to continue, led by one of his cronies such as Mnangagwa or Zvinavashe, both of whom are alleged to have been involved in the Matabele massacres.
As I said at the beginning, this is a debate about justice for Zimbabwe. The people of Zimbabwe are crying out for our support, which they deserve. Let us live up to our responsibilities and our moral obligations and ensure that they receive that support and the justice that all people deserve.
9.51 am
Kate Hoey: I shall be brief, as I know that some of my colleagues want to speak and I had my 20 minutes or so a couple of weeks ago. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on securing the debate so soon, but it is time that we had a debate in the main Chamber. I mean no disrespect to Westminster Hall, but we should debate this issue during Government time.
Everything that I believe about Zimbabwe was chronicled at length in the last debate, but I have four or five straightforward questions to ask. I support the statement that the Government should go to the United Nations. The fact that we might lose is no reason not to do so. I want an explanation as to why we cannot go the Security Council. If we cannot secure what we want the first time, we might do so the second time, and countries that are prepared to defend Zimbabwe's human rights record would be shamed.
I also support extending sanctions to the families of Ministers and others. We could extend them to many people who can still travel and who use the opportunity to do things such as get money out of the country. I do not see why we cannot do that just because the EU does not want to do it. We are not yet in a European Union
198WH
in which everything that this country does is controlled by what is said in Brussels, and I hope that we never will be. We have a greater responsibility than any other country.
Yesterday, I asked Welshman Ncube a straight question about Morgan Tsvangirai's comment that we should keep a low profile, which the Minister mentioned in response to my question in the last debate. Welshman Ncube made it quite clear that there was a time when Britain might have needed to keep a low profile, but that people were now very keen to use every opportunity and to do everything possible to move the issue up the international agenda. Whatever the British Government say, Mugabe will not change. It is therefore absolutely right to take the lead and to push for extra sanctions. Some of our European partners, who were represented at yesterday's meetings, seemed to take a much stronger position. Perhaps they are waiting for the United Kingdom to take the lead. I must ask the Minister why we cannot press for sanctions to be tightened.
Food aid should be monitored independently. In a moment, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) will speak about feeding programmes, which she saw in action last week. From what I saw, I can agree with everything that Oxfam said about World Vision. I have no doubt that, in many areas, aid is not getting through to the people who most need it. Holding a ZANU-PF card is still the best way of getting fed. We need an international, independent monitoring group, because no matter how good the World Food Programme is, it does not always monitor how well food gets through on the ground in the case of every agency, and that is crucial.
Finally, will the Minister request an urgent meeting with the England and Wales Cricket Board in order to get it to make a statement that the England cricket team definitely will not go to Zimbabwe next year if Mugabe is still in power?
Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend makes an important point, but does she also believe that we should ask people to consider the freedom of the press in Zimbabwe and the erosion of justice? Such things—freedom of thought, the press and justice—are important in a democracy.
Kate Hoey: I absolutely agree. I recently secured an Adjournment debate on the closure of The Daily News in Zimbabwe. Some people from The Daily News were here for that. It is crucial that it is put back on the street, but that will not be done through the law. It will take a long time, as every time a court case is won, it is simply appealed against. So far, there is still no The Daily News, but I very much hope that there will be in time for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Nigeria. There is a good chance that a special issue will be produced for that. I hope that that will help to influence some of our colleagues in the Commonwealth.
Will the Minister meet the ECB? It is clear from what the people from the Movement for Democratic Change said yesterday, and from my contacts in Zimbabwe, that it would be a great morale boost if the ECB said that the England team would not go next year unless there is a change. That would help to ease the pressure a little. It would not instantly change anything, but it would help. It would also clarify our position, so that we did not get

199WH
into the same situation as last time. I urge the Minister to answer my questions. I hope that he will have a definite reply about sanctions.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chamber thanks the hon. Lady for her brevity.
9.57 am
Mr. Nigel Evans: I hope to be brief, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on raising this issue, which is of deep concern to not only Members of Parliament here, but the whole nation.
Whenever I read newspaper stories about Zimbabwe, it makes my blood boil to read about what is happening to a once proud, healthy and vibrant country. It was the food basket for southern Africa, but now has to rely on aid to ensure that its people get food; 14 million people suffer from food insecurity, of whom 7 million desperately need food aid. I endorse everything that has been said about more effective targeting of food aid to ensure that the Government do not continue to use it as a political tool to prop themselves up.
Robert Mugabe talked about economic justice for tire black majority, which is his excuse to grab white farmers' lands. Considering what has happened since then, I ask whether there is economic justice for the black majority in Zimbabwe. The answer has to be no. Despite the reasons given for the Government-sponsored land-grab, land that used to be productive now is not. Some of the people on that land are receiving some of the food aid that is being doled out. The livestock have been eaten and the crops simply were not harvested. There is also the AIDS pandemic, which has been mentioned.
Mr. Robathan:Does my hon. Friend accept that it is not just white commercial farmers, many of whom were Zimbabwean, who were driven off their land? Black farmers and their work forces were also driven off their land.
Mr. Evans: Indeed; I agree with my hon. Friend. More than anybody, the black majority in Zimbabwe have suffered by losing their jobs and livelihoods and having no future for themselves and their families. They have been made desperate by that ill thought-through policy, which simply has not worked. On the AIDS front, it was predicted that 130,000 people would die last year. Zimbabwe's future work force is dying year by year, but that is not being properly tackled.
Mr. Richard Spring: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the reason for the AIDS pandemic is malnutrition and the inability of people to resist infection? That partly explains why AIDS is such a massive problem.
Mr. Evans: Absolutely. What my hon. Friend mentions, coupled with the fact that the Government are not focused on the problem at all, means that hundreds of thousands of Zimbabweans will be condemned to the fate suffered by others last year. Urgent action is needed.
200WH
As a result of the awful and desperate situation in Zimbabwe, the tourist trade that used to flourish there is drying up. People will not go to Zimbabwe, because they fear for their own safety as they read about how white farmers are killed on their own farmland.
Kate Hoey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the issue is not only the farms left desolate, but the number of wild animals that have been killed? In the end, there will be no animals to go and look at—none of the wildlife. Some of the terrible things that have happened are almost too difficult even to talk about.
Mr. Evans: I agree with the hon. Lady—I shall call her my hon. Friend—because we have seen a whole industry ravaged and people so desperate that they have resorted to desperate actions. This is a question of whether they live or die, so they have been forced to take desperate actions, which have a ripple effect. There has been a brain drain from Zimbabwe to neighbouring countries and other parts of the world. Of course, there has been a large migration to neighbouring countries such as South Africa and Botswana, which gives them further problems.
Many questions have been asked, but I shall add a few more for the Minister's winding-up speech. The creation of the Zimbabwe Freedom Movement is hitting the headlines. That group of people wishes to remove Robert Mugabe by force. Will the Minister accept that the lack of progress is leading many desperate people to take desperate action themselves? Will he comment on the Zimbabwe Freedom Movement?
There are rumours that Mugabe will attend CHOGM in Abuja in December, which fills me with dread. Even the rumour that that is being discussed must be put to rest. Will the Minister give an assurance that President Mugabe or, indeed, Zimbabwe will not be represented at CHOGM in December? Such an assurance is vital.
I am a big supporter of the Chevening scholarships that we run in Zimbabwe. I hope that the British Council will continue to administer them and to ensure that the future leaders of Zimbabwe have an opportunity and some hope when they come here. I hope that there are no political machinations in Zimbabwe to get some of the key ZANU-PF people on to those scholarships. I want them to be opened up to the people, not to be available only to a small select group.
I was disgusted when I saw that President Mugabe's family were going shopping in Paris. We talk about a common European foreign policy, but we cannot get even this matter right. Does the Minister really believe that smart sanctions are working? Surely they should be much wider and enforced more effectively than they currently are. It looks as if such people are cocking a snook at the whole world every time they—or, indeed, members of their families—break the sanctions or businesses are created to sidestep them. Does the Minister really believe that the quiet diplomacy that we talk about is making any progress whatever? Is not the lack of progress leading to huge frustration in Zimbabwe?
Mr. Pike: The hon. Gentleman talks of economic sanctions. Will he accept that South Africa, which could

201WH
play an important political role, could also play an important economic role, particularly on energy? It is some time since the energy supplied by South Africa has been paid for.
Mr. Evans: South Africa is key, as it is not just what we can do in the European Union, United Kingdom or United States that matters. I hope that it will play a more effective role in the situation. Will the Minister tell us about his discussions with South Africa on ensuring that it plays a more vital role within the community of African countries? It could bring pressure to bear on Zimbabwe in several ways to ensure that its regime is changed. When Nelson Mandela visited London a couple of years ago, he gave a tremendous speech in South Africa house. He said that political leaders should know when to go, and we all know what that was code for.
At the Earth summit in Johannesburg last year, I was in a lift with a representative from Zimbabwe. I saw his pass and asked him what future there was for the people in Zimbabwe. He asked what I meant, and I said, "Well, what with all the starvation and the awful atrocities that are taking place in Zimbabwe." He looked at me and said, "Don't believe everything you read in the newspapers." As he walked away, he turned round and smiled at me. I want to see the smile taken off his face and those of a number of other people in Zimbabwe.
The Zimbabwean delegation had arranged for two busloads of people to travel down from Zimbabwe so that they could protest outside our hotel in favour of Robert Mugabe. They were brought down by coach, fed and then taken back by coach. Such artificial demonstrations mean nothing to me or, I am sure, the South African population. We must do something through the United Nations, and we must be far more effective. Our fear that we may not secure a resolution should not block our attempts; it is the right thing to do. I hope that the Government will listen to what we say today.
10.6 am
Ms Sally Keeble: I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on securing this debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) on organising yesterday's conference and on her other work. I remind the hon. Member for Blaby that history in Zimbabwe did not start in 1997, and that the saga of UK involvement in Zimbabwe has been problematic for some time.
Mr. Robathan: I did not say that it did.
Ms Keeble: We will return to that later.
I spent last week in Zimbabwe looking into the circumstances of people who are living with HIV/AIDS and drought under their Government's spectacular economic and political mismanagement. In particular, I considered the impact on children. It was part of a wider visit through Lesotho and South Africa as well, but for the avoidance of any doubt, I travelled independently to Zimbabwe. I was self-funded to ensure that I could be impartial in reaching my judgments.
202WH
The previous week, there had been a lot of publicity about my hon. Friend the Minister's speech in Cape Town, with headlines of "no political change, no aid". I must say that having seen what is happening inside Zimbabwe, my conclusion is that our approach is wrong. Zimbabwe is collapsing under the combined weight of the crumbling economy, the staggering HIV/AIDS infection rates and hunger. That is destroying the present adult population, but, perhaps worse, it is also creating a time bomb for the next. There are an estimated 1 million orphans, many of whom are HIV positive, and children are homeless, weakened from hunger and sometimes abused.
Of course, to provide assistance or succour to the Zimbabwean Government would be a disaster. However, there is a strong network of nongovernmental organisations, both international and local, which is involved in food distribution and building up public services. Those organisations provide care in the community for people living with HIV/AIDS and counselling and support services for orphans and vulnerable children.
I met many people during my visit, and I thank them for their generosity in showing me their work and explaining their experiences. I do not intend to name them, but I met many people with ideas, networks and huge ability. What they lacked, strikingly, were the resources and support to be able to provide services to their communities.
I strongly believe that those networks must be used to increase food aid—especially targeted food services—and to build up services to people with HIV/AIDS, including orphans. At the same time, we must greatly increase pressure on ZANU-PF for a political settlement.
My hon. Friend the Minister will cite the work being done on food and HIV/AIDS, but the food aid being provided is completely inadequate. Many criticisms have been made of the distribution of food provided by the international community, some of which have been repeated this morning. I have gone through the methodology, visited a food distribution centre, and spoken to people at different levels in Zimbabwe, and the basic distribution system has integrity. However, there are problems. Organisations have to compromise with the Government in order to operate. The large organisations carry out the distribution. Mistakes have been made, and I have spoken with the organisations mentioned by the hon. Member for Blaby. Smaller organisations are excluded, but as they can get to some of the most hard-to-reach communities they have an important role.
It is a tribute to the logistical skills of the people involved that food is distributed across the country in difficult circumstances, feeding up to half the population. It is a huge and complex job. The biggest problem is the need for more food. Under the scheme that I saw in operation, the World Food Programme had agreed about six categories of people who qualified for food aid. The categories included those who had no land or no other source of food or income, one-parent households, child-headed households, and the chronically sick—basically, that is those with HIV/ AIDS. Previously, 5 per cent. of those qualifying for food aid did not get it, largely due to shortages, whereas now the figure is about 22 per cent. due to the increase

203WH
in need and shortages in supply. One in five people judged by the agreed criteria of the World Food Programme will not get food aid. I have been through the figures in detail with the WFP, and they are accurate.
Even people who get food aid do not get enough to live on; they get 70 per cent. of their requirements. One woman told me that they have food aid for three weeks and they borrow for one. Now that no one has any food, they cannot borrow. The level of hunger is appalling, as is the lack of food. One afternoon, I visited a primary school and saw rows of children sitting with their heads on the desks; they had had no lunch and most of them had had no breakfast. In Binga, where there have been problems with food distribution, there have been outbreaks of cholera. I also visited a shelter for street orphans where the children were fed on a bowl of pro-nutro and two biscuits twice a day for a month. They were supposed to get food from the Government supply, not from the international community supply, but had not got it because the food had been sold off elsewhere.
Mr. Bill Tynan: Is my hon. Friend saying that there is no control of a great deal of the food being distributed in Zimbabwe?
Ms Keeble: No, I am saying something different. There are different methods of food distribution. The Government control some of the food, and they use it politically. I am talking about the food provided by the international community through the World Food Programme. Some of the organisations recognise the problems, but the biggest problem that I saw is the lack of food. A fifth of the hungry people in the categories recognised by the WFP as needing food will not get anything. Those who do will get only 70 per cent. of their nutritional requirements—in calories not vitamins, which is what chronically ill people need.
Whatever my hon. Friend the Minister may say about all the money that we put into HIV/AIDS, professionals in Zimbabwe confirm that the infection rate is 33 per cent., not the 24 per cent. sometimes claimed, and in some areas it is much higher. I was told by a nurse at one hospital that 80 per cent. of patients admitted were judged to be affected by HIV/AIDS.
Mr. Pike: Are the majority of the people with HIV/AIDS among those who, in normal circumstances, would generate the economic wealth of that country?
Ms Keeble: That is right. It is a catastrophe that I saw also in South Africa and Lesotho. That situation is probably worse in Zimbabwe. There are only 22 testing centres in the whole of that country, with only two serving the second biggest city, Bulawayo. Perversely, there is no incentive for people to get tested, as there is nothing that can be done for those who are found to be HIV positive. They will get no treatment and no extra food. The World Food Programme already gives some supplements to all families, because virtually every family is affected by HIV/AIDS. They will get no medicine unless they can afford to buy it. I saw one shockingly ill victim who could not even afford to buy aspirin as a painkiller.
Mr. Evans: While the hon. Lady was in Zimbabwe did she see anything of the education programme informing people about HIV/AIDS and how to ensure that they do not contract it?
Ms Keeble: There were posters but the Government are in denial. All the incentives are against disclosure. It is extraordinary. In Lesotho one could talk to people fairly openly about what is going on, but there was a complete denial of the problem in Zimbabwe. Indeed, at one of the country's biggest hospitals, when people are found to be HIV positive, "home care only" is written on their medical notes and they are sent home and never admitted to hospital for treatment again, so no one at that hospital dies of AIDS. They are not recorded as being AIDS deaths.
I went around with some home carers to see the work that they do and to talk to some of the people they cared for. They do not have medical kits or supplies as they do in Lesotho, for example. They are really just a home visiting team, but no more. They are looking after thousands and thousands of people. They can give them nothing other than comfort; that is obviously important, but it will not deal with the problem.
There are up to 1 million HIV/AIDS orphans: single orphans, who have lost one parent, double orphans who have lost both and serial orphans who have gone from one carer to the next as AIDS has killed one after the other. Some of them are HIV positive and they are all desperately disadvantaged. Quite apart from their need for food, shelter, someone to care for them and money to pay for school fees and medicines if they are ill, they also need counselling services. We sometimes concentrate so much on the material and physical needs, we forget their social and psychological needs.
One organisation had got these children to do memory books. One little girl came out to show me her memory book, which had a photograph of her with both her parents in a house in Harare with a nice garden. Now she is living in a shack with many other children in a high-density suburb. Her father is dead; her mother is still alive, but a shadow of the plump, beautiful woman in the photograph. The memory book said, "If I die before I am 20, please can someone make sure that this is read to any of my children." These books are heartbreaking.
Those needs are not going to be met by the ZANU-PF Government, because they deny that anything is happening. Yet if the needs are not met the disaster already engulfing Zimbabwe will also take in the next generation. We in the donor communities should support the local NGO community groups and networks to meet the needs of HIV/AIDS patients and orphans, including provision of antiretrovirals on a planned and systematic basis—the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). What is needed is a working-age population that can function and support the work for children.
Any assumption that reconstructing Zimbabwe can wait until there is political change is mistaken. We need to support the people of Zimbabwe, and use every possible opportunity and every bit of leverage that we have to put pressure for change on the Zimbabwean Government.

205WH
The course on which the ZANU-PF Government have set Zimbabwe has turned it from a middle-income into a low-income country, driving the economy into the sand while looking in the rear view mirror. It is not often that we can see an economy collapse visibly in front of us, but that is what I saw in Zimbabwe last week. There were empty factories that looked very nice from the outside but had nothing inside, and empty shops. One of the more heavily fortified shops that I saw in one town was a bread shop, but it had no bread. Doctors are on strike and there is no food. It is a two dollar economy: one based on the US dollar for people who have access to hard currency and can live like kings—some of them clearly speculate on commodities and currency and make a vast amount of money—and one based on the Zimbabwean dollar, which is spiralling out of control, leaving tragedies behind. Despite all that, there is no guarantee that the Zimbabwean Government will compromise or change. Some say—it has been repeated this morning and I saw evidence of it—that the Government are becoming increasingly militarised, given how they organise the country and some of the recent Government appointments. They have already stolen one election, so we could not expect them to give democracy back if they lost another election, as they almost certainly would.
The UK, with our historical ties with Zimbabwe, must take a lead in pressing for change in that country, and ensure that the international community takes every possible step to isolate and pressurise the regime. Many suggestions about how to do that have been made in the debate.
I was in Zimbabwe in 1981: I used to live in South Africa. The last time I went there from the UK there was a massacre in Matabeleland, a major drought and pressure on local newspapers. The outside world walked by at that time, buoyed up as we all were by Zimbabwe's liberation, and conscious of the horrors of the apartheid regime to the south. Our failure then to insist on proper observation of human rights and respect for minorities has cost the people of Zimbabwe dear over the years, and has made possible the reign of terror in Matabeleland, which Mugabe has pursued.
We know, too, the impact that bad governance can have on a country. Uganda is still recovering from Amin—its economy is still not back to the state that it was before he came to power—and Kenya is struggling to recover from Moye. We cannot allow what should have been one of the great levers for progress and change in sub-Saharan Africa to be destroyed by bad governance in the same way as other countries in Africa have been.
We need to increase aid, diversify the channels of delivery and increase pressure, which includes using the United Nations. I am sure that there will be a settlement in Zimbabwe and a change of Government, but we need to ensure as we move forward that there are no compromises on the need for the proper rule of law and respect for human rights in that country.
10.23 am
Mr. Michael Moore: Like other hon. Members, I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on securing
206WH
the debate and setting out clearly the problems in Zimbabwe. He made some key points to which I hope the Minister will have a direct answer at the end of the debate. As the hon. Gentleman remarked—without prejudging the Minister's response and with that exception—there is probably a great deal of consensus among hon. Members present in the Chamber. I pay tribute to the other speakers in the debate, particularly the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), who set out clearly and movingly many of the difficulties that Zimbabwe faces. She and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) both drew on their own experience.
We return again and again to the question of Zimbabwe. I am in danger of losing count of the number of times, but I would guess that, in recent years, we have debated this subject in Westminster Hall on about 15 occasions. Issues such as United Nations reform have been promoted from discussion in this Chamber to debates in the main Chamber of the House, so we must hope that the Government, despite their difficulties and perhaps even embarrassment about Zimbabwe, will find the time for that to be discussed in the main Chamber.
The content of this debate has been mostly one-way, as was that of its predecessors, but that does not mean that it has been stale. There remains a great deal of anger about what is going on in Zimbabwe. I point to just a few of the statistics about Zimbabwe that grab our attention: 500 per cent. inflation, 80 per cent. unemployment and no foreign reserves. During our discussions, we may offer slightly different figures, but as Welshman Ncube said to us yesterday, the relevance of the economic statistics from Zimbabwe tends to be rather short-lived, although we can always be sure that the figures are getting worse.
We now read that the parlous state of Zimbabwe is such that the Government are raiding tourist locations in a desperate search for foreign currency, while announcing that they are now providing protection for tourists who visit the country. It seems that Zimbabwean officials have no sense of irony.
Some 11 million hectares of land in Zimbabwe are under occupation and are unproductive. In the few remaining areas that are productive, beatings of farm workers continue. That crime is not committed on the basis of colour: white and black alike are subjected to serious violence and abuse.
Moreover, as we have heard eloquently expressed this morning, there is significant political manipulation of the food aid on which the bulk of the population depends. As the hon. Member for Northampton, North said, we have reached the point at which independent monitoring of food provision is needed, and we need to gain a clearer understanding and greater knowledge of its link with the AIDS pandemic, which is a scar on Zimbabwe.
We have often documented how President Mugabe stole the election; the legal challenges to that continue. At the same time he seeks to have his opponent, Morgan Tsvangirai, convicted of treason on two different counts. He is not confident that he has a case—none of us believe that he has even the beginnings of a case—so he continues to undermine the courts and the judiciary. In case they do something that he does not like, despite all his efforts, freedom of speech has almost completely disappeared.

207WH
We must hope that The Daily News, which has been a beacon of independent thinking and reporting in Zimbabwe, will be able to overcome its current problems. We should admire the courage and determination of the journalists and all those who support that institution. They take great personal risks to try to get independent comment and reporting more widely disseminated in Zimbabwe.
Militias continue to grow. The paramilitary nature of rule in Zimbabwe continues. State-sponsored violence and intimidation is the way of life. Despite that, we are occasionally invited to believe that there are talks about transition—as you understand better than many, Mr. Deputy Speaker—from an unelected or stolen presidency to a proper functioning democracy, or perhaps from one corrupt ruler to another. We should not confuse discussions with solutions. We are still a long way from resolving the situation in Zimbabwe.
The international response to what has happened in Zimbabwe continues to be an embarrassment to us all. It is hard for those of us who are so far away to understand the position taken by South Africa, and its willingness to tolerate the situation despite the evidence. As the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) remarked, South Africa holds important economic cards in the region and Zimbabwe is hugely dependent on it.
Mr. Pike: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the problems in South Africa and Nigeria is that they still do not understand that there is almost unanimous condemnation in the United Kingdom for what is happening in Zimbabwe? They do not realise that they have a key role to play in solving the problem.
Mr. Moore: The futility of repeating these comments in Westminster Hall does not stop us doing so. The message to South Africa and its neighbours must be that there is unanimity of purpose, not only in the United Kingdom, but across many parts of Europe and, we hope, in the United States. I do not wish to be cynical, but one of the reasons for the silence of those countries may be the increasing cannibalisation of the Zimbabwean economy, which was forcefully brought to our attention at yesterday's conference organised by the hon. Member for Vauxhall. The fact that so many South African individuals and companies have bought stakes in the Zimbabwean economy at rock bottom prices cannot justify their Government's silence about their terrible neighbour.
As many hon. Members have already remarked, this first test for the rest of Africa and the New Partnership for Africa's Development has been poorly dealt with. How can we take NEPAD seriously and be asked to continue to support it politically, economically and in other ways, when it is failing so spectacularly in the first test of Africa's ability to examine its own governance? It does not have to listen to politicians in the former colonial country; it can ignore us, as those countries have for a long time. However, it must listen to the people of Zimbabwe because they are crying out for change. They are losing their lives, being beaten up, starving and suffering from terrible diseases.
If a similar situation occurred elsewhere in the world, we would expect more from the European Union and the United States of America. Their reluctance to
208WH
engage in this area is depressing. I hope that, although other foreign policy matters are understandably top of the agenda, the Government will raise the issue of Zimbabwe with the President of the United States while he is in the country. However, other diplomatic efforts are imminent, and it is perhaps more pressing to address the future Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Abuja. It has been suggested that there may be attempts to end Zimbabwe's suspension. On what possible grounds could that be allowed? The troika is divided, but those members from Nigeria and South Africa who think that the current policy has failed are surely not serious. Yesterday, President Obasanjo met Mugabe in Harare, and he left the country with mixed signals. I refer to an agency report on the ZWNEWS.com website this morning, which quotes President Obasanjo as saying that he will consult whether Mugabe or Zimbabwean officials should be allowed to attend the meeting. That cannot be allowed to happen, but, if the same source is right, Mugabe is already preparing to pack his bags, saying that
"we look forward to attending"
the Abuja meeting.
Mr. Robathan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the situation is so serious that if there is a move to allow Mugabe to attend CHOGM next month, it might lead to the break-up of the Commonwealth?
Mr. Moore: I hope that the hon. Gentleman's analysis is not right, but the issue, which has dragged on for several years, has the potential to wreck the Commonwealth as a meaningful organisation for the future. It would be helpful for the Minister to explain what the attitude of our Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary will be if Mugabe turns up.
We must stop our lowest common denominator foreign policy. As Welshman Ncube urged us yesterday, we must take a lead and set out new measures to tighten the grip on the Zimbabwe regime. Britain should take its rightful place in this proper debate.
10.35 am
Mr. Richard Spring: I take this opportunity to pay tribute to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Not only have you drawn attention to the situation in Zimbabwe recently, but when there have been abuses in the past, yours has been one of the few voices in the House of Commons to bring Members' attention to them. I applaud you for that.
I also warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on his outstanding speech. He summed up the state of affairs and set out clearly both the problems and some possible ways of addressing the tragic situation.
I start by setting out a few facts about the position on the ground, from an economic and humanitarian point of view, and its impact. I pay tribute to the moving speech of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), who only last week saw for herself what the tragic situation means in practical terms for the people of Zimbabwe. For example, Botswana has had to build a security fence to keep out refugees because of the heavy flow from Zimbabwe. Some 2 million refugees

209WH
have so far fled Zimbabwe, and one of the consequences is a huge and damaging brain drain. The food situation is dire, with more than 5 million people starving.
It is to that terrifying spectre of starvation that I want to turn first. Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) hosted a forum for international and humanitarian agencies on the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe. Those who have knowledge of the country's plight recognise that the World Food Programme is doing a good job. However, serious concerns were expressed about controlling the distribution of food aid once it goes to the regions. There remains a lack of transparency about where the food goes once it leaves the hands of the aid agencies. In some areas, ZANU-PF has a grip on local distribution, and has even used that life-giving power to manipulate election results directly.
Some agencies are fighting back. They have taken the painful decision to withhold food aid where there is blatant politicisation. That cannot be an easy decision when the situation is so grim and overall supplies are so inadequate. However, it is clear is that unless there is a more co-ordinated approach, with more systematic checks, food will continue to be used by Mugabe as a political weapon to prolong his hold over the country—a telling point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans).
Does the Minister agree that there is a strong case for a full independent audit of the process of food distribution? That point was also made by the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore). Does the Minister believe that that should include monitoring the list of recipients? It is truly horrific that such a tragic situation now obtains in what was once the bread-basket of Africa. Have the Government made an assessment of who is best placed to perform such monitoring, and considered whether that might be the United Nations? The Government have given us numerous reasons why the UN Security Council cannot get involved, but none of them stand up to scrutiny—a point made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey).
The impact that conditions in Zimbabwe are having on its neighbours and the region makes a mockery of the claims that the Security Council cannot get involved because the situation in Zimbabwe is an internal matter. There are clear indications that several European countries are feeling increasingly negative about Africa overall because of the inability or unwillingness of African politicians to either publicly criticise Mugabe or, more specifically, take more clear action themselves. That is certainly regrettable.
Yet the Foreign Secretary has apparently ruled out the possibility of a resolution because we might lose it. There is widespread agreement that there are now sufficient grounds to pass a resolution on Zimbabwe in the UN Security Council, even if it only deals with the deploying of UN observers to see that food is properly distributed. Such a move would be welcomed by the Zimbabwean people, so many of whom face either malnutrition or outright starvation. To put it simply, the Government must do more and, if necessary, use a third-party Government to initiate a resolution at the United Nations. Bringing the issue of Zimbabwe before
210WH
the Security Council would surely send a message to Mugabe that the international community collectively takes the matter most seriously. It would be a most welcome development.
International pressure can also be brought to bear through the Commonwealth. Yesterday President Obasanjo met Mugabe in Harare. One of Mugabe's greatest lies is that his people are somehow the victims of either Commonwealth suspension or EU sanctions. They are not. They are the victims of Mugabe's tyranny. The Government should match the strong message sent by the Australian Prime Minister to South Africa and Nigeria that President Mugabe will not be welcome at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Abuja in December. We welcome the fact that President Obasanjo has clearly stated that Mugabe will not be welcome. That is a clear illustration that this is not a colonial issue, as Mugabe might attempt to colour it—we must reject that taunt for the grotesque nonsense it is—but a matter of human rights and democracy.
Will the Government consider championing a group of eminent persons within the Commonwealth to take this matter forward once again? Zimbabwe should be an international pariah state. There can be no trimming or shabby deals here. There is a message that the Government must take to our European partners. It is simply not good enough to shelter behind a common EU position while Zimbabwe continues to suffer. We must not shy from unilateral actions by individual EU member states if that is necessary, and again that point was made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby cited New Zealand as an example.
Sanctions should be extended and strengthened to include those business men who bankroll Mugabe's regime, and they must be rigorously enforced. With that in mind, it is clear that December will be a particularly critical time for Zimbabwe. The world's eyes will be focused on not only CHOGM but, perhaps as importantly, the ZANU-PF party congress. It is worth reminding ourselves that President Mbeki received the backing of President Bush for his policy of quiet diplomacy, which we were led to believe would result in substantial movement by the time of this congress, but it is only a matter of weeks away.
I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike): historically, South Africa has played an extremely important role in the affairs of Zimbabwe. A previous South African Government dealt very decisively with the regime of Ian Smith because they considered that to be in its national interests. In the last few years, members of the Conservative party have on numerous occasions urged the South African Government to take much more assertive action. They have told us that they cannot because that would undermine Zimbabwe's economic base and stability. We continually told them, "That's happening anyway. It's going to get worse."
Our South African friends—and they are great friends of this country, and are admirable in so many ways—have made an historic misjudgment. There are many success stories in Africa, but they are being drowned out by the terrible tragedy of Zimbabwe, and the unwillingness of African leaders to act. The fundamental problems of the Southern African Development Community and the New Partnership for

211WH
Africa's Development cry out for action. I am a true friend of Africa—I was born there. Many industrialised countries recognise the need to open up their markets and be more generous with African primary producers. However, I believe that good will will be dissipated unless the principles of good governance and peer group review are adhered to and enforced.
Given the apparent failure of President Mbeki's quiet diplomacy and the failure of the talks between the MDC and ZANU-PF, we must set out a road map on how to resolve the matter. We must point out firmly, but in a spirit of friendship, to the neighbouring countries of southern Africa that they must take the lead. We should offer to assist them, in any way that we can, to develop such a road map, including a plan for a post-Mugabe reconstruction of the country; that will be a massive undertaking. We can only hope and pray that the post-Mugabe era ends in a matter of weeks, rather than months. The people of Zimbabwe do not deserve the tragic fate that has befallen them in the past three years.
10.46 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin): We have had an extremely good debate, and hon. Members from all parties—particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble)—have set out graphically the tragic state of affairs in Zimbabwe. I do not need to go over the figures, as they are well known. It is a feature of such debates that hon. Members ask long lists of questions of the Minister, who then has very little time to reply to them, but I shall do my best in the short time available to respond to the points raised. Inevitably, I fear that I shall not be able to address them all, and where I have not been able to, I shall write to the hon. Members concerned.
Hon. Members have raised four main issues: stronger sanctions, which they want; why the Government have chosen not to table a resolution at the UN Security Council; the politicisation of food aid; and why we have not pressed South Africa to do more. I shall address each in turn.
There is no serious disagreement between anyone in this Chamber. We all agree where we want to get to; we have some differences in tactics, but no more than that. The Government's policy is clear and consistent. It aims to isolate the ZANU-PF leadership by maintaining broad international pressure on it. At the same time, we are providing humanitarian assistance to the Zimbabwean people and helping to tackle the HIV/AIDS pandemic. We continue to encourage democracy and civil society in Zimbabwe and speak out against human rights and other abuses. I reiterate our readiness to contribute to Zimbabwe's redevelopment when there is a democratically accountable Government in place, pursuing sustainable development and sensible economic policies.
We believe that the resumption of inter-party dialogue between Zimbabwe's ruling ZANU-PF and the Opposition Movement for Democratic Change is a crucial first step towards meeting such objectives. Unfortunately, the political situation in Zimbabwe is hardly one in which such a dialogue can flourish. Morgan Tsvangirai has two treason charges outstanding against him, and the MDC's legal challenge
212WH
to the results of the 2002 Presidential election started this month. There have been further attacks by the Zimbabwean Government on civil society and trade unionists and, perhaps most alarmingly, yet another clampdown on the independent media. The Daily News, Zimbabwe's only independent daily newspaper, whose courageous editor-in-chief I had the pleasure of meeting recently, was closed in September. Since then, its offices have been raided, its computers confiscated, and its journalists and directors arrested. I am aware of the constant violence and intimidation they face as they go about their business, and I place on record my admiration for their courage in the face of such harassment.
I shall say a word about our response to the desperate situation in Zimbabwe in respect of sanctions. With our EU partners, we imposed targeted sanctions on the ZANU-PF leadership in February 2002 consisting of a travel ban, assets freeze and arms embargo that are to be continued for another year, following a unanimous decision by the EU last February, and they are having an impact.
I am aware of the argument for extending the sanctions to include the children of those on the banned list. We have decided against it as we believe that children should not be made to pay for the sins of their parents, but we would be prepared to consider extending sanctions to those found to be propping up the regime, provided that such sanctions hit the guilty and not the innocent. That always has to be borne in mind when imposing economic sanctions.
Economic or trade sanctions are not the way forward, because they would have a negative impact on the ordinary people of Zimbabwe. As hon. Members have described, they already suffer enough hardship and poverty thanks to the ruinous policies of the ruling party.
As to the possibility of action through the United Nations, several hon. Members called on the Government to table a resolution at the United Nations Security Council. The Foreign Secretary made our position clear in the House on June 10 when he said that we would go to the United Nations Security Council for a resolution only if it had a good chance of being passed. Tabling a resolution now when it would be certain to fail would only hand Mugabe a gratuitous victory.
The EU put forward resolutions this year and last year at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, in which we played a leading part. Regrettably, on both occasions the resolutions fell to no-action motions supported by a large number of African countries.
Mr. Robathan: There is not much difference in the spirit with which we view the matter, but it is not good enough for the Foreign Secretary to say that a motion would certainly fail. We should flush out those in the United Nations who speak in support of Zimbabwe. We should hear what they have to say, and very strongly put the argument against Zimbabwe firmly into the international arena.
Mr. Mullin: As I said, we did that at the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, and it did flush out those who were opposed to it, but the resolutions fell to no-

213WH
action motions. It is extremely difficult when the countries immediately surrounding Zimbabwe do not believe it is a matter for the United Nations Security Council. Commonwealth action has proved possible. The Commonwealth responded to the crisis by suspending Zimbabwe from its councils in March 2002 following a presidential election that most international observers judged to be neither free nor fair.
The suspension remains in place and will be discussed at next month's meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government in Abuja. I shall be attending the conference with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, and we hope to have further discussions with Commonwealth leaders about Zimbabwe.
Our position on the issue of Zimbabwe's suspension is the same as that of the Commonwealth Secretary General, who has listed five benchmarks where there would have to be progress before Zimbabwe could be readmitted. The Government of Zimbabwe must first, achieve national reconciliation and dialogue; secondly, repeal legislation that prejudices the freedom of speech, of the press and of peaceful assembly; thirdly, end harassment of opposition parties and civil society groups: fourthly, address the recommendations of two Commonwealth election observer reports; and fifthly, engage the Commonwealth secretariat and the UN Development Programme on a proper land reform programme.
I am sorry to say that there has been little progress towards meeting any of those benchmarks or the Commonwealth's Harare principles for good governance. There has been no formal dialogue between the ruling party and the opposition for more than a year now, and attacks on the opposition, independent media and civil society continue. On that basis we see no justification for readmitting Zimbabwe to the Commonwealth councils, and we shall make that clear in Abuja. I made the same point when I visited South Africa earlier this month.
Mr. Evans: Will the Minister give an assurance that, while Zimbabwe remains suspended from the Commonwealth, it will not go to CHOGM in December in Nigeria?
Mr. Mullin: The Government will oppose Zimbabwe's attendance at CHOGM, and I have no reason to suppose that Mugabe will be there. Indeed, President Obasanjo, who is the host, has made it clear that he will not be invited.
The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) and others said that we should do more to encourage South Africa to speak up. We keep in close touch with the South African Government on the issue, and they want a solution as badly as we do—more so, indeed. They are in the front line, and might have to cope with 2 million Zimbabwean refugees. We listen with respect to what the South Africans have to say. They have the same objectives as we have, and are working hard behind the scenes to achieve a solution. We see no advantage in involving ourselves in a public spat with the South Africans, not least because we are working to the same ends.
214WH
The point has been made this morning that there is no use in African Governments signing up to good governance under NEPAD if they bury their heads in the sand the first time a hard case comes along. That is precisely the point that I made publicly when I was in South Africa—it needed to be made there and it was widely reported.
Mr. Spring: Of course we want to enjoy a close relationship with South Africa. Its role is important and we do not want any rancour between our two countries. However, the idea of encouraging informal links between ZANU-PF and the MDC needs to be made more formal if it is to work. South Africa surely has a role to play in that, as does the Southern African Development Community, because unless the process is open and transparent, no movement on that level will be made, if any is to be made at all.
Mr. Mullin: That is perfectly true, and my understanding is that South Africa has been extremely active behind the scenes. The difficulty is that it is unclear whether the Government of Zimbabwe has sent an appropriate response. However, there is no advantage in dividing the Commonwealth along black and white lines, and to do so would only play into Mugabe's hands.
We have responded to the humanitarian crisis by continuing to honour our commitments to provide the Zimbabwean people with assistance. The latest estimate is that 2.5 million Zimbabweans, from a population of around 11 million, are dependent on international food aid, and that figure is expected to rise to around 5.5 million in the coming months. We are the largest European bilateral aid donor to Zimbabwe and second overall, after the United States. On 23 October, our high commissioner in Harare announced a contribution of a further £5 million to the World Food Programme's emergency appeal for food aid, which brings the UK's contribution to humanitarian programmes to £62 million since September 2001. We are doing all we can to ensure that ZANU-PF does not use international food aid for political advantage, as is the WFP. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North observed that the food distribution system in Zimbabwe had integrity, difficult though the climate is, and I take note of that.
The Zimbabwean economy is in a desperate state. The statistics speak for themselves: it is now not only the worst performing in Africa, but the fastest shrinking in the world. The decline of Zimbabwe's economy is not due to bad weather, as Mr. Mugabe would have us believe, but largely to his Government's disastrous economic policies, which have undermined macroeconomic stability and destroyed business confidence.
I regret that it is not possible to find much positive to say about the current state of Zimbabwe, but I stress that we stand ready to work with any new Administration that is democratically elected in a transparent, free and fair process. My hope is that when political change comes it will be followed by renewed donor support and re-engagement by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. We stand ready to play our part when the time comes.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We thank the Minister for his reply. I remind hon. Members that he has said that he will write to anyone whose question he has not been able to answer.

Royal Palaces
11 am
Dr. Vincent Cable: I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce an Adjournment debate on an issue that has caused a great deal of stir in my constituency and in my part of London. I shall focus on access and access charges to the ornamental gardens at Hampton Court palace. Anyone listening for the first time to my comments might think that the issue is very narrow and specific, but it is not. It concerns important issues of principle and public policy, with potential for precedent. I know that Ministers have been actively involved in the issue, and that the Minister for Media and Heritage, Lord McIntosh, has been to Hampton Court to discuss the proposals. I am sure that the Minister for the Arts, who is present, is well aware of the substance of the matter.
Although Hampton Court is in my constituency, the issue is not one that is of concern only to people in the Twickenham area. Hampton Court is effectively at the intersection of three parliamentary constituencies. Across the river, over Hampton Court bridge, is the constituency of the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), who has been active in this campaign. Also across the river is the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), who has also been actively involved and has been to see the Minister for Media and Heritage about the problem.
We have worked together, across the parties, to represent a common view among our constituents. All three of us are conscious that the matter has stirred up the amenity societies and residents' groups, which in many ways provide much of the social fabric in our communities. In my area, the Hampton Court Association, the Hampton Wick Association, the Hampton Society, the Teddington Society and the Hampton Hill Association have been voluble in their comments on the proposal. I single out Mrs. Spence of the Hampton Court Road environment committee, who has in many ways led and orchestrated residents' representations.
Now that a decision—frankly, a rather regrettable one, which I want to talk about—has been made, I acknowledge that there were some positive features to the process by which it was reached. I acknowledge the role that the Hampton Court authorities, probably prompted by Ministers, played in making things a little easier. I praise the extent and thoroughness of the process of public consultation. Many residents were consulted and a professional MORI poll was conducted of local opinion. I regret that the conclusions of the surveys do not appear to have been listened to in reaching a decision, but none the less the consultation was wide and thorough.
I acknowledge too—again, in a positive spirit—that there have been compromises and concessions to local opinion. First, some elements of the gardens, such as the wilderness and the tiltyard, for example, which will be familiar to people who visit regularly, have been excluded from the charging proposals. There is a proposal for a new access route so that residents can gain access to Home park, the large deer park that
216WH
accounts for 640 acres of the 700 acre estate. They will not be barred from access and will not have to pay. There will be no charge in winter. I recognise that those moves go a little way to assuage residents' annoyance—or probably anger, in some cases—about what is happening.
There are three headings to my comments on the proposals. One is the principle of access, the second is legality and the third is the economics of the proposal. On the broad principle, I am conscious that I represent an area with a strong sense of history, ranging from Hampton Court at one end to Marble Hill house and park at the other. The constituency is rich in history and people are conscious of their history and the various associated traditions. I grew up in the city of York surrounded by mediaeval and Roman remains, so I know how heritage is valued and how people identify with it if they live in such areas.
A long-standing tradition is that residents have uninhibited free access to the grounds of Hampton Court. In 1834, Queen Victoria decreed that the palace grounds and parklands should be open to the public. Local historians have found that there was access to the gardens long before that—going back two centuries or more.
Some highly symbolic and important battles have been fought in the area on free access to royal estates. One of the large royal deer parks in the Twickenham constituency is Bushy park, which is a few hundred yards from Hampton Court. The park has long been a royal establishment, but is managed by local wardens called rangers. There was a major issue 250 years ago, when the then monarch delegated powers to a ranger, who tried to close off access by the local public. A legal action was raised by a local cobbler, who won the case in court and forced the monarchy, through the rangers, to open the park to local residents so that they could walk across it. That is quite an important principle of local liberty.
A similar thing happened to Richmond park, which is in an adjacent constituency. It was established by Charles I, who tried to enclose it as a royal preserve, but protests were so severe that he was forced to concede the principle of pedestrian access by local residents and, indeed, established walls and little access points so that residents could walk through it.
Under subsequent monarchs, there was an attempt to row back from that commitment. In 1761, there was another legal case when the park manager tried to restrict access by residents. That case was fought in the courts and the public won. We are talking about historic rights that go back hundreds of years and which are remembered and valued, but they are now being set aside.
What concerns many residents and should perhaps concern us all is that, once we concede the principle that the owners or managers of heritage sites can charge for access to gardens, that potentially opens an enormous Pandora's box. I imagine that directors of parks in many local authority areas who currently extensively maintain beautiful ornamental gardens may well lick their lips when they hear of the decision, because many of their financial problems would no doubt be overcome if they could establish a gate and charge local residents for admission to the local park. Clearly, there is

217WH
institutionally a difference between royal palaces and the local parks of local councils, but the principle is the same and I can see a worrying precedent being set.
Secondly, I shall focus on the decision's legality. I am not a lawyer and do not propose to debate and contest the legal opinion that has been given. However, I have been sent copies of a letter in which a summary is given of the Attorney-General's view on the matter, and I will read that because it is important for the record. The Attorney-General concluded that it was permissible to make a charge for admission to the formal gardens, with the proviso that the cost was reasonable, related to the cost of upkeep, and not at a level that in effect restricted public access. That is the Attorney-General's legal opinion, which we must accept.
However, the opinion is being strongly contested by local residents, who have sought an independent legal opinion. It would be desirable if some of the legal reasoning could be published, and I think that the Minister for the Arts has given an assurance on that. I know that the Attorney-General's opinions are never published and I am not asking for that, but there will be a legal commentary explaining why the view sought by local residents is invalid. I believe that an assurance has been given that that will be published. Can the Minister for the Arts confirm that?
I am more concerned about the common-sense aspects of the matter. What is meant by a reasonable charge? The proposed charge for access to the gardens is £4 for an adult and £12 for a family. A season ticket, which would apply to local residents who visited regularly, would be £20 for a single person and £50 for a family. The question arises whether, in a commonsense use of the term, that could be described as "reasonable". Evidence from the various surveys that have been carried out suggests that many local residents would not regard it as reasonable. The report of the royal palaces comments on the surveys. It freely acknowledges that most people are opposed to the change, and that although one third of residents accepted the principle of a charge as being useful and necessary for maintaining the upkeep of the gardens, the average figure that they thought reasonable for a season ticket was £10—half the proposed price.
The season ticket, which is intended to be a concession to local residents, becomes viable only if people visit the gardens more than five times a year. The evidence from the survey suggests that 62 per cent. of visitors visit the gardens more than once, but do not go there more than five times. For them, that concession will therefore be of no value.
The other key point in the legal ruling is that the charges should not be set at a level that has the effect of restricting public access. However, because of the way in which the charges will be imposed, public access will be restricted. Some 20 per cent. of the people in the palace's service said that they will no longer go to the gardens; their access is being removed for reasons of affordability or issues of principle.
A further point concerns the opening hours of the gardens, and I hope that the Minister may be able to give practical help on that matter. It is proposed that opening hours for the gardens will be restricted to the
218WH
opening hours of the palace. Those who live in the area will know that one of the great pleasures of Hampton Court is the ability to walk in the gardens in the evening. As I understand the proposal, the gardens will now be closed on summer evenings—the point at which they are most enjoyed by local residents. The day visitors, who come as tourists, presumably will not object to these charges, but the residents who enjoy walking in the gardens in the evening will be faced with the galling sight of the gardens being locked, because they will close at the closing time of the palace. It seems reasonable to ask why the palace authorities cannot open the gates when the palace shuts and let residents walk in the gardens in the evening. There will be no loss of revenue because they will not be charging if the gardens are closed. That small but important gesture would be greatly valued.
My final point about the principle of restricting access is that there is a problem for pensioners. The people who have time and perhaps care most for the ornamental gardens are the elderly. They are being given a concession, but it is not very generous: the standard rate will be £4 per adult, and the concessionary rate will be £3. For a state pensioner who lives locally and is used to visiting the gardens once a week or more, £3 to walk around the gardens will seem rather steep. I am not sure that the palace authorities appreciate the hurt that that will cause. I hope that the question of the concessionary charge for pensioners can be re-examined.
In conclusion, I shall discuss the other legal issue—the question of residents' preference—which has not been properly dealt with in the commentaries that have been made. In June, when I first met Mr. Giddons to discuss the proposals, he said that the palace authorities had no alternative but to charge local residents for visiting the park because of a European Court ruling that it was no longer permissible to discriminate against non residents. I can understand that it is illegitimate for palaces or other authorities to discriminate against non-British citizens who live in the European Union—the courts have to uphold the single market—and it would be wrong, given that we are part of the European Union, for British citizens to enjoy lower charges than do citizens of other member states.
That is not the issue, however. The question is whether it would be right for the palaces to charge a preferential rate for people who live in the three adjoining boroughs, constituencies, or narrowly-defined postcode areas; we are not talking about Britons as opposed to other members of the European Union. I have never received a clear answer as to whether the Government and Historical Royal Palaces believe that even that kind of preference is now illegal because of the European ruling. That would be a mind-boggling and, for one who broadly supports the European cause, uncomfortable conclusion. If it is illegal, there are enormous implications, as many heritage institutions in Britain offer special discounts to local residents. I would be grateful to have clarification from the Government as to where we stand in that respect.
My final point relates to the economics of the exercise. It would be useful to see a copy of the business case that HRP has put forward for the proposal. Even if it makes sense in its own terms, I am sceptical: the gardens are extensive, and there would be a considerable cost involved in establishing charging points. Economists talk about that boring problem, elasticity of demand:

219WH
when the price of something that is not a necessity goes up, people stop using it. The Government know painfully from the experience of museums that once charges are imposed, visitors are lost. I suspect that that will happen in this case. Not having seen the figures, I do not know whether the business case for the charges stacks up. There is a telling sentence in the letter from the Minister to the chairman of HRP:
"I know that in arriving at your decision you will wish to balance the relatively limited financial benefits to HRP against the views of the local people."
I share the view that the benefits are relatively limited. If it is too late to change the decision, I would ask the Minister to consider opening the gardens in the evening when the palaces are closed; publishing some of the background documents, particularly those related to the legal opinion on access; and giving a clear statement about the issue of national versus local residential preference in the light of the European ruling.
11.19 am
The Minister for the Arts (Estelle Morris): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on having secured an Adjournment debate on what must be a burning issue both in his constituency and in neighbouring ones. I do not know the area well, but I can understand that the gardens are an important element of the community's facilities and amenities, and I suspect that many generations will have grown up with a degree of access to them that might not apply this time next year.
While I can understand the hon. Gentleman's case, and imagine the force with which his constituents have made it to him, I also acknowledge the position of Historical Royal Palaces. It became a non-departmental public body in 1998, receiving no grant in aid, yet it was willing to take on the responsibility of raising sufficient funds to run the royal palaces. That is creditable—it is the way it should be—but consequences flow from it. It did not imagine at that time that one of those consequences would be that it would have to charge for areas of ground that are not currently charged for, but much has happened in those four or five years.
I suspect that if visitor numbers had not fallen, we would not be having this debate. The numbers have fallen from 3.5 million in 1998–99, to 2.8 million last year, and a predicted 2.5 million this year. That creates a problem for running the palaces. Fewer people pay to visit the parts of the palaces that require payment, so the income is less but the expenditure has not fallen commensurate with that. The expenditure needed to maintain the gardens is £2 million, and 38 full-time members of staff are employed.
Historical Royal Palaces realises that areas of the gardens have never been charged for but it wants to keep the gardens in good order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that it carries out those responsibilities to the highest standard, and none of us wants that to diminish. However, the books do not balance in the face of decreasing visitor numbers. The proposed measures would do no more than balance the books and secure the revenue needed to run the gardens.
There are two opposing aspects of the argument. The first is the historic tradition, which the hon. Gentleman forcibly covered. Local residents feel strongly that the gardens are a valuable part of their community and
220WH
amenity and do not understand why they should be charged. In the face of that, HRP needs to secure money to maintain the standards, and that is the dilemma that it faces. The hon. Gentleman rightly said that the Government's position is that, having been made a non-departmental public body in 1998, HRP must make the decisions, and I do not want to interfere with its right to run the gardens and palaces as it sees fit. However, changes must be thorough, consulted on and reasonable. They must allow reasonable access and not be set at a disproportionate level that would make it difficult for local people to pay.
The consultation has been thorough, and the results may be that people would say that if they had to pay, they would not visit. That is an exact snapshot of the feelings of people in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and neighbouring constituencies and boroughs. Only time will tell whether those feelings change, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the amenity is such that some people who say that they would not pay, in an attempt to influence a decision not to charge, would pay at the end of the day.
I support HRP. I do not think that it is by nature good to charge, but I support it in doing its job. It has to decide whether the money secured might cause fewer people to visit, and is therefore not worth the financial effort. HRP must put its costings and plans into the public domain. I hope that someone from HRP will read this debate, make a decision, and write to the hon. Gentleman. Anyone running an institution must make such a judgment. I am pleased that it has decided to consider the issue for a year, review it and ascertain whether the arrangements needed for charging, and the possible break of relations with the community, are worth the funds that it will secure from it. It has made clear that it will charge from next year, but I am pleased that it will also undertake a review.
I want to clarify that Home park, Barge walk, Hampton Court green, the west front, the rose garden, the tiltyard and the wilderness will remain free of charge. Of the 60 acres of the gardens, we estimate that more than half—36.5 acres—will remain free of charge. I know that that is less than was previously free of charge—only 5.5 acres had to be paid for before the changes. There is no doubt that less of the land is free of charge.
The hon. Gentleman did not mention that the charge will apply for six months of the year during the summer season. During the winter period, which I presume runs from October through Christmas to Easter, in April or thereabouts, it will be free of charge to local residents and anyone who wants to visit. He said that £20 for a season ticket and £10 for a concessionary rate—the Government were very keen that there should be a concessionary rate for people on lower incomes—was not reasonable. We could debate at length the legal basis for what is and is not reasonable, but HRP believes that there comes a point at which the level is so low that it is not worth setting up the mechanisms for charging. It believes that £20 for a season ticket, £10 for a concessionary rate, free access for half the year, and £4 for access to all gardens that charge for entrance—I understand that it £3 at the moment—is reasonable.
I do not want to enter into a debate about charges, but I want to express my satisfaction at there being a concessionary rate. We must leave it to local residents to

221WH
decide whether £20 is reasonable. The Government have no power to intervene, but as the hon. Gentleman said in the meeting that he and his colleagues had with my colleague, and as the letter said that is now in the public domain, we certainly want HRP to take local people's views into account. Following the consultation, it has now done that. As I said, when the year is over, I have no doubt that HRP will consider the extra income that it secured and decide whether it was worth it.
It was the drop in the number of visitors, not from Europe but from further afield, that brought about the changes. In the years to come, I hope that there will be an increase in the visitor numbers from America—the largest drop and the greatest problem for HRP—and from the middle east and far east. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman and his constituents will be alert to any increase in visitor numbers and that they will bring them to the attention of HRP for its response.
I am happy to clarify the European position, which I was not aware of until I prepared to answer the hon. Gentleman's question during Department for Culture, Media and Sport questions last week. The judgment was made in January in, I believe, response to an Italian case. His reading is absolutely right: it is illegal not only to differentiate between visitors from the United Kingdom and from other European countries, but for his constituency and neighbouring constituencies and boroughs to discriminate by charging different amounts.
The charging structure relates to state-owned institutions, not to private institutions, which can still charge less for any group of people who live in a neighbouring borough. As the hon. Gentleman said, it appears that institutions in his area and other state-owned institutions have illegally been charging less for local residents for some time. As he might imagine, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will need to draw their attention to the fact that they are acting outside European regulations.
I will write to the hon. Gentleman if I am wrong, but I understand that the regulation is not new and that we have been acting outside it ever since it was introduced. That fact was brought to our attention as the result of a court case this January and in response to representations made by Italian institutions or Italian residents. His reading of it is absolutely right. There should be no need for Government, or anyone else, not be absolutely clear about the position. If I have not made it clear and put it on the record, I would be pleased if he could write to me and I will happily do so. We have no doubt about the interpretation of the regulation, and want to put it in the public domain as soon as possible.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing the matter to the attention of the House. This sort of local issue is very important to constituents and to Members of Parliament. It is crucial that such issues are aired in this Chamber and in both Houses of Parliament. I will do all that I can to let HRP know the strength of opinion held by the hon. Gentleman and his constituents, although I say again that I have no powers to intervene in its decision. My hon. Friend and I will watch what happens and see what the response of HRP will be to the charges that it has introduced.
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Aviation
2 pm
Mr. Tony Colman: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for agreeing to my request for a full-length debate on sustainable aviation policy. That subject is close to the hearts of my constituents. For that reason I have returned, with the Speaker's help, to the subject of aviation and its impact on Putney on several occasions, notably in Adjournment debates in October 1997, March 1999 and January 2001. Hon. Members who were present at the 2001 debate will recall that it took place immediately after the meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, the UN agency dealing with the sustainability of aviation. That body will meet again in February 2004.
Again and again, Ministers have told me that the UK Government cannot go it alone on regulating for sustainable aviation and that if they did, it might be not only unenforceable, but disastrous for the UK. I hope that, among other things, we will be able to use this debate to set the UK agenda for the ICAO meeting in 2004 and ensure that the EU agenda is brought alongside. Perhaps it is not beyond our capability to ensure that the Commonwealth is brought on board, and perhaps the world's single superpower—the United
States—could also be prevailed upon to embrace the principles of sustainability in aviation, which it failed to embrace at the world summit for sustainable development in Johannesburg in 2002.
I am indebted to many sources in preparing my speech, including HACAN ClearSkies, the Socialist Environment and Resources Association, the aviation environment federation, Wandsworth council and its leader, Edward Lister, who went through a conversion to sustainable aviation in May 1997—I am, however, no less appreciative of his changed views.
I remind hon. Members that there is a meeting today at 6 pm in Committee Room 18, the subject of which is London against the third runway at Heathrow. It is sponsored by HACAN ClearSkies, co-ordinated by the London borough of Hillingdon and hosted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall)—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Nicholas Winterton): Order. I have to draw the attention of hon. Members who are concentrating on the debate to the fact that there is a Division in the main Chamber. I look to the co operation of the House. I should like to resume in precisely 10 minutes if that is agreeable.
2.3 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
2.12 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Colman: As I was saying, the meeting this evening will be hosted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington and by the hon. Members for Uxbridge and for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), all of whom are present in the Chamber and may wish to

223WH
contribute to the debate. I also draw attention to the new all-party group on sustainable aviation, chaired by Lord Faulkner of Worcester and made up of the hon. Members for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) and for Uxbridge, my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) and the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk).
Clearly, there is overlap with other all-party groups, such as the group for Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment, which does excellent work on parliamentary environmental concerns. However, the new APPG for sustainable aviation has a narrower focus. Its mission statement is
"to inform the UK Government about the range and scale of the local, national and global environment impacts that the air transport industry causes and to participate in the debate on how best to control and reduce them, creating an environmentally sustainable future for those who work in, use, and are affected by the industry's everyday operations."
The Government's definition of sustainable aviation in the consultative paper on air transport policy of December 2000 is wider. The new air transport White Paper should establish a framework that will ensure that the long-term development of aviation in the UK is sustainable. The consultative paper states that aviation has implications at four levels and there are four aspects of sustainable development, the first of which is the maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment. The UK has a strong aviation industry, including airlines, airports, aerospace manufacturers and supporting industries. They make a significant contribution to the national GDP, as well as to facilitating growth in other industries. The aviation industry also provides many jobs, both directly and indirectly.
The second element of sustainable aviation is that there should be social progress that recognises the needs of everyone. Aviation brings benefits for employment, cultural exchange and opportunities to travel. Foreign travel and holidays are now within the reach of a broad cross section of the population for education, leisure and visiting friends and family.
The third element is the protection of the environment. Aviation affects climate change, local air quality, noise levels, biodiversity, energy use, waste and water. The environmental effects associated with travel to airports and any associated health effects also need to be considered.
The final element is the prudent use of natural resources. Aviation consumes many natural resources, in particular fossil fuels and the raw material necessary for producing aircraft. Airport development can involve significant land use and urbanisation of the surrounding areas.
I regret to say that the response of the Airport Operators Association added two other concepts to the definition of sustainable aviation. One was that we should deliver airport capacity, and that aviation policy should ensure at all time the effective provision and use of airport and airspace capacity in all regions of the UK. It said that that should include a decision on where and when additional runway capacity is provided in the south-east of England.
David Taylor: Is my hon. Friend disappointed by that addition? Many people
224WH
who live in airport communities believe that the White Paper is merely an exercise in meeting the ever-exploding demand of the aviation industry while making a token effort to mitigate its environmental impact.
Mr. Colman: I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. I hope that this debate—held in good time before the White Paper is published in some four weeks—allows the Minister to take on board the mood of the House on these issues.
The second aspect that the Airport Operators Association added is that it wants to see a reform of the planning process. It said that aviation policy must be supported by a modern, more effective and swifter system for determining major airport development in the national interest, and must promote an approach characterised by consensus rather than confrontation. I am concerned that those two aspects could drive decisions that would not be sustainable.
Following the AOA's comments, we have had the joint HM Treasury and Department for Transport consultation paper, "Aviation and the Environment", and subsequent commentaries from the UK Sustainable Development Commission, the Transport Committee, the Environmental Audit Committee and the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. We await the White Paper on air transport before Christmas, and the decisions on new runways. I hope that we have joined-up government, that the economists are talking to the environmentalists and that both are looking at the impact on the poor and the most marginalised in our communities.
My speech today will be from a west London, Putney viewpoint. I recently received literature by the Manchester airports group entitled, "Supporting Aviation in the Regions". However, the need for sustainable aviation must be the same throughout the United Kingdom. Unless the problem is solved at source, the problems of unsustainability that afflict the south-east will soon hit elsewhere.
I shall now explore the key issues that I would like to underpin the pre-Christmas decision and the United Kingdom's agenda at the meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organisation in February 2004.
I am not a hypocrite. I fly, as do many of my constituents, at least the better-off. We choose to live in Putney in part because of its closeness to Heathrow and other airports. We want to continue flying for our work and holidays. The essence of sustainable aviation is not no aviation or very little aviation, but that which is needed for international competitiveness and that which can be afforded within sustainability.
Airlines and airport facilities employ thousands of local people. That is what makes the impassioned campaigns by hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), who is not able to be here this afternoon but who is very supportive, so important. Our constituents feel that the balance has shifted too far in the wrong direction. We want the jobs and the convenience, but we also want the politicians in charge—Conservatives before 1997, and now Labour Members—to regulate airlines and

225WH
airports, stop night flights, which my earlier debates have shown are not needed for the UK economy's competitiveness, and stop excessive noise and pollution.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is an appropriate time to announce that there is another Division in the main Chamber. I ask hon. Members to be back to recommence proceedings at 2.29 pm. I am grateful for their co-operation.
2.19 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
2.30 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Colman: Large numbers of people are already employed at Heathrow and at other airports. I do not believe that the concept of sustainable aviation would lead to their losing their jobs. The question is, would the expansion of unsustainable aviation lead to a gain in jobs?
The Department for Transport still refuses to look at the evidence, in the round, on job creation. It places undue reliance on the Oxford Economic Forecasting report, which was largely paid for by the aviation industry. It has downplayed the roads consultation called "Transport and the Economy", produced in 1999 for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. That authoritative research found that in a developed economy such as that of the UK, transport infrastructure is only important in regional regeneration and job creation if other factors—such as the availability of a suitably trained work force—are in place. It found that those other factors are usually more critical. Professor John Whitelegg published a report for the Campaign to Protect Rural England earlier this year on the effect of expanding Manchester and Liverpool airports on the economy of the north-west. It found that if the money were invested in improved rail links to London and improved surface level transport in the region, that would be more beneficial to the economy. I look forward to hearing hon. Members from that area contribute to the debate.
David Taylor: One of the nonsenses about the balance of transport in the United Kingdom is that such a high proportion of journeys of up to 1,000 km are still made by air rather than by an improved rail network. If those journeys were taken by rail, there would be much less environmental impact and they would take less time.
Mr. Colman: I agree with my hon. Friend and will develop that point later.
A seminar held by sustainable development charity Forum for the Future in June, on the economic benefits of aviation, raised question marks over the methods and assumptions used to calculate those benefits. First, it asked whether the resources and labour used in expanding airport capacity are additional, as the Treasury would define them, or whether that labour and
226WH
those resources would be bid away from other sectors and provide little or no net economic benefit to the UK economy. Secondly, the seminar asked whether foreign passengers, a significant proportion, would be excluded from any assessment of the benefits of expanding airport capacity to the UK economy and its citizens, as recommended by the Treasury guidance set out in the Green Book. Thirdly, the seminar asked whether the offsetting transfer to UK airlines' profits from the higher passenger fares resulting from constraining capacity would be factored into the calculation of the economic benefits of aviation. Fourthly, it asked whether extra aviation capacity would boost productivity growth elsewhere in the UK economy and, particularly, how important that extra capacity would be for attracting investment, generating knowledge spillovers and allowing the economic specialisation that produces wider economic benefits. Fifthly, the seminar asked whether higher fares resulting from capacity restriction would make any significant difference to the competitiveness of the export and financial sectors. As far as I know, none of those questions has yet been answered.
In the briefing that it sent me for this debate, the London chamber of commerce and industry states that London needs a third runway at Heathrow, at least one more runway at Stansted and further options at Gatwick, London City and Luton airports. There is not a single word in that briefing about sustainability or about the environmental impact that such huge expansion would cause. This time I do not agree with the London chamber of commerce and industry. I hope that the Minister will answer those questions either during the debate or subsequently.
However, the underlying question is whether, if we did not expand capacity, other European airports would and we would lose our role as an international hub for transfers—largely for business men and women. We need to co-operate across the European Union on such policies. The Minister's predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), pursued such a Europe-wide regulatory framework in discussions. Does the Minister appointed in September see a key role for co-ordinating sustainable aviation across the European Union, rather than the "predict and provide no matter what the consequences" that has so bedevilled previous aviation policy? May I also make the case for the development of Eurostar routes, which would make inter-European travel more economic and far less intrusive? So far, the Department for Transport has been dismissive of the potential role of rail as an alternative to many short-haul flights.
There are indications that the Government and the aviation industry are defensive as they are aware that they are vulnerable on this issue. The White Paper examines the role of aviation over 30 years, so it should consider rail alternatives over the same time scale. Some 45 per cent. of the flights made in European-controlled countries are 500 km or less. Germany and France are actively developing high-speed rail as an alternative to internal flights, and I refer the Chamber to early-day motion 1860 on the aviation White Paper and rail travel and to early-day motion 1903 on aviation and rail travel, which reinforce my points.
That brings me to the second issue in the debate on sustainability: social justice. Much has been made of the need to cater for aviation expansion to provide cheap

227WH
flights, thus enabling poorer people to fly. Of course, the young and adventurous already use InterRail and cheap, swift buses to move around Europe and, in the past 20 years, the travel industry has opened up the Mediterranean and the world to package holidays. Ryanair and easyJet are, however, in a different league altogether—one that is almost free because of the subsidies from receiving airports, hotels and car hire. However, the facts seem to disprove the idea that current policy supports social justice. It is important to reflect that those on high incomes have benefited most from cheap flights, as they are the ones who fly there most. In a typical year, less than 50 per cent. of the population flies, only 11 per cent. of whom come from social classes D and E. The poorest 10 per cent. hardly ever fly.
Even on budget airlines, people from the top three social classes take more than 75 per cent. of all flights. Only around 45 per cent. of the population of the UK falls into those social classes. People in those top three social classes take four times as many flights a year than those in the bottom three social classes.
Mr. John Wilkinson: At the beginning of his speech, the hon. Gentleman rightly referred to aviation and the social progress that ensued. He cited greater mobility for holidays and so on. Does he therefore advocate no further additional taxation on aviation, such as an increase in passenger duty or any application of fuel duties, to ensure that those from the lowest social classes have a greater opportunity to fly?
Mr. Colman: I shall come to that point later. The external costs of aviation should be internalised, as they are in rail and road travel. Aviation should not be made separate.
On current growth rates, an extra 1 million people are likely to have bought a second home overseas by 2012 and could take 12 million flights a year to visit those second homes—the same number of flights that Stansted handled in 2000. Those people are clearly not the poorest in our community.
Between 1984 and 1999, bus fares, which are more important for those on lower incomes, rose by 42 per cent, and rail fares rose by 35 per cent. In the past 10 years, however, air fares fell by 42 per cent. BAA's annual report boasts that 85 per cent. of passengers are high-spending ABC1s, compared with 50 per cent. throughout the UK.
The comments reported in The Daily Telegraph today lead one to doubt the importance to the UK economy of expanding airport capacity. Mr. O'Leary, chief executive of Ryanair, is reported as saying:
"We are so crazy, we'll pay people to fly with us."
However, a city spokesman says:
"They still make money on commissions if people book cars or hotels"
where they land.
How does that benefit the UK economy as opposed to Charleroi hoteliers? It is even more extraordinary that Ryanair, an Ireland-based airline, is asking the Secretary of State for Transport to continue to support Ryanair in various European countries, although the
228WH
same state subsidies enable easyJet, MyTravelLite and Flybe to undermine unsubsidised airlines such as British Airways.
If there are no economic or social justice arguments for unsustainable expansion, what has the industry done to ensure that the environmental impact is contained? In 2000, Hotham school in Putney put on a celebratory play in their playground to honour the millennium. Despite microphones and loudspeakers, which were turned up to the maximum volume, no one in the playground could hear a thing as a plane roared over every 20 seconds, flying so close that one could see the passengers. Why has the industry not developed planes that produce no noise? I raised that issue in 2000. Why was the Airbus A380's design cost of £500 million underwritten by the Government with no requirement for decreased noise or pollution, or for fuel improvement? We learn from Dominic O'Connell in The Sunday Times on 16 November that in the production of the Airbus A380:
"There have been hiccups along the way, the biggest of which came in 2000, when the wing had to be completely redesigned. Singapore Airlines, which was lined up as launch customer, decided it would not buy the A380 unless it was quiet enough to use Heathrow airport at any time. Heathrow operates strict night-noise levels, and any aircraft breaking the noise limits faces heavy fines."
I wish there were more fines. The problems meant that an emergency reworking of the A380 took place, particularly
"at the front of the wing, where traditional slats were replaced by a 'droop nose' device that would meet the Heathrow targets. But the solution brought more problems in the shape of extra weight, which meant more exhaustive scrutiny of the rest of the design. Williams"—
that is Tom Williams, Airbus UK's managing director—
"now says that Airbus UK is happy with the weight of the wing. 'Weight is always a challenge, but we are now very pleased with where it is.'"
That is an important example of a situation where what could have been done was not going to be, until the purchaser required it. The Government should have insisted that the A380 produced less noise.
On 12 November, I read in the Financial Times:
"An ambitious project to design a silent passenger aircraft has been launched by … Cambridge university and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. If successful, the researchers could solve one of the biggest problems facing policymakers the world over as they struggle to plan for the growth in air travel … Ann Dowling, professor of mechanical engineering at Cambridge and one of the silent aircraft project's leaders said that the aim was for 'a radical change in noise levels so that beyond the perimeter of the airport, the noise of aircraft flying would be imperceptible to the public.'"
Incidentally, the world dominance of Boeing and Airbus means that those two companies could choose simply to provide aeroplanes designed to operate in a sustainable manner. Why did the Government not insist that the work was done years ago? I have asked similar questions in my previous debates, but have still received few answers. I believe that the development of a new generation of aero-engines based on renewable sources, at least when the plane is at cruising altitude, is possible. Is dual fuel a concept for only earthbound vehicles?
Lembit Öpik: On a technical point, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that most noise comes from the engines rather than the airframe. It is traditional for aircraft manufacturers to allow choice of engines, so we shall have to appeal to engine manufacturers, above airframe manufacturers, to deliver noise savings.
Mr. Colman: I fully accept that. However, work has been done on aero-engine design at Cranwell, which I quoted in my previous Adjournment debate, that will deal with the hon. Gentleman's point.
May I now raise some points concerning the Kyoto protocol? I hope that Russia finally signs up to the protocol.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the topic of pollution, does he feel that the Government have taken on board the fact that most of the pollution that affects air quality in Heathrow constituencies emanates not from aeroplanes, but from cars accessing and passing Heathrow on the M4?
Mr. Colman: I will address part of the hon. Lady's question as I proceed, but the simple answer is no. I believe that the Mayor of London, who has so far refused to be drawn into the issue of sustainable aviation and the future of Heathrow, should clearly be involved. That is particularly important when it comes to congestion charging, which will be inevitable around Heathrow given its success in dealing with traffic levels in central London and the drop in pollution levels as a result.
Mr. Wilkinson: Is the hon. Gentleman advocating that his Government—or rather the Labour mayoralty—institute congestion charging for access to Heathrow? Could he clarify? That is of great concern, not only to the Londoners who work at the airport, but to the many people who travel there and to visitors, such as tourists, from other countries.
Mr. Colman: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you must tell me whether I stray beyond the point of the debate, which is on sustainable aviation. However, the sustainability of the life chances of the people who live around the airport is clearly impinged on by the high level of people who travel there using private vehicles. They should be encouraged to use public transport more. A lot of people working at the airport are bussed in from outside areas by BAA to restrict the number of vehicles approaching the airport. I should also say that the Mayor of London is currently an independent candidate for that position. He is not the Labour Mayor of London, but that may change.
I now return to the Kyoto protocol. I hope that Russia will finally sign it in the next few days, thereby triggering its coming into force. Aircraft emissions from international flights are outside the protocol, which requires the UK and other developing countries to cut their CO2 emissions. The UK has voluntarily included those emissions within its target on CO2 emissions. However, I must make a point about the Kyoto protocol. It is often prayed in aid of arguments over food miles and the sustainability of flying vegetables or
230WH
flowers to the UK from countries such as Kenya. Kenya is a developing country and does not have the same CO2 restraints. We should fly in its produce in the name of sustainable development. It is also worth noting that the amount of CO2 used in Europe to heat greenhouses or polytunnels to provide such vegetables or flowers is higher than that emitted by flying the produce in from Kenya. Sustainability is attained when using aeroplanes for short-shelf-life produce.
As I said, the UK includes its airspace emissions in relation to the Kyoto protocol, but very few countries do. Such a world move would lead engine manufacturers to move, as with Singapore Airlines and the A380 wing. Financial instruments can make aviation sustainable. However, emissions from domestic aviation are included. The Government should act now.
The dumping, combustion and venting of fuel, which gives rise to pollutants and other obnoxious substances, is not simply a Kyoto protocol issue. It directly affects my constituents' health. Nitrogen oxide levels around airports are a problem, with local people in danger of being exposed to levels that are above the European Union legal limits, even before expansion. That led to the BBC story last week about the third runway for Heathrow being abandoned. I read in The Sunday Times that Rod Eddington of British Airways, Richard Branson of Virgin and Michael Bishop of BMI are appealing directly to the Prime Minister, over the Minister's head. I do not expect the Minister to comment on that.
I note from an article in the Financial Times on 8 November that BAA is running a shadow pricing scheme at Heathrow airport to test ways of encouraging airlines to operate less-polluting aircraft. The article states that BAA operates a scheme of landing charges at Heathrow that penalises airlines for flying noisier aircraft and that it hopes that a similar scheme could help to reduce emissions. A crucial factor in the Government's consideration of where to site new runways in the overcrowded south-east of England is whether Heathrow can meet tougher European Union air quality standards by the end of the decade. The chief executive of BAA, Mike Clasper, said that there were technically feasible runway options at Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick. He added that air quality is important at Heathrow but that there are ways of solving the problem. I hope that that does not mean moving people out of the area. I would not wish a further runway on Heathrow, Stansted or Gatwick.
In autumn 2002, the Department for Transport was asked to rerun its sketch-planning analysis spreadsheet model—known as SPASM—a demand model of the need for airport expansion in the south-east with externalised costs internalised and tax exemptions removed. The CPRE, the Aviation Environment Federation and Friends of the Earth requested that the model should be rerun using the following assumptions: that aviation fuel should be taxed at the same rate as motor fuel; that air travel should be subject to VAT at 17.5 per cent.; and that duty-free on all flights should be abolished. It was also assumed that air passenger duty would be abolished and that those changes would be phased in gradually between 2005 and 2025. The total value of those tax measures was £9.2 billion at 2002 levels. The Department agreed to rerun the model using

231WH
those assumptions and the results were produced in February 2003. The results show that the total number of passengers using United Kingdom airports would increase at a much slower rate, from 200 million in 2000 to 315 million in 2030, compared with the official forecast of 501 million. Crucially, there would be no need for any new runway in the UK in the period to 2030.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the largest non-governmental organisation in the United Kingdom, supports the view that the rerun demonstrates that demand management could be made to work without causing a massive hike in ticket costs. Thus there could be no new runways, no effect on the economy and no impact on poorer members of the community. I look forward to the same conclusions being reached in the White Paper next month.
I return to where I started: the Deputy Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) led the world in setting sustainable development policies and negotiating the Kyoto protocol in 1997. I ask the Secretary of State for Transport and the Minister who is here today to take a similar world-leadership role and set the agenda both for the International Civil Aviation Organisation environmental meeting in February 2004 and for the regional debate that will no doubt take place in Europe, so that a way forward can be agreed beforehand.
I hope that there will be full consultation of parliamentarians, and that parliamentarians will be included as members of any UK delegation, as happened at the world summit on sustainable development and at the recent World Trade Organisation ministerial conference in Cancun, Mexico.
Sustainable aviation is not an oxymoron. It can be achieved. It just needs politicians and aerospace engineers to decide to work to ensure a sustainable world. In the case of global warming, we have set out our stall and persuaded the rest of the world to follow. Could the Minister therefore set out the following items in the Government's agenda for ICAO in February 2004: first, no night flights between 11.30 pm and 6 am; secondly, silent aircraft—airframes and engines—by 2025 and, on the way, progressive 20 per cent. and 50 per cent. cuts in noise below 2003 levels for all planes using UK airports; thirdly, major expansion of research into the use of non-fossil fuel for aircraft propulsion; and fourthly, total internalising of all external costs into plane fares, including fuel tax and climate change levy?
I believe that that agenda could be agreed across Europe, and could be the basis of a UK agreement at ICAO. I look forward to the Minister's response today and in Montreal at ICAO in February.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I want to help the Chamber. Very many Back Benchers want to be called. If they are self-disciplined and speak for no more than three minutes they will all have a turn. I am sorry, but it is three minutes. This is perhaps going to be a pattern not only in this Chamber but on the Floor of the House if more Back Benchers want to contribute to a debate with a single point that may sometimes be more relevant than a speech covering wide ground.
2.52 pm
Mr. John Randall: I shall try to stick to your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should not like any hon. Members to be bumped off this debate.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on bringing up the matter, providing us with a chance to debate it. My starting point in considering this question is to wonder what we mean by sustainable. Not being terribly bright—I think that earlier today I may have been described as a lesser person—but searching after learning, I went to Transport questions and asked the Secretary of State what he meant by sustainable development. I was told to wait, because the answer would be in the aviation White Paper. Perhaps the Secretary of State does not think that I can cope with that amount of knowledge at this stage; I am waiting to see what will be revealed.
As I like to learn about matters of this kind, I wondered where I could go for intelligent discussion about it. I found that a former Aviation Minister is now serving in the Government. He is the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). Some of his comments on this issue are fascinating and I would recommend anyone to read an article of 14 January 2003 in the London Standard.
A couple of little points give us a valuable insight into Government. The previous Minister said:
"There is a long history of undertakings being given in return for controversial airport expansions which are either quietly forgotten or cynically abandoned once they become inconvenient."
I think that my constituents and those of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) would agree with that. The previous Minister also said that during his 18 undistinguished months—he was being very modest—as a Minister whose responsibilities included aviation, he learned two things: first, that the demands of the aviation industry are insatiable and secondly, that successive Governments have usually given way to them. Although nowadays the industry pays lip service to the notion of sustainability, its demands are essentially unchanged. It wants more of everything—airports, runways and terminals.
The hon. Member for Putney has already flagged up the fact that we are to have an excellent meeting later today in Committee Room 18 to discuss why everyone is against a third runway at Heathrow. I shall not rehearse the arguments here, but I can recommend the meeting; we shall have a full house. Echoing the hon. Gentleman's comments, if we do not want a third runway at Heathrow, I can understand why no one wants it at Gatwick, Stansted or elsewhere. If that is the case, why should the people in particular areas have to put up with airport expansion? The country has to take a radical look at aviation issues. If that means not allowing continual expansion to satisfy the demands of an industry that, although it has given a lot to the country, cannot be seen to be the only force in the equation, we must mean what we say by sustainable and put the environment and the quality of life of all our constituents before the ability of some people to have cheap flights.
2.55 pm
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on securing a debate on this matter. He made reference to the true cost of aviation, which is the nub of the debate on how to find a way in which the aviation industry can pay the true costs of its impact on the wider community and on the environment.
An imaginative and comprehensive approach must be taken to the problem, because the aviation industry enjoys tax concessions amounting to about £10 billion a year. Setting against that the £900 million raised from air passenger duty brings it down to just over £9 billion—comprising such things as VAT exemptions on tickets and aircraft fuel, exemption from excise duty on fuel, and other tax concessions. That is relevant to the debate about airport capacity, because if one links a low-tax framework to the increased capacity that the White Paper foreshadows, air travel prices will continue to reduce in real terms, leading to increased demand, so demand for more capacity will also continue to increase. The right tax policies are essential if the right sustainable aviation strategy is to be advanced. If the tax concessions to which I have referred were to be removed gradually, over 25 to 30 years, air travel would not increase in real terms but it would keep pace with inflation. The way in which those tax concessions should be addressed cannot be restricted to this country. The issue has both European and international dimensions.
We should not expect too much from some of the international aviation bodies that are dominated by airline industry interests, but we can look to the European Union to take a major role in addressing the issue. The idea of an emissions trading scheme for air travel is gaining support in many quarters. That could certainly be introduced on a European Union basis, and it would have an impact on some of the scenarios outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney. It has been suggested that an emissions charge introduced on an European Union basis would reduce aviation's carbon dioxide contribution to global warming by up to 13 per cent. That would clearly have a significant effect on the overall picture. Such an emissions trading scheme might also allow us to move away from air passenger duty, which is a blunt instrument and takes little account of a journey's environmental consequences, which depend on its length, and the type and size of aircraft. Emissions trading would allow a much more comprehensive approach.
Finally, alongside a taxation policy to ensure that aviation bears its true costs, there should be investment in high-speed rail capacity, as my hon. Friend said. Such investment would allow many journeys in the UK to be transferred from air to rail, and would benefit areas such as mine very much. Auctions for slots at airports, for example, might allow funds to be raised to develop rail lines over the next 10 years, and not only contribute to solving the problem, but improve transport links to areas with the greatest need for urgent improvement.
3.1 pm
John Barrett: I too would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on securing this debate. As we await the publication of
234WH
the Government's White Paper, the importance of the issue will only increase. In debates on aviation, the focus is often on developments at Heathrow, Stansted and Cliffe, but we are having a vibrant debate north of the border, too. I shall not mention air rail substitution in my shortened speech this afternoon, however, because although it is important, it has already been addressed.
Since 1993, the annual number of passengers at Edinburgh airport, in my constituency, has risen from 2.5 million to almost 7 million and, with additional flights and new international flights, the figure is certain to rise further. There are global, national and local aspects to sustainable aviation. We should consider how to expand and develop our airports in a sustainable manner that minimises pollution.
Not all environmental improvements are obvious. The extension to the taxiway at Edinburgh. for example, is due for completion next year, and will reduce the taxiing time of aircrafts, thereby cutting emissions of carbon monoxide, while un-burnt hydrocarbons and PM10 particulates should also be reduced. The extension to the existing runway is crucial from an economic perspective, as it will allow different aircraft to use the airport for international flights. Similarly, it will have an environmental benefit. The short length of the runway forces aircraft to land at a steeper descent than would otherwise be necessary, and they have to take off with greater thrust. The combined result is more nitrous oxide and volatile organic compounds than would be produced if there were a longer runway.
A crucial issue that relates to air traffic and airport expansion, but which is often overlooked, is the environmental impact of traffic travelling to and from airports. If we are to have a truly sustainable aviation policy, we must think about the sustainability of the infrastructure that supports our airport. The road traffic on the western side of Edinburgh is grinding to a halt, partly owing to increased numbers of air passengers at Edinburgh airport. That is because buses and taxis are the only means of public transport that serve the airport. A recent survey showed that only 16 per cent. of those travelling to and from Edinburgh airport do so by public transport. That is why Margaret Smith, the MSP for Edinburgh West, and I warmly welcome the Scottish Executive's recent commitment to introduce a rail link to Edinburgh airport. It is critical that the project is made a reality as soon as possible.
Finally, I want to say a few words about noise. If the airports are to be developed in a sustainable way, plans need to involve local communities and allay any concerns, which are often about noise. I accept that it is not easy to do that. However, minimising the noise, which can cause misery to communities living around the airports, can play a big part. Indeed, my constituents in Kirkliston, Ratho, Newbridge, East Craigs and Cramond would want me to highlight that fact. Although official evidence on the impact of airport noise is inconclusive, the letters and e-mails that I receive from constituents who are disturbed and woken by late-night flights are far from inconclusive. The evidence is certainly conclusive that pupils studying at schools close to airports, including the five nursery and primary schools near Edinburgh airport, are adversely affected by the noise of arriving and departing aircraft.

235WH
We have seen advances in fuel efficiency, and in the dampening of aircraft noise by some 20 dB. However, further improvements, particularly to the noise of landing and taking off, are required so that local communities can benefit further. Meanwhile, we should seriously consider legislative proposals restricting nighttime flights and requiring authorities to provide sound-dampening insulation at schools and other community buildings.
The provision of a sustainable aviation policy should concern us all. Some Members may have a specific constituency interest, and others a purely environmental interest; but whatever his reason, the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) has done us a service by allowing us to debate the issue. I look forward to the White Paper with eagerness and trepidation. However, one thing is clear: a basic predict-and-provide approach will not work. We must develop an aviation policy that is not only respectful of the global environment but considerate of local communities.
I hope that the Minister will reassure all those who travel, who live close to airports, who get caught up in the traffic around them, or who just breathe the air polluted by the many forms of transport, that a sustainable aviation policy can and must be delivered.
3.6 pm
Mr. Paul Truswell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on securing this debate.
The consultation document on the future development of air transport in the north of England has a number of important implications for the local development of air transport. However, because it contained only outline information and generalised options, it raised far more questions than it answered. Without clear details of the time scale and the implication of developments, it has been impossible to engage in meaningful debate. I therefore hope that the Government's consultation document and questionnaire were just a start. We need a continuing localised debate between local people and the airport authorities, and I hope that the White Paper will allow debate on future proposals.
For those reasons, I strongly urge the Government to require local airports to draw up some form of development plan. The plan should involve public involvement and participation—and I hope that it will be done democratically. Local airport development plans should deal with a number of key issues on planning and sustainability. They should be underpinned by an independent environmental impact assessment, which would include the prevention and minimisation of air and noise pollution. It should deal also with climate change and other associated issues such as operating hours. As my hon. Friend said, it is crucial that those issues are addressed in the context of effective national and EU standards.
The key in an area such as mine, which is covered by Leeds Bradford airport, is how to manage growth in a sustainable and sensitive way. Even though several options in the consultation document envisaged a quadrupling of air passengers, no attempt was made to quantify the wider implications. It may be outside the broad, national strategic consultation, but identification
236WH
of such matters is crucial to local communities. A coherent attempt must be made to say in advance what the effects of growth will be, and at what point the effects of such growth—in terms of pollution, congestion, road safety and the physical environment—will place too great a burden on local communities. In other words, we ought to determine here and now what is sustainable for local communities. I hope that the Government will address those key issues in the White Paper.
3.9 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: I thank the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) not only for introducing the debate but for revealing so clearly socialist thinking on the future of air transport. [HON. MEMBERS: "Socialism!"] If an industry is a successful industry, and if it brings huge prosperity to the country and a large inflow of foreign exchange, the instinct of some Labour Members is to tax it, and then tax it more heavily. One wonders whether they are applying the right cost-benefit analysis. For example, extending the Channel high-speed rail link has cost hundreds of millions of pounds, and it has also had severe adverse environmental impacts along the route. It is simplistic to suggest that it is air transport alone that has a negative environmental impact.
It must be recognised that not all aviation fuel is without duty. Aviation gasoline is, paradoxically enough, subject to duty. Turbine fuel—kerosene—is not. The idea of imposing a value added tax and a higher level of passenger departure tax could be gravely prejudicial to the prosperity of marginal carriers and certainly would nullify the beneficial social impact of air transport on lower income groups to which the hon. Member for Putney referred. Notwithstanding that, one must also take into account the benefits for regional development of air transport.
Andy King: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wilkinson: No, I will not.
Air transport is an economic lifeline for such remote and far-flung parts of this kingdom as the highlands and islands. To suggest that there is a viable alternative is just fanciful. The Government's decision to relinquish the UK's sole power to introduce bilateral air service agreements and to hand over that area of national sovereignty to the European Union could clearly endanger the future prosperity of air transport in this country. The United Kingdom is the premier gateway for transatlantic services and it is far from certain that the EU will be so keen for the United Kingdom to have such a preferential position.
One must not fail to take into account the environmental impact. That is why my two colleagues from the Hillingdon borough and I are sponsoring the meeting tonight and why we are so resolutely opposed to the third east-west runway at Heathrow. Civil air transport need not be inimical to the environment. There are certain sites that are clearly impossible from an environmental point of view, such as Cliffe and Maplin sands, but the incremental development of existing single runway airports in the south-east and the better use of regional airports offer a sensible way forward and that is the one that the Government should adopt.
3.12 pm
Mr. Alan Hurst: I will endeavour, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to follow what I might call the Macclesfield directive and keep my speech strictly to three minutes.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) not only on the learned way in which he has presented the debate but on his evenhanded approach. He has not argued that the extra runway should be put somewhere else but that it may not be needed at this stage. I was also impressed by the remarks that the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) made about sustainability. I am never quite sure what that means. I can understand what "sustainable" means when we are talking about fishing or timber, because fish stocks might run out and trees will go if we do not replace them. Clearly in economic terms the aircraft industry is sustainable within itself. It will go on growing, because there is no inherent check, but the price has to be paid by the communities around those airports, which suffer the consequences.
I shall plead localism because it may be my last chance before this report. My constituency is close to Stansted. I was particularly grateful that no one here urged that the second runway should go there. Stansted is one of the most beautiful parts of the eastern counties: it is full of historic and listed buildings, and is an area of small villages and rolling hills. One can well imagine the consequences of a second, third or fourth runway being planted there. I pray in aid—indeed, I can do no better—the 1985 inquiry, which looked ahead and almost contemplated the present situation. The inspector damned in the most poetic terms any prospect of having a second runway at Stansted. It would be superfluous for me to mention the pollution consequences, because they will affect any site that will be so named. The traffic to Stansted would multiply many times, as it would anywhere else.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying about Stansted, but he must beware what inspectors say after public inquiries, because no notice has been taken of them whatsoever.
Mr. Hurst: In concluding, I shall say that the comments of the 1985 inquiry were so comprehensively against what is now being contemplated that we do not need to go any further to conclude that the Stansted option should not be followed. I am sure that the same arguments will apply elsewhere.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope to call two further speakers before the winding-up speeches. I shall first call the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) and then the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I ask them to be brief.
3.15 pm
Lembit Öpik: I speak in favour of small airports and of a sustainable airports strategy. I fly aircraft and even contemplated setting up an airline until I realised that in order to end up with a small fortune in aviation, one has to start with a large one.
The British Airports Authority is an effective organisation, and Mike Clasper has a strategic focus on what is required of it. The same is true for easyJet and
238WH
Ryanair, and we cannot blame them for running the best businesses they can. However, the Government are responsible for ensuring a strategy that does not overly focus on a few super-large airports such as Heathrow, Gatwick and, as threatened, Stansted, but instead eases the infrastructure pressure by making use of the many runways that are underused throughout the United Kingdom.
On environmental improvements, it is in the interests of aircraft manufacturers to make aircraft as environmentally friendly as possible, as noise and pollution both cost money. As such, there is a natural pressure in the system to improve in those areas.
The Government could improve the usage of existing runways by considering a hub and spokes strategy, in which airfields as small as Welshpool in my constituency are used to feed into the larger airports. It does not matter where international flights go from if passengers can get to the airport easily. It would be simpler for people to fly from Welshpool to Cardiff and on to New York rather than having to go to Heathrow to start the journey. I urge the Minister to build into his strategies positive support for scores of small airports like the one in my constituency. The Government could significantly ease the flow into the large airports by using regional and potential international airports as alternative feeders into international routes.
Air travel does not inherently have to be environmentally unfriendly or annoy local residents. A coherent use of what we already have will allow us to shift from building more runways at a few large airports to using more of the runways at the airports that already exist.
3.18 pm
John McDonnell: As you suggested, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall stick to one point.
In all the speeches so far, the central point is one that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) has made in every speech over the past four years in dogged pursuit of the issue. It is that although in almost every other policy area we have a rational policy debate and decisions are reached with which we may not agree but for which we can understand the reasons, in airport policy reason goes out the window. We have years of planning inquiries that produce recommendations with which, again, we might not agree but which we appreciate are based on detailed analysis and made after everyone has had their say. However, successive Governments have overturned those recommendations or, at worst, accepted them for a limited period—two or three years or, for terminal 5, only 12 months—before overturning their own decision and the strictures put on their policy making.
We want rational policy making, and we hope that it will come from the White Paper, but I doubt it. Academics who study policy making no longer talk about presidential government or ministerial decisions, but about policy networks around Ministers that advise on decision making. In this policy network there are no countervailing forces to the main force, which is the industry itself. BAA and British Airways know that they have overwhelming influence in the circle around the Minister and the Prime Minister. We need balanced policy making in this field, as my hon. Friend set out.

239WH
We cannot even get to first base on independent information. Various competitors put their information forward at planning inquiries, but much Government decision making is based on information provided to them by the industry alone. I recommend that we establish an aviation policy commission, in which we bring together all the partners in the industry, including suppliers, environmentalists, local authorities and those who have a specialist interest. At least that would provide us with independent, if not consensual, information on which we can judge decisions.
I hope that future Governments adhere to the decisions made by planning inquiries. I do not want to go through another terminal 4 inquiry, where I am told that there will be no further developments, only to find that terminal 5 comes along, followed by another inquiry at which I am told there will be no further developments. Then there was the third runway—and now I am told that there will be a sixth terminal there. We need rational, consistent policy making.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I make a plea to the spokesmen for the Liberals and her Majesty's Opposition to allow the Minister adequate time to reply.
3.21 pm
Mr. Paul Marsden: I will try to keep my remarks short. This has been an excellent debate, which demonstrates that there is widespread concern at this crossroads in aviation policy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on securing the debate. He has a distinguished record in leading the debate on such matters and has demonstrated from the beginning that there must be international solutions as part of the complex proposals that the Government advance in the White Paper.
I appreciate the difficulty that the Minister is in. There is nothing easy about this subject. Any Government would struggle to accommodate the conflicting arguments. However, we do not want to see lip service paid to the policy of sustainable aviation—that is the danger. There has, in recent years, been a massive expansion in air travel, which is to be welcomed in terms of expanding free and fair markets, but there is a danger that it could become unfettered in this marketplace, which is in need of urgent reform and more regulation.
Runways may be required as a last resort, but we are a long way from that position at the moment. I believe that there would have to be another runway in 2017, at the earliest. Before then, however, there are so many options available in trying to curtail the demand. The problem is that the Government have simply pursued the old failed Tory policy of predict-and-provide. It is no use trying to work out the number of passengers and the amount of goods to be shifted and building more and more capacity. We have to make a stand at this moment. If the Government were correct in saying that we are heading for 500 million passengers by 2030, with prices being cut by a third, and that more runways would have to spring up all over the south-east, that would be an absolute disaster for the environment.
By 2030—if we continue as we are—aviation could be contributing 20 per cent. of the UK's carbon dioxide emissions and 15 per cent. of the
greenhouse emissions. That would totally undermine many of the
240WH
Government's targets. Similarly, there is currently a fundamental problem with noise, which we are not addressing in accordance with the World Health Organisation's recommended levels. The existing noise levels are supposed to be sustainable and acceptable to the general public, but they are not. It is a blight on people's lives that they have to put up with the levels of noise generated not just by the traffic moving in and out of airports, but by the planes. As the hon. Member for Putney said, the technology is there for a quieter aeroplane and a quieter engine. We need a Government with some backbone to start to impose quieter solutions for the sake of the public.
As the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds said:
"At the start of the 21st Century, we believe the case for further growth in aviation to be questionable; the marginal economic and social benefit of additional growth in aviation is outweighed by its environmental and social costs".
Likewise, many other organisations, including the Socialist Environment and Resources Association, have said that, without a demand management approach to aviation policy, the Government run the real risk of surrendering their quality of life and environmental ambitions for the many, for a few cheap flights.
Part of the solution must lie with more investment in the railways. Depending on which figures we look at, the conservative figures for railways demonstrate that they use only a third or less of the carbon dioxide that air travel uses. One example is the Paris to Marseille highspeed rail connection. It is hugely successful and has helped to switch about 4 per cent. of passengers who previously travelled on short-haul flights back to the railways. We need to update the Kyoto protocol and I hope that the Minister will consider how it will include international aviation.
We must introduce a fuel duty. A zero duty is placed on aviation kerosene compared with 50p a litre for motorists. We must consider airport landing charges. At present, the busier the airport the more rental income from terminal buildings, which is allowed to be subsidised against landing charges. We must also compare passenger departure duty with aircraft departure duty. Surely it is far better to give an incentive to fill empty places on existing planes than to tax those passengers who are currently using what is already there.
In conclusion, will the Minister please fight for an amendment on international aviation to be made to the Kyoto protocol? Will he introduce at European Union level fuel duties for airlines? Will he decouple the rental income from subsidised landing charges? We look forward to the White Paper, but we do not want to pay lip service. We want action.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his co-operation.
3.27 pm
Miss Anne McIntosh: I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on inspiring an excellent and timely debate this afternoon. I wish to declare an interest in such matters. Until January this year, my husband had worked for 34 years in the airline industry in various capacities. I have a modest interest in British Airways, BAA plc and BAE Systems, Railtrack,

241WH
Eurotunnel and the Royal Automobile Club. I also represented Essex North East, Essex North and Suffolk South at the European Parliament for 10 years.
I wish to help my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) and others who wanted a definition of sustainable development. I attribute the following definition to Brundtland in 1987. It states:
"Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".
It prompts the question whether the Government have their policy right. The debate is about whether to give priority to the sustainability part of the balance and have strict controls on future atmospheric pollution from aviation, either by forcing cleaner technology on the industry or by reducing the number of flights—or should the focus of the debate be on development in order to let aviation grow and let more people fly, with all the inherent economic and social benefits?
We recognise the huge importance of aviation and airlines to national, local and regional economic development in the United Kingdom. They allow business and leisure travellers to access their chosen destination and contribute development and jobs to the economy. What assessments has the Minister made? Does he believe that no-frills carriers will continue to grow, expand and develop routes at the recent rate? All the evidence points to the contrary. Has the hon. Gentleman read about the new structure that Ryanair, for example, is considering? It might deprive people in this country from accessing their second homes in, say, France to the same extent that they have over the past two or three years.
What assessment has the Minister made of the ability to which several hon. Members have referred this afternoon? I refer to the ability of alternative modes of transport, especially high-speed trains on domestic and short-haul European routes, to compete with planes on distance, cost and reliability. One example is the not-so-fast train from Strasbourg to Brussels. That train takes four and a half hours, which is exactly the same as the journey time from Edinburgh to London, yet it costs less than half the first class price.
What assessment has the Minister made of the scope for development at regional airports in the north of England and Scotland to find direct routes to Europe, and to allow international traffic through European hubs, including Amsterdam, Paris and Frankfurt? What assessment has he made of the environmental costs of the present rate of aviation development? As many hon. Members have said, EU pollution rules are already being breached. Noise and noxious pollution from planes taking off and landing, and pollution from cars travelling to and from airports and those using major routes such as the A4 near Heathrow, all contribute. What comparative assessment has the Minister made of less harmful damage to the environment caused by developing alternative airports such as London Luton rather than other London airports?
Does the Minister accept that international aviation has been in decline since the 1990s, as shown by the evidence taken by the Transport Committee for its aviation report? There has been a downturn in the US
242WH
and other economies. The industry has also been affected by the impact of 11 September and the SARS virus, and in this country by floods, rail disasters, the foot and mouth crisis and other factors.
The Government must put all modes of transport on a level playing field. The Minister has tough questions to answer. Is the aviation industry paying its external costs? How are those external costs identified? Has the Minister considered the response from the Board of Airline Representatives in the UK to the Government's consultation paper on economic instruments? Does he agree that the Government should be able to make an informed proposal on the basis of those instruments to take account of the environmental impact and to have regard for the principles of the International Civil Aviation Organisation? BAR UK wants the proposals to be environmentally beneficial, economically reasonable and technically feasible. Does the Minister support that view or does he believe that it is wrong?
Is aviation passenger duty an environmental charge or a stealth tax? It raises between £800 million and £1 billion a year, but none of that goes to defraying the environmental costs of the aviation industry. The aviation industry is prepared to enter emissions trading negotiations, but while making a financial contribution, how will it reduce pollution, or be seen to create a sustainable aviation transport sector? The Government must answer a simple question. Given the collapse of the no-frills carrier networks, and the fact that aviation carries more of its share of transport through environmental charges such as the aviation passenger tax, do the Government believe that the present growth rate of aviation is sustainable?
Is the Minister prepared to support the call of the hon. Member for Putney for the Government to take a lead role in the EU on trading emissions, and to press ICAO and other European unions? Will the Government take the lead and commit themselves today to introducing proposals within the next two years? Are the Government in favour of the introduction of emissions charges at EU level as an interim measure, pending inclusion of aviation in those international trading schemes?
Does the Minister agree with the conclusions given in the Environmental Audit Committee report entitled "Budget 2003 and Aviation", produced under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth)? In paragraph 10 of the conclusions and recommendations, it is stated:
"The net present value associated with the increase in the cost of aviation emissions amounts to minus £18 billion."
Does the Minister agree with the Committee's conclusion that
"including this amount would entirely wipe out the economic case for an expansion in runways"?
If not, what is the true cost of aviation emissions?
Before the publication of the White Paper is announced, the Minister has one final tough question to answer. Does he believe that the environmental pollution caused by the aviation industry is clear for all to see, and underestimated, and that therefore any case for expanding or proposing to expand runway capacity in the south of England or elsewhere is outweighed by

243WH
the economic case for such expansion? If that is the Government's position, when will they make the economic case for such expansion?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister to reply to this interesting debate.
3.35 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on the timeliness and the substance of this debate. I fear that it will be the first of many debates on this area, both before and certainly after the publication of the White Paper.
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on her new role, which, if I have understood the machinations of the Conservative reshuffle correctly, is in the same group but speaking with a different voice from a different part of what is now a joint group rather than a single group.
I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I concentrate on the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, many of which were mentioned subsequently. I believe that that will be the easiest way to progress.
However, I shall first make a few opening remarks. I was struck by the fact that, until the tail end of the debate, much of the discussion was focused on London and the south-east, although I understand why that was so. The White Paper is meant to be, and will be, concerned with national aviation and airports policy. As some hon. Members said, whatever happens in London and the south-east, there is still a massive role for regional airports. Regardless of the situation in London and the south-east, we have said that we shall, and we will, address the important question of accessibility from the regions to the London and south-east hub, I am sure that those issues will be followed up in subsequent debates.
I shall now pick out some of the points from my hon. Friend's speech to address. If I miss any of the comments that he made, or those made by anyone else, in the slightly expanded but none the less Macclesfieldish declaration speech that I have to make, I apologise to them. If they write to me about those points, I will follow them up. Early in his speech, my hon. Friend said that broadly, and repeatedly, Ministers have told him that the UK Government cannot go it alone nor regulate in isolation for sustainable aviation. That is an absolute truth but is not, as he said subsequently, a recipe for doing absolutely nothing. I shall return to that point, because there is much that we can do on a national, European and international level. However, if we were to devise a marvellously purist package all on our own, focusing only on the UK without recognising either our economic and environmental place on the European and world stage, or aviation's role and interdependency in the European and world dimension, that would not do anyone a favour, on whatever side of the argument they found themselves.
Secondly, I offer, not necessarily in flippant terms, my apologies for not being able to make the meeting at 6 pm in Committee Room 18 on opposing the third runway at
244WH
Heathrow. It might not be in order for me to attend such a meeting before the publication of the White Paper. However, I hope that I have a reasonable excuse, which is that I shall be ensconced at the time with the Aviation Environment Federation, examining its concerns in relation to the White Paper. Please do not push me as to whether, had I not had that engagement, I would be at the meeting about the third runway. I suspect that I would not.
My hon. Friend said clearly that the new air transport White Paper should establish a framework that would ensure the long-term development of aviation in the UK and that it should be sustainable. That is what drives us; if the White Paper is about nothing else, it must give some definition to the notion of sustainable aviation and proving that that is not an oxy-moron or oxymoron, however one wants to say it, but it is—it must be—the way forward for aviation in future.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) has gone—not in a nasty way, but if we struggle with sustainable aviation, God knows what a debate on socialist aviation would be like! I am glad that we are not pursuing that line. As my hon. Friend the Member for Putney said, aviation has global, national, regional and local implications for the economic, social and environmental aspects of sustainable development, as well as for the prudent use of natural resources. Nothing that will be brought forward in the White Paper will be in isolation. It sits, and will sit, within the wider context of Government policy.
Whenever the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill is enacted—I brought the Bill to the House last February, ostensibly on a fast track, and it has been stuck in the Commons ever since—the far stronger sustainability argument and ethos, both at regional and spatial strategy level and local development framework level, will root far more readily in our planning framework than ever before. It was developed in the context of the energy White Paper, not in isolation. I would not be as sniffy as my hon. Friend the Member for Putney about reform of the planning process. We do not want to repeat T5 inquiries but we do not want to tear down the entire edifice of democratic participation in the process. We think, for major infrastructure projects, that it is entirely appropriate to have concurrent inquiries, led by an inspector under a lead inspector. However, it is not essential for every single item of evidence before an inquiry of such magnitude to be heard by the one inspector, which was part of the delay to T5. We want to keep the crucial dimension of democracy in play.
I want to return, towards the end, to explain what will and what will not be in the White Paper in terms of process; I am not talking about substance but about progress. As I said, the regional dimension is important, as is the question of where passengers will go if there is no expansion in capacity. It is far more complex—with respect to hon. Members who have intervened—than people first think. If it were as simple as shifting much of the demand northwards, we could all pack up and go home. Many of the passenger movements in the London and south-east hub will not—with the best will in the world—go to the midlands or the north, if they cannot

245WH
get to London and the south-east. As various hon. Members said, they will go to Schipol, Frankfurt or Paris, not to other parts of our own aviation network—
Lembit Öpik: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. McNulty: I shall not, actually.
It is not entirely like for like in that respect. At the other end of the scale, we must fully understand not only the environmental dimensions but how, for many regions, small airports are key economic drivers. We do not want to upset that balance. I know that I had a summer holiday, as did everyone else, but my hon. Friend the Member for Putney will want to know that I was appointed in June, not September. Perhaps it is a portent for the response and the lynch mob that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State alluded to at Question Time, but I was appointed on Friday 13th and was told that my brief included aviation.
I take the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney and other hon. Members about rail substitution, but I fear that all the evidence suggests limitations to that. I had the great delight this morning, after tootling down to Waterloo for 9.30 am, to meet a greatly surprised and bemused woman who was taking her husband to Paris for the day for his 65th birthday treat. She happened to be the millionth passenger on Eurostar since the new part of the channel tunnel rail link opened two months ago. There have been a million passengers in two months. I cannot remember her name, but I am sure that they had a great time in Paris, after they were bumped up to first class and were given another first-class return and a week in a hotel courtesy of Eurostar. The huge success of the engineering feat of the channel tunnel rail link—let alone the public and private sector partnership and investment—will make an enormous difference to that sort of short haul. I take what people say about getting most of our high-speed links, not least the west coast main line, up to scratch, so that there can be some alternation and substitution in that regard, but it is not always as simple as "provide the alternative and people will use it," not least because of pricing mechanisms and other things.
I take note of my hon. Friend's comments about the Airbus A380, but we do a disservice to the aerospace industry if we say that it has done little or nothing to ameliorate the situation or to make engines quieter, as there have been huge advances. Since 13 June I have had to plough my way around 10 or a dozen airports to look at some of these matters in detail, and people are embarrassed when they say, "Oh yes, we still have a couple of 200s flying here every now and then but we are trying to get rid of them." When the 200s were introduced, they were state-of-the-art; it was the quietest and stealthiest of all aeroplanes, a brand new dawn in terms of aviation. Now, the 200s are the ones that embarrass everyone because of the advances that have been made since they were introduced.
I note the research being done in Cambridge. Last week, I had the pleasure of going to Duxford and speaking to people about it, not least those from Marshall. We will welcome the advances should they
246WH
come to fruition. We are very aware that there is more we can do at European level. To be fair to BAA, it held a seminar on the trading of emissions. The Commissioner was present, and the Commissioner and the EU generally were very positive that there could be some advance in that area.
I look forward with some trepidation to the next ICAO meeting because ICAO—not IKEA: that was part of my previous portfolio—needs a kick up the proverbial backside to push things on far more than it has done. I think I agree with what my hon. Friend says about advancing more in terms of the European dimension. We can act as an exemplar to ICAO to pull its finger out and get things done more readily.
Some comments seem to suggest that the White Paper was simply rooted in a process of listening to what the industry said would be the untrammelled, unconstrained demand for the next 30 years, asking how we could meet that demand and deciding to meet it—in which case the industry would get everything that it wanted. But that will not be what prevails; what will prevail within the context of sustainability is that there will be a demand for unconstrained growth and whatever the details of the numbers, everyone agrees that the quantum projection is upwards. What can be achieved in terms of the sustainable framework? Crucially, how can we fully optimise existing capacity more readily than we have done? That must be part of the process. Given all that, how can we develop a provision for new capacity within the sustainability framework? What is the necessary package for that new capacity in terms of noise mitigation, mitigation in terms of the environment, service access elements and so on that go into the process? We are not simply having a raffle, picking an airport that wants expansion and saying, "Ah, there we are. You can have it. Off you go." It is about building up sustainable packages.
It may also be necessary to put things in context and say, "Yes, but over this time frame not that time frame." We are keenly aware that past White Papers have been a waste of time in terms of policy, and I agree in part with my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) that until now the policy network has been flawed and immature. Those days are over. For the first time, this is a proper, detailed White Paper that seeks to achieve sustainable aviation over the next 30 years and will give everyone what they are screaming out for—some clarity and understanding of where they fit into the equation, whether they are part of the industry or the local communities or are simply travellers and passengers, and what the future is for aviation in this country over the next 30 years. The debate has aided that process, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney on securing it. I repeat that if there are any issues that I did not cover in the little time that I had, I shall be more than happy to write to hon. Members about them once they have written to me to pursue them.
I fear, happily—if one can fear things happily—that the publication of the White Paper is the next phase of an ongoing debate, rather than the end of the debate. For that, everyone in the country should be grateful, whatever side of the argument they come from.

Liverpool (European Capital of Culture)
3.50 pm
Mrs. Louise Eliman: This debate takes place as Liverpool, "the world in one city" and European capital of culture designate for 2008, is poised to become the United Kingdom's cultural ambassador to Europe, and Europe's ambassador to the world. I shall draw attention to the significance of that achievement—Liverpool's equivalent of holding the Commonwealth games—and consider the potential that that offers for regeneration.
I am pleased to be a member of the board that secured the bid under the leadership of Sir Bob Scott. Winning was certainly a team effort; dedicated staff worked with Liverpool city council, and were backed by local authorities throughout the region, Liverpool Vision, business, Members of Parliament, the voluntary sector, the Northwest Development Agency, Arts Northwest, the regional assembly and, above all, the diverse people of multicultural Liverpool.
Liverpool has great achievements across the cultural spectrum—in sports, heritage, the creative arts and tourism—but today I want to stress Liverpool's excellence in the arts, including the visual arts. That includes the Liverpool biennial festival, which launched its preparations for 2004 in the House of Commons two weeks ago. I was delighted to see my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts at those presentations, and contributing to them.
The Centre for Film, Art and Creative Technology, FACT, is a great success. It is the only United Kingdom exhibition and performance space specialising in film, video and digital art. It stands proudly in the regenerated Ropewalks area of Liverpool city centre. The city has renowned galleries and museums, including the Walker, Tate and Bluecoat galleries, and the maritime museum. Fine architecture is a major characteristic. The magnificent waterfront has been nominated as a UNESCO world heritage site. Liverpool has the greatest concentration of listed buildings outside London.
St. George's hall is currently being refurbished. Liverpool's Georgian terraces are outstanding. Liverpool is increasingly becoming a major centre for filming. Mersey TV, the largest independent regional production company in the United Kingdom, entertains and informs the nation from Liverpool. In 2000, feature films made in Liverpool had a £35 million budget, with a benefit of at least £12 million to the local economy. Feature films made recently in Liverpool include "Liam", "The Parole Officer", "The 51st State", and Alex Cox's "A Revengers' Tragedy".
Liverpool Film Studios is encouraging new filmmakers. The Toxteth film centre and the £40 million film development fund gives opportunities to local filmmakers. I am particularly pleased that the Toxteth film centre is giving opportunities to young talented people who wish to become involved in the production of filming, and young people who may not otherwise have the opportunity to develop their great talents. On Wednesday, North West Vision, based in Liverpool, will hold a reception in the House of Commons to show Parliament the calibre of media production in the north-
248WH
west. Last Saturday, Liverpool was a fitting venue for the Royal Television Society's regional awards, which took place in the regenerated city centre building.
In the area of live music, the Royal Philharmonic Society, with its magnificent orchestra, is working with the community to encourage the city's talented young musicians, and new bands are being given opportunities by venues such as the Picket. I am sad to note that the future of the Picket is at risk because of a change in the ownership of the building in which it is located. Liverpool has a record of excellence in performing arts, with its theatres and Sir Paul McCartney's exciting Liverpool Institute for Performing Arts, which is breaking new ground in training talented young people to be the performers of tomorrow. Liverpool's festivals, such as Matthew street, Africa Oye and Brouhaha attract international audiences.
I am pleased that Liverpool humour plays such a pivotal role. Sir Jeremy Isaacs, chairman of the capital of culture judges, explained that Liverpool's community involvement, as well as its high standards in the arts and in culture generally, was critical to Liverpool's securing the title capital of culture. He also revealed another winning factor: he visited the Rawhide comedy club at the Albert dock, and listened to the successful stand-up comic Nige, otherwise known as Keith Carter, philosophise on life, trapped in a world of looking after his mum and gran and their terrorist cat. Sir Jeremy was reported as having said:
"I only understood one in every three words he was saying, so I enjoyed him. He helped Liverpool win".
What happens now? Winning the title capital of culture is not an end in itself; it is a new beginning. Liverpool is buzzing with renewed confidence. The multi-million pound Grosvenor Henderson city centre shopping development is ready to start. Preparations are under way for the return of cruise liners. The capital of culture team is being refashioned to meet the challenges of working with the community to deliver the exciting world-in-one-city programme, with a different theme every year. The theme for 2007, when Liverpool celebrates its 800th birthday, will be celebrating heritage. Other themes include learning, faith and community, arts, sports and—in 2008—the world in one city.
Liverpool will increasingly become the showcase for international visitors. It is essential that the events that take place are of the highest possible standard, and of sufficient variety and interest to attract a wide variety of people from near and far. Culture is intrinsically bound up with community. That is why the capital of culture team is working with education, health and regeneration agencies. Capital of culture opens new opportunities for regeneration, attracting new investment. It has been estimated that it will bring 14,000 new jobs in heritage, tourism, sport and the creative industries, £2 billion of investment, 1.7 million extra visitors spending £50 million per year and the possibility of 3,000 more jobs across the north-west. The proportion of overseas visitors could increase to 40 per cent.
All of that means more economic activity and more opportunities for performers, writers and designers. It also means more work in catering, transport and retail, and more jobs for electricians, engineers and construction workers. The benefits should stretch

249WH
beyond the boundaries of Liverpool and Merseyside and into the wider north-west. The challenge is to ensure that the benefits are long term and reach local communities. People in Granby, Dingle, Vauxhall and Everton should be beneficiaries. Rising property prices must not put local people at a disadvantage.
Support is required to enable these opportunities to be maximised. Good transport links are essential. About 50 years since the last trams were seen in Liverpool, Merseytravel is set to deliver line 1 of the new tram system. Underground stations will be refurbished. Travel around Merseyside will be much improved thanks to Merseytravel and the support that the Government have given it. However, there is no such certainty for west coast main line modernisation, which must be delivered north of Crewe and for Liverpool in the time promised in the Strategic Rail Authority plan.
Lime Street station, a grade II listed railway interchange that Network Rail now operates, must be refurbished as the gateway to a great city. What is good enough for Manchester Piccadilly is good enough for Liverpool. Liverpool requires a direct air link to London and the retention of Royal Mail freight facilities at Liverpool John Lennon airport. Liverpool airport, the fastest growing airport in the country, has direct flights to European cities such as Barcelona, Geneva, Amsterdam, Nice, Berlin and Paris. There is, however, no flight to London, our capital. That must change to enable Merseyside to attract maximum visitors and investors. The Department for Transport is currently assessing a proposal for a second river crossing, which Merseyside needs for economic development. I look forward to a positive response.
Local people need the skills that will ensure that they can benefit from the opportunities offered, and the Learning and Skills Council must rise to the challenge, which it is working to achieve. Local companies must have the opportunity to bid for work to build up capacity in the local economy, and new businesses must have access to investment. I hope that the Northwest Development Agency and the Merseyside special investment fund will expand their excellent work to attract European and private sector funds to encourage investment. Most creative industry businesses are very small and need access to capital to meet their distinctive needs. The creative sector incorporates many social enterprises, and I hope that funding will be available to help that important sector to develop.
I am grateful for the support that my right hon. Friend, when she was Secretary of State for Education and Skills, and her Department, have already given Liverpool. She was surrounded by cheering crowds when she visited Liverpool on the day when the city won the capital of culture nomination, which was followed by close involvement by her Department. I invite her to visit Liverpool again in her current capacity to see for herself what Liverpool has to offer. I assure her of a warm welcome. I note that the Government have made £30 million available to back London's Olympic bid and that national funds helped the Commonwealth games to be a tremendous success. I hope that national financial support can be found to assist the capital of culture team to maximise the substantial regeneration opportunities that will open up for Liverpool and the region.
250WH
Liverpool has displayed initiative and entrepreneurship in reaching this point. Despite its growing success and the record support that the Government have given it for its public services and regeneration, Liverpool remains one of the most deprived cities in the UK. It has achieved much through its own resourcefulness. I ask for Government backing to maximise the success of capital of culture as a showpiece and regeneration opportunity for the region. I hope that financial support can be given to assist the initiative to bring HMS Whimbrel—the last surviving warship from the battle of the Atlantic and part of Captain Walker's escort group—back to Liverpool from its current location in Egypt. I thank John Livingstone and his team for their magnificent efforts in that regard. What a fitting tribute the title of capital of culture would be to the people of Liverpool for their past contribution and what benefit it could bring as a tourist and educational asset for the future.
Capital of culture status presents Liverpool and Merseyside, as well as the rest of the north-west, with unique opportunities for long-term regeneration, but these opportunities must be grasped. Liverpool has determination, entrepreneurial spirit and civic pride. As the Liverpool-born novelist Linda Grant writes:
"Now Liverpool has a shot at re-invention. It is accused of trading on its past but its past is modernity. Its heritage is people dreaming of escape and of the future. If the city can be reborn, this is the moment".
I ask my right hon. Friend to give Liverpool her support to make that a reality.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the Minister to reply, it is my understanding that there could be a Division almost at any time. I suggest to the Chamber that if there is one Division, we break for 10 minutes, and if there are two Divisions following one another immediately, we break for a total of 18 minutes.
4.6 pm
The Minister for the Arts (Estelle Morris): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is nice to see you again. My only option is to speak very quickly, although I do not want to speak more quickly than I usually do.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) on securing this Adjournment debate. It was no surprise, however, as she has been an active supporter of Liverpool's bid and plays a key role on the management board—indeed, she hosted the biennial reception last week, which I was privileged to attend. I would welcome an ongoing dialogue from her and her colleagues not only in Liverpool and Merseyside, but throughout the northwest, between now and 2008.
Given that my constituency is in Birmingham, I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that in congratulating her I am also glad that I was not in this ministerial post before the decision was made on which city should be awarded capital of culture. That has, at the very least, excused me from receiving harsh words in my constituency.
I hope that my hon. Friend realises that, in one way or another, I have had rather a lot to do with Liverpool in recent years. When Liverpool was going through several problems relating to education, I visited the area

251WH
in my former ministerial capacity. Before it was awarded capital of culture status, I said that it had been a joy to see a city being reborn. It has grown in confidence and self-esteem, and it is not losing its past but reinventing itself for the future with the strengths of its people and the vision and excitement that it has always had—I liked the quote from my hon. Friend. The capital of culture year in 2008 will come at an important point during that process of rebirth, and it will push the city to even greater strengths.
I would love to visit Liverpool in the new year, and I think that I have plans to do so in any case. I formally accept my hon. Friend's invitation. I have already accepted an invitation to visit the museums and galleries, representatives of which I met when they came down to visit me in my office last week. I would be delighted to see what progress has been made.
In connecting my two ministerial roles and my involvement with Liverpool, I have one thing to add to the long list of strengths that my hon. Friend attributed to the city: schools and young people are also joining in with the capital of culture year. My visit to Liverpool the week after it was designated was in order to open a school as a performing arts college. I very much hope that the adults' bit of the arts and the children's bit of the arts grow in strength, and that this is not a one-off. I hope also that culture and arts are rooted in the Liverpool community where they have always been.
For the north-west, Liverpool's achievement will be of regional significance. I was in Manchester a couple of weeks ago, and I would not be telling the truth if I said that the people there were as excited as Liverpool is about capital of culture. However, they certainly saw it as an opportunity to build on the fine work that has been done at the end of east Lancs road in the north-west. This is another excellent opportunity for north-west regeneration.
Lest anyone reading Hansard thinks that Liverpool is already going to be the capital of culture, I remind hon. Members, as I ought to, that the designation process has not yet run its course. In July, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister submitted the formal nomination to the European Union. We are about to send a package of information in support of the nomination to the European Commission, at which point a panel will be appointed that will consider Liverpool's plans and proposals, and issue a report next year. In the light of that report and any comments from the Commission and the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers will be invited to designate Liverpool formally as European capital of culture 2008.
We certainly hope that that process can be concluded quickly—indeed, the Commission has promised to move it along as quickly as possible. Once those formalities are out of the way, however, Liverpool's preparations for 2008 can shift to a higher gear. It is important to say that, because it was not until I had prepared for the biennial reception that I understood that the formal part of the designation process had not taken place. However, that part is a formality—another staging post and an opportunity to celebrate what has been achieved.
Before I discuss my hon. Friend's point about money, I pay tribute to the other 11 cities that bid. The process of producing a bid was good for all the cities—those
252WH
short-listed and those that were knocked out at the first round. Those cities are now left with plans of their own that can contribute to greater arts and cultural regeneration throughout the country. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are keen not to lose that. Our aim is for the network of 12 towns and cities, with Liverpool at the head, to build on the plans that they have made, so that there is more than just one place shouting for arts and culture.
My hon. Friend rightly commented on the costs. I agree with everything that she said about both the variety of activities that will take place and the work that has already been done in the city to prepare. I also recognise that some of the things she said about infrastructure—an airport and the modernisation of the west coast railway line for example—are important. If we are to learn one lesson from previous big projects, it is that the infrastructure is of prime importance and must be right in time, so I acknowledge her plea that recognition should be given to transport and infrastructure, and other things as well.
I should warn hon. Members that Liverpool cannot be entirely rebuilt and be successful with every bid just because of capital of culture, although I do not blame them if there is a natural inclination to put a "capital of culture" badge on everything. This is the hard part of my speech: putting the "capital of culture" badge on Liverpool does not mean that the Government will find the resources. That cannot happen, it would not be right and I do not think that my hon. Friend would expect it. However, we should work with Liverpool to ensure that as much of the infrastructure as possible is in place in preparation for capital of culture.
When the bid went out to cities to put together plans to be capital of culture, it was made clear that there would be no pot of money coming along with it. Everybody made bids knowing exactly that that was the position. It might be interesting to debate whether the Olympic games is different in a national sense from 12 cities competing to be capital of culture. I take the point, however, and I heard what my hon. Friend said. I also note what was achieved by another great north-western city, Manchester, which secured the opportunity to host the Commonwealth games. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members will bring that to our attention. Nevertheless, the starting point is that it was clear, initially, when the panel studied the bids, that no extra money would be forthcoming. That remains so.
The Government do not intend to say, "You are on your own. We do not want to speak to you about this matter, and we do not want to favour Liverpool at all, or to do anything." That would not be fair or in the spirit of partnership. The Government want to work closely with Liverpool and to provide as much support as they can in the making of an application and the bringing together of partnerships with a view to obtaining new finance.
As to ways in which that might be possible, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will no doubt wish, in due course, to reflect on whether the Department can perhaps offer capital moneys to assist in the capital of culture project. We have spoken to Liverpool representatives about that when they have come to see us. I hope that some existing funding streams will be used to finance some of the bids. I will want to speak to the people in charge of the funding streams in the

253WH
months and years to come, to make sure that they will give more than reasonable attention to Liverpool's extra needs, and to the national flag that Liverpool will carry when it is capital of culture.
We very much want—and I know that my hon. Friend would agree about this—to bring in private sector money. We want to work in partnership. There is a celebration in each of the years up to 2008, and the 800th birthday is in 2007; it will be a very happy one and a cause for huge celebration. However, the plan as I see it is not for a sudden Government announcement that £x million has been made available to Liverpool so that it can finance all it wants to do. Rather, the plan is for solid partnerships providing access to specific funding streams; for the Department to do what it can, especially with capital from its own budgets; and for work to be done in partnership to see what funding can be secured from the private sector.
We want this undertaking to be a success. We have no intention of leaving Liverpool to go it alone, or of failing to listen carefully to its needs and requests. We shall do whatever we can. However, I want to balance our intention against the proposal that central Government should provide total funding.
Mr. Deputy Speaker rose—
Estelle Morris: I have about one minute. I do not know whether that is helpful.
I again congratulate Liverpool on the plans that it has made since designation. I look forward to a continuing working relationship with the city, the north-west and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have used my discretion to allow the debate to continue because the Minister of State indicated that she would finish within a minute. I hope that that was acceptable to the House. It has been an excellent debate and I was delighted to be in the Chair. I now suspend Westminster Hall for 10 minutes, if there is one Division, and 18 minutes if there are two. We shall be back here 18 minutes from now for the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir).
4.17 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.58 pm
On resuming—
[MR. DAVID AMESS in the Chair]

Unmanned Level Crossings
Mr. Michael Weir: It will come as no surprise to the Minister that I originally proposed the debate in response to the actions of Network Rail, which unilaterally decided to close the vast majority of unmanned level crossings in Scotland. Strangely enough, since the debate was publicised I have received a considerable amount of correspondence, including e-mails, from all over the country describing various other problems with unmanned level crossings. However, I intend to confine myself to the original subject for debate.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells): I wish to say only that privately owned level crossings are being closed. They are not all unmanned level crossings.
Mr. Weir: I thank the Minister. The definition of what the railways own and what others own might form part of the argument that follows. It is certainly a problem in some areas.
The result of the action by Network Rail was severely to restrict access to many parts of the Scottish countryside. That has already had some crazy results, and is a problem apparent throughout Scotland. Examples spring to mind in Angus, Perthshire, Loch Awe, Helensburgh, Kincardine and the Highlands, to name a few. As some are very small, they inconvenience only a small number of people. However, some create severe difficulties.
In my own constituency of Angus, the level crossing at East Haven by Carnoustie was closed, with the result that the seaward side of the village was almost cut off. As the Minister knows, the only other access to the village is a low underpass that can take a motor car but little else. That level crossing was closed despite the fact that it had been in place since the construction of the railway in 1836. In effect, a crossing that had been in continuous use for 167 years was closed unilaterally.
In all, Network Rail has announced the closure of about 600 such level crossings in Scotland. As Alison Mitchell of the Ramblers Association in Scotland noted at the time:
"We are appalled at the dictatorial way in which Network Rail in Scotland is behaving. They have embarked on a major new policy initiative without any consultation of how this will affect other public interests. They have closed crossings without consultation with the emergency services, with local communities, local authorities or the organisations that represent walkers, cyclists or horse riders. When challenged they have made it clear that they have no intention of consulting and will reimpose their locks when local councils cut them off."
In my constituency, Network Rail gradually began discussing the situation only after much adverse publicity. It claimed that it had consulted the local ambulance service, but when the service was contacted it said that that was the first it knew about the closure of the crossing. In a letter to me, Network Rail stated:
"Whilst Network Rail is willing to consider special arrangements for access, this would be dependent upon the agreement of the landowner to allow access over his land to reach the level crossing."

255WH
As has been pointed out, some of the crossings are on privately owned land, although there is a dispute about rights of access under other legislation. Network Rail went on to say:
"In order that Network Rail may give due consideration to special arrangements for essential access over the crossing we need details of essential services and frequency of access required to be provided by each resident in order that the proposed use can he risk assessed. An administration charge would be required to cover the costs associated with facilitating any future restricted access."
In other words, Network Rail first tried to throw the matter back on the local farmer.
It is interesting to note that the local farmer in that case said that he had no objection to the residents using the level crossing. However, one has to ask why a company that is effectively owned by the Government can offer the landowner an effective veto. In that case, however, the problem appears to lie not with the landowner but with the Network Rail's attitude. Network Rail said that it would charge residents for the privilege of using the crossing, despite the fact that it had been in use for 167 years. Not even the much maligned Railtrack attempted that.
The problem arises partly because of the chronic underfunding of the railways over so many years, allied to the bizarre way in which the last Conservative Government chose to privatise the railways. Many of the level crossings cause little or no difficulty, but Network Rail seems to have taken the nuclear option of closing the lot. In many cases, the level crossings need investment; they need to be upgraded to bring them into the modern age, but that will cost money—in some cases, probably a great deal of money.
Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that I have been trying for seven years to get a bridge built to replace three level crossings on the farm of Mal Phillips, a constituent of mine, but even after all the fine words, not a single brick has been put in place to honour that promise.
Mr. Weir: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I shall be making a similar point shortly.
I have to ask whether Network Rail is simply taking the easy way out: shutting the crossings means that it will not have to spend money on them. Given the Strategic Rail Authority's projected level of maintenance on many lines over the next few years, that is certainly a great suspicion.
When the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) was the Secretary of State for Transport, I recall that his hon. Friends cheered when he announced the demise of Railtrack and that he was going to bring the rail infrastructure back into public ownership. He was not quite so popular later, when he sheepishly announced the compensation. I am sure the Minister will point out that Network Rail is an arm's-length company, but the Government are the only shareholder in that company, so it is effectively under their control. Why then, I ask the Minister, does his Department seem unable to exercise any control over its actions?
If money is not the reason for Network Rail's policy, what is the reason? Network Rail told me—again, I return to the Minister's intervention—that under the
256WH
Arbroath and Forfar Railway Act 1836, which governed the original construction of the railway, the only authorised user was a local farmer. I pointed out to Network Rail that it was blindingly obvious that the main part of East Haven village was built after 1836, and that the only buildings of that age were a couple of fishermen's cottages. Most of the other houses are of Victorian design, with a few more modern ones. That raises the important point, which Network Rail has chosen to ignore, that access over the crossing must have been used with the knowledge or concurrence of its previous owners, particularly British Rail and Railtrack. In the 1980s, there was an agreement involving the rail company whereby new gates and a cattle grid were installed, so the rail company must have known 20 years ago that the level crossing was regularly being used. Anyone who has visited East Haven can see that it has been used for a very long time indeed. Why then did Network Rail decide that it could not be used?
I also took the matter up with the Minister's Department, but the response basically reiterated Network Rail's position. When challenged, Network Rail stated that there cannot be a right of access over the railway. The Minister may know that under Scots law, if an access is used for more than 20 years, a prescriptive right of access arises, irrespective of whether there is a legal right in any document. I do not know if the law is the same in England.
I did some research with the assistance of the House of Commons Library. Again, it appears that Network Rail's assertion does not hold water. I am told that section 57 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 states that no prescriptive right can be acquired over a footpath on railway land that forms an access to a station or other specific railway premises mentioned in the section. Level crossings are not mentioned in that section. As the crossing is in farmland in the countryside, it seems that there is nothing to prevent a right of prescription arising over that part of the railway and the adjoining land. As the crossing at East Haven has been used by generations of villagers since 1836, they could have established such a right by prescription. The difficulty of establishing that right, as with all such rights, is that they would have to resort to an expensive and lengthy court action.
I ask the Minister why Network Rail, which is publicly funded, should be able to ride roughshod over the local community, who would have great difficulty in matching the deep pockets—our taxpayers' pockets—that would fund Network Rail in such a court action. It may well be that the unfortunate matter will result in court action because of Network Rail's attitude. Having said that, I must say that talks have been attempted over the months, to no avail as yet, to try to reach an accommodation.
I was interested to read in Scottish newspaper reports at the end of August that the Secretary of State for Transport—a Scottish MP—was to become involved, but that does not seem to have pushed matters forward to any extent. Network Rail had asked residents of the village of East Haven to fill in forms. Many of them did so, showing the access that they required. Network Rail's response was:
"It would appear from an initial review that the proposed levels of use are such that we could not accommodate special arrangements for access."

257WH
In one case, a resident requested permission to continue to use the crossing to take his caravan across the railway. That was refused by Network Rail, although that crossing had been made for many years, and we should take note of the Network Rail letter, which suggested that residents with caravans consider alternative arrangements, including the possibility of siting elsewhere. It was not clear whether that meant their caravans or homes, but either way Network Rail was unwilling to accede to a reasonable demand, even though there had been no incident involving the caravan during all the years that the crossing had been made.
We still do not have an answer to the question, "Why now?" The obvious answer, which I am sure the Minister will give, is one of safety, and Network Rail has stated that it is acting on safety grounds. No one wants to take a cavalier attitude to safety, but Network Rail has been cagey about the exact safety implications. I contacted the Health and Safety Executive to ask about any incidents on the level crossing, as Network Rail was being less than specific. The HSE's response reiterated much of what Network Rail had already stated, but then said that none of the alleged incidents were required to be notified to it. In effect, the only information it had was presented by Network Rail. It seemed that we were going round in circles.
Eventually, in a letter to the East Haven residents association in September—many months after the matter arose—the HSE listed incidents going back five years, all of them of a minor nature and some hotly disputed by the residents. In fact, the only recent incident on the stretch of line going through my constituency and into Dundee was at Broughty Ferry, where there was an alleged near miss on an automatic level crossing—not what we are discussing today.
Network Rail said to me in a letter:
"We have a statutory requirement to implement reasonable measures to prevent unauthorized use of level crossings. We have a corporate responsibility to fulfil this statutory requirement. Failing to do so would leave Network Rail potentially open to enforcement procedures and in the event of any incident potential prosecution."
In other words, Network Rail is protecting its back in case there is an incident in the future. It is interesting that neither British Rail nor Railtrack considered it necessary to take such action.
The crux of the matter is that Network Rail is concerned that it could be found liable if there was an accident on the crossing. That brings me back to my earlier point about investment and costs and the point made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), who is no longer present. As I said, everyone wants a safe railway, but if safety is the only reason for pushing ahead, why is Network Rail not doing the same in England? Do the same safety rules not apply, or are the land access laws different?
As I said at the outset, I have tended to concentrate on the situation at East Haven because I am most familiar with it. My constituents are angry and upset at the actions of Network Rail. The advice that I received from the Minister that the local authority might have
258WH
some funding that could be used to provide an alternative way over the railway is a non-starter, as anyone who is aware of the constraints on local authority finance would know.
That brings me back to the question of the original privatisation. Network Rail, as far as anyone is responsible for it, is a reserved matter, so the Scottish Parliament and Executive have no control over it or any of its actions. Yet when it acts in such a cavalier manner over the level crossings, they or Scottish local authorities are expected to come up with the funds to clear up the mess and consider alternatives to existing level crossings, sometimes at great expense. That is unacceptable. We are talking about traditional crossings that have existed for many years; if there is a genuine safety issue, it is one for Network Rail to deal with by upgrading and improving the crossings, not by taking away access rights.
As I said, the problem is appearing all over Scotland. I am sure that the Minister will tell me that Network Rail is an arm's-length company and that we are debating operational matters solely for it, but all over Scotland rights are being threatened by a company that is seen as under Government control. Action is required. Compromise may be possible for many of the crossings, and for others funding for alternatives is required and should come from central Government.
5.14 pm
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells): I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) on securing the debate. He raises an issue that is of considerable concern to some of his constituents and that has attracted debate throughout Scotland. I hope that I will be able to respond to some of his points, if not all of them.
Before I deal with that issue, I want to make some general points about Network Rail and its objectives, responsibilities and priorities, as it has a fundamental part to play in this discussion. I am only sorry that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) disappeared after making a statement about a bridge for which he says he has waited seven years. We were blessed by another of his cameo appearances. He comes and goes like a bit-part actor in an amateur production in which, as usual, the theme is how the Government should spend more money and how the Liberals cannot possibly say how that money will be raised in the first place.
The hon. Member for Angus spoke about the Government's reluctance to spend money on the railways. We are, however, spending record amounts—billions of pounds—on railways, which I am sure he knows. Probably the largest single tranche of money ever spent on the railways in this country is being spent on upgrading the west coast main line, which will greatly benefit Scotland when it is finished. I was interested in why so many unmanned level crossings lacked adequate technology to guarantee safety and security. The costs involved are huge. I discovered that it costs £80,000 to install a phone at a level crossing, and upwards of £1 million to install flashing lights. These are huge sums.
5.17 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
5.24 pm
On resuming
Dr. Howells: As I am sure the hon. Member for Angus is aware, Network Rail took over responsibility for the operation, maintenance and renewal of Britain's rail infrastructure in October last year, in the wake of Railtrack's entry into administration. Network Rail is a private, not-for-dividend company and is responsible to its membership: more than 100 organisations and individuals, representing railway industry stakeholders and the wider public. Level crossings are a serious concern for the company. In 2002–03, there were 27 train incidents at crossings, and 13 members of the public were killed: two of them were vehicle occupants and 11 were pedestrians.
I understand—and the hon. Gentleman, if my memory serves me, confirmed—that there are around 600 private level crossings in Scotland. Generally, they were established by 19th-century legislation authorising railway construction. Access to the crossings is normally restricted to authorised users, often farmers and landowners, and not granted to the general public. In carrying out a review of the use of the crossings, Network Rail has become aware that in a minority of cases there has been unauthorised use by members of the public. As a result, it has taken steps to restrict access: for example, securing crossings with lockable gates and ensuring that keys are issued only to authorised users.
The company has a legal duty to prevent unauthorised access to the operational railway under the Railway Safety (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 1997. I would not wish to criticise the company for carrying out that duty, although the hon. Gentleman has given instances where, it seems, it could have consulted more rigorously. Nevertheless, safety on level crossings is an important issue. The Health and Safety Executive firmly supports the line that Network Rail is taking, particularly on unauthorised access to vehicles. Level crossings are potentially one of the most dangerous features of railway operation, as the incident near Evesham earlier this year illustrated all too clearly.
Network Rail has informed me that it has consulted Historic Scotland, VisitScotland, the National Farmers Union and the British Transport police on the measures that it is taking. Its policy of restricting the use of private level crossings in Scotland has attracted public criticism from ramblers groups and local residents who have been using the crossings for many years. In recent months, my Department has received representations calling for the Government to intervene, among them a letter from the hon. Gentleman. Representations have been made to the effect that in some circumstances, where access is available only on foot and where trains run relatively slowly and infrequently, the safety risks are relatively low and that restricting the use of the crossing is disproportionate.
I accept that Network Rail's actions may cause inconvenience to local residents and ramblers who may have become accustomed to using particular crossings, albeit that those were never intended for public use. I also accept that Network Rail's predecessors may have been less than diligent, as the hon. Gentleman reminded us, about enforcing those restrictions on the use of the crossings. However, I would be very reluctant to
260WH
intervene on operational decisions made by Network Rail that are driven by safety considerations. At the end of the day, if there is no public right of way across a crossing, unauthorised users are trespassing, knowingly or unknowingly.
I would like to put the matter into context. According to Network Rail, its actions have proved contentious in only a relatively small number of cases. Network Rail could not close a private crossing without the agreement of the authorised crossing user. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of that, but it is a fact.
Mr. Weir: I appreciate what the Minister is saying, but at East Haven, irrespective of the original intended use of the level crossing, the crossing is a main access into the village. Given that the issue has developed over more than 150 years, does he consider that Network Rail has a duty in such circumstances to make an alternative access if it considers that a genuine safety issue is involved?
Dr. Howells: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's dilemma. I have his "Weir@Westminster" leaflet, which he distributes throughout his constituency. It contains a very fetching picture of him stretching his arm up to full length underneath a very low bridge. The notice on the bridge states:
"Low bridge headroom 2.2 metres".
The answer would be for Angus council to build a more suitable access for the people who live in the village. If it considers that it cannot do that, the hon. Gentleman has pursued the right option. He has asked whether there might be a way to reach a better solution, perhaps using the existing private level crossing.
The problem to which the hon. Gentleman did not refer is that the crossing is one that crosses the main Dundee to Aberdeen line. More than 80 trains pass over it each day at speeds of between 60 and 100 mph. I have been informed that there have been two recorded near misses on the crossing and 11 recorded incidents of misuse. I have tried to dig into the matter to find out what the incidents consisted of, and I understand that one involved a minibus.
Mr. Weir: That is a disputed incident.
Dr. Howells: The hon. Gentleman said that the incident was disputed. However, if the minibus driver had not used the telephone to alert the signalman to the fact that he was about to cross the railway line, it would have become a serious problem. Trains travelling at 60 to 100 mph take a long time to stop. At speeds of 100 mph, it takes three quarters of a mile for a train to stop.
Let us consider the situation in which a person thinks that he can see well into the distance and decides that it is safe to cross the line. Well, that has happened on too many occasions. The number of casualties on level crossings remains high because people disobey and abuse the rules. I am not saying that that has happened on the level crossing under discussion, but the primary duty of the hon. Gentleman to his constituents on whose behalf he introduced the debate must be to ensure that they stay alive. The safety of people on level crossings is extremely important.
Mr. Weir: With respect to the Minister, I am not disputing that fact. However, whatever he says about

261WH
the safety of the level crossing, I reiterate that it is an essential access into the village. The cost of a new road being built under the railway would be astronomical. It would involve heavy engineering works and disrupt the railway even more. Such costs could not be borne by any local authority. We are not talking here about a few ramblers going over a crossing—there are differences with all these crossings, and I accept that. We are talking about a main access into the village. That is the important difference.
Dr. Howells: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is worried about the access to the village. I am simply reiterating that the present access across the railway line is not safe. It might have been used for many years. It
262WH
might be that Network Rail could have consulted local people better about what it intended to do. Nevertheless, Network Rail has a duty to ensure that people stay alive on its property. Trains are very dangerous vehicles when they travel at these kinds of speed. They cannot stop very quickly. I should have thought the hon. Gentleman would be very concerned about that. He argued that it would cost Angus council a lot to deepen the tunnel access under the railway or to construct a new road, yet he was keen to tell the Government that we should spend lots more money on the railways as if that money fell from heaven. Well, it does not.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Six o'clock.