Westminster Hall Sitting of 30 March 2004

Preamble
[MR. EDWARD O'HARA in the Chair]

Sustainable Energy Act
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Margaret Moran.]
9.30 am
Mr. Andrew Stunell:I am delighted to have been successful in the ballot for this debate on an extremely important topic. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some firm, practical and robust answers.
The background to the debate is the success of the Sustainable Energy Act 2003, which was a private Member's Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White), who hopes to join us later. An important provision in that Act is section 2(1), which states:
"The Secretary of State must within one week beginning with the coming into force of this section designate under this subsection at least one energy efficiency aim."
The designation of that energy efficiency aim is at the core of what I want to say today, although it is part of the bigger topics of promoting sustainability and eradicating fuel poverty in housing, and—this is not incidental—building up a viable energy efficiency industry in the United Kingdom, with the accompanying employment and economic prospects.
The Minister has a good idea of what I am going to say, not least because he has already heard it in stereo from just about every part of the spectrum. For a start, 332 hon. Members signed early-day motion 96, which sets out the core of the subject. Overall, 420 hon. Members have signed early-day motions or voted or spoken in debates in support of the sustainable energy aim set out in the 2003 Act. We are still waiting for that aim. If that is not enough, the Secretary of State has received a joint letter from every environmental nongovernmental organisation asking when the aim will be published and what it is.
A similar letter was received by the Secretary of State from every fuel poverty NGO and other relevant organisations. In addition, just about every trade association and group of manufacturers and installers of energy efficiency equipment has also written in the same terms. The Minister has heard about the matter not just in stereo but quadrophonically. His Department knows the script, but I want to ask, on the record, some pertinent questions and I hope that he, in turn, will put some robust and positive answers on the record.
To go back a little, we need to emphasise the importance of developing a sustainable environmental policy and to remind ourselves that 27 per cent. of the carbon dioxide emissions produced in the United Kingdom come from homes and houses. We are living a lifestyle that needs three planets to be sustainable, not the one that we have. I am hoping that, apart from any assurances that the Minister can give on this subject, he
360WH
will say that there is a determination throughout the Government to ensure that our homes and housing stock are far more sustainable in future than they have been in the past and that the Government intend to play an active part in promoting that. I particularly hope that he will explain to his ministerial colleagues the need to designate a requirement on the Thames gateway site for perhaps 2,000 zero-energy homes, which could kickstart the whole sustainable housing market.
Bob Spink: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this Adjournment debate. The subject is important. He referred to the Thames gateway, and he will be aware that my constituency is in that area. Many of the 40,000 people on Canvey Island live 6 ft below sea level. The argument is not just academic, because within 40, 50 or perhaps 80 years, the flood defences will again be threatened. If we are to build another 2,000 houses in the Thames gateway—it is said that some will be on the flood plain—it is very important that we tackle global warming and CO2 emissions, which increased by 1.5 per cent. last year and have increased in three years out of the past four. Clearly, the Government must do something.
Mr. Stunell:I agree. The hon. Gentleman has the fortune, or possibly the misfortune, to represent a constituency that will be directly affected if global warming proceeds unchecked, and he makes a valuable point.
When the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East introduced his Bill, as it then was, the relevant clause stated that the Government should set "targets". I served on the Committee that considered the Bill, as did other hon. Members here, and there was a considerable tussle between the Government and the Bill's supporters about the precise wording. Eventually, the Government prevailed and the word "aims" was substituted for "targets". That represented a serious watering down. Revisiting the Committee transactions, I see that there was a great deal of concern, not to say bitterness, on both sides of the Committee when the change was made. I am not sure whether this is a parliamentary term, but I slagged off the promoter of the Bill somewhat for his faint-heartedness. However, as I am now steering my own private Member's Bill through the system, I can see how such things happen and I am somewhat more forgiving of the fact that he felt the need to buckle under Government pressure.
The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services said in Committee that we need have no fear that the word "targets" was being replaced by "aims". He said that that had to do with chapter 3 of the White Paper, which set out the Government's aims. He said that they were still the Government's aims and that the Bill's proposals would be "helpful in achieving them" He also said that
"to deliver our commitments, in particular in chapter 3, we will work with the energy efficiency industry, and others who have an interest".—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 24 June 2003; c. 56–58]
Given that assurance, does it matter that, nine months later, interdepartmental shilly-shallying is blocking all progress, scaring away investors in the energy efficiency industry and undermining the achievement of the United Kingdom's CO2 targets? As

361WH
the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) said, it certainly does matter, because UK CO2 emissions are increasing. They increased in three of the past four years, most recently by 1.5 per cent. A Minister from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs dismissed that as simply "a blip", but if, in three years out of four, instead of working towards our target, we are going in the opposite direction, that is more than a blip.
We are moving away from the Kyoto targets to which the Government signed up, and we all know that energy efficiency is the most cost-effective way to cut CO2 emissions and get back on track. It not only helps us to achieve the Kyoto targets but enables households to save on their fuel bills and improves their comfort and health. It can also make a major impact on fuel poverty reduction. Furthermore, if there was steady and sustained investment in energy efficiency, driven by clear public policy, we would see growth in jobs and economic progress in the industry and throughout the economy.
However, when we consider the record since June, we see that there has instead been a tremendous amount of weaselling by Ministers and Departments. At the time, the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services said that we need not worry, because there were 135 targets in the White Paper and the aims in the Bill would be a way of harnessing the fulfilment of at least some of them. However, he was a little elusive in Committee about precisely which ones, and closer inspection shows why. Although there are 135 targets in the White Paper, amazingly, none is about energy efficiency. It says only that there is an expectation that there will be a carbon reduction—there is not a target.
In the absence of any definition of the aims set out in section 2, which was supposed to be given within one week of its coming into force, no one knows what they are supposed to do to implement Government policy on energy efficiency. That means that everyone in the energy efficiency industry is pretty much stalled. They cannot go to the bank manager to raise money to invest on expanding their business to fulfil an undefined expectation and an absent aim. They need a bankable commitment. They need a target. At the very least they need a published aim. They need that even more having been led up the aisle and dumped more than once before by the Government, such as on cavity wall insulation in 1999.
The energy efficiency industry needs something that is published and bankable all the more because after the Minister made his announcement in June 2003, the Government promptly cut their expectation in half. Instead of talking about a saving of 5 million tonnes of carbon by 2010, they started to talk about a 4 million to 6 million tonnes saving by 2020. From the industry point of view, that is simply unacceptable. Perhaps not surprisingly, there has been no development and no expansion, and no effort yet to move in the direction set out in the Sustainable Energy Act.
After downgrading the expectation by 50 per cent., the Government sent a memo to the Environmental Audit Committee last May in which the then Energy Minister, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North
362WH
(Mr. Wilson), confirmed the smaller figure. It was repeated on 16 September 2003 by Lord Evans, the Government spokesman in the House of Lords.
The level of confusion at that time was such that director of the Association for the Conservation of Energy, Andrew Warren, took up the matter with the permanent secretary at the Department of Trade and Industry, Sir Robin Young. He pointed out the problems caused by not having a published aim and the expectation being halved. In a letter dated 22 August, Sir Robin replied:
"I can certainly confirm that the Government remains committed"
to the White Paper figures
"of around 5 MtC by 2010."
In addition, it was agreed by the Department that Lord Evans's words in the House of Lords were an error, and in another letter to Mr. Warren, dated 19 September, Sir Robin wrote:
"I am happy to confirm that the 4 to 6 MtC saving quoted by Lord Evans was intended as a reference to additional annual savings by 2020, over and above the 5 MtC by 2010".
Quite remarkably he continued:
"the Hansard Editor of Debates has offered to include a clarification in the Bound Volume and we will be writing to her to confirm this."
The bound volume for that period has not yet been published, so I cannot confirm that that has happened.
By this time, there was much concern and confusion. Baroness Maddock asked a parliamentary question last October and received a further assurance that we were talking about 5 million tonnes by 2010 and a further 4 million to 6 million tonnes by 2010. Lord Whitty, speaking to the all-party group for intelligent energy on 10 December said:
"We must reach the ambitious targets for energy efficiency in the Energy White Paper. Without this all the other objectives will not be achieved".
That is perhaps the first time the Government have used the word "targets". The figures in the White Paper are now officially referred to as "targets", despite all the Government's efforts to replace that word with "aims" in the Sustainable Energy Bill.
In his consultation document, "Economic instruments to improve household energy efficiency", the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Government are still working towards their aim of saving 5 million tonnes of carbon from domestic energy efficiency by 2010. That suggests that, despite a minor wobble, things are back on course. We must consider the process by which the Government will publish that aim. That takes us back to what the Minister offered in the debate last June when he said:
"In order to deliver our commitments, we will work with the energy efficiency industry, and others who have an interest."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 24 June 2003; c. 56.]
Mr. David Drew: The hon. Gentleman is making a strong case, but would he, like me, accept that one of the underlying problems has been the fact that the Government have some form in cutting the warm front programme, which is crucial to eradicating fuel poverty? The only way in which that can

363WH
be done in a sustainable way is by introducing energy efficiency, and the Government must get that programme back on track. Does he agree?
Mr. Stunell:Yes, I very much agree. If we have more time, I should like to explore that issue more fully. Unfortunately, there is not just uncertainty about how the Sustainable Energy Act will be implemented, and when the aims will be published, but all the energy efficiency industry's experience of Government action is negative. Warm words were said in 1999 about cavity wall insulation and now about the warm front programme. The situation has built up and just when things might be starting to happen, a great deal has been knocked down. It makes it all the more difficult for somebody running a company, thinking that they might take advantage of new market opportunities, to visit the bank manager and say, "I have this real opportunity," without being laughed at. The climate for business investment that the Government set is very important. I understood that one of the badges of new Labour was to be finely tuned to the needs of business, compared with their previous incarnations. On this issue, they seem to have gone completely off track.
In June last year, the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services offered to
"work with the energy efficiency industry, and others who have an interest".—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 24 June 2003; c. 56.]
The Secretary of State is well briefed on what the industry and those other interests want: they all want to see the 5 million tonnes of carbon that will be saved by energy efficiency set out as a clear aim in legislation, which will then underpin their own programmes for investment and targeting the problem.
Every energy efficiency company and trade association signed a joint letter sent to the Minister and to every hon. Member, saying that it was imperative to set those targets. It said:
"If we are to secure the necessary funding, then absolute and unambiguous quantified carbon saving commitments will be needed from the Government."
The Government face a completely unanimous view from every outside body and interest, as well as from the 332 hon. Members who signed the early-day motion, yet they still have not set those targets. The reason for applying for this debate has been enhanced by the letter now being circulated by the Economic Secretary, which was sent to a number of hon. Members. I quote from the version sent to the hon. Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams), which is dated 12 March 2004. It says that:
"rather than setting specific targets it is more important to put in place the right incentives for individuals to take up energy efficiency."
In other words, we will not have targets or aims, but simply incentives. We know that incentives do not work. They have not worked for 25 years and there is not the slightest evidence that they will work in the next 25 years, so the letter completely tears up the script that Ministers laid out when they were amending the Sustainable Energy Bill in June 2003. It tears up the script, carefully repairing the damage done by misspeaking in the House of Lords to say, "No, the target of 5 million tonnes of carbon is a target based on the White Paper, so everybody except the Government is out of
364WH
step."Actually, everybody, including half the Government, is in step, but half the Government are not.
Last week, 15 of the United Kingdom's leading companies involved in the manufacture, distribution and supply of energy wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that they were
"extremely concerned to have had sight of letters currently being sent to MPs by the Economic Secretary…about Energy Efficiency".
They went on to say:
"We know all too well from bitter past experience that 'incentives' without targets simply will not ensure the creation of sufficient business confidence to enable us to invest in plant, personnel and delivery structures. We should therefore be most grateful for your assurance that the Treasury does not intend to resile from the commitments given by Lord Whitty."
I hope that I have outlined some of the flip-flops that the Government have made on the issue. I ask the Minister whether he is willing to rescue the Act and his Government's reputation by flipping, or perhaps flopping, once more. Will he tell hon. Members whether the words of the Energy Minister in Committee in June 2003 still stand, or should we believe what their Lordships were told on 12 September 2003, that instead of reducing by 5 million tonnes by 2010, the aim is 5 million tonnes by 2020—an effective halving of the aim? Or is it what Lord Whitty said to the all-party group on 10 December 2003, reinstating the target of 5 million tonnes by 2010, plus another target of 4 million to 6 million tonnes by 2020? Or is it what the Economic Secretary wrote in his letter of 12 March 2004, that we will not have any aims or targets at all and that everything will be done by incentives? Which of those multiple versions of the truth is the one that the Minister wants to give hon. Members today? Will he please make it the most positive and robust that he can? Otherwise his sustainability policy will not go anywhere.
There has been a lot of confusion, not among those who supported the legislation or the 332 hon. Members who want to see the list of aims and targets produced, but in Government. I do not know whether that is the result of careful and deliberate debate or whether it is because, as is often the case on energy policy, every Department is at sixes and sevens with every other Department. Whatever the process has been, the consequences are the same. The confusion and uncertainty mean that there has been no investment or planning and that we are nowhere near fulfilling the needs of the Government and the policy that the Minister professes to support.
I ask the Minister, who has the uncomfortable job of speaking for the Government and for DEFRA this morning, to give the reassurance sought by the manufacturing companies in the letter sent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 26 March that the Government will set a specific target. Specifically, will he put it on the record that they support the higher target of 5 million tonnes by 2010 and the extended 4 million to 6 million extra by 2020? We need a clear sense of purpose and direction. Will he publish at least one aim as soon as possible, so that the industry can get to work on the job? Will he give an assurance that he will relay to other Departments the strong and firm view that an excellent way to start on the objective of developing sustainable housing would be to set a target of 2,000 zero-energy homes at Thames gateway?

365WH
At one level, this is a technical and impenetrable debate about the implementation of one aspect of a private Member's Bill, which 99 per cent. of the public have probably not heard of. At another level, the debate can be used as a bit of partisan fun and knockabout because the Government have, yet again, not got their act together. However, I hope that we will view the debate in a third way: if we want the UK to be a world leader in providing for a sustainable planet, we must get right these decisions, which the Government perhaps consider as being at the micro-level—trivial or below the radar. Such decisions can mount up, as one brick after another in the wall, to provide a proper sustainability policy. I hope that I have illustrated the problem, and I look forward to the Government telling me what the answer is.
9.57 am
Dr. Brian Iddon: It is a pleasure to take part in the debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) on winning the ballot, thus allowing us to air our views this morning. Energy efficiency is extremely important for saving people from fuel poverty. I shall tackle the debate from that angle and stress fuel poverty more than energy efficiency.
We have had a mild winter, so we have not seen the alarming headlines of previous winters. Whether climate change will continue to save us from those headlines, none of us can say, but we were lucky this winter and fewer people than usual died from hypothermia. We have been lucky this year, but we need to make more progress in energy efficiency.
According to the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group's second annual report of 2003—04, between 1.4 million and 2 million people were in fuel poverty in 2001. Those figures represent a substantial reduction—a halving—of the 1996 figure. Therein lies one of the problems: the definition of fuel poverty. The usual definition revolves around the 10 per cent. or more of income that people have to spend on fuel to maintain the heating of their home as well as the cooking and lighting. According to the charity National Energy Action, the figures change depending on the definition of income. The Government take into account full income, including receipt of benefits, and on that basis, 1.8 million people were in fuel poverty in 2001. However, on the basis of basic income, the figure would increase to 2.4 million. The ideal would be to consider disposable income after housing costs have been paid, whether that is a mortgage or rent to a social or private landlord, in which case the figures increase substantially. When we look at figures that show people left in housing poverty, we must take those facts into consideration.
Rising incomes and benefit levels and falling fuel prices contributed significantly to the reduction that I have just mentioned. The incoming Labour Government reduced VAT on fuel to 5 per cent. in 1997, which helped tremendously, and later introduced the winter fuel allowance, which also helped considerably and which was increased recently for some pensioners. An added benefit is that the Government have targeted benefits at the poorest pensioners to keep people out of
366WH
fuel poverty. Other vulnerable groups have been similarly targeted with benefits. The average SAP—standard assessment procedure—rating for homes rose from 41.5 to 50.5 between 1991 and 2001, and from 39 to 49.4 in the same period for the 30 per cent. of households with the lowest incomes, so energy efficiency measures have obviously also contributed.
However, I have a worry about fuel prices, which have started to rise again. The biggest rises have been in Northern Ireland, where it has just been announced that, on top of an 11 per cent. increase in gas prices announced in October 2003, there is to be a further 20 per cent. increase. That is a staggering increase in one fuel price, never mind the knock-on effect on the price of electricity. It will be difficult to combat fuel poverty in the future if those trends continue. Increases in fuel prices are already beginning to dominate the headlines in the rest of the United Kingdom.
There are still about 4,000 communities throughout the United Kingdom with a cluster of more than 50 households that are as little as 2 km from a gas main. The Department of Trade and Industry has estimated that 120,000 households in such communities could be removed from fuel poverty merely by connecting them to the main. The Government are vigorously pursuing the pathfinder policy to connect 65,000 of those vulnerable households, along with 60,000 others.
Shortly, however, the United Kingdom will be importing up to 70 per cent. of its gas from the continent. That is one of my concerns. We will have virtually no control over the prices that the countries that supply the gas will charge the United Kingdom, not only for supplying the gas but for transporting it across the continent and under the channel. With the cost comes the added fear of a lack of security. I am pleased that energy is being discussed in the House of Lords in relation to the Energy Bill. I hope that the Bill will come before the House of Commons shortly. It has attracted much criticism, and I am sure that we can have that debate when it comes through. I want to see diversification in relation to the supply of energy, and not total reliance on importing 70 per cent. of gas from the continent, which could have a severe effect on fuel poverty in the future if we are not careful.

A 10 per cent. increase in electricity and gas prices increases the numbers in fuel poverty by half a million in the UK. As we have seen, there has been an increase of much more than 10 per cent. already in Northern Ireland. Consequently, at least half a million people pro rata have been rammed back into fuel poverty in that part of the United Kingdom alone.
The warm front, which is an excellent scheme and is much better today than it was in previous years, the energy efficiency commitment—the EEC—and schemes such as the network gas extension, to which I have just referred, are estimated to need £2.5 billion in resources over the period from 2005 to 2010. That is if we are to meet the Government's commitment to remove people from fuel poverty. If expenditure on the EEC is doubled, other programmes need to be increased by at least 50 per cent. to meet the Government's commitment. That is quite a staggering increase. We should bear it in mind that in the current year the resources committed to the warm front have decreased. I plead with the Minister to

367WH
look at the excellent warm front scheme very carefully and allocate many more resources to it over the next five or 10 years.
If a broader definition of fuel poverty were taken, to which I referred obliquely at the beginning of my speech, the Government would have to commit not £2.5 billion but £3 billion extra in resources to meet their commitments. They have set a target to eliminate fuel poverty entirely by 2016, and by 2010 for the most vulnerable groups. From what I have already said, that cannot be achieved through business as usual. We have to accelerate our efforts to get people out of fuel poverty and to increase energy efficiency.
While I am on the subject of the warm front scheme, I want to flag up some people in my constituency who are in extreme fuel poverty but unable to do anything about it. Mrs. N receives disability living allowance for her son, who is aged four. Because the benefit is not paid directly to the householder—Mrs. N—or her spouse, the family are not eligible for a warm homes grant. That means that her son does not have the opportunity to grow up in a warm, safe environment. The benefit has to be paid to the householder in order to trigger the grant, which I do not think is right.
Another case in my constituency flags up a slightly different problem. Mrs. R was awarded a top-up grant of only £170 for her loft insulation. She did not really call for the insulation. People knocked on her door, persuaded her that it was a good thing, and because it did not cost her any money she let them go ahead and do it. Now, however, her central heating system is on the verge of breakdown and she is extremely anxious. She is only 53 years old, but she is disabled and in receipt of disability living allowance, income support and incapacity benefit. However, she cannot get the grant because of a small amount of money that was spent on a small amount of loft insulation in the past. She now has to consider remortgaging her property, but feels that the building society will not let her do so.
I notice that the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group's annual report for 2003—04 recommends to the Government that
"Work should be carried out to understand the circumstances of those not in receipt of a 'gateway' benefit but clearly in fuel poverty."
It also recommends that
"The Warm Front Scheme Managers should have a small discretionary 'pot' of funds for those in urgent need of help, but not for a variety of reasons eligible for the schemes."
I completely endorse those recommendations, and hope that the Minister will take them seriously. The warm front scheme is an excellent one, but it needs to be examined again so that some extreme cases of fuel poverty, which are currently excluded for "rules are rules" reasons, are brought within its scope.
The warm front scheme deals with many people who are not in extreme fuel poverty, and people have flagged that up as a worry, but we should deal with whole areas where we know there is poverty. We know which are the most deprived wards in the country. Regrettably, several are in my constituency. I could take the Minister to some areas of my constituency and we could set a boundary in that deprived ward and work through it dealing with every household, instead of trying to pick out the ones that just qualify under the rules. Some
368WH
people would have had energy efficiency measures carried out in their properties, but I bet most of the people in those deprived areas would have qualified anyhow if they had been called on, or if they had called on the managers of the scheme. Energy action areas are an excellent idea, and rather than mess about with a scattergun approach, it might be better to identify the most deprived areas of Britain and treat them wholesale.
In the Housing Bill debate, I said that the new build standards of energy efficiency are very high, in both the private and the social housing sectors. I said, too, that although the decent homes standard is good, and I applaud the Government for their target of bringing all social sector housing to a decent standard by 2010, it is sad that according to the Government's figures people are still being left behind in fuel poverty. That cannot be right; it must mean that the decent homes standard is not addressing the energy efficiency measures under which homes in the private and social housing sectors should be brought up to the standard for new build in the building regulations.
The Government have some excellent schemes: for example, the decent homes standard, and the housing health and safety rating system, which is introduced in the Housing Bill and is a great improvement on the present system for the refurbishment of homes. The Housing Bill takes into account houses in multiple occupation, although there are difficulties with the definition of those, which we shall no doubt debate again on Report. The different programmes are operating in silos; the Government schemes appear to have no consistent approach to energy efficiency and reducing fuel poverty.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove hit on one of the difficulties when he said that there are too many Departments dealing with too many schemes, which leads to complications. That is not the Government's view. It may not be Labour party policy, but it is the Iddon policy that there should be an Energy Department and an Energy Minister, perhaps in the Cabinet, to bring schemes together, whether they come from the Department of Health, DEFRA, the DTI or the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The schemes should be given to one Minister with the political drive to get on with it, co-ordinate them and remove Britain from the embarrassing position of being low in the league when it comes to preventing hypothermia and deaths from fuel poverty. I am ashamed that in a bad winter in this new century so many people are still dying from hypothermia.
10.13 am
Mr. David Amess: I support the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and congratulate him on his good fortune in the ballot and on his eloquence.
I wholeheartedly support everything that the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) said; to summarise his closing remarks, he wanted joined-up government. As the promoter of the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, I am delighted that the Sustainable Energy Bill was enacted, but I am not entirely at ease with what has happened since.
I am delighted that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) is here today. I was a sponsor of his private Member's Bill and I can

369WH
empathise with him, and with other hon. Members who have promoted private Member's Bills, about the trials, tribulations and challenges of trying to put a Bill on to the statute book. I therefore congratulate the hon. Gentleman on promoting the Sustainable Energy Act 2003 and, following the wonderful briefing from the Association for the Conservation of Energy, everyone should support the hon. Member for Hazel Grove.
The Secretary of State is charged with setting an energy efficiency aim and taking reasonable steps to achieve it. I understand that Lord Whitty, with whom I dealt during the passage of my Bill, has given an assurance that the aim will be set after the Easter recess. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East and I know that we cannot rest on our laurels once we have been given ministerial reassurances, because Ministers come and go. However, it is the role of the civil service to advise Ministers, and hon. Members should be concerned about the Treasury's role in the matter.
I am delighted that the energy efficiency industry has sent an open letter to the relevant Secretaries of State. I hope that the Government will be impressed by, and will take notice of, the wonderful array of important people who have far more expertise than I pretend to have and who support the measure. I was intrigued to learn that the chief executive of Scottish Power, Ian Russell, was concerned about the Chancellor's failure to introduce in his recent Budget sufficient new measures to encourage consumers to be more energy efficient. He said that politicians need to work harder to drum the green agenda into consumers' hearts and minds. I do not believe that anything is more important than the environment and saving the planet, but the issue is not considered sexy at present. Perhaps we need people such as Britney Spears, Beyoncé, Jordan or my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), who speaks for the official Opposition today, to be associated with it. It is a great shame that young people do not consider this fundamental matter sexy. Members of Parliament know that the issue is not a huge vote winner at present. As soon as we start talking about the environment and energy-saving matters, everyone shrugs their shoulders and thinks, "Another boring technical speech", which is a shame. I hope that in his reply the Minister will say something to inspire our young people and the general population so that they regard the issue as sexy.
The then Environment Minister described increasing carbon emissions between 2002 and 2003 as "a blip". I very much agree with the plea of the chief executive of Scottish Power to Government Ministers. He believes that the Chancellor should have included major incentives for energy efficiency in his Budget and that the Government should be much more proactive in convincing consumers that energy efficiency is a good thing. He rightly said that people must be shown how to conserve energy and be given some fiscal incentive. He suggested, for example, that the Chancellor could introduce a lower rate of stamp duty for energy-efficient homes—I certainly support that—and that a penalty for persistent misusers of energy could be added later.
More than half the emission reductions needed to achieve the UK's carbon emission targets are expected to come from energy efficiency. I am a member of the
370WH
Health Committee, and have absolutely no doubt that many health problems are associated with environmental pollution. The incidence of brain tumours and asthma, for example, is increasing. There are many such illnesses, and I hope that the general public will become aware of their causes.

I am delighted that the Energy Saving Trust has revealed the huge potential for UK homes to become energy independent and self-sufficient by investing in renewable energy alternatives.
Brian White: Does not the investment climate dictate whether companies invest, and is that climate not affected by uncertainty about Government expectations and requirements? Industry has heard it all before, and is concerned that there has not been effective action. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the key to the matter is ensuring that the investment climate results in the introduction of measures that he identifies as necessary?
Mr. Amess:I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that the Minister will find time to respond to that point.
I note that Powergen intends to target 500,000 homes in an energy efficiency drive. It will spend a great deal of money on that work and will contribute to the Government's energy efficiency commitment. In response to the remarks of the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East about fuel poverty, there has been a great debate about how it should be defined, but we all know that it exists. Although Warm Front has been more successful than the home energy efficiency scheme that it replaced, the fact that more grants are being provided does not mean that fuel poverty is being eliminated. Many people remain unaware of the Warm Front scheme. As the hon. Gentleman said, there is no link between eligibility and energy efficiency in people's homes. I am disappointed by the take-up of the scheme; we need to be more proactive in promoting it to the general public.
The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East did us a huge service in introducing the Sustainable Energy Bill in Parliament. However, hon. Members cannot sit back and expect this Government, or any Government, to meet the aims of that measure. I hope that the Minister will give us a clear statement on the matter, in advance of what Lord Whitty might say after Easter.
10.22 am
Dr. Desmond Turner: Let us put the debate in context: the central driver in all energy policy should be the 60 per cent. saving of CO2 by 2050. So far, progress towards achieving that aim has not been impressive. We are in danger of fiddling while the planet burns.
There is a developing school of thought in the scientific community that the 60 per cent. target is insufficient, and that we should be looking at savings of at least 80 per cent. It behoves us, for the sake of future generations, to take effective action now, in addition to some of the more detailed considerations that we have discussed this morning. Otherwise our grandchildren or great grandchildren, if they are still alive, will not have

371WH
a good word to say for us, and they will be quite right because we will have abdicated our responsibility to future generations.
The Government have an important role to play. Britain is in a position—perhaps a unique one—to set an example to the world in energy policy. However, although I hate to have to say it about my own Government, we are not doing that effectively at present. The Minister may be able to offer suggestions as to why those difficulties are occurring, even under a Labour Government. I believe that part of the problem stems from the fact that four major Departments of State are involved in energy policy, and they do not cooperate as well as they should. There is a departmental silo over there and one down the road, and some of the people in those Departments, not necessarily the Ministers, look enviously at each other and guard their turf rather than putting their heads together and making coherent policy.
We are discussing provisions that are a continuation of some of those in my Home Energy Conservation Bill, which Members may remember ran into trials and tribulations similar to those referred to by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell). I do not care whether we call something a target, an aim or an aspiration; that is dancing on a head of a pin. What matters is that we act, and we need to see the setting out of clear aims, targets or aspirations, whatever we call them, and clear mechanisms for achieving them. It is that combination that will appease the energy conservation industry, which has stimulated this debate, and ultimately produce results.
We are still not doing anything that does not cost anything, which is strange. For instance, the Housing Bill will license houses in multiple occupation, which provide some of the worst housing and domestic energy conditions in the country. My constituency is full of old terrace houses with a SAP rating in single figures, let alone one of 40 or 50. Impoverished tenants are still sitting over single-bar electric fires, keeping an anxious eye on the meter and hoping that their money does not run out. We have the magnificent target of not only getting a quick fix on energy conservation, but helping immediately those in the worst fuel poverty. My Bill would have required minimum energy performance as a condition of registering HMOs. The Housing Bill does not include that provision, although I shall table an amendment on Report, and I hope that the Government will accept it. It was one of the most important motivations in wanting to license HMOs in the first place.
There are many other things that we are not doing. For example, 50 per cent. of our housing stock has solid walls, and we have no economic way of providing wall insulation. Do we invest any money in research and development into appropriate, affordable energy conservation measures for those walls? Not to the best of my knowledge—that was certainly true a year ago, when a director of the Building Research Establishment informed us that there was no investment in such research, even although it could yield an enormous dividend.
In the broader context of energy policy, the 20 per cent. saving of domestic energy by 2010, or of 5 million tonnes of carbon, is of the same order that we aspire to achieve by deploying renewable energy to 10 per cent. of
372WH
our output by 2010. If we consider the situation in terms of bangs per buck, we will find that we would get a far quicker return from effective domestic energy provision than from deploying renewable energy. However, in reality, we need to do both and we need to do them effectively.
That is why I am saddened that the provision in my Bill enabling the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to require local authorities to deliver domestic energy conservation targets, which was carried into the Sustainable Energy Bill, has not been implemented. It may seem trivial, but some of the people most effective in promoting energy conservation—in advertising the Warm Front scheme and ensuring that it works—are our local authority home energy conservation officers, or however they are described locally. We happen to have an excellent officer in Brighton. I know the work that those people do, and with minimal investment they can produce good results. We are not using that power, which was inserted as an adjunct and as an extra delivery mechanism to ensure that things happen.
Our problem is partly cultural. It is endemic in government, irrespective of party. We have a "can't do" administration culture, for reasons that always seem important to the person saying that they cannot do something but, if considered in the broader context, are trivial and easily overcome. If we can convert our current culture of "can't do" or "It will wait; it doesn't really matter that much" into one of "can do" and "It can't afford to wait", we can make an impact. We can then get on with the business of saving the planet, preventing fuel poverty and leaving an inheritance to our grandchildren.
10.31 am
Norman Baker: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) on his sharply observed comments and his forensic analysis of the situation. I concur with everything he said.
There are clear reasons why we should do more in Parliament and as a country to promote energy efficiency. Most of those reasons have been touched on. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) quite properly referred to fuel poverty and the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) referred to constituents huddled round one-bar fires. I have also seen such constituents, who have wind blowing in through inefficiently insulated windows, huddling round a fire unable to keep warm—and they have some of the higher fuel bills in my constituency. We must end that situation, which is unsatisfactory and unacceptable in the 21st century.
As my party's environment spokesman, I am predominantly concerned with climate change. As my hon. Friend mentioned, carbon dioxide emissions have increased in three years out of four. I am worried by what seems to be an underlying trend. With the switch from coal-fired to gas-fired generation, there was a one-off gain in the 1990s that led to significant reductions in carbon emissions. That has been banked and we are not seeing the further action necessary to reduce carbon emissions.
The Government have plans for renewable energy and they pay lip service to energy efficiency, but measures are not in place to meet the Government's

373WH
reduction target of 20 per cent. by 2010, let alone the 60 per cent. target, which, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown said, may be insufficient in itself.
On fuel security, the Government quite rightly say that we must be certain of our fuel sources in years to come. We are at the end of gas pipelines that supply us from a very long way away. Many people want their bite out of the gas supply before it reaches us, and that will increasingly be the case in the future. The best way to enhance our fuel security in a very uncertain future is to minimise our demand for fuel in the first place by encouraging energy conservation and efficiency. That would be a very efficient way of ensuring security and it would of course benefit the energy efficiency industry, as my hon. Friend said.
Why is it such an uphill struggle to push energy efficiency? There seems to be cross-party, local council and public support for it, yet we must continually push and push to get measures implemented. There are two main reasons for that. First, there is a psychological reason: people, whether they are Ministers, MPs, officials, council leaders or whoever, like to build things. That is how they measure their achievement. They want to see a power station or a wind farm for which they have been responsible, so that they can point to it and say, "I did that." It is much less satisfying, psychologically, to say, "I cut energy use." One cannot really point to that. It is the same in the case of road transport: people like to build things. They are not so keen on road traffic reduction, which is far more important in some ways. We have to get over that mindset.
The second reason was referred to by several speakers this morning: the chronic failure of Government to deal with energy in a cohesive and comprehensive way in one Department. That issue is not confined to energy. It was also the case with animal welfare during the last Parliament. I drew attention to that regularly, and the Government, to be fair, have now largely sorted out that problem. All animal welfare issues are now dealt with by DEFRA, and policy is much more coherent as a consequence. We want the same sort of response on energy.
My party has proposed a change to the departmental structure that would bring together energy, transport and environment matters in a comprehensive way. That would lead to the sorts of changes and benefits that all of us in this Chamber want. At the moment, there is a split between DEFRA, the DTI, the Treasury, the ODPM and No. 10, which no doubt has a finger in there somewhere. As a consequence, we do not have joined-up government, and we get the sort of contradictory statements that my hon. Friend read out earlier.
Brian White:Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the reasons we were able to pass the Act was that we could play Departments off against each other? If the matter was dealt with by one Department, it would probably not be on the statue book.
Norman Baker:That is an interesting historical perspective, but I hope that it is not being advocated as a way to deal with energy policy. I would rather have one
374WH
Department to nail down than a number of different Departments—with which such games can indeed be played.
As someone who shadows DEFRA, I say with absolutely no disrespect to the Minister or his DEFRA colleagues that it is deeply frustrating to be continually in debates where we have a real problem in Government with someone from DEFRA who is not actually responsible for creating the problem in the first place, and is unable to give a solution. The responsibility lies elsewhere, in the DTI, the Treasury or somewhere else in Government. It is a bit like complaining to the booking clerk at my local station that the train has been cancelled. He or she cannot do anything about it, and one should not complain to the clerk, but they are the only person one can complain to. The Minister is the only person we can complain to today.
One of the things that we have to do is give DEFRA a bit more clout. Poor old DEFRA: the DTI has the energy White Paper and the macho bit, with all the wind farms, and comments on nuclear power. Energy efficiency does not matter much, so it is given to DEFRA, which is one of the fundamental problems. With no disrespect to DEFRA and its Ministers, for whom I have a great deal of time, it would have been better to have a DTI or Treasury Minister here this morning. We could really get our teeth into them. I hope that the Minister will do his best to respond, and more importantly, take back the comments that have come from all three parties today to the DTI and the Treasury to ensure that they get the message. We want more Government action on this front.
I agree with the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown in the sense that whether we talk about a target or an aim is not terribly important in itself, but the Government tend to differentiate the meaning of such words, so it becomes important because of the way in which they respond to those words. When battles are lost, targets become aims, and when they are lost comprehensively, they become aspirations. We have found that in many aspects of Government activity.
There is a target to cut carbon emissions by 5 million tonnes by 2010. Will the Minister put it on the record, once and for all, with no equivocation, that that is the Government's target? Secondly, will he confirm that they have mechanisms to achieve that target, and spell out what those mechanisms are, so we can be confident that it will be achieved? That is what we want to hear from him today, and I hope that he will give those assurances.
Hon. Members have quite rightly referred to comments from industry. I want to refer to the comments from a number of pressure groups which, as the Minister will know, have written to the Government on the matter. The Campaign to Protect Rural England, Forum for the Future, Friends of the Earth, the Green Alliance, Greenpeace, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the WWF have sent a common statement to the Government. I would like to read out one paragraph:
"We express our view that it is of the utmost importance that the aim is, or includes, the achievement of 5MtC savings p.a. by 2010 from domestic energy efficiency. We say this because: unless this is set as a firm target the necessary measures to achieve it will not follow; this level of carbon savings is vital in order to ensure the achievement of the government's overall CO2 reduction

375WH
targets; if the aim does not include 5MtC savings p.a. by 2010 from domestic energy efficiency, the whole credibility of the recent Energy White Paper will be thrown into doubt."
There is a united front from pressure groups, from hon. Members of all parties in this Chamber, and from the public. We want to know what the problem is and when and how the Government will commit themselves unequivocally to achieving the target.
10.40 am
Miss Anne McIntosh: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) on securing this timely and important debate. I also recognise the contributions made by hon. Members from all parts of the Chamber. May I make a number of declarations? Clearly, I am not Britney Spears. In the short time available, my party was unable to secure her services, so the Chamber will have to make do with me this morning. I have modest interests in BP and Shell, and lived in a house with solar panels. Although time prevents me from commenting on the full scale of that disaster, I can say that I am not in a position to recommend their use without reservation. Perhaps we could explore that in a future debate.
I confess that I have sympathy with the Iddon policy of joined-up government, which I hope the Minister will also consider. The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) mentioned a number of the Departments involved: housing is in the remit of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; the Department of Trade and Industry is responsible for energy and played a major role in the Sustainable Energy Act 2003; and today, the DEFRA Minister, who is responsible for fisheries, is responding—more of that anon. It would be welcome if, as proposed by the Iddon policy, one lead Department in both Houses was responsible for energy policy.
It is fair to say that we would all subscribe to and be in favour of energy conservation measures, particularly in the home, just as we would favour motherhood and apple pie. The Government must address the question of how to achieve those aims: who will pay the price and what will the cost be? The average cost of a home in the Vale of York is £200,000. It is incumbent on the Government to set realistic targets, and it is clear from the debate that Government targets are elusive if not unrealistic.
In the early-day motion on greenhouse gas emissions, which several hon. Members present have signed, we recognised
"that the industry and the environment and fuel poverty sectors have all stressed the importance of the aim being the achievement of five megatonnes of carbon savings per annum by 2010 from household energy efficiency as specified in the Energy White Paper".
I know that the Minister has a bad back, but he should not be allowed to wriggle out of answering the question: do the Government still subscribe to that aim or have they dropped it?
On behalf of the official Opposition, I record our bitter disappointment that the Government's environmental record is failing and that greenhouse gas emissions have consistently increased. The Government have done precious little: they set targets but either fail to meet them or remove them entirely. The Government's obsession with wind farms has entirely
376WH
clouded their vision and precluded any other form of renewable energy. The Government have failed to support combined heat and power—only one serious operator remains, and they have not stated whether they will support that operator's plans to generate further combined heat and power. They are no nearer to reaching their target of more than doubling the amount of combined heat and power generation by 2010. That was set out as recently as 18 December 2003 in a written statement by the Minister for the Environment, and I record my disappointment at the situation.
Moreover, the Government have failed to eradicate fuel poverty, and energy suppliers have pushed up their prices. The Public Accounts Committee stated that the £500 million in grant spent on warm front—the Government's main initiative to eliminate fuel poverty among the most vulnerable—had failed to help those most in need. It said that only a third of grants had helped the fuel poor with low energy efficiency in their homes. We have heard a great deal about such situations in hon. Members' constituencies. A third of grants goes to households not living in fuel poverty, and a third of poorer households, which should benefit, have not been eligible for warm front grants.
Brian White:Is the hon. Lady seriously advocating that the grants should be removed from disabled people?
Miss McIntosh:Unfortunately, time does not allow me to elaborate on these points as I would like, but I shall pursue the point that the Government must accept that the grants have failed to reach the most vulnerable.
The Sustainable Energy Bill set the initial target of a 20 per cent. reduction in energy inefficiency by 2010. Can the Minister confirm that he will progress towards the main provisions of the Sustainable Energy Act 2003? If so, why have the Government delayed announcing their report under the Act and the White Paper until after Easter?
I shall dwell for a moment on a little book that was launched last week, which I am told will shortly reach the No. 1 spot on the bestsellers list—or at least it would if it were available for sale. It is the Liberal Democrats' little yellow book. In it, the Liberal Democrats come out as being even-handed: on the one hand they say one thing, and on the other they say another, both things being perfectly contradictory. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove used to be in favour of an energy tax, and page 21 of the little yellow book says that, in the alternative Budget of 8 March 2002, the Liberal Democrats called for the climate change levy to be replaced with
"a carbon tax, which falls on energy use according to its carbon content".
In effect, that would be a tax on all energy users, and everyone's gas, coal and electricity bills would increase, which would hit the most vulnerable and those on fixed incomes particularly hard. The tax would be European Union-wide and might even be set by the European Commission.
The Liberal Democrats also advocate VAT on new house building. VAT would be levied at between 5 and 7 per cent. on new homes. I shudder to think of the impact on average house prices in my constituency. In the vale of York, the average home costs £200,000 and

377WH
rising. I recommend the little yellow book, to which we shall return. I note that there has been no mention today of a carbon tax, so we shall wait to hear in future debates whether the Liberal Democrats have ditched that policy or will return to it.
Mr. Stunell:I am anxious to give the Minister time to respond to the debate and I do not want to enter a side argument, but I would be happy to give the hon. Lady a copy of the Liberal Democrats' energy policy paper passed at our conference last year. She will find it a complete answer to the questions that she has raised.
Miss McIntosh:Regrettably, time did not permit me to quote from the Liberal Democrat policies adopted last year, but we shall return to that.
We have had a very good, positive debate, and we now need commitments from the Government. What is their commitment to energy efficiency? Why has the announcement of the report under the Sustainable Energy Act 2003 and the White Paper been postponed until after Easter? Does the Minister still subscribe to producing 5 million tonnes of carbon savings per annum by 2010 by way of household efficiency savings, as set out in the energy White Paper? Has his or any other Department performed an audit to show how much carbon would be saved by the policy that we have discussed this morning?
I conclude with one positive point and a plea to the Minister. I hope that he will have more success with conserving energy than he has so far had with conserving fish.
10.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) on securing the debate and welcome the contributions made by him and other hon. Members. I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, who leads on energy in the House of Commons—as Lord Whitty does in the other place—as he is attending the United Nations global ministerial environment forum in South Korea.
The energy White Paper last year was a turning point for UK energy policy. For the first time, sustainability was put at the heart of this country's energy strategy. By announcing the goal of a 60 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by about 2050, with real progress by 2020, the Government showed that they were serious about making a long-term transition to a low-carbon economy. Those goals built on what was already an ambitious goal to reduce carbon emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010.
Hon. Members have expressed disappointment about the figures released last week showing a rise in emissions last year. That was caused by a higher than expected coal burn by the power generators. The Government take that very seriously and will use the review of the climate change programme later this year to look at how their climate change policies are delivering across all sectors and where they need to be strengthened.
378WH
However, it is worth reminding ourselves that this country, in contrast to most other countries that signed up to Kyoto, is on course to achieving its Kyoto commitments and is moving towards its national goals.
It is well known that there is the potential to improve energy efficiency by at least 30 per cent. across the economy. In the energy White Paper, the Government therefore identified energy efficiency as the major way in which we will meet our climate change goals in the short to medium term. Energy efficiency is expected to contribute more than half the total carbon savings to 2010 and in the following decade. We are talking about some 10 million tonnes of carbon savings by 2010 and a further 10 million by 2020. We expect about half of that to come from households.
The figure in the White Paper of 5 million tonnes, which has been cited today, was the Government's best estimate at that time of the savings that might be delivered by the policies and programmes set out in the climate change programme and further elaborated on in the energy White Paper. The figure was not presented as a target. The White Paper made it clear that the actual mix of measures needed in the future will be shaped by economic and technological developments.
Brian White:When we discussed the 2003 Act, one of the reasons why we talked about that figure was that it was equivalent to 20 per cent. That was specifically checked with officials at the time. That is why that figure was cited.
Mr. Bradshaw:I accept that, but the Government did not make a firm commitment to achieve specific levels of savings in any one sector. Hon. Members should also note that the figure of 5 million tonnes applies to the UK as a whole, whereas the aim required under the 2003 Act applies to England only. The equivalent figure for England would of course be lower.
Household energy efficiency has been improving steadily in recent years through the installation of central heating and improved insulation. Heat loss in the average dwelling was reduced by 31 per cent. between 1970 and 2001. During the 1990s, the average rate of efficiency improvement was around 1.4 per cent. a year, and that has increased further since then. However, I accept that we need to do better and we have a wide range of policies designed to achieve further substantial improvements.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove suggested that the energy efficiency industry in this country was stalled. I simply do not accept that. The building regulations, for example, are steadily driving up the standards of new and refurbished homes. A house built to 2002 standards uses about half the energy consumed in the average existing house.
Miss McIntosh:Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Bradshaw:No, I will not. The hon. Lady has made many diversions in this debate and has left me very little time to reply.
In the last amendment to the regulations, the provisions covering existing buildings were extended to include the replacement of windows and boilers in

379WH
dwellings. I welcome the efforts of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove to widen the scope of the regulations further still through his Sustainable and Secure Buildings Bill, which the Government support.
In the White Paper, the Government said that they aim to bring the next major revision of the building regulations into effect in 2005—some three years earlier than previously signalled—and that will improve standards yet more. Of particular importance will be the provisions requiring the use of only the most efficient A and B-rated boilers, which will come into effect in April 2005. We have also started a major new training programme designed to equip 70,000 installers with the skills needed to install those boilers and to advise consumers on high-efficiency heating systems.
In response to the points made by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), the sustainable buildings task group set up after the better buildings summit last year will make recommendations after Easter.
Through the energy efficiency commitment, energy suppliers are carrying out improvements to their customers' homes worth around £150 million a year. We will shortly be consulting on our proposal for the next phase of the energy efficiency commitment after 2005, and we expect those levels of activity roughly to double. Once high-efficiency boilers become mandatory under the building regulations next year, the main role of the commitment will be to promote the installation of insulation and high-efficiency appliances, and the EEC target will therefore provide a very firm signal to the industries concerned.
Our fuel poverty programmes, including the warm front grant scheme, will continue to support the installation of heating systems and insulation in the homes of the fuel poor. I hear the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) and I will reflect on his detailed and positive suggestions about how we might improve the warm front scheme. I will ask my noble Friend Lord Whitty to respond to him on the details.
380WH
My hon. Friend and other hon. Members also expressed concern about so-called silos in Government. Hon. Members constantly raise an issue about which they care deeply and wish that a single Minister was responsible. If we took on every single request, there would be hundreds of Ministers and hon. Members would not receive a better service. They fail to recognise that the Government are working through the new sustainable energy policy network, delivering joined-up government, and that all key Departments at ministerial and official level are involved.
The network is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the Secretaries of State for all other Departments concerned are involved. As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) said, there can be some advantages—I will not repeat the exact language that he used—in having different Departments with different priorities. One actually obtains a better deal than under the one that the Liberal Democrats are apparently advocating, in which we would have a single Minister responsible. That person would not be able to deliver what they were supposed to.
Several other programmes are furthering our energy efficiency aims: the decent homes programme, run by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; the Energy Saving Trust, which is funded by my Department; we have recently announced a major new energy services pilot; and several fiscal instruments were added to in the recent Budget.
As hon. Members have acknowledged, the Government will shortly be publishing their energy efficiency implementation plan, which will set out comprehensive measures to deliver the energy efficiency strategy contained in the White Paper. My Department has been developing it through the sustainable energy policy network. We will be setting such an aim to fulfil the requirements of the Sustainable Energy Act and the White Paper. It is our current intention to include an aim for the household sector within the energy efficiency implementation plan, and for that aim to be consistent with the measures that the plan contains.

Heavy Goods Vehicles
11 am
Mr. Andrew Mackay: May I first through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, thank the Speaker for allowing me to initiate this debate? I welcome the attendance of my old friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), and I am pleased that he will respond to this short debate.
In a conciliatory spirit, I put it to the Minister that there are many matters on which we agree, including the importance of improving safety on our roads. An analysis of the events in Madrid only a couple of weeks ago showed that as horrific, wrong and dreadful as that terrorist act was, the number of people who perished and the larger number who were maimed were not nearly as high as the number of people who die on roads in Spain or, for that matter, in this country. That is not to diminish that appalling terrorist atrocity, but it puts in perspective how much more we all have to do to ensure that our roads are safe and that casualty figures continue to fall.
Heavy goods vehicles represent about 1.4 per cent. of the traffic on our roads, yet they are involved in 15.5 per cent. of accidents that result in fatal casualties. I expect that, like me, hon. Members find those figures startling, but they get worse. Occupants of heavy goods vehicles represent 8 per cent. of the total casualties, whereas the occupants of vehicles that collide with a heavy goods vehicle account for 26 per cent. of casualties on our roads. It is therefore fair to say that anything that realistically can be done to improve the safety of heavy goods vehicles, such as my proposal to ensure that they are more conspicuous, would hugely benefit road safety and save lives.
I recall the days when there were no reflective number plates, and I am sure that the Minister does so too. In the days when we were both involved in Solihull politics, number plates were black and white. It was startling when reflective number plates were introduced in the late 1960s, largely by the 3M corporation, which has its UK headquarters in my Bracknell constituency. Hon. Members may recall a time when there was no reflective tape on the back of heavy goods vehicles, but now we all benefit from that at night. If we drive up behind a heavy goods vehicle that has broken down on a quiet road, our headlights pick it up much earlier than would otherwise be the case.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe regulation 104 suggests that reflective tape should be put on the sides of heavy goods vehicles. A significant number of accidents occur at night or in bad weather conditions, when drivers simply fail to spot the heavy goods vehicles sideways on, with the consequent accident and casualties that I mentioned earlier. For reasons that are not entirely apparent from my correspondence with the Minister, the Government have chosen not to implement regulation 104, although it has been implemented in Italy. A similar regulation has been implemented in Russia and America, where it has led to a 17 per cent. reduction in casualties and accidents involving heavy goods vehicles. The prize is therefore huge, and many far-sighted companies, such as Marks and Spencer, Sainsbury's and the John Lewis
382WH
Partnership, have voluntarily added reflective tape to their vehicles. That is marvellous, but we cannot rely on community-spirited companies. We should move towards all heavy goods vehicles having retro-reflective tape on the sides of their vehicles.
I have corresponded with the Minister in an attempt to persuade him of the need for such a provision. In his reply of 28 November 2003 last year, he was good enough to say:
"We are aware of the conspicuity benefits of retro-reflective tape, which can be used to outline the shape of large vehicles, using red to the rear and yellow to the side."
I am pleased that he recognises the strength of the case, but he went on to say that as regulation 104
"does not mandate the fitment of that tape to vehicles"
the Government have decided that at this stage they do not want to implement it in our country, which is a great pity. The Minister referred to a Loughborough university research and cost benefit study which states that
"mandating retro-reflective side and rear markings on new heavy goods vehicles in the UK would"
cost
"£12 million, while the expected benefits would amount to £6 million."
That was worrying, and sent a shiver down my spine. I am not sure how the Minister can place a value on dead and maimed people, but I should have thought that the price of saving so many lives was well worth paying.
I am by nature a deregulator rather than a regulator, so there must be special circumstances for me to call for additional regulation. I need, for example, to be satisfied that the cost is not disproportionate. The cost of putting tape along the sides of an average heavy goods vehicle is £100, which might be a lot of money to you and me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if we were fitting tape on our own cars, but as the cost of a heavy goods vehicle costs is approximately £100,000 it is hardly a major financial burden on hauliers and companies with such vehicles. There is no reason whatever for not implementing the regulation.
In his letter, the Minister said:
"We are aware that the Italian government have proposed to mandate the fitment of ECE R104 retro-reflective tape to heavy goods vehicles registered in Italy. At the moment there is some doubt as to whether they have the legal powers to do this. Vehicle lighting and signalling equipment on new vehicles is harmonised throughout Europe and currently R104 tape is 'optional' under type approval: thus it is at the vehicle manufacturer's discretion whether or not to fit it. National governments cannot impose extra requirements on a vehicle which has been correctly type approved."
The Minister is nodding, but I am not sure that the rest of us buy that argument. The implication is that vehicle manufacturers alone can fit retro-reflective tape, and that if regulation 104 were made mandatory here it would be their responsibility to ensure that compliant materials were fitted before delivery. That is incorrect. Retro-reflective tape is easy to fit and can normally be done by end users themselves, as is the case with the companies that fit it voluntarily.
The Minister went on to say:
"Vehicle lighting and signalling equipment on new vehicles is harmonised throughout Europe".

383WH
Consequently, neither Italy nor the UK could act unilaterally. That is questionable, to say the least, as there are already instances where the UK imposes stricter provisions on safety markings for domestically registered vehicles while still complying with EU and UN type approval legislation. It is the responsibility of the end user, rather than the manufacturer, to ensure that additional provisions are met, because there is a distinction between type approval and domestic vehicle requirements. The Minister will be well aware of that distinction.
A pertinent example is "Long Vehicle" marker boards, as described in UNECE regulation 70. The boards are mandatory for vehicles registered in the UK, but not in other EU countries such as Germany. The vehicle type, for example, a particular type of Volvo truck, is approved under the appropriate regulations, but the UK imposes an additional requirement before an end user can register the vehicle in the UK. That seems perfectly reasonable, and a similar arrangement could apply to retro-reflective tape. I put it to the Minister that, happily, a precedent has already been set.
If regulation 104 were made mandatory in the UK the vehicle type would be approved in the same way, but to register such a vehicle the end user would have to ensure that it was fitted with the appropriate retro-reflective material. As I have already mentioned, that would cost no more than £100 a vehicle. Such an initiative would not prevent vehicles from other countries fro being allowed on UK roads, and would not contravene any EU trade legislation, so there is no good reason why we should not proceed.
Occasionally, the Minister and I gently clash about the issue of speed cameras in parliamentary questions. Far more lives would be saved by introducing a measure on retro-reflective tape than by siting speed cameras in the wrong place, such as, I strongly believe, the Heathrow airport exit. I would be out of order if I pursued that argument very much further so, as the Minister firmly believes in road safety, I urge him to implement regulation 104 as soon as possible. That is in everybody's best interests, and people who own and operate heavy goods vehicles have nothing to fear from the regulation.
11.13 am
Peter Bottomley: With the approval of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) and the Minister, I should like to make a brief contribution. I am at fault for not tackling the problem, because 18 years ago, I proposed a regulation to fit sidelights on vehicles. That regulation could have dealt with the problem of the visibility of long heavy goods vehicle when crossing the path of approaching traffic.
My right hon. Friend has made the case for fitting reflective tape to the sides of vehicles. I expect that the Minister will say that to make that mandatory straight away would not be the best way to make progress. If the initiative is to be of value, it should be taken up with the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe and made a Europe-wide proposal. I hope that today's debate will stimulate every operator of new and old vehicles to put yellow reflective tape on the sides of their vehicles and red tape on the back. That would represent
384WH
progress, and I wish the Minister well in trying to get international agreement on introducing the measure as a mandatory Europe-wide provision.
11.15 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport: First, I congratulate the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) on securing this important debate, and I agree with the general thrust of what he and the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) said. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that we are old friends who go back a long time; I first debated with him nearly 40 years ago. I always used to win those debates and I shall be equally convincing today, so I hope that he will not be too disappointed.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he is a keen deregulator, but I will avoid making the obvious joke—this is an example of him trying to increase the use of red tape. However, I am grateful to him for raising some important points on the use of retro-reflective tape on heavy goods vehicles to make them more conspicuous. I listened carefully to his arguments and I have re-examined our correspondence on the matter. We are in agreement on heavy vehicle safety. The Government take that matter seriously—it is an important part of our road safety strategy.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that road safety is extremely important to me and to my Department, as it has been to many other Ministers over a great number of years. We are making good progress on our road safety strategy, as set out first in "Tomorrow's roads—safer for everyone", which contains casualty reduction targets to be achieved by 2010.
Total deaths and serious injuries were down 17 per cent. in 2002, which is nearly halfway to our 40 per cent. target. Child deaths and serious injuries were down 33 per cent. in 2002, which is two thirds of the 50 per cent. target for 2010. However, that is no reason for complacency, even though those figures probably rank with the best in the world. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned several other countries, including Italy, Spain and Russia, which have substantially worse road safety records than we do.
The number of accidents involving heavy goods vehicles is high, but that too is falling. In 2002, 13,480 heavy goods vehicles were involved in injury accidents compared with 14,417 in 1993. That is a 6 per cent. fall in injury accidents over 10 years during which heavy goods vehicle traffic increased by 16 per cent. The rate of casualties related to heavy goods vehicles is falling dramatically, as it is in other areas of road transport. In the five years from 1997 to 2002, the numbers killed and seriously injured in accidents at night involving heavy goods vehicles also fell by 15 per cent. However, that is no reason for complacency, although things are clearly going in the right direction.
We have taken a number of other measures, such as extending the requirement for anti-lock braking systems to all vehicles and trailers over 3.5 tonnes. We have also introduced regulations making front under-run guards for new heavy goods vehicles compulsory, in addition to the safety guards already fitted to the sides and rear of heavy vehicles and trailers.

385WH
We have also been putting considerable effort and money into helping the road haulage industry to train the people that it needs to meet its requirements. About £8 million from the road haulage modernisation fund has been invested in training to help the industry to meet its future labour and skills needs.
Turning to the specific issues, the right hon. Gentleman raised some good points. I hope to be able to put my response in a context that may bring some comfort to him in the long term, although perhaps not in the short to medium term. I share the concerns that he raised about the conspicuity of large vehicles. He will know that, since 1973, retro-reflective long vehicle marker plates have been required on all new vehicles over 7,500 kg and trailers over 3,500 kg.
From 1991, vehicles more than 6 m long have had to have side marker lamps and side retro reflectors to make them more conspicuous from the side, and end outline marker lamps to show the height and width of the vehicle from behind. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned measures taken in the United States, where there has been a 17 per cent. reduction in casualties and accidents involving heavy goods vehicles. Some measures taken by the UK did not prevail in the United States; our vehicles were more conspicuous because of measures other than the use of tape.
When the new standard for retro-reflective tape was developed, we recognised that its use might offer further road safety benefits. In 1997, the Department commissioned research to establish how best to use retro-reflective and fluorescent materials on large vehicles. In particular, the research considered tape conforming to regulation 104, a specification for reflective tape agreed in the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, which regulates the technical requirements of vehicles. The regulation controls the physical properties of the tape—qualities such as its colour, how much light it reflects, dimensions, resistance to external agents and so on. It also contains guidelines on how the tape should be mounted on the vehicle, outlining its shape.
The Department's research on retro-reflective tape was one element of a larger project involving motor vehicle and pedal cycle conspicuity, which was carried out by the Ergonomics and Safety Research Institute at Loughborough university. The research showed that some accidents are due to the low conspicuity of vehicles or the poor perception of drivers as they approach a large vehicle, which retro-reflective tapes can improve by increasing the luminance contrast at night. However, fluorescent materials are more appropriate during the day.
The cost-benefit analysis prepared as part of the overall assessment showed that the estimated annual cost to the haulage industry of marking new heavy goods vehicles would be about £12 million, which was set against estimated savings of about £6 million. All deaths and injuries are important and we must concentrate our energy and resources on the best means of reducing casualties, focusing our finite resources where they will have the most impact. The report is available in the Library.
386WH
Our research was completed in 1998, so there are good arguments for re-doing the cost-benefit analysis and I agree that there is scope to do so. However, improving the visibility of heavy duty vehicles is included the European road safety action programme. The European Commission is carrying out research on the effectiveness of retro-reflective material, which will take about a year. Its research includes an assessment of costs and benefits, so it makes more sense to wait for the results before deciding whether we need to do anything more.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Italian proposal to require vehicles and trailers over 3.5 tonnes registered in Italy to be fitted with tape on the rear and the sides. It is part of a package of measures that the Italian Government are considering to tackle Italy's road casualty problems. That country already has requirements for heavy vehicles similar to those in the UK, but Italy has a much higher accident rate and I can understand why its Ministers want to take action.
To illustrate the scale of the problem, there were 11.1 road deaths per 100,000 of the population in Italy in 2000 whereas in the United Kingdom the figure was 6.1 per 100,000. That is a substantial number less. Total road deaths in Italy in 2000 were 6,410 and in the UK the figure was 3,598, so road casualty levels in this country are much lower than in Italy, probably even for heavier vehicle usage. While Italy has strong reasons for wishing to take this action, there is some doubt as to whether it can do so unilaterally.
Since I wrote my letter to the right hon. Gentleman in June 2003, the UNECE position has changed. It did so as recently as 28 February and it is now an optional provision for type approval. A member state cannot refuse to register a vehicle that has type approval in another EU state. Member states cannot unilaterally mandate that, as it could constitute a barrier to trade. There has been some confusion about that, but it has been cleared up by the European Commission. If the right hon. Gentleman wants more information on that and some detail, I am happy to correspond with him.
I have been asked how we can have mandated for so many years that marker boards be fitted on the rear of trucks but cannot now unilaterally mandate on retro-reflective tape. It might help the House's understanding if I explain that the rules are different. This is a complicated topic, but I will do my best to give an outline of why we can include one requirement in our national law but not the other.
The situation hinges on Economic Commission for Europe regulation 48, which concerns the installation of lights and signalling devices. That has been changed in the last month or so to include an optional provision for reflective tape. It makes no mention of the marker boards. They are covered by ECE regulation 70. The subtle difference in those regulations permits national Governments to set their own requirements. That is what we do in the United Kingdom. I believe that most other member states take the same position.
Germany recently made a proposal to the UNECE working group on vehicle lighting to allow countries to make the fitting of regulation 104 tape mandatory for type approval of new heavy goods vehicles weighing more than 12 tonnes. That would mean manufacturers having to fit the vehicles with a tape to be allowed to sell them in those countries. It makes sense for Germany to

387WH
make that proposal, as it does not apply the regulation for rear marker boards. Clearly it has much to gain from requiring conspicuity markings to the rear of heavy vehicles, but it starts from a lower baseline than we do, so the safety case is easier for it to justify.
We will consider the new UNECE proposals carefully and examine how they will affect our vehicle manufacture and haulage industries. As well as questions on the safety benefit, there are practical concerns, such as the difficulty with mounting the tape on unusually shaped vehicles without flat surfaces—for example, petrol tankers, cement mixers, cranes and car transporters.
So, as I am sure the House appreciates, we need to discuss the German proposal with United Kingdom stakeholders before we decide whether to support it. However, I assure to the right hon. Gentleman that, if we feel that that could bring genuine road safety benefits, of course it will have our full support.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the cost of fitting the retro-reflective tape. My Department's research shows that the cost is about £150 for materials, but there is a further cost for fitting. We have had representations from the industry—for example, the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association; he probably knows the latter. Returning again to Solihull, his old pal Roger King may have a different view from the right hon. Gentleman. He may want to catch up with an old pal and have a discussion, perhaps over a little noggin somewhere, to see whether he can come to an accommodation with him as well.
This has been a useful debate on an important subject. If there is any matter that I have not covered in full, I shall, as always, be most pleased to correspond with the right hon. Gentleman.
11.29 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

UK Olympic Bid (2012)
2 pm
Mr. Eric Joyce: I want to speak about the bid to bring the 2012 Olympics to the United Kingdom. A lot has been said in this place and in the main Chamber about the bid, and that is quite right, because it is of great significance in itself. If successful, it will have implications that will keep this place and the main Chamber busy for many hours from now until 2012 and, no doubt, beyond. I have read previous speeches on the subject and will endeavour to avoid repeating points that have already been raised.
I believe that if the state is to commit itself to hosting an event such as the Olympic games, it must do so on the basis that all parts of the UK must benefit, directly or indirectly. The games must, of course, be held substantially in one place, although some events can be dispersed. Rowing, for example, will be held at the world-class Eton Dorney facility, and football will be held across the UK, including in Glasgow and Cardiff. Much of the benefit will, of course, come to the London area, but it is important to note that there will be significant spin-offs across the UK for tourism, building contracts, extensions to building contracts and the whole chain that relates to the games.
I want mainly to talk today about the sports communities—not just in competitive sport, but those existing in all communities—that would benefit considerably from a successful bid, providing that those responsible for managing it proceed with sensitivity to the need to spread the benefits as widely as possible. I am glad to hear from London 2012 Ltd., the company responsible for putting the bid together, that such sensitivity to the reliance of the bid on taxpayers across the whole UK is to the fore in its mind.
Mr. Graham Stringer: Does my hon. Friend accept, in the nicest possible way, that the title for this debate is technically a misnomer, because the bid is in the name of London and the British Olympic Association and not the United Kingdom? Does he agree that, in order to obtain the support of the whole UK, the British Olympic Association and the Government should had followed the practice of other countries of opening the nominations for the British competitor city to the whole UK? Not having done that has divided the country in many ways, because people think that something given to London, without allowing other cities to compete, is unfair.
Mr. Joyce:I recognise entirely what my hon. Friend says: he is extremely knowledgeable on the subject. My understanding—I shall say more about this later—is that the criteria drawn up by the International Olympic Committee are such that London is the only city in the UK that is likely to succeed. Although I recognise that other hon. Members whose constituencies are in large cities would naturally want to argue for their cities, I must recognise that Falkirk is unlikely to be a successful bidder for the 2012 Olympics. That is a harsh fact of life, and I must resign myself to it.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I confirm what my hon. Friend has just said? The IOC made it clear that the only bid city from this country that it would entertain was London. Manchester and Birmingham have tried unsuccessfully before, and the BOA made it clear it would only put forward a London bid. It is not a bias towards the metropolis; it is a fact of life that the IOC would only entertain a London bid, and we must accept that.
Mr. Joyce:I agree: it is simply a fact of life and we must proceed from that position. That is where we find ourselves now; sadly, the Falkirk Olympics remain on the theoretical books—
Chris Bryant: On hold.
Mr. Joyce:On hold, for a little longer, until we expand the town.
The bid team is establishing a nations and regions support group, which will meet for the first time this May. That is an important development.
Mr. Stringer:As ever, I have been listening carefully to my hon. Friend and following the logic of his argument. However, he should consider the cities that have hosted the Olympic games since the second world war, the slight majority of which have not been capital cities. Furthermore, I have never found an official statement from the International Olympic Committee saying that it will accept a bid only from London. He said that there will be many debates on the subject, so will he bring us that categorical statement of IOC policy either today or in another debate?
Mr. Joyce:I cannot bring that categorical statement. I proceed from the assumption that the bid is being made in the name of London, and that is just the way it is. The evidence may be given in future debates, and I strongly suspect that that will happen, but it is not something that I can do today.
Each nation and region will nominate someone from the business world and another from the sporting world to represent it on the support group. The group will be chaired by Charles Allen, who is the vice-chair of London 2012 Ltd. and one of this country's leading business people. The group will advise on how best to link the bid to regional businesses and sports networks, and it will create a new platform to develop the ways in which the UK as a whole can benefit from bringing the games to London. That will include exploring opportunities for commercial contracts, for locations such as universities to benefit by providing bases for pre-Olympic training camps and for venues to attract major sporting events in the run-up to the games.
As far as I can see from its remit, the nations and regions support group will not consider the knock-on effects of the games, but some benefits will accrue. A successful bid will lead to world-class facilities, which we could reasonably expect many sports to take advantage of for years to come. In addition, a successful bid may assist Glasgow's chances of staging the 2014 Commonwealth games, in which the city has declared its interest. Its councillors are meeting today with a view to developing the bid. Not that anyone would want it, but
390WH
even an unsuccessful Olympics bid could bring advantages. Manchester's unsuccessful bid for the Olympics led to an enormously successful Manchester Commonwealth games, and similarly, if the council decides to go ahead, a Glasgow bid for the 2014 Commonwealth games could benefit.
I understand the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer), but if not in name, the bid is effectively by the UK as a whole—it is a Great Britain and Northern Ireland bid.
Chris Bryant:One difficulty with the legacy is that it will all be in London, although there may be earlier benefits elsewhere. Another point is that the IOC has a habit of making exaggerated demands on countries that hold the Olympics. For instance, Athens has been told that it must have a legacy stadium of 10,000 seats for baseball and basketball, two games that are hardly played in Greece.
Mr. Joyce:That is interesting, as I was not aware of that. However, I cannot quibble with the criteria laid down by the IOC because I do not know enough about the detail. It is inevitable that a substantial proportion—if not the majority—of the economic, developmental and regenerational benefit will accrue to the largest conurbation in the country. That is a fact of life. If we want to bring the Olympics to the UK, there are some things that go without saying, and that is why it is important that we spread whatever benefits as widely as we can. I suspect that there will be upgrades to sporting facilities such as football stadiums, and we must consider that they will be of significant benefit to the communities affected.
Mr. Andy Reed: Places such as Loughborough university will benefit from the location of one of the major sporting teams because of the facilities that we already have and the extra income that will be generated. Some of the facilities will need upgrading by then, and the legacy will not be coincidental: it will flow from ensuring that places outside London play their part. Many of my constituents will be very interested in volunteering, and I hope that my hon. Friend will address that as well.
Mr. Joyce:Indeed. I will come to that in due course. My hon. Friend is taking most of my speech away, so I will not reply to him immediately or I will run out of words and deliver it in the wrong order. He is right: there are many ways in which the rest of the country can benefit. Those of us who represent constituencies outside London must consider ways in which we will benefit, rather than concentrate too much on the fact that the largest conurbation will be a significant beneficiary.
The Government and the British Olympic Association made it clear that the criteria set by the IOC mean that London is the only city that could be a successful British bidder. Even then, we know from coverage of the subject in the press and elsewhere that competition will be very fierce.
Political, business and sporting leaders from across the UK have been vocal in their support of the London bid. Scotland's First Minister, Jack McConnell, has

391WH
confirmed his support for the 2012 bid. In doing so, he noted that Scotland would benefit in many ways from a successful bid.
The bid may attract additional tourists who would be likely to attend part of the Olympics and take in some other part of the UK while they are here. They could do no better than to visit the Falkirk wheel, one of Scotland's most visited and excellent tourist attractions. It is increasingly the reason why many people visit Scotland, and by remarkably good fortune, it happens to be in the middle of my constituency. It has been suggested that the high diving could take place from the top, which is 130 ft high, but I suspect that the canal at the bottom is too shallow for that.
In confirming his support for the Olympic bid, the First Minister also drew attention to the first-rate facilities that already exist in Scotland, to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) has already alluded. Those facilities include the swimming centre of excellence at Stirling university. It is not in my constituency, but it is only 20 minutes away and a place of work and study for many of my constituents. Other facilities include the national rowing academy recently opened at Strathclyde Park. They could readily be used as pre-Olympic training camps.
Scotland would of course host Olympic football events. I realise that Members may wish to challenge this point, but it would seem odd if Scotland were to host an Olympic football event and there was no UK team involved. It is a contentious issue, and the Scottish Football Association, the Football Association and the British Olympic Association have proposed various ways round it: one would be that the winners of a home international represent Britain. I am not sure about that. Another would be a select UK team. There are several ways of dealing with it, but it would be peculiar not to have a UK team. That is not to force the idea on the FA and the SFA, however, because I believe that the last time it happened was 1960.
Chris Bryant:As a Welshman representing a Welsh seat, I wholly concur with the view that there should be a UK football team. I am sure that there will be a football match in the millennium stadium, which is a fine stadium—probably the best in the land. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that we should go in that direction rather than in the direction that some wild, woolly nationalists have argued, namely that we should have separate Welsh, Scottish and English teams for athletics, cycling, swimming and everything else.
Mr. Banks:The IOC would never accept that.
Mr. Joyce:I agree entirely. There are separate football associations and identities for international football, but that would not be acceptable to the IOC.
Scotland, much like other parts of the United Kingdom, has a proud history of welcoming visitors from around the world with warmth and friendliness and I am confident that athletes and spectators from participating Olympic countries would find Scotland an excellent place for preparation and tourism. Politicians in Westminster and in Scotland have expressed Scotland's desire to welcome athletes, although we recognise that it would be a matter of competing with
392WH
locations not simply in England but in sunny places such as the south of France where African athletes might find it more pleasant to be in the run-up to the games. Nevertheless, we have the facilities and we must ensure that that is on the record.
I want to mention the effect of a successful Olympic bid on sport in and around my constituency, which is in Scotland's central belt. I am aware that many issues concerning sport are devolved to the Scottish Executive and that anything concerning the national lottery is, theoretically, reserved. There is a danger of getting into a mire if I go into too much technical detail about particular sports, but sport is as much a part of Scottish national life as it is a part of Welsh national life and, I am sure, of English and Irish national life. It is fair to flag up the importance that sport plays in Scotland as well as the rest of the UK.
In many respects, the important impact of sport in our constituencies comes from the community effect, not from the high-level competing. Many people in our constituencies take part in sport daily and look to the highest level of performance for their inspiration. Many Olympic sports are essentially community sports.
Pete Wishart: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will start to discuss how the Olympics will be financed, which will be from lotteries. Does he share Scotland's concern that its slice of £41.8 million to pay for the London Olympics will set back the regeneration of sport in Scotland by 20 years?
Mr. Joyce:I shall come to funding presently, although I realise that time is ticking on. The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with him, but I do not necessarily disagree with all that Sport Scotland says, and I recognise that there will be a burden on taxpayers. I shall try to respond to his comment in context, if I may.
Community sports that are also Olympic sports include gymnastics, judo, hockey and basketball, and one can find people taking part in those sports in sports halls in our constituencies on any night of the week.
I shall speak about judo, which has a noble history in the Olympics. In Scotland, it is run under the auspices of Sport Scotland, but it is a BOA sport and ties in with the British Judo Association. In fact, it delivered one third of all the medals that Scotland won in the last Commonwealth games. Scotland and the UK are becoming very successful in that sport, and its main base is its many community clubs throughout the UK.
In Scotland, there are 110 judo clubs, and the 10,000 members, the majority of whom are children, and their parents, keep the sport alive. Volunteers usually work for nothing, and the officials who run judo organisations usually do so for very modest reimbursement. As young people grow older, there is a trend for them to be attracted away from their particular sport, and from sport in general, by more sedentary activities. That is a pity for national life, and one of the benefits of holding the Olympic games in the UK is that the exciting, flashy side of sports, which may rarely be seen, is brought into their own backyard. That will encourage people to stay in sport, particularly in my sport, in which there is a serious drop-off rate before people reach early adulthood.

393WH
More countries are members of the International Judo Federation than of the United Nations. That should remind us of the effect that sport has in connecting people from different countries and communities. It makes people in our constituencies, who might not normally think about international issues, more aware of what is going on around the world. That is another reason why community sports should be at the forefront of our minds.
Sport Scotland, in common with its regional counterparts in the UK, has said, as the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) said, that an Olympic bid could draw resources away from other areas of sport in Scotland—the Minister may wish to respond to that. I think that, in return for the benefits to the UK and to Scotland of holding the Olympics in Britain, we should all take an element of the risk and cost. All sports would benefit, to the extent that it justifies their taking an element of the risk that will be largely borne south of the border.
Pete Wishart:I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Surely, with an ever dwindling pot, the money should fund community resources, proper sporting tuition and a community infrastructure so that young people participate in sports, especially given the lifestyle and obesity problems in Scotland. That money should not go into infrastructure projects in London. The Olympics may make people interested in sport, but would the money not be better spent on community resources?
Mr. Joyce:I think that the hon. Gentleman has a particular agenda—his raison d'être is to stress the importance of independence and separation and he thinks that decisions on funding should be made on that basis. I think he finds it difficult to swallow not that the Olympics might be staged south of the border—he probably views that in the same way as if they were staged in Paris or elsewhere—but that many athletes will compete with enormous pride wearing a Great Britain and Northern Ireland vest, shirt or swimsuit, and that millions of people, north and south of the border, will proudly support them. I think that it sticks in the craw of Scottish and Welsh nationalists that people are enormously proud to be British on these occasions. That is a fact of life, and all is can say to him is that he might be happier if he switched political parties.
Mr. Don Foster: Is not the answer to the concern of the hon. Member for North Tayside that however much additional funding we would all welcome for community sport, it is largely run by volunteers? As a result of holding the Olympics in this country, the enthusiasm, interest and participation of young people in those community sports activities will be massively boosted. That will help to tackle the obesity problem that he referred to.
Mr. Joyce:I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman's wise words.
The UK is undoubtedly the spiritual home of the Paralympics, which are a wondrous display of physical and mental determination in sport, and we probably say
394WH
too little about them in debates such as this. Although the UK is a leader in the development and promotion of sport for the differently abled and in the medals haul, holding the games will lead to UK Paralympic athletes garnering a larger than usual haul of medals—there is evidence that holding the Olympics leads to winning more medals. It will also provide additional inspiration to those of differing abilities, who sometimes feel that participating in sport is beyond them. In short, I believe that the UK and its Paralympic athletes deserve the opportunity to showcase the advancement of Paralympic sport in 2012.
I shall conclude by repeating my key points for my right hon. Friend the Minister, and I hope that she can respond to them in her winding-up speech. I want to be confident that the bid team and the Government are making a major effort to ensure that the benefits are, wherever possible—we must recognise that there are limits—spread throughout the UK and our community sports. I would also like the Minister to comment on university sport, which I have not mentioned, but which feeds into the mainstream and is sometimes a little underfunded. We have heard of marvellous facilities at Loughborough, Stirling, Bath and Sheffield, but in other parts of the country, university sport is not always as well funded as it might be. I also stress the role of the Paralympics, which are sometimes a bit of a Cinderella issue in these debates.
2.26 pm
Pete Wishart: I congratulate the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) on securing what I think is the third debate in as many months on what I will refer to as the London Olympic bid, which is a much more appropriate description. I have managed to speak in most of the debates, although I concede that my contribution has not been the most popular or well received one. That is probably because I have been prepared to challenge the cosy consensus that suggests that a London Olympics will be good for London and for the rest of the United Kingdom. That contention is at least challengeable. The Olympic bid will be good for London because—
Mr. Nick Hawkins: As the hon. Gentleman says, those of us who are fans of sport are used to his relentlessly negative comments on behalf of his party. May I put a challenge to him? If another Olympic country suddenly announced that it wanted to use his constituency of North Tayside as its training base, would he suddenly appear in all his local newspapers saying that he had always been in favour of the 2012 Olympic bid?
Pete Wishart:If any Olympic country were prepared to come to Pitlochry, Dunkeld or Forfar, I would be delighted to answer the hon. Gentleman's question, but that is not the point that I have been consistently trying to make in these debates, as he will appreciate.
I have been prepared to challenge the cosy assumption that a London Olympics will he good for London and for the rest of the UK. We know that the Olympics will be good for London, because the Government commissioned the engineering consultants Arup to consider the issue. The benefits for London will be substantial and significant. I do not know what the

395WH
impact will be on the rest of the UK but, when I assess the losses and gains on the balance sheet, I see more losses than gains.
It would take more than the first round of an unlamented football competition and the possible use of some of our facilities by international teams to convince me otherwise, because the loss is quite significant and quite tangible. It is all about the way in which it is proposed to pay for a London Olympic games. They will be paid for with £1.5 billion of lottery funding, but lottery funding is for the good causes, charities and grass-roots sports in each and every one of our constituencies. That is an unacceptable way to pay for a London Olympics.
I feel vindicated in questioning that approach, because I have read the interesting report by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport that comes to the same conclusion. In fact, it goes further than I have ever gone in a speech about a London Olympics. It states:
"We regard the £1.5 billion earmarked by the Government as the Lottery's overall contribution to the Olympics as a straightforward raid."
Chris Bryant:As a member of the Select Committee, I should perhaps explain exactly what we meant by that statement. We are earnest supporters of the Olympic bid, but many of us would like the country to pay through taxation rather than the lottery. That does not mean, however, that we believe that Britain should not be saying yes to a London bid.
Pete Wishart:I appreciate that that is the sentiment of the Select Committee, but a straightforward raid is a straightforward raid. I hope that the Minister listened to the hon. Gentleman's intervention, because what he mentioned would be a much more appropriate way to pay for the Olympics. It is unacceptable that the good causes, charities and grass-roots sports in my constituency should pay for infrastructure projects in central London.
The Select Committee's report is very interesting, balanced and rounded, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on being a member of it. It is worth telling the hon. Member for Falkirk, West—this applies to his constituency as well as to mine—that the report states that
"funding the 2012 Games, should the bid be successful, constitutes a potentially huge drain on the total funds available for the existing good causes, including grassroots sport (especially outside London where expected legacies will presumably be less)."
The games will have a greater impact on the far-flung nations, regions and constituencies than on constituencies closer to London.
The Select Committee is entirely right. Paying for the London Olympics out of the money that would ordinarily go to grass-roots sports, charities and other good causes is wrong in principle and contrary to what the lottery is supposed to be about. It is wrong for the nations and regions of the UK, which the Select Committee rightly identified as the biggest losers in this grand lottery raid.
For what reason will the lottery fund be raided? The odd football game in Glasgow. We are told that holding the Olympic games in London will create a massive
396WH
incentive for people to become interested in sport, that all of a sudden they will get off their couches and get involved in sporting activities. How does that square with the speech of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West, who mentioned Sport Scotland's comment that, because of the way in which the Olympic games will be funded, the regeneration of sport in Scotland will be set back by 20 years? It is worth pointing out exactly what Sport Scotland said:
"If we lose over £40 million from lottery funds because of the London Olympics we'll need to end whole programmes which provide support to grass root and elite sport in Scotland… There is a terrible irony in the fact that bringing the greatest sporting show on earth to the UK could devastate the regeneration of sport in Scotland and set us back 20 years."
We must take such comments seriously.
Mr. Reed:I have not been too disparaging of the hon. Gentleman's comments in the past. I have listened to the same speech on each of the three occasions that he has given it.
I support some of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, in that my support for the Olympics has always been on the basis of the least impact on grass-roots sport. However, does he accept that the games are not just about a two or three-week event? If we win in 2005, there will be a seven-year build-up to the games. If we were able to utilise all that energy and excitement, perhaps the lottery would generate even more money rather than less. There is a great deal of work to be done, but we should get behind the games and make them work in such a way that grass-roots sport across the United Kingdom, including in Scotland, is not affected.
Pete Wishart:I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that useful intervention, because we must get this right. We cannot allow good causes such as charities and grass-roots sport to suffer, which Sport Scotland envisages will happen. Taking £41.8 million, as it currently stands, from good causes in Scotland is unacceptable. We must try to find alternatives and a means of dealing with the situation.
Chris Bryant:The hon. Gentleman is making a mountain out of this issue. In fact, much of the money that will, as he puts it, go from good causes to the Olympics will be spent before 2012 by the bid committee and the good causes on things that good causes might well have done anyway. Their projects will be realigned to work with the Olympics. Resources will not be directly taken away from them. In many cases, there will be an effort to bind everything in the sports strategy for the UK into the single bid for the Olympics.
Pete Wishart:I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I hope that that is the case, but he should speak to the volunteer organisations in his own constituency or the national organisations in Wales, as I have. They have real fears and concerns about the impact on their lottery funding. They are looking for reassurances, which I hope the Minister will be able to provide.
The simple and obvious fact, regardless of what the hon. Gentleman says, is that it is inevitable that grassroots projects will suffer if money is diverted from them to large infrastructure projects in London—we all

397WH
accept that. We have heard the Government say that they accept that grass-roots projects will suffer, and our constituents are aware of that.
There are massive health and lifestyle problems in Scotland. Unfortunately, for much of the population, including children, obesity is increasing. Most of the people do not participate in any sporting activity. I do not believe that that will be addressed by a London Olympic games. It will be addressed only by facilities and proper sporting tuition, and by investing properly in our communities and by building the sporting infrastructure. We need investment in grass-roots sports projects, not in massive infrastructure projects in London.
Our team sports are in decline. We have nothing in the way of a youth academy with facilities. It will not have passed hon. Members by, but Scotland secured the wooden spoon in the Six Nations rugby on Saturday, such is the condition of team sports in Scotland. If a pot of money is available to be diverted, it should go to youth academies and grass-roots team sports to try to reverse that worrying trend.
I have a sensible solution to the matter, which will satisfy London Members and those from the more far-flung regions: as the wealthiest and most prosperous city in Europe, if London wants the Olympic Games it should pay for them. London will get all the benefits and legacies if its bid is successful. It will secure 3,000 jobs, the regeneration of east London, the £70 million benefit of the fiscal impact of growth in the local economy and the extra income generated by the growth in tourism, which it is estimated will be between £280 million and £507 million. London has wealth way beyond what those in the regions and the other nations in the United Kingdom can imagine, and good on London for that. But it must pay for the Olympics.
It is estimated that Scotland will lose £41.8 million from the national lottery's good causes if London succeeds in its bid to host the 2012 Olympics. That will inevitably lead to long-term damage to Scotland's charity work. A small amount of money in a small community makes a huge difference and a lot of good work can be done with £41 million in small grants. I do not know how much of a feel-good factor there will be if London gets the Olympic Games, but that amount would certainly help charity work in Scotland.
I hope that London will be successful in securing the games, but I do not want the good causes, charities and grass-roots sports in Scotland and the other nations and regions of the UK to pay for them. If London wants the Olympic Games, London should pay.
2.37 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) on securing not only this short debate but others, too. I trust that he does the lottery, as he is clearly a lucky sort of fellow.
The insular, negative approach of the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) was very depressing. When the curling team, which was effectively from Scotland, won the gold medal, the whole nation rejoiced; I did not complain about the lack of curling
398WH
facilities in London or anywhere else, because that victory unified the whole country. It might be at the centre of his complaints that the Olympic games are such a unifying force, because that is not something that the Scottish National party welcomes. It is not just about London.
When the Minister winds up, she will no doubt tell us more about the costs. A successful Olympic games will make a profit, which will benefit sport throughout the country. The mere impetus to people who participate in sport will generate income down the line. Thanks to the Mayor's levy, Londoners will pay for the project for about seven years, so it is not the case that they will make no contribution.
An Olympic games, whether it succeeds or fails, will reflect on the whole country; there will be tangible benefits, not just for London. There will be sports events and training camps for Olympic teams from other nations around the country and an enormous amount will be spent on them. Athletes in the different disciplines from the four home countries will participate in the games; it will be an enormous boost for the country as a whole. London has to be the location, because a city has to be nominated. We must check whether an official statement has been made on the matter, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer). When I was Minister for Sport, it was made clear to me by the then president of the IOC, Juan Antonio Samaranch, that in no circumstances would a bid other than London's be acceptable to the IOC; the BOA has consistently said so, too. A proper statement on the issue would clear the air, because it is being used as a diversion. Manchester and Birmingham made brave efforts and failed quite badly in terms of the number of votes that they got from the IOC. I think that the entire country should close ranks behind the London bid.
I declare a constituency interest. The heart of the bid centres on my constituency. In the east end, we are delighted. I say to the hon. Member for North Tayside that London may be a wealthy city in its totality, but if he comes to the east end, I will show him levels of poverty, unemployment and deprivation that rival anything in Scotland or elsewhere. That is not the only reason to hold the Olympic games there, but it is an important spin-off. The regeneration of the east end of London in Stratford and the lower Lee valley would be of enormous benefit. I hear many Scots accents in my area, so it is not as though the jobs will go only to the English. Unfortunately, decrepitude alone will rule me out from being at the opening ceremony in 2012 as the Member of Parliament for West Ham, but in the meantime I will give the bid all my support.
I enter a small personal note. I realise that I am personally tainted by the failure of the 2006 World cup bid. We did our best. We had a great bid that was well organised. However, external factors determined that we were not to be successful. One of those, of course, was the gentlemen's agreement, of which we knew nothing when we set out on the bid or when the Tories launched it in 1996. The crowd violence at Charleroi and Brussels in Euro 2000 was the final nail in the coffin.
I say to Ministers that if we had been successful in that World cup football bid it would have been put down to the charisma and inspired leadership of Bobby Charlton, but because we failed we blame the

399WH
politicians. That is the way it goes, and I hope that Ministers in the Department will take that as an object lesson. There is no fear of crowd violence at beach volleyball spoiling our bid for the 2012 Olympic games.
The trouble is that we live in a country where the blame culture reigns supreme. According to the press, when we attempt anything we are either the best in the known cosmos or we are the pits. There is no in between. This is a competition, and we must accept that, in a competition where there are so many cities going for it and giving it their best shot, we could lose. That does not mean to say that we are contemplating losing. We must give it our best shot, but of course there is a risk. The competition is fierce and there are a lot of obstacles to overcome. There will be setbacks during the process.
All bids go through those setbacks. Sydney did so last time and Athens is now going through the problems of putting in place the infrastructure and getting it all together. There are the added problems of terrorism and security needs. I do not suppose that Beijing will have many problems with construction. Anyone who can run tanks over their own people in Tiananmen square is not likely to be held up by a bunch of construction workers. However, we will run into difficulties, and one must always be aware that, at the time that we announced that we were going to go for anything, we found large numbers of fair-weather friends. We must ensure that we maintain the political will to overcome the obstacles and problems that we will, no doubt, encounter along the way.
We mentioned the question of legacy. We must ensure that there are legacies to the bid. I mentioned some of them, including how the country will be united and extra money will come into sport following a successful Olympic bid. In my own area, Stratford and the lower Lee valley, we need to know what will happen to that Olympic stadium. It can be put only to a football use. West Ham is a possibility, Tottenham Hotspur another and, judging by the ambitions of Mr. Abramovich, perhaps Chelsea might like to transfer to the east end. I am not sure how my constituents would view that proposal. I, of course, would be delighted.
My last point is about my early-day motion 786, which is about a British Olympic football team. That is a principle supported by the IOC and the BOA. Indeed, FIFA has made it clear that, were we to enter a Great Britain football team, that would not jeopardise our position with respect to the four home nations at FIFA. We can believe that if we want to—it is certainly the public statement.
I have been pushing the idea of a Great Britain team for many years—as a Minister, and before I was a Minister. The existence of four nations in the World Cup is not only a remnant of imperial arrogance—it is self-defeating. No other country would be mad enough to divide itself into four bits to make it easier for other countries to defeat it. I know that people will say that only English players would be in the team, but that is nonsense—it is a snapshot. I can think of a Great Britain team that would have had Greaves, Law and Best in it. We were never given the opportunity to see that.
I believe that the Olympic games would give us a chance to see how the country reacts to a Great Britain football team. It would introduce some of the Olympic spirit into our professional game, which would not be a
400WH
bad thing. I hope that the Minister will give her support today to the principle of a British Olympic football team, although if she does I suggest she first buy a tin helmet.
2.46 pm
Chris BryantI was not sure whether that was an intervention or a peroration; clearly the peroration defeated the intervention. I had not intended to speak this afternoon, but I was inspired when the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) intervened with his nationalist urge for us to dismember the United Kingdom yet again and to encourage an element of resentment against the bid on behalf of the capital city of the United Kingdom.
I have always been a supporter of the Olympic concept, ever since 1972 when, on holiday with my family in Spain, I was ill. I was not allowed to go out in the sun and I sat and watched every moment of the Olympic games and noted in a notebook every outcome—every runner's speed and each element of the results. That shows that I have an obsessive personality. I am obsessively supportive of the London bid, despite the fact that my constituency will not receive many direct benefits from it. I believe, nevertheless, that the indirect benefits will be substantial. For a start, it will provide to a significant extent the inspiration that we need in this country, encouraging more young people to see sport not just as something happening in a distant country, or something that other people do, but as something that people here pursue with phenomenal ability.
I should like every young person in the Rhondda to watch the television and see the Olympics in the UK, perhaps after a run-up to the games in which some of the athletes will have trained in south, west or north Wales. I should like those young people to have an opportunity to come into contact with them and to come to believe in the possibility that they could achieve as well as anyone else if they became involved in sport.
The Manchester Commonwealth games provided, to an extent, just such inspiration for sportspeople in the United Kingdom. There was a resurgence in certain sports. Rowing, cycling and swimming, in particular, have undergone a resurgence in the past few years that has fluctuated with the success of United Kingdom sportspeople in major international tournaments.
There will also, I believe, be significant tourism potential to be gained for the whole of the United Kingdom from holding the Olympics in London. It is a simple fact that London will fill up pretty quickly with tourists, even at that time of year. An important role for the London tourist board is as a gateway for the rest of the United Kingdom.
The National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament have spent quite a lot of money trying to market Scotland and Wales on the west coast of America and elsewhere. I think that that is a mistake. We should do better to market Britain, because it is only by flying to London airport that people will go to Cardiff, Ceredigion or other places in the United Kingdom.
I am reminded of the fact that when Charlotte Church sang before the recently elected George W. Bush he asked her where she was from; she said she was from

401WH
Wales and he said, "What state is that in?" She said, "Terrible." The likelihood of many people in the United States of America going to Wales is relatively minor, unless they understand that they are coming to the United Kingdom. That is why I believe passionately that this is a key opportunity for the British tourist organisations to ensure that they get the Olympic tourism issue right. People coming into London will see only a tiny part of Britain if they visit only London, Oxford and Stratford-upon-Avon. We need them to travel throughout the UK.
I am in favour of the Olympics coming to London for the simple reason that London will stage them phenomenally well. The opening and closing ceremonies in nearly all such events around the world are run by British people. We will probably do it better on our own home territory than anywhere else. I believe in the Olympic spirit. It is good for sport around the world and for international relations. That spirit was formed in the original Olympics in ancient Greece as an attempt to bind people together. I hope that Britain, through running the Olympics in 2012, will provide a similar stimulus, because we will do it better than any of the other countries.
One of the indirect benefits, which might become a direct benefit for every part of the country, will be the number of volunteers that it will take to run the Olympics in London. London alone will not be able to provide all the volunteers. What better opportunity could there be for a young person, whether they are from Edinburgh, Swansea, Newport or Stratford-upon-Avon, than to come to London and spend three weeks helping in a major international sporting event? They will be able to see major sporting heroes and heroines at close quarters. The experience of recent Olympics—we are already seeing this happening in Athens—is that those volunteers are often the next generation of sporting heroes and heroines. I hope that we shall see that happen in the event of a successful London bid.
Pete Wishart:I agree with most of what the hon. Gentleman says, but I hope that he will deal with the key issue of funding. Given that he has spent so much time on the Select Committee taking evidence, will he join me in encouraging the Minister to think again about how the London Olympic bid will be financed by the London Olympic lottery game?
Chris Bryant:I will say something about the financing. I believe that it is right that London is paying a significant proportion of the money. I would prefer the Exchequer to pay the rest of the money rather than the lottery, but one of the best reasons why London should have the Olympics is the fact that the whole of the UK supports it. The hon. Gentleman is way out of step with the people of Scotland and Wales, or the majority of the people in the UK. The Welsh support the bid coming to London more than the people of London do—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is waving the Select Committee report at me, but I believe that everyone in the country wants it to happen.
As the lottery binds together the different elements that comprise the £750 million that will go towards the bid, it needs to ensure that it is not chucking the baby
402WH
out with the bathwater by making it more difficult for elite athletes to do well and for grass-roots athletes to get started. I will be encouraging the rugby clubs in the Rhondda to send volunteers to the millennium stadium and to London. That will be just as good an impetus and support for those clubs as any money they have had in recent years from the lottery. For that matter, they have not had much money from the lottery. If the Minister wants to respond on that point as well, I will be grateful.
Another reason why I have supported the bid for a long time relates to one of the reasons why we will do it better than anyone else: we have the British Broadcasting Corporation. The BBC as a broadcaster of sport is sans pareil. No other broadcaster does it better. The BBC has been more innovative and has found new ways of showing sport, enlivening it and making it exciting. It has explained sports that people might not be used to watching and given them a platform. The BBC will do a phenomenal job as chief broadcaster of the Olympics in 2012, which is another good reason why they should come here.
Last week, the Select Committee went to Athens, and we noted significant issues that we need to bear in mind, including security. The atrocious events in Madrid a couple of weeks ago mean that we are bearing international terrorism in mind, but it is not only now that that will be the case. I suspect that the Olympics will face the problems of international terrorism this time round, next time round and certainly in 2012.
It is interesting that much of the international advice for the Athens Olympics has been provided by the United Kingdom. We have played a leading role in providing security support and recommendations. That puts the UK in a strong position for a bid for 2012. I know that some people have said that Britain should not host the Olympics because we are a more likely terrorist target than elsewhere, but I believe that we have the strongest network of intelligence services and that London would do a better job than many other places in the world because we have had to face terrorist threats for many decades. I hope that that would be seen not as something that tells against us, but as something that if anything tells in our favour.
On transport, having been to Athens last week and having sat on the bus for quite a long time going from one part of the Athens site to another, I know that large distances will have to be travelled in Athens in the middle of the summer. The transport issues will feature in any London bid. However, the truth of the matter is that the London bid is remarkably compact. The vast majority of athletes will not have to travel any distance at all, nor will many journalists, which is probably even more significant. There will be 22,000 journalists at the Athens Olympics. That beats the number of athletes by some 2,000 people, which is particularly interesting because only a few months ago it was expected that there would be only 15,000 journalists. It is important that we get the accommodation right first and foremost for athletes and the Olympic family, but also for all those who want to attend the events.
We should ensure that we get the transport aspects of the Olympic bid right, but we should not be too troubled. Compared with many other major cities in the world, we probably have—and certainly will have by 2012—the most compact bid and the best organised public transport system. The process of improving the

403WH
infrastructure in east London between now and 2012 could only be good, for all the regeneration reasons that have already been advanced by other hon. Members.
Having seen Athens last week, I want to make the point that if we win the bid next year, it is vital that we do not leave starting to build the infrastructure and putting the events together for any time. We cannot even take the summer months off afterwards. Once we win the bid, we must kick-start the process immediately. We want to ensure that people do not write negative stories about the UK Olympics just before they have happened, and that everything is up and running and ready early on.
I will end with a point that has been mentioned by several others: I desperately hope that we will have a UK football team. Football is not my sport particularly, and I am aware that I am wearing a Burberry tie, which, when talking about football, is not necessarily thought of as a good combination. However, if we can have a UK team in rugby union, where there is a long tradition of the home nations playing against each other, there is no reason why we cannot have a UK football team. It would be a terrible dereliction of duty by the football authorities, and probably by the political and cultural class, if we did not ensure that there was a UK team winning in the millennium stadium as a great finale to Britain's successful bid for the Olympics in 2012.
2.59 pm
Mr. Don FosterI congratulate the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) on securing the debate, one of a number that he has held on this issue. I welcomed the vast majority of what he had to say and his positive support for the bid for the 2012 Olympics. I have only one small criticism of the hon. Gentleman and of all who have contributed to the debate so far: there has been no mention of the fact that this is a bid not only for the Olympics but for the Paralympics. That is a crucial component of the bid. [HON. MEMBERS: "He mentioned it."] In that case I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
We should always remember that this is a linked bid. The fact that this country was the home of the Paralympics is an additional reason why I hope we will be selected. Indeed, there are many reasons why our bid stands a good chance of being successful. We have hosted the Olympics on only two previous occasions. We did so in 1908, at very short notice, when we took over from Rome because of its problems with a significant volcano, and in 1948 after the 1940 and 1944 Olympics had been cancelled because of the second world war. It is about time that we had another bash at it. We are much better prepared these days than we were in the past.
A point rarely mentioned is that we are one of only a few countries that have participated in each of the modern Olympics, alongside Australia, France, Greece and Switzerland. The bid team have already put together an exciting and imaginative bid. I want to touch on some of the security points raised by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). His contribution and those of the hon. Members for Falkirk, West and for West Ham (Mr. Banks) were in stark contrast to the huge negativity of the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart). I am told that this is not the first time
404WH
that he has made his speech. I have not heard it before so I cannot say whether it has improved. One thing is true: it was extremely negative and unnecessarily so. It was also based on a string of false premises, and I shall touch on some of those in a minute.
I am happy to be party to the cosy consensus, as the hon. Gentleman described us, of those who support fully and absolutely our bid for the Olympics and the Paralympics. London was the right city to put forward, but we must ensure it is not only London that benefits from a successful bid. Huge benefits will accrue to the rest of the United Kingdom too, although greater benefits will accrue to London. We have already heard of the money that will be spent on regeneration and on improving the transport infrastructure. We have heard about the jobs that will be created and the benefit that the games will bring to an area of London that is suffering from high levels of deprivation and unemployment. The Olympics coming to London and the rest of the UK is an exciting prospect. There will be millions of visitors. An estimated 3.7 billion people watch the Olympics. What a huge boost that will be for tourism in London and the other areas of the country featured in the TV coverage, which, as the hon. Member for Rhondda said, the BBC will no doubt provide extremely well.
There will be huge benefits outside London, too. Some 200 competing countries will come here looking for training villages all around the country. I urge the Minister to ensure that the British Olympic Association and the Government provide support to all regions to enable them appropriately to package information for the visiting countries so that they know of the wide range of opportunities that exist throughout the UK. Various events, such as football, will take place in different parts of the country.
The hon. Member for North Tayside is fundamentally wrong to say that this will have a detrimental impact on sport in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or any other part of the UK. As I said in an earlier intervention, I believe that there will be a huge benefit to sport. We should consider the impact of major sporting activities that have taken place outside the UK in which the UK has competed. Most recently, our success in rugby has had a huge impact on the take-up of rugby, both in playing at all levels and in spectating. There will be a huge boost to the take-up of a wide range of sports by young people and others as a result of the Olympics coming to the UK. That, I believe, will be far superior in its impact to spending a bit extra on supporting community sports activities, although we all want to see that money spent.
Normally, my party is reluctant to suggest that the Government should impose their will on how lottery money is spent. We opposed the establishment of the New Opportunities Fund because we believed that it breached the principles of additionality. However, there will always be exceptions to the rule, and because of the huge benefits—in sport, regeneration and tourism—that the Olympics will bring to London and the rest of the UK, we argued that this was one of those exceptions, and supported the use of lottery money as part of the package of funding to underpin what I hope will be a successful bid.
Pete Wishart:Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Foster:I will in a minute. The hon. Gentleman gave the impression—others outside might misinterpret what he said—that all the lottery money going to the Olympics would come from funding for existing good causes. As he knows, it is intended that there will be a new, exciting lottery game specific to the Olympics, and that at least 50 per cent. of the lottery funding will come from that rather than be taken from the other good causes.
The hon. Gentleman will also know, because he will have done his homework, that those who worked out how much money would be generated by the new Olympic lottery game and how much would need to come from the other good causes may have been too pessimistic. He will know that recent figures show that, for the first time in a number of years, the amount of money coming into the national lottery has levelled out. He will also know that the European game that is being planned is likely to increase the revenue from the lottery, which may mean that the loss to the other good causes will be far less than was originally predicted.
Pete Wishart:It is estimated that —1.5 billion will be lost from the lottery to pay for the Olympic games. In Scotland that will be £41.8 million. The hon. Gentleman should speak to the sports and other volunteer organisations in his constituency to gauge their anxieties about those suggestions. There will be an impact on grass-roots sports, and I wish that the hon. Gentleman would come to that conclusion. We must balance whether the Olympics are worth having with the impact on, and costs to, grass-roots sports facilities and organisations in our constituencies. I would like the hon. Gentleman's views on that.
Mr. Foster:My views are quite simple—the hon. Gentleman is factually wrong. I have no doubt that the Minister, who will have more time to speak than me, will give the figures correctly. The £1.5 billion that will come from the lottery includes the money taken from existing causes plus the additional money that will be generated through the new Olympic lottery game. As I suggested, the hon. Gentleman bases his figures on a false premise.
I say to the hon. Member for West Ham that I entirely support his proposal for a British Olympic football team. On Saturday, I went to watch Charlton Athletic play at the Valley and, although they lost, they demonstrated that it is possible to bring together people from several different countries who speak several different languages and to play extremely well. It would be far easier to bring together people from just four countries who speak the same language to create a successful football team. I was disappointed, however, to hear him announce—for the first time, I think—that by 2012, he does not expect to be a Member of this House.
Mr. Banks:I will be dead.
Mr. Foster:I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman say that.
406WH
Finally, the hon. Member for Rhondda is right to draw attention to concerns about terrorism, and to the fact that the London bid proposes one of the most compact Olympic bids, with a large proportion of the major sports to take place in a small area, with a compact Olympic village. I hope that that will be taken on board. We fully support the bid, and we hope that it will be successful, as we know that it will benefit not only London, but the whole UK.
3.11 pm
Mr. Nick HawkinsI congratulate the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) on securing the debate, which has given us an opportunity to speak again about matters that many of us feel passionately about. I particularly congratulate him on what he rightly said about the Paralympics, which the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) unfortunately failed to observe. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Falkirk, West about that. I have had the privilege and pleasure of meeting many of our Paralympic athletes over many years. The Paralympics began in this country, and we should be proud of that.
As the hon. Member for Bath correctly said, it is a bid for the Olympics and the Paralympics, and we should not forget that. I was talking to some of the leaders of the British Paralympic Association at the official launch at the Royal opera house, and I am sure that everybody will remember the contribution that the association has made, and continues to make. I know that we will win a great many medals at the Paralympics in Athens, as I hope we will in the main games. Seeing what Paralympic athletes can do inspires generations of young people to overcome their disabilities. Going back to the origins of the Paralympics at Stoke Mandeville, one can only admire the work that has been done over many years.
I referred in previous debates to the fact that my constituency is likely to be a beneficiary of a successful bid in 2012, so I declare that interest. The one site that we know will inevitably be part of a successful bid will be Bisley in my constituency. In fact, the National Rifle Association's headquarters straddles the boundary between my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). We already benefit from huge numbers of visitors to the area during international shooting competitions.
The answer to some of the negative comments made not only by the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart), but in interventions by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) is that the whole country can benefit from international competitions, as we saw from the successful Manchester Commonwealth games. The fact that the only site for the Manchester Commonwealth games in the south of England was in my constituency—the shooting had to be there, and I had the privilege and pleasure of being asked to present medals there—is another example of how the whole country can share in and benefit from any international sporting event.
Mr. Banks:Would I be wrong in suggesting that the hon. Gentleman might like to see some members of his Conservative association used as targets for shooting?
Mr. Hawkins:I am not going to respond in any way to my good cross-party friend, the hon. Member for West

407WH
Ham (Mr. Banks). However, I echo the hon. Member for Bath in hoping that the hon. Member for West Ham will continue to be an hon. Member in 2012. I. was amazed when he talked about the risk of decrepitude, because he is still young and vigorous. I am certain that he will have the opportunity to present medals in his own constituency in 2012; I had the good fortune to present medals in mine during the Commonwealth games.
On a more serious point, there are some issues about funding, to which I hope the Minister will respond, which I hope will deal with some of the negative aspects of the contribution by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West. The Conservatives have said that we completely support the Olympic bid and will continue to do so. However, there are a couple of issues to which we think the Government have not yet paid sufficient attention. We have repeatedly said that it would be good for the Olympic lottery game to start when interest in the Olympics is at its height—this summer, to coincide with Athens. The Government originally suggested that that was not possible under BOA rules but, when we pressed them about it, they admitted that it was allowed under BOA rules but they were not going to do it.
There is still time for the Government to change their mind, and I hope that they will because the earlier the Olympic lottery game starts, the greater the opportunity for other good causes not to be adversely affected. I do not believe that they will be adversely affected because, like the hon. Member for Bath, I believe that there will be such an explosion of interest that the Olympics games will be able to make even greater earnings if they are handled correctly, as I hope and believe they will be.
One funding lesson learned by the Olympic movement worldwide after the success of the Los Angeles games and the work of Peter Ueberroth was to bring the private sector more into the picture. As yet, the Government have not placed enough stress on the importance of the private sector. I know that Barbara Cassani and her team are doing a lot of work with not only the City of London but businesses nationwide and internationally, and I want to do all that I can to encourage that.
If we are right in believing that there will be an explosion of enthusiasm after we win the bid, there is every opportunity to prevent adverse effects on the funding for grass-roots sport. That is what the hon. Member for North Tayside claims his concerns are all about, but his repeated comments that it is a London bid and that London should pay for it reveal the attitude of his party. Any other concerns are window dressing to reinforce what is really a campaigning approach by the Scottish nationalists that I deeply deplore.
I strongly support what the BOA is doing under the splendid leadership of Simon Clegg, and Barbara Cassani has a very good team behind her. When we win the bid, as I am confident that we will, I hope that we will see opportunities for sports generally—not only Olympic sports—to spread their message more widely. As the hon. Member for Bath said, the winning of the rugby world cup has proved an inspiration, with many more young people volunteering to start playing rugby at every age. That can happen in every sport, and I hope and believe that it will. As has been said often, we have seven years for that explosion of interest to happen.
408WH
It is crucial to recognise that sport is a way of taking young people away from dangers such as the drugs subculture, and of making them aware of the importance of health and fitness. I know that the Minister agrees with me about that and that those objectives are shared across parties, so we must use the Olympics for that. I was inspired by the example of competitive swimmers. In his robust contribution, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) spoke about how he was ill during the 1972 Olympics and so watched it all on television. One performance that he will have seen was that of the then captain of my swimming club, Brian Brinkley, who is just about to finish coaching Northampton swimming club to go back to our club, the Bedford Modernians.
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman remembers, Brian Brinkley made the freestyle final at the 1972 Olympics. Young competitive swimmers such as I were inspired by having people such as him in their small home-town club. Bedford had great links with rowing and rugby but, until the existence of the Bedford Modernians under the coaching inspiration of Charlie Wilson, who was our national squad coach for the 1972 Olympics, we did not see Bedford as a hugely important sporting town. Suddenly finding that the captain of our swimming club was leading the British team was fantastically inspirational to me and to all the other teenage swimmers in the club. That will happen throughout the country to young people with the 2012 Olympics.
We must recognise the huge benefits and not start nitpicking in the way that the hon. Member for North Tayside wants to do. I shall do a deal with him: after we have won the bid, if I meet any members of the IOC in my capacity as deputy chairman of the all-party group on sports, or as shadow spokesman on sport and they ask me where in the UK would be a good place to have a training base, I shall suggest Pitlochry and Dunkeld. If I manage to convince some countries to have their training camps there, perhaps the Scottish nationalists will give up their relentless negativity. All other parties are united and every other hon. Member who has spoken in the debate has supported the Olympic bid. I believe that we can win it, and I certainly hope that it will inspire a generation of young people to get involved in sport. It would be a wonderful thing for the UK and we should do all we can to support the Olympic bid.
3.20 pm
The Minister for the ArtsIt may be the third or fourth time that hon. Members in the Chamber have debated the Olympics but it is my first. I promise you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism has not avoided the debate so as not to have to listen to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) repeat his speech—he is in Liverpool on ministerial business.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. In response to the direct question from my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), I add my personal support—I join the cosy circle of support—for the Olympic bid. It is a good bid, and it is important that we are united; we will not win the bid if the country is not seen to be behind it. Therefore, I know that my hon. Friends will understand if on this occasion I thank the hon. Members for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and for

409WH
Bath (Mr. Foster) for the support that their parties have given. They both spoke forcefully, and well understand the importance of sport to the nation and what the games will bring to all of us if the bid is successful.
There is a real issue about how the regions would be affected. I am a Mancunian by birth and my constituency is in Birmingham, so perhaps I have more reason than most in the Chamber to groan about the inability of cities other than London to compete successfully for the Olympics. That time is past. We are behind London as the United Kingdom city that is bidding. I have no doubt that the rest of the United Kingdom will benefit, but the effort has to be made. There will be no benefit if no one makes the effort, and we will benefit most by being enthusiastic and getting behind the bid. As constituency MPs in whatever area of the country, we owe to it to our constituents and our regions to shout up for them and to explain how that region can contribute and gain.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) on securing the debate and I support what he said about the nations and regions support group's work travelling around the country to ensure that there is a regional legacy. That was an important move and it was important to make it early in the life of the 2012 bid. The senior team on the bid has already visited several countries and regions, including Scotland last October, when Barbara Cassani herself led the team to listen and to ensure that there is a legacy.
I remind hon. Members that the £340 million that the sports councils are putting in is to ensure that the Olympic games have a legacy. It is an important funding stream to ensure that, in getting the bid together and hosting the games, we see a legacy in every region possible.
I will not pretend that it would be right or possible to spread the Olympic venues across the country. Several hon. Members have mentioned that one attraction of the bid is the proximity of the sites to each other. It means that most athletes, with some exceptions for specialised sport, will not have a long way to travel, and that journalists, who we know do not like travelling outside Westminster, let alone the confines of the M25, will not have far to travel either. Ironically, one attraction of the bid is that it is centred in one geographical location.
Hon. Members have mentioned that training camps could be anywhere in the United Kingdom. If one looks at where the UK has chosen to base its training camps, it rarely stayed close to where the Olympics took place. Teams want to be away from that fevered atmosphere and to train in privacy and in a quieter atmosphere. There is a lot to be gained if an Olympic team trains away from London. If football matches were held outside London, that would help that to take place. I support my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham in saying that it would be good for us to have a football representation. That is a matter for the sporting bodies but, if it can be progressed, I am sure that no one would take exception.
410WH
The next point that I wish to make goes to the heart of the points that the hon. Member for North Tayside made about finance. It concerns the atmosphere that will be created for sport in the United Kingdom. I think that the mistake that he makes is often made not just in sport but in other areas of life. He is forcing us to choose between excellence and access, which are old things that people pit against each other and cite as enemies. I see the Olympic games as a celebration of excellence in sport. That is not to say that we do not treasure access, or continue to put money into access. I think that access is more successful if people can see excellence in practice. Excellence motivates people to participate in sport.
I do not have figures on the matter because it is not my area of ministerial responsibility, but I have been interested and participated in sport throughout my life and still do. When Britain is no longer very good at one particular sport, general participation tends to fall. The reverse also happens: when someone does well and succeeds, general access increases. I do not take away from our obligation and from the necessity of investment of resources and effort at grass-roots level, but the hon. Member for North Tayside must accept that having the Olympics in the UK will encourage access.
Pete Wishart:I do not want excellence at the expense of access. I would rather have both. I am appealing to the Minister to reconsider the way in which this will be financed. Let us not take finance from the lottery. Let us have access and excellence.
Estelle Morris:The point I make is that the Olympics is the best way of showing excellence that I can think of, not just in one sport but in many. Do not forget that most people in the United Kingdom will never see an Olympics live but see it only on television. Hosting the games would give millions of people a chance to see live performance.
I come on to the financing. I disagree with the hon. Member for North Tayside that it should come from tax. People from Scotland will not necessarily pay less if it comes from general revenue rather than from lottery contributions. I did not follow the logic of that point. We anticipate that £1.5 billion will come from the lottery, £750 million of which will be from the Olympic lottery and £340 million from the Sports Lottery Board. On top of that, £625 million will come from London council tax payers and £250 million from the London Development Agency. I think that that is a good funding package. That is only the public sector funding package—money will also be raised from television rights, from ticket sales and through the private sector.
If a profit is made, that money will go back into sport at the grass roots. I wonder what the hon. Gentleman will say if we invest to get a return not only in excellence but, potentially, in money to the grass roots.
I wish the bid well. It is the best thing that we can do for sports. People in this country are proud of their country of origin but they are also proud of being UK citizens. This gives them an opportunity to celebrate that at the same time as celebrating sport.

Regional Broadcasting (East Midlands)
3.30 pm
Mr. Alan MealeI am extremely grateful to be given the opportunity to raise the concerns of my constituents, and others in the east midlands, about ITV's decision to close its Nottingham studio complex and move its operations to Birmingham in the west midlands. With respect to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts, who is a west midlands and Birmingham Member, I believe that if the move is enacted, it will lead to the loss of at least 400 jobs and will be severely detrimental to those who reside in the east midlands. That would worsen rather than improve regional news-gathering and delivery services in the east midlands. People in the region would have to make do with second-hand and second-class news provision.
At the outset, I remind the Minister that ITV's decision flies in the face of its own charter for the nations and regions, which states:
"Regional news is one of the defining features and most popular aspects of ITV's output. ITV is committed to extensive regional and sub-regional news coverage in excess of that offered by the BBC."
I am not privy to any information that the BBC is about to announce the closure of its studios in Nottingham. It has active radio and television studios and a production centre in Nottingham, as well as production centres in the west midlands. Therefore, ITV's statement is false and its decision flies in the face of the facts.
ITV's actions represent little more than a slap in the face for its customers in the east midlands as well as for the aspirations of the region, which are distinct from those in the west midlands, to where ITV intends to transfer its production coverage.
Mr. Andy ReedWith all due respect to what goes on in Birmingham, it is clear that news from the west midlands bears no relevance to those of us living in Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Derbyshire or Nottinghamshire. Whatever the protestations from ITV, the service will be reduced and we will be fed a diet of information from a region in which we have little or no interest.
Mr. Meale:I am grateful for that intervention, which is absolutely true. I represent an east midlands seat that almost borders the area covered by northern regional television, which comes from Leeds. It is easier for colleagues and me to attract news services from Leeds than from Birmingham—it is almost impossible to get news coverage from Birmingham, even for specialist events. I remind the Minister of a tragic event in my constituency a few years ago: the announcement of the closure of almost every pit in Nottinghamshire. Even that could not persuade Birmingham to send news coverage crews; stringer and independent services were employed, which did not cover the event as seriously as they should.
I also remind the Minister that a little over two decades ago, a major campaign was launched by east midlands Members of all parties for a regional television centre in the east midlands. That was an active and successful debate, because the Government of the day accepted that the east midlands needed an opportunity
412WH
to show its character through a centre for news and current affairs delivery for local people. In the same spirit as that of 20-odd years ago, I intend to give way to any colleagues from the east midlands who want to participate in the debate. It is imperative that we engage in this debate if we are to have any chance of saving an essential service.
Mr. Jim MarshallMy hon. Friend will be aware that a number of us have written to Ministers and to the body overseeing commercial TV, and he will know the response that we received. One of the main points in the response is that the regional TV company is spending a lot of money in the east midlands on further news-gathering facilities and on the ability to feed information to Birmingham. How does he answer that response?
Mr. Meale:I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because I received the same letter—indeed, it was sent to all east midlands Members. I was, at the very least, disappointed. In fact, I thought the letter a disgrace. I thought that I was receiving a letter from the chief executive of ITV—it read exactly like that. It is not the job of Ofcom to do the dirty deals and business of ITV. Rather, it was established to protect ordinary people's rights, needs and aspirations in respect of creative media communications coverage.
I was also disappointed that, five or six days after I tabled the early-day motion to which all colleagues in this Chamber have added their signature, I received a telephone call from a senior Ofcom official who made various excuses as to why ITV should be allowed to do what is proposed and said that it was quite a good thing and TV coverage would generally progress. I had to remind her that it was not her job to serve ITV. Ofcom's job is different: it is about public protection.
Many hon. Members here today and some who are in Committees elsewhere are furious about the situation. For those who represent seats in the east midlands, it is causing major anger and disquiet. We cannot understand why these events are occurring. We all believe that the proposals are extremely detrimental and will lead to nothing other than the east midlands once again becoming, as it was 20-plus years ago, the Cinderella region and—I say this with all due respect to the Minister and the seat that she represents—being reliant on the bigger, brasher brother in Birmingham for any coverage that it receives on major issues that are important to the people of our region.
Let us consider some of the facts that I have managed to glean on the issue. Since the formation of the single ITV company, hundreds of jobs have been lost in TV broadcasting in the regions, and studios have been closed irrespective of their profitability. The first closure programme involved the Northam studios in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), who takes a close interest in these matters. Those studios, which were the birthplace of programmes such as "The Ruth Rendell Mysteries", "Worzel Gummidge" and "That's Life", closed with the loss of 175 jobs. Other studios have closed in other parts of the country. Now it is the turn

413WH
of Nottingham, the home of shows such as "Family Fortunes", "Popstars" and "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?". Just as importantly, it is the base of "Central News East", the hub of news delivery for the east midlands, which has regularly won awards for its coverage, including the world gold medal this year for its programming.
The Government are deeply committed to regionality. As recently as June 2002, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said in respect of broadcasting:
"Regional character matters. We will look to Ofcom to defend it with vigour."
Sadly, as has been pointed out, we are getting no vigour at all when it comes to the protection of people's rights and the opportunity to receive fair and decent local coverage. Instead, we are getting representation by Ofcom in favour of amalgamation and the isolation of regions such as ours.
If we do not get our act together, worse is yet to come. A significant period elapsed before the proposed closure was challenged. If we rely simply on Ofcom, it will be too late. The boards and shutters will be put up on the studios. The teams will be disbanded and lost. Journalism will have to rely on Birmingham as the main area of supply. All the good work and all the money that has been spent on recruitment, technology, mechanisms and methods for these people to work will be gone and will be difficult to replace.
Alan SimpsonWill my hon. Friend confirm that part of this sense of loss, to which Ofcom seems quite indifferent, stems from the fact that Carlton gave a commitment to the east midlands that it would match and better the BBC's investment, commitment and performance? The irony is that in Nottingham we currently have an expanded base of BBC news coverage at the same time as the commercial sector proposes to remove its base from Nottingham completely. Is not that why we need the Government to intervene in the face of both the crude commercialism that will shift the regional commitment away from Nottingham and Ofcom's failure to protect those regional commitments?
Mr. Meale:My hon. Friend is right. As I said, it is Ofcom's job to represent people and to safeguard and protect their rights and opportunities in this respect. He is right about the investment. There is a commitment in the ITV charter to expand news services more than the BBC. That has not been done. It has not even been proposed. This is solely about profit. I have just reminded the Minister and hon. Members about the very profitable programmes that have been made in Nottingham such as "Family Fortunes", "Popstars" and "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?". Nottingham is profitable. It may not profitable enough for the people at ITV who want to disband it and cash in on it, but that is not a good enough reason to do so.
To move the production from Nottingham to Birmingham would be a disaster and would lead to the wholesale break-up of news teams and the dislocation of operations. Worse still, it would undermine the
414WH
relationship between broadcasting and its audience, a vital ingredient in any local communication provision. That is a factor that even Charles Allen, the chief executive of ITV, admitted in October 2002 when he stated:
"People like local TV. People like local news and we would be daft not to encourage it."
He is not doing that at present. He is encouraging local news, but that local news is not in the east midlands, it is in the west midlands. In the east midlands, it is yet another part of the jigsaw which is about controlling all news networking throughout Britain and reducing the costs.
I should not need to remind the Minister that at the heart of the debate lies the fact that the east midlands has a firmly established identity of its own. It is socio-economically and culturally different from its neighbours, most notably the west midlands and Birmingham in particular. Its industries, which are predominantly food production, coal mining, clothing, textiles and other types of apparel production, contrast with the engineering, car manufacturing and high-tech industries of the west midlands. The difference is probably best expressed by the two regional development areas that represent the two regions. They have a different make-up, they have different characters on their boards and they are geared to the needs of the various local interests.
As I said earlier, I intend to give time to other hon. Members to speak, so I will summarise briefly. According to a recent report by Cambridge Econometrics, two thirds of people claim that their local television company is their main source of local news, so Government action to protect it is imperative, especially if the reorganisation of local radio is anything to go by. Local news nowadays is little other than a series of regurgitated sound clips produced and broadcast mostly from centres that in some cases are hundreds of miles from the neighbourhoods they serve—or do not serve.
The same will undoubtedly be the case if TV programmes are produced and staffed by people who neither live in nor have any affinity with the areas that they are reporting, a likely scenario if the closure of ITV centre Nottingham goes ahead.
For those reasons and others, I ask the Minister to intervene in the matter. It is crucial to the east midlands that, like her constituency in the west midlands, we have the opportunity to develop our region in a way that suits the hearts, minds, needs and aspirations of the people we serve. It is not good enough, just for the sake of profit, for these centres to be closed down and left to the people who made such a mess of the City, the stock exchange and the pension provisions of most of our constituents.
3.47 pm
The Minister for the ArtsI feel a bit like the enemy in this debate, but I do not intend to be. I want to put on record how much I understand the strength of feeling of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) and the hon. Members who intervened about the importance of regional broadcasting. Members of Parliament understand that more than anyone else; our constituents are far more likely to know what individual MPs are up to in the House through regional television coverage than

415WH
through national television. Much of our accountability is discharged through regional news coverage, in newspapers and broadcasting. I am at one with my hon. Friend in that respect.
I accept that Birmingham has a tendency to dominate the midlands region; the history and the news of the east midlands is different and there is a danger that it will get squeezed out. I go further: I hear complaints from people in Solihull that Solihull gets squeezed out, although it adjoins Birmingham, let alone from those who are about 50 miles down the road to the east.
My starting point is the same as that of my hon. Friend: the east midlands has a specific voice and a specific set of interests and concerns, and we need to pay regard to them. However, I cannot say much more to give comfort to him. It is for Ofcom, not the Government, to intervene in the matter. I cannot intervene or promise that the Government will do so, as that will not be done. I shall therefore explain how the mechanism for accountability and checking works.
The starting point is to balance two things, the first of which is the right of any company to organise itself as it sees fit. Companies must have that right, whether or not they are broadcasters. It is a competitive world and they must be able to change to survive, not just because people's viewing and listening habits have changed, but because of technology, too. That is just the way life is. It would be wrong to put a stranglehold on broadcasting companies and say that they cannot change to meet those needs. Secondly, broadcasting companies play an important role in safeguarding our democracy which is different from any other private sector organisation in any other sector of the economy. The regulatory framework must combine both those aspects.
I want to talk about how that happens and try to reassure hon. Members about what may happen in the future.
Mr. Meale rose—
Alan Simpson rose—
Estelle Morris:I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson).
Mr. Meale:The letter from Ofcom states that the
"amount of sub-regional news for the East Midlands is mandated by Central's licence—4 hours a week averaged over a calendar year."
Coverage for the east midlands region, which stretches right the way down to south Leicestershire and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), up to north Nottinghamshire and across to Derbyshire and Lincolnshire, and incorporates Nottingham, the eighth largest city in Britain, is being reduced to four hours a week. That is the reality.
The issue is not just about Ofcom saying that it will do one or two things about the news. We have one of the biggest production sites, 17 acres, in the whole of Britain. It is an important centre—we have proved that
416WH
with the programmes that we have brought out—but the site is being closed and sold off for a fast buck. That is not good enough for the people of the east midlands.
Estelle Morris:Before I respond I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South.
Alan Simpson:I want the Minister to return to the point that she made about Ofcom's responsibilities. We are not talking about Ofcom standing in the way of the commercial viability of companies. In fact, many of us would argue that some of the financial mess that has been made is due to the short-termism of the company's outlook. Is it the Minister's view that Ofcom has a duty to protect the regional identity of independent commercial television services because of the way in which the Government expect those services to be delivered? A central point of dispute seems to be whether Ofcom feels that it has a duty in that respect at all.
Estelle Morris:I will answer my hon. Friends' comments together. Yes, I do think that that duty exists, and I shall explain how it works. There are targets, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield just referred to, for four hours of local news. That figure has not been reduced. It is part of the contract that Central has with Ofcom for delivering localness. Indeed, localness is written into the Communications Act 2003 in a way that it was not included in legislation before. The Government have acted to protect localness by including in primary legislation the requirement that Ofcom must have regard to it. That is absolutely at one with what my hon. Friend is saying.
On localness, people must know where they stand. When the commercial contract is signed, companies are given targets for the delivery of local programming and production which they must meet. Local programming is what we are debating: programmes about local issues, made outside the M25. No matter how Carlton reorganises itself, those targets remain the same. They do not change because of the merger or job losses. People cannot say, "We're closing the east midlands centre, so we're reducing the number of hours of local news that we'll broadcast." The four hours is part of the target of eight and a half hours of regional programming—or rather it is not a target, but a deal; it does not change. Four hours of that total is local news. The allocation was increased the last time that the targets were looked at.
Ofcom has a statutory duty to ensure that the targets are met and that any reorganisation of the delivery of services in the region does not negate them. In the commercial world, as long as those targets are met, companies have discharged their responsibility to achieve localness. As far as I am aware, nobody called for an Adjournment debate on those targets before the job losses were announced, so I can only assume that the debate is now about whether the targets will be met.
Mr. Jim Marshall:Will the Minister give way?
Estelle Morris:In a moment. I just want to make one more point so that there is some flow in what I am saying.

417WH
The crux of the matter is sub-regional news, not regional news. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield is saying that regional news from Birmingham is not serving the east midlands well. To me, the crucial point is that as well as targets for regional news coverage, there are targets for sub-regional news coverage. As midlands MPs, we all know there are three sub-regional news coverage areas: Birmingham, Abingdon and Oxford, and the east midlands. I believe Ofcom's view to be that the targets for the east midlands sub-regional news cannot be met if all the news gathering is moved to Birmingham. Therefore, if a situation should ever arise—this is not what is proposed—that affects news gathering as well as news presentation, there would be a genuine argument that sub-regional targets were not being met, and Ofcom could be invited by local MPs to comment on that point.
My hon. Friends may not believe it, but the proposal—I have no reason to disbelieve it and am not intervening—is that the presentation of news, not news gathering, should move to Birmingham. As long as the journalists who gather the news are in the east midlands and there is a sub-regional target for east midlands news, as opposed to west midlands news, there is a powerful argument that the target has been reached. If my hon. Friends do not believe that, we have a difference of opinion. We shall have to wait and see. However, if the journalists move, Ofcom can intervene to say that the targets are not being met.
Mr. Reed rose—
Mr. Meale rose—
Estelle Morris:I have time to take two interventions.
Mr. Reed:I understand the commercial arguments that the Minister is putting forward and the difficulty in intervening in such matters. However, quality is the one thing that seems to be missing from what has been said. Is she really convinced by what Ofcom, ITV and Carlton have been trying to tell us; that is, that the quality of local coverage can be guaranteed by the proposals that have been put forward? Personally, I do not believe them, so there is an issue at dispute. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) will be able to say in more detail why that will not happen. Is the Minister convinced that Ofcom is playing a
418WH
proactive part? I know that it has a light touch, but to have no touch at all seems completely the wrong way to deal with the matter.
Estelle Morris:I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield.
Mr. Meale:The evidence of previous closures shows a reduction in news delivery in the areas from which people moved. That is the reality, but I shall not challenge what the Minister said.
The whole point of this debate is that the east midlands is not a sub-region but a region all on its own. Its news is not to be subsumed by Birmingham or moved just because of improvements in technological delivery. The debate is about our having our own TV and news presentation centre in the east midlands. Without one, the east midlands is a sub-region.
The Minister comes from Birmingham. I know that there are difficulties with various TV stations, but Birmingham has its own centre. We want exactly the same for the east midlands, which, as I said, stretches from south Leicestershire to north Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire and Derbyshire. It is a massive area, and we demand parity in respect of a new centre.
Estelle Morris:Of course I do not believe that the east midlands is a sub-region, nor am I critical of it in any way. I used the term to discuss targets. Whether we like it or not, whether we live in the east or the west midlands, there is a midlands region, of which both areas are members. I certainly would not be happy if the news coverage all beamed out from Birmingham. My personal view is that if the news gathering from the east midlands were dropped, it would be detrimental to that area. I believe without a shadow of doubt that it would be a diminution of the present localism if all regional news from the whole of the midlands were collected and presented from Birmingham. All I can say to my hon. Friends is that that is not part of the proposal.
I cannot at this time stand up in a debate in the House of Commons and say, "I have been told by Central that its intention is to keep news collection in the east midlands and merely present the news from Birmingham, but, because I do not believe that, I shall ask Ofcom to intervene." It would not be fair to do so, because I believe what I am told by Central.
In the minute that I have left, all I can do is say again that the key thing in striking the difficult balance between having commercialism in broadcasting and protecting democracy is to hold the stations fast to their targets. My message to Ofcom is that that is what the House expects it to do. I suspect that the proposals before us will achieve that, but it will be for Ofcom to decide and to be the guardian of what all of us with seats in the midlands consider to be incredibly important targets.

Motorway Noise (Leicestershire)
4 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter of great concern to my constituents in Leicestershire, particularly in light of the Government's stated intentions to reduce motorway noise. One only needs to visit Enderby in my constituency, for instance, or the surrounding areas of Whetstone, Narborough, Littlethorpe and Cosby to appreciate the full extent of the noise that my constituents suffer on a daily basis and have suffered for nearly 40 years.
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.10 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Robathan:Having been so rudely interrupted, I am delighted to return to the subject of motorway noise in Leicestershire on behalf of my constituents. As I was saying, one has only to visit the motorway area near Enderby to appreciate the full extent of the noise that my constituents suffer daily. It is often impossible to stand outside their houses and hold a normal conversation. My constituents cannot sit in their gardens in the summer; they cannot open their windows; and they cannot sleep at night. There is an endless roar, which gets a little quieter between 1.30 and 4.30 in the morning, but then starts up again and wakes them. Last October I visited Cumberwell drive in Enderby, where an official from the Highways Agency had come to hear the grievances of a large group of residents, the most voluble of whom were Mrs. Bingham and Mr. Akiens. I urge the Minister to visit Enderby because he would then understand the unacceptable level of noise.
The M1, as I am sure you remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was the first motorway in this country. It was opened to Lutterworth in 1962 and the stretch through Enderby was opened in, I believe, 1964. It bisects my constituency and south Leicestershire from the junction of the M1 and the M6 up to the Leicester Forest East service station. The noise problem affects people from Lutterworth all the way to Thorpe Astley and Braunstone. My house is about two miles from the motorway, but I can hear it clearly, although I am not arguing on my own behalf.
My constituents have suffered from the noise generated by the M1 for 40 years, but it is getting worse. Many people have bought their houses next to the motorway during those 40 years, but the M1 used to be relatively empty. A famous postcard, entitled "The most boring sight in Britain" and published in 1963, showed the M1 near Newport Pagnell with one car on it. That is no longer the case. As the Minister knows, traffic has increased dramatically during the last 40 years and especially during the last decade.
Last year, the Highways Agency told me that it plans to resurface the M1 between junctions 20 and 21 this coming summer. Resurfacing can reduce noise dramatically. I am not an authority on decibels, but I am told that resurfacing can reduce the noise impact by up to 50 per cent. The Minister may tell me that I am wrong, but such a reduction would obviously be
420WH
welcomed by my constituents. However, on 29 October, the agency told me that it was postponing the work for four years. That is unacceptable. The agency is a creature of the Government, and that is why I called for this debate and asked the Minister to come here today. My constituents do not want to be fobbed off any longer by the agency or the Government. Today, I seek clarification of the reasons for the delay in the work.
I asked the Minister a simple oral question on 6 January but failed to receive an answer, so I hope that I shall receive straightforward explanations and answers to my questions today. In a written reply to a question, numbered 140803, in which I had asked how many road resurfacing projects had been delayed due to value management work, the Minister stated:
"The re-phasing of projects is not the result of value management work, but arises from a reappraisal of factors that influence the appropriate timing of works to be undertaken, in the light of better information."—[Official Report, 5 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 52W.]
Yet I received a letter dated 29 October last year from Richard Bennett, who is a board director of the Highways Agency, in which he stated that confirmation of the work was
"subject to the outcome of further value management work."
That is the process that the agency uses to assist us when deciding programming priorities.
Mr. Bennett's remarks directly contradict those of the Minister, and when the hon. Gentleman speaks I would be grateful if he clarified whether he stands by his remarks. I repeat the question from 6 January, "Who is right: the Minister or the Highways Agency?"
The Minister also stated in a letter on 10 February:
"Increased costs meant that a reassessment of"
the work's
"value for money was necessary".
Yet, despite my requests no details about what exactly caused the rise in costs have been forthcoming. In a written answer to me, the Minister stated:
"Final cost details for resurfacing of the M1 between Junctions 20 and 21 will not be available until current investigations by the Highways Agency are completed."
That suggests that there has been no accurate and detailed costing for the work. Is the Minister saying that there has been a sudden increase in prices? If so, where is the evidence for it? The Government's response seems entirely illogical. In the same set of written answers, the Minister told my constituents that
"priority will be given to those cases in which the actual noise levels exceed those predicted by at least three decibels".—[Official Report, 24 February 2004; Vol. 418, c. 340W.]
The Highways Agency finds roadside noise levels in Enderby of 86 dB, which is about 6 dB over its own acceptable limit. The Minister might be interested to know that as I trawled through the Secretary of State's announcement of April last year, as the Minister suggested I do, I stumbled on one particular gem. It stated that only since 1973 have
"the adverse noise effects of road proposals on the surrounding environment and possible ways of minimising these effects been more comprehensively taken into consideration before the road is built."
In other words, according to the Secretary of State's paper, the effects of noise were not considered when the stretch of motorway between junctions 20 and 21 was

421WH
built, and no serious sound reduction measures have ever been taken. Meanwhile, my constituents in Enderby, Narborough, Whetstone, Cosby, Littlethorpe, Lutterworth and Thorpe Astley continue to suffer. They have not benefited from noise reduction surveys or strategies since the road was built 40 years ago.
The noise is now worse than ever, and as the programme has been put back four years my constituents are condemned to another four years in the same situation. The Secretary of State's statement was, as the Minister suggested to me, a veritable treasure trove of information. Although the Minister told me that
"better value for money would be obtained by undertaking more work than simply resurfacing"
and that
"priority is given to road surfaces that are broken up",
the Secretary of State pointed to the need to prioritise work that"would not normally need to be resurfaced within the plan period".
In other words, that is work that would need to be undertaken for reasons other than simple maintenance—for reasons such as noise reduction, for instance.
The Highways Agency's own consultants, WS Atkins, open their noise survey paper, dated 22 September, by stating:
"Following the Government's Transport White Paper in 1998, a budget has been allocated to deal with specific noise problems on existing trunk roads and motorways."
Will the Minister contradict the remarks of the agency and the Secretary of State or will he accept that there is money ring-fenced for noise reduction separate from the needs of maintenance? In light of those facts the justification for postponing the work is simply not reasonable.
The agency website states that the Government's two criteria for priority are that the road must have been opened before 1988—the stretch of road under discussion opened before 1969 and has remain untouched—and that noise levels immediately adjacent to the road must be at least 80 dB. As I have said, the agency found levels to be some 6 dB higher at 86 dB. The M1 between junctions 20 and 21 must surely fulfil those criteria and should surely be at the top of the list of motorway stretches to be resurfaced.
In the consultancy paper to which I referred, WS Atkins considered options for reducing the noise, particularly between Enderby and Cosby. They found 160 houses that were affected by noise levels of 68 dB or more. I recollect that the Department of Transport even bought some houses in Roy close in the early 1990s because of the impact of traffic. The report considers erecting noise barriers in particular, and the costs of such noise screening are not horrendous. I urge the Minister to consider implementing noise screening along that stretch of the motorway as soon as possible—as happened, for example, in Luton, by junction 11, which I pass often. The conditions there are comparable.
422WH
The Atkins report found that a quieter road surface—a thin-wearing course—would reduce noise to all houses by approximately 3 dB. Decibels are a logarithmic unit of measurement, which, with my O-level maths, I am not sure that I understand, but I listened to a reduction of 3 dB on my computer less than an hour ago, and the effect was marked. I should like the road surfacing to be done now, and acoustic screening to be installed this year.

In his letter to me of 10 February, the Minister told me that the process for timetabling road improvements was "subject to continued review". This was reviewed, to the detriment of my constituents, in October. I hope that the Minister will say that he will review again the M1 from junctions 20 to 21, because the case for resurfacing the M1 this summer is overwhelming. My constituents are suffering now and have been suffering for 40 years: another wait of four years would be intolerable. The Government have promised quieter road surfaces and, in the 10-year plan, they claimed that
"reducing noise from motorways and other trunk roads is an important priority".
Furthermore, paragraph 3 of the road projects section of the Highways Agency's website says:
"Consider the length of time people have endured traffic noise."
No one can have endured noise longer than those living next to the M1 because the M1 was the first motorway. Having had their expectations raised, my constituents demand that those promises be fulfilled and I look forward to the Minister giving them a satisfactory response.
4.22 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for TransportI congratulate the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on securing this debate, and giving us a firm opportunity to focus on the Government's policy on quieter roads. In answer to an oral question in January, I told him that, were it not for this Government having such a policy—one did not exist before 1997—and had the money not been put in place, this debate would not have gone ahead at all. I remind him that we have made the policy a priority. He will appreciate that there are many other demanding priorities around the country which have been identified by hon. Members from both sides of the House who want roads attended to, but we have given that commitment.
Mr. Robathan:The Minister is absolutely right that the Government have made this policy a priority, and I remember being cheered up when I read about it in the 1998 transport White Paper. However, he will admit that quieter road surfaces, such as whisper concrete, were already being tested and installed before 1997.
Mr. Jamieson:Yes, indeed, but this debate could not have taken place if it were not for the Government's policy. The hon. Gentleman must be aware, particularly in his part of the midlands, of recent growth in the area, a downside of which is added traffic volume and noise. Leicester and much of the midlands are thriving under this Government's economic policies. I am delighted that unemployment has fallen and employment is rising, and whenever I go there I find new enterprise coming into the area, but that generates traffic and movement of

423WH
people. He asked me to visit Enderby, and if I have the opportunity to pop in when I am visiting, I would be delighted to do so and perhaps have a cup of tea with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Robathan:The Minister is very welcome—I will even pay for the tea.
Mr. Jamieson:I thank the hon. Gentleman for that welcome.
The hon. Gentleman was at pains to ensure that our approach is consistent and equitable, which I believe it is. Before I go into the detail of the situation on the M1 in Leicestershire, in which he is particularly interested, I want to say more about the Government's quieter roads programme.
The strategic road network helps to support a healthy economy by providing the backbone for the effective distribution of goods and services and the easy movement of people. However, it is not without its disadvantages. People who live close to major roads sometimes experience the effects of increased noise, and the expansion of the road network inevitably disturbs the local environment. A balance that satisfies our economic and environmental needs has to be struck, and much can be done to minimise any negative impact on the environment. I often say that the Highways Agency is the second largest planter of trees in this country after the Forestry Commission. In our guidance to the agency, we take environmental matters seriously.
The Government have recently addressed public concerns about road traffic noise and are dedicating funds to noise mitigation. We accept that traffic noise is a concern for many people, and in the White Paper "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England", published in July 1998, we gave the commitment:
"In future, whenever a road needs to be resurfaced, we shall ensure that the most appropriate noise reducing surfaces are used for those areas where noise is a particular concern."
In March 1999, we announced sift criteria to identify the most serious and pressing cases and a ring-fenced budget of £5 million a year to deal with the most serious instances requiring practical and cost-effective noise-mitigation measures.
The hon. Gentleman referred to those criteria, but for the sake of clarity it would help to have them on the record. First, trunk roads must have opened before June 1988, although priority attention is given to locations affected by roads that have remained unaltered since October 1969, the qualifying date for the introduction of noise mitigation measures. Secondly, current—that is, 1998—noise levels immediately adjacent to the road must be at least 80 dB. If the hon. Gentleman wants a small lesson in logarithms and decibels, I will assist him for a small consideration.
It may be useful to point out that the M6 Preston bypass between junctions 30 and 32 was the first motorway. It opened in the late 1950s, although that was probably before the hon. Gentleman was born. The third criteria is that in the case of roads opened or altered after October 1969, noise levels must be at least 3 dB greater than predicted for the design when the road was planned. The aim is to address people's disappointment that noise levels mentioned during the planning process were different from those experienced when the road was eventually opened.
424WH
The hon. Gentleman will know that in November 1999, a list appeared in Hansard under cover of a letter from the chief executive of the Highways Agency, showing the most serious and pressing cases to be studied to ascertain the most practical and cost-effective solutions. That became familiarly known as the Hansard list, and by the time of the Government's 10-year plan, published in July 2000, the agency had been set the target of installing quieter surfaces on more than 60 per cent. of the trunk road and motorway network, including all concrete stretches, by 2010–11. That will benefit approximately 3 million people living within a third of a mile of such roads. Indeed, I believe that some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents have already benefited from resurfacing work on the M69 which has reduced noise. He looks curious, but if he ever takes that route, he will be able to see for himself how his constituents have already benefited from the Government's road noise reduction policy.
That policy over the period of the 10-year plan can be summarised as follows: a noise mitigation programme costing £5 million a year to address sites that meet the Hansard list criteria; resurfacing all concrete roads with quieter materials; and resurfacing black-top roads with quieter materials when normal maintenance is required. About 5 per cent. of the trunk road network at 70 different locations is constructed with a concrete surface. Clearly, given the scale of the problem, work cannot be completed overnight. Attempting to do so would not be practical because it would create a great deal of disruption on the network, so we shall phase in the work over 10 years. Concrete roads tend to be very robust, and often need resurfacing not because of deterioration but to ameliorate the effects of noise.
As part of the development of our road maintenance programme, the process of value management is applied to all major road renewal schemes to ensure that renewal schemes are technically robust and meet set standards. Proposed schemes are examined collectively to establish relative merits and priorities, and set criteria are used to assess schemes. The criteria for the prioritisation of resurfacing flexible trunk roads are related to the condition of the surface and include surface crack intensity, assessment of levels of rutting, unevenness, skid resistance, general wear and tear of surface material and the frequency of accidents associated with the road condition. Those criteria are used to determine the programme for resurfacing. The aim is to maintain the trunk road network using the principle of minimising whole-life costs, taking into account disruption to the road user and the need to keep the road in a safe and serviceable condition.
Turning to the condition of the M1 in Leicestershire, I fully understand the concerns of the hon. Gentleman and his constituents about noise from the M1. I accept that noise from roads is deeply intrusive to people who live near them, which is why we have developed a policy for tackling the noise from roads. In particular, I understand the specific concerns in the Narborough, Cosby and Enderby communities to the south of Leicester. That section of M1 was not identified as a specific site in the list published in Hansard in 1999, and therefore does not take as high a priority as those listed or other lengths of motorway and trunk road that have concrete carriageways.

425WH
To ensure that the most worthy sites are treated first, a nationwide ranking system has been developed. The section of road in question has what engineers call a flexible surface—a black-top surface—which means that it is not as noisy as roads with a concrete surface. Inevitably, therefore, the M1 in the hon. Gentleman's constituency will be given less priority in noise mitigation measures. Nevertheless, we have agreed that the Highways Agency should carry out noise surveys at particular locations where local people have expressed significant concern, and a number of locations in Leicestershire fall into that category.
A survey covering the communities of Narborough, Enderby and Cosby has been completed, and it indicates, as the hon. Gentleman said, that 190 houses are exposed to noise levels greater than 68 dB. That has enabled the agency to rank those sites against other locations in the country in order of severity. I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that the three sites are not the most severely affected by noise. They are ranked in the order Narborough, Enderby and Cosby, but because they are close to each other it is likely that they will all benefit at the same time when resurfacing work is undertaken on that section of the M1. When considering noise mitigation measures the rankings are used to prioritise the programming of works.
The agency is also undertaking a survey at Kirby Muxloe in Leicestershire, near junction 21A of the M1. That survey is in its final stages and we expect a report shortly. However, it is not only the desire to reduce noise from busy roads that gives rise to the need to provide a new surface; the condition of the road network is constantly monitored to ensure that maintenance is undertaken at a time that gives maximum value for money.
A process of continuous value management—some difficulty may have arisen in the understanding of the term—is carried out to prioritise the work to be done with the funds available. Depending on the deterioration of a particular stretch of road, it may move up and down the list of priorities. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would expect us to do no less than that—to prioritise one road over another if it was deteriorating more rapidly.
The agency identified most of the motorway between junctions 20 and 21 as needing to be resurfaced within the next few years. The section is too long for the whole of it to be treated at once; hence the works are likely to
426WH
be split into four phases. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the works were originally programmed to start in 2004 and to be completed over three years, starting with the section adjacent to junction 21. However, after being subjected to the process of continuous value management that I mentioned earlier, the works were reprogrammed, and they will be undertaken between 2005–06 and 2007–08. Depending on the condition of the road and further examination, the works will take place earlier or later in that period, so there will not necessarily be a delay of three years. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that a programme of work that takes place in 2005–06 is not that far away.
I realise that the hon. Gentleman is disappointed that the work has moved out of this part of the programme. However, if he has listened to some of the other debates held on such matters, and if he were to see some of the correspondence that I have received from hon. Members on both sides of the House, he would agree that it is fair to prioritise the works on the criteria set out.
I hope that what I have said has reassured the hon. Gentleman that the agency carefully and stringently analyses each road scheme in accordance with a list of priorities. I will ask agency officials to ensure that they keep him informed on the detailed in-year programme as it develops for the M1 in Leicestershire.
Although mitigating noise from trunk roads and motorways is a complex subject, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the Government are doing all that they can to ensure that we have a fair system, which will benefit the greatest number of people over the next few years. We try to be as fair as possible but it is inevitable that those further back in the process are impatient to see the work closest to their homes completed.
I undertake to ensure that the agency keeps the hon. Gentleman informed, because I realise that the issue is important to people living in that area. I hope that he will recognise that we have put a substantial amount of extra money into the programme, and that we are tackling the list of works based on current priorities. The debate has been useful, and I hope that my explanation has been helpful. If the hon. Gentleman wishes for further explanation, I shall be delighted to correspond with him.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Five o'clock.