Skip to main content

Croydon Tramlink Bill Lords

Volume 229: debated on Wednesday 21 July 1993

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

Order for Second Reading read.

7 pm

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This private Bill is jointly promoted by London Regional Transport and the London borough of Croydon, and I am pleased to introduce it. The purpose of the Bill is to seek powers to enable the construction and operation of a tram system to be known as tramlink, connecting the centre of Croydon to Wimbledon, Beckenham, Elmers End and New Addington.

London Regional Transport has a general duty to provide or secure the provision of public passenger transport services in Greater London. It must pay due regard to the current transport needs of Greater London, and to the efficiency, economy and safety of operation. Croydon council has numerous statutory duties, especially as a highway planning authority, and is also empowered to produce an economic strategy. The new unitary development plan for Croydon has identified the need to develop efficient and reliable public transport as an attractive alternative to the car, while, at the same time, promoting environmental policies as an important consideration in any new developments. The council considers tramlink—

To take up the hon. Gentleman's point about environmental policies, why have the promoters not been able to respond to the petition from the Open Spaces Society and the Ramblers Association? They suggest that, since much of the scheme will take up public open space, it would be logical for the promoters to find compensatory open space for the land.

The scheme has been designed to minimise the impact on open space. I shall say a few more words about that later. However, there is already a large amount of valuable open space in Croydon and the promoters believe that the impact on open space would be limited; therefore, they were not able to meet the demands that have been outlined by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). It is significant that the Association of Croydon Conservation Societies supports the Bill.

I am sure that hon. Members are aware that London is suffering from severe congestion in its public transportation system, both on roads and on the public transport network. The CBI has estimated that the cost of the congestion of London's transport system amounts to a staggering £10 billion per annum. Hon. Members will also be aware of the pollution effects of cars on the environment. Studies have been undertaken to propose long-term solutions to those problems in central and Greater London.

Following the successful promotion of the scheme to authorise the construction of the Docklands light railway, London Regional Transport and British Rail carried out a joint study into the contribution that light railways could make to the improvement of transport in London. A report published in 1986 identified a number of areas where light railways could be of value. Chief among those was a system based on Croydon, using a mixture of BR lines and new construction to link Croydon with its adjoining boroughs. Further work was carried out with the active co-operation of the local council, and in 1987 a system of three routes was identified as economically viable, physically possible and of great benefit to the economic life of the area.

In 1989, further reports were prepared for the Department of Transport on the transport problems of various parts of London. One of those, the south London assessment study, related to Croydon and its adjoining boroughs. The report identified existing traffic problems and traffic congestion as the most important issue. Those reports generated a lot of concern in south London, because their key proposal to alleviate the transport problem in London was major, massive road building. Politicians of all parties and local interest groups objected strongly to those proposals, and they were rightly dropped.

The reports also examined other proposals such as traffic management measures, junction improvements, road widening and new routes. Bus priority measures and the restructuring of bus and British Rail routes were also included. Croydon council has implemented many of those road and junction improvements to make better use of the existing road network, but it also concluded that a more ambitious approach to the problems of congestion was required, which, at the same time, would offer substantial environmental and economic benefits.

I follow my hon. Friend's logic about the need to ease congestion, and I share his feelings about problems with building more roads, but does he agree that it would be far better to use existing British Rail infrastructure to improve links in that part of London rather than put in new infrastructure? Does he accept that running trams down the centre of roads in Croydon will hardly ease traffic congestion?

The Bill proposes using a lot of existing British Rail track. However, there are problems because British Rail track is quite inflexible and difficult to extend to other areas. One of the advantages of introducing a light rail system is the greater flexibility to extend it to other areas.

My hon. Friend is right to mention impact on roads where light rail has to run, but it is possible, with good design and traffic management measures, to minimise any impact to enable the light rail to run on existing roads.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the first constituency in the country to use electric trams was my own of Blackpool. We were the one town, not only in this country but in western Europe, never to abandon trams. We are delighted that my hon. Friend and his colleagues in Croydon are proposing to bring back trams, because they are very successful. I know that his scheme is based on the one that is already operating in Manchester. I strongly support his comments about the ability of tram schemes to lessen congestion and to run along roads.

I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. Like many hon. Members, I have experienced the joys of a Blackpool tram on a wet and windy night at certain party conferences in that illustrious resort. I have also visited Manchester. The small impact of Manchester's light rail system in terms of noise and visual intrusion is striking. At one stage during the drawing up of the proposals for the light rail system, I had the pleasure of visiting Wimbledon. The contrast between the noise of British Rail trains on the track and light rail has to be heard to be believed.

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has trodden the path between Croydon and Wimbledon, a path that we hope will become a light rail in due course. I look forward to much interchange between our constituencies.

To take up the logic of my hon. Friend's point about using existing rail, as would be the case in my constituency, that is nonsense if one does not continue the logic so that the rail ends where the existing rail at present terminates at Wimbledon station. I understand that the proposals are for a terminus elsewhere, which would be nonsense for my constituency.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that the promoters would have preferred an interchange into platform 10 at Wimbledon station. When the Bill was deposited, it was quite clear that no agreement could be reached with British Rail, which understandably took the view that it might want to extend other services for which it would use platform 10. That has caused my hon. Friend some concern, as it has some people in Merton. Now that the issue has been reviewed, although it was thought at one stage that the proposal would run into the buffers, British Rail considers that there is merit in looking at it again. A feasibility study by BR has stated that in principle it is prepared to allow tramlink to use platform 10.

I know that the promoters hope that discussions with BR will continue, to arrive at the solution that my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes)—and they—would like, as the scheme would greatly benefit from a full interchange at Wimbledon station. There is no doubt that the proposal in the Bill has always been viewed as a second best alternative. We would like the full interchange at Wimbledon along the lines that my hon. Friend suggests.

Earlier, I was discussing the studies carried out in Croydon. The council concluded that the tramlink scheme offered the prospect of a revitalised public transport system and a credible alternative to transport by car. It also concluded that the system could be reliable, quiet, efficient and accessible to all. It would improve the environment and the amenities of the locality. As a result of this conclusion, Croydon council resolved to develop tramlink in conjunction with LRT.

Before becoming a Member of this House I had the pleasure of serving as a councillor in Croydon for 16 years, the last six of them as deputy leader to Sir Peter Bowness. In that capacity, I was a member of the tramlink working party, set up to enable senior members from both sides of the council—including the leader, deputy leader, Councillor Mary Walker, who was leader of the Labour group, and others—to make progress with the proposal and to offer guidance to officers working on the complex issues involved.

I pay tribute to the genuinely bipartisan approach adopted by all in that exercise. I also pay tribute to the commitment of members and officers of the council. From this cross-party coalition there emerged a recognition of the significant benefits that the scheme would bring to the area. I hope that the same bipartisan approach will be shown in the House tonight.

The project is, and has been, an example of how good cross-party support for a scheme can bring great benefits to an area. It is also an excellent example of local government working well to the benefit of its people.

The scheme would connect central Croydon with Wimbledon, Beckenham, Elmers End and New Addington. The Wimbledon branch would extend frorn the terminus near or—I hope—at the BR station to central Croydon. The line will use the existing BR branch line and will replace the rail service between Wimbledon and West Croydon. It will provide for an interchange with other BR services at Wimbledon, Mitcham junction and West Croydon. The line will provide a more frequent and attractive service, with additional stops connecting residential areas with rail services into London.

The branch connecting central Croydon to Beckenham will share an existing alignment with British Rail services. A disused British Rail alignment will also be used, and new track will be constructed where necessary. This line will connect the highly developed commuter areas of Beckenham, Elmers End and Woodside with Croydon, as well as providing an interchange with British Rail services at Beckenham.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the interchange at Beckenham junction will not run into Beckenham junction station but, like the one a t Wimbledon, will be of the type that will involve passengers wishing to change from tramlink to British Rail, or vice versa, coming out of one station, walking down the road and going into another? It is thus incorrect to describe it as an interchange.

Secondly, is my hon. Friend aware of the strong opposition to the scheme in my constituency? It also is bipartisan, embracing the Labour and Conservative parties in the area.

I understand some of my hon. Friend's concerns about Beckenham, but I should have thought that the interchange was a reasonable way of enabling people to transfer from one service to another. I emphasise that the whole link, from the edge of the borough of Croydon into Beckenham junction, runs along existing British Rail track. We are not even talking about taking up track, as we would be in some parts of Croydon. The track is still on the ground, providing BR services.

I apologise for pressing my hon. Friend on this, but I must correct him. He has just told the House that a section of the line will be newly built, running in my constituency along parts of South Norwood country park.

I apologise if I have misled my hon. Friend. I was taking into account the fact that, under a proposal recently agreed by the Boundary Commission, the park will shortly become part of the London borough of Croydon. Anyhow, once the line leaves the country park, it runs entirely on British Rail's existing track. I am happy to clarify the matter.

The third route, the light rail branch to New Addington, starts off using a partly disused British Rail alignment, but thereafter most of the route into New Addington has to be built through open land. By that I mean that, in the main, it goes along the edge of open space, not across the middle of it. This new line will provide the first ever rail service to the New Addington estate. New Addington has a population of about 25,000 and is the largest residential area in London without a rail service.

The central section of tramlink comprises a loop connecting West and East Croydon BR stations to the Wimbledon, Beckenham and New Addington branches of tramlink. This section will be built in the street as a conventional tramway, incorporating a variety of road traffic schemes to integrate the new system with the transport network.

The promoters are anxious that tramlink should meet, as far as possible, the needs of all members of the community, with particular attention to the needs of the elderly and the disabled. Accordingly, they are committed to making the whole system accessible to people with disabilities. All aspects of the scheme, including the design of the stops and rolling stock, will be subject to the closest scrutiny, to maximise accessibility. An important example of this is the fact that the floor level of the trams will be very low, allowing easy access from raised footways and low platforms to be provided at tram stops.

I know from my involvement with the working party in Croydon that great care has been taken to minimise the impact on homes and on the environment. For example, to connect New Addington with central Croydon, the system has to cross some very sensitive environmental areas—especially Addington hills, an attractive wooded area. Members of the working party were most concerned that the initial proposals would have meant a line running straight through the middle of this valuable open land. That working party felt it essential that the line should, instead, run up the edge of Addington hills. After a lot of technical discussion, the experts, I am pleased to say, came up with the proposal in the Bill. Consequently, the route runs along the edge of the road and does not cut straight through Addington hills.

That is a very good example of the promoters' desire not to cause environmental difficulties, particularly to valuable open space. I am pleased to say that that sensitive approach to crucial environmental issues adopted by the working party and the promoters has underpinned the development of the scheme. I believe that it now achieves its objectives with the minimum impact on the local environment.

Hon. Members will be pleased to know that I do not intend to go through the Bill clause by clause, although they will want to know about one or two. of its important features. It is promoted by London Regional Transport and Croydon council. It is intended that the construction and operation of tramlink will be undertaken by the private sector, which will bear the commercial risks and responsibility for the success of the system.

Assuming that the Bill gains Royal Assent, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the whole scheme will be completed as one entity, or is there a risk that the private sector may decide that one bit is financially viable and other bits are not?

I welcome the hon. Member's intervention. The promoters' intention, as I understand it, is that all parts of the scheme will be built and financed by the private sector and that it will stand or fall in its entirety.

A very important part of the system is the link to New Addington. That link is a costly part of the scheme because it involves the construction of much new track. It provides a valuable link to the large community of 25,000 people, who currently do not have a rail link and are totally dependent on buses or cars. We all know the problems of getting into urban centres in the rush hour, when we can be subject to all sorts of delay. The proposed link will offer those people a particular benefit, and that is why it is part of the integral system.

The key part of the scheme is that the commercial risks and responsibilities rest with the private sector. It will provide the major part of the funding. An element of Government funding could well be required, but that would have to reflect the public benefits that the scheme will generate, especially to other route users. The major proportion of the total construction cost would still be provided by the private sector. No subsidy will be provided by London Transport or Croydon council for the operation of the system.

The scheme is an excellent example of how the private sector can make a valuable contribution to the provision of transport infrastructure. I know that the Government attach great importance to the private sector assuming such a role, and it is a further reason why I am happy to support the Bill.

Such an arrangement has the distinct advantages of easing the burden on the public purse by maximising the private sector contribution to the scheme at a time when there are many competing demands for new transport projects. It will also reap the benefits of private sector enterprise and expertise. Such active co-operation will allow the promoters to call upon considerable worldwide expertise in the introduction and operation of modern light railway systems.

The private sector is already heavily involved in the scheme. The project development group, comprising London Regional Transport, Croydon council and their three selected private sector partners—including a major British construction company—has begun to take forward the development and detailed design of tramlink. The private sector participants are already—I stress the word "already"—committing their own resources to the process.

The scheme enjoys the unanimous support of Croydon council, which has voted in favour of it, and is strongly supported by the Croydon chamber of commerce and industry, which is a consortium of 1,300 local businesses. The scheme is also supported in principle by local trade associations, environmental groups and the neighbouring boroughs of Bromley. Sutton and Merton. A high degree of public support for it was expressed during the consultation period. There are some local objectors, and I welcome the fact that they will have the opportunity to express their concern in Committee.

Tramlink provides an exciting opportunity to introduce a modern, clean, reliable and, above all, safe transport system, which will enhance the quality of public transport in a large area of south London. It will improve the environment by encouraging the use of tramlink for many business and leisure journeys. It will offer for the first time a congestion-free alternative to using a car for travel between major commercial, retail and residential centres. London needs and deserves the best system of modern, environmentally friendly and convenient public transport.

The Bill has completed all its stages in the other place, and has been closely scrutinised by a Select Committee there. I hope that hon. Members will agree that it is a most worthwhile scheme that should be given every encouragement. I urge the House to give the Bill a Second Reading, so that a Select Committee of the House can have the same opportunity to examine the scheme in detail.

7.25 pm

I do not plan to oppose the Bill at this stage, but I wish to make it clear that I have some misgivings about it. I am firmly in favour of the development of new tramways, because if we are to solve congestion on our roads, they have a very useful future.

It is important that the people who promote such new schemes persuade the local communities that the entire scheme is worth while. At least one Conservative Member has referred to the experience gained in Manchester. It should be noted that in Manchester the schemes that have been brought into use have basically used existing British Rail track and service. A small amount of track has been constructed within the city centre. In trying to develop new schemes in Greater Manchester, considerable problems have arisen when the developers have wanted to run the tramway down residential roads. I know that you will call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I say too much about Manchester, but it is important to recognise that that system represents the transfer from a railway system to a tramway system.

On many occasions in the House, I have suggested that the procedure in which we are involved is a total farce. This may be the last occasion that the House has to go through this pantomime with a works Bill. Most hon. Members will be aware that, some 18 months ago, the House passed the Transport and Works Act 1992, under which we developed a much more sensible way in which to deal with such Bills.

The only reason that we are dealing with the Bill now is that it officially started its progress in the House of Lords under the old procedure. It was generally accepted that anything that had been originally presented as a private Bill should be allowed to continue in that fashion, but that we would not let any future Bills follow that process.

I think that the Bill demonstrates the faults in the old procedure. It must be nearly two years since the Bill was originally tabled. The whole process of private Bills was designed to encourage the promoters to negotiate with the petitioners and agree a solution that was acceptable to everyone. It is quite clear that the Bill had a heavily contested passage through the House of Lords and, equally, it will have a heavily contested passage through the House.

I am very disappointed that the promoters have not taken more time to meet the ramblers and others who have objections to the loss of open space without compensation, and to find a way of meeting their objections. I would plead with the promoters, even at this late stage, to enter into negotiation.

As many hon. Members know, it is easy to spin out the procedures involved in this type of Bill. No doubt, in a week or two, we will have a carry-over motion, where there will be scope for several hours of debate. It may be necessary for the promoters to find 100 Members for the closure. Depending on the day on which the motion is tabled, that could cause considerable difficulty.

Then there will be the Committee stage, which is supposed to be a very judicial process, in which four hon. Members, who know nothing about the scheme, are selected to listen to the objectors. We know that there are often manipulations behind the scenes concerning who is selected as Chairman of the Committee. Two votes may well decide the outcome of the scheme. If the Government are enthusiastic, the Chairman will come from the Government side. That seems to have more influence on how a proposal progresses than all the arguments of the objectors. Even when the Bill has been through that process, there can still be a Committee stage with amendments and a whole series of other procedures that can drag it out.

If the scheme is really worthy, it seems logical for the promoters to do some deals at this stage to get rid of the objections and find a compromise with the objectors so that they can speed the Bill on its way. I hope that it will not be necessary for me to return to the subject.

I will concentrate my remarks now on the points put to me by the Open Spaces Society and the Ramblers Association. If such schemes are worth while and if they are going to reduce congestion and speed up transport, it should be possible to compensate for the open space that is taken by the scheme with other pieces of open space. In most places, promoters of light public transport schemes have made great efforts to find compensating land.

It is sad that, on this occasion, Croydon council and London Regional Transport have been unwilling to find that compensating land, not because it is impossible to find any, but because of the economics involved. I stand to be corrected, but I think that it is London Regional Transport that wants to make a profit out of land that it can sell on the open market and LRT is not prepared to offer it as compensation for the land that has been taken.

I would argue strongly that, in almost all our urban areas, preserving open space is important. Obviously, it must sometimes be taken for schemes, but it is usually possible to find some land to compensate for it.

I support the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Is he aware that the same problem exists in the southern end of the Beckenham area, where the South Norwood country park will be traversed by new construction for tramlink? That will detract from a valuable amenity in the area and people feel that, if that has to be done, compensating land should be provided.

I do not want to get into the detailed geography of the area, because I do not know it very well, having looked at the area on the map at fairly short notice, and also because it has been a long time since my grandmother lived in Beckenham and I used to go out to some of those places. If I were pushed, I could take the House on a ramble around my childhood activities in the area and point out that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] No, I will not be tempted tonight, but I might have to do so on another occasion.

I could point out that many of the places over which I could have rambled some 40 years ago have now been built on. One of the problems in most of our urban areas is that open space has been substantially taken up by housing. As a result, we lose the open space for animals and vegetation. Often, the land becomes fragmented and its quality is destroyed.

Kids also lose open space where they can go and, without breaking the law, get up to a certain amount of mischief. Such activity can be extremely annoying if it occurs at the bottom of one's garden or on a street corner where a gang of teenagers congregate. Kids often make a noise. When someone comes out and tries to move them on, there may be a bit of friction. It might become a bit of a game, people may become annoyed and then the police are called in.

It is very difficult for the police if, strictly speaking, the law is not being broken. However, the police want to try to calm such situations down. If there is informal open space, youngsters almost always disappear there and do not annoy adults or pensioners. Where space is taken in such a scheme, it is very important that some space is provided as compensation.

The particular piece of open space to which my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) referred is South Norwood country park, which was created only a few years ago. It comprises 150 acres of open space. Even if we accept the objectors' statement about tramlink taking 13 acres—frankly, nowhere near that amount will be taken—we must put that into context and bear in mind the 150 acres, which were created as open space, on which it had been proposed to build housing and put light industry. The fact that the council decided to designate the land as a country park shows the seriousness that it attaches to creating open space. The council would certainly not wish to see any open space destroyed.

The hon. Gentleman referred to 13 acres. Let us not argue about whether it is 10 acres or 13 acres. Let us just see whether some land can be provided as compensation. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can tell me how much of Croydon and the surrounding authority areas has been lost to housing and other developments since 1970. I suspect that a very large area of those authorities has been lost as open space.

I accept that part of the scheme crosses the country park. However, would it not be far more useful if compensation for that—if it cannot be added to the surroundings of the country park, which may be very good from the point of view of nature conservation—were provided in areas which, according to the map, appear to be very densely populated and which lack informal space where youngsters can get away from adults and not commit crime, but give vent to high spirits? Such activity is only natural for youngsters, but it can be very annoying if it happens at the bottom of one's garden or close to it.

I do not want to delay the House much longer today, but I want to set down a very firm marker. Under this procedure or under the new procedure for making orders, we should encourage people to believe that if they produce tramway schemes or any other works scheme that would take open space, they should look around for open space to compensate for that.

It would be particularly unfortunate if the argument for not providing compensatory land was not that such land is impossible to find, but that there are costs involved in providing that compensatory scheme. Although I will not vote against Second Reading today, I set down a marker that, if the promoters want to get the scheme into place quickly, they should find some way of meeting the objections of ramblers and the Open Spaces Society.

7.38 pm

I support the Bill and agree with the sentiments of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) about the procedures that we are following. Many of the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raised have been raised locally and I am glad that he is prepared to keep his options open at the moment and will not oppose the Bill at this stage.

After all, the Bill relates to the principle of tramlink. It is certainly not the final word. It is an enabling Bill which simply provides for the transfer of powers to a private operator to construct and operate tramlink. The promoters can analyse whether they can raise the necessary funding and whether the construction is viable. They can then come back and persuade everyone that they have the right answers.

The tramlink scheme does not affect the south of the borough, which I have the privilege to represent. There are no proposals for lines to go down to Croydon, South, but I support the Bill because I believe that the economic development of Croydon is paramount, and that the tramlink will assist the economic development of Croydon and London. The financial viability of London as the commercial capital of the world has to be supported, and such projects will assist in maintaining the status of London, and Croydon as a part of London.

Those of us who pass through Croydon, or indeed Beckenham, know how much traffic congestion there is. If I have one beef about Government transport policy, it is the transport infrastructure black hole that exists in south London. I have approached my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London more than once about that. I have to accept that steps are being made to improve the infrastructure locally, and the access to Croydon and the proposed Coulsdon bypass are something for which the Government can take credit.

I am sure that my hon. Friend speaks accurately about his constituency. He described an infrastructure black hole in south London. Is he aware that in my constituency, which measures three miles by two miles, there are 14 open and working British Rail stations? Does he call that a black hole?

I am sorry if I misled my hon. Friend. I was talking about road infrastructure. In my constituency there are 14 British Rail stations and we have excellent train links to the centre of London, which I shall mention later. However, no new roads are proposed for south London. Those of us who drive up the M23 from Gatwick, cross over the M25 and look at the stump of the old M23 will have to agree that it is a sorry sight. Sadly, if there was one blow that the Government struck against the borough of Croydon it was the abandonment of the M23 in 1979, for reasons that were valid at the time but did nothing to help access to Croydon, which is essential for its financial importance and interests. The proposed east-west link, which will complement the spokes that go in and out of London, will vastly improve access to Croydon.

I am impressed by three points. First, the proposal has wide support from the council, from the chambers of commerce and the vast number of corporate entities affiliated to them, and from local trade associations. I accept that some people object to the Bill, and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) will no doubt develop his objections in due course. However, the House of Lords has already listened to the various objectors and was not overwhelmed by their objections. In paragraph 10 of its findings it said that it did not find against the Bill on the basis of the objections, but made the useful comment that
"the promoters seem to us to have demonstrated a sympathetic understanding of these petitioners' situation and a willingness to try to mitigate the effects of Tramlink on them."
That comment shows the effectiveness of petitioning, but it is not grounds to oppose the Bill.

Did not the House of Lords Committee hint that the promoters should negotiate with the petitioners between the House of Lords stage and the Committee in this House? As I understand it, the promoters have made few concessions, and hardly any of the petitions have been withdrawn.

The hon. Gentleman is referring to the next sentence in the summary. I confess that I am not privy to negotiations between the promoters and the objectors, but I understand that some steps have been taken and I accept that the House of Lords has recommended that an effort be made to reach a consensus.

Secondly, I am impressed by the relatively small number of properties affected by the proposals. I understand that only 25 houses are affected, which for a rail link 18 miles long is a relatively small number.

My hon. Friend says that few houses are affected. Will he explain what he means? Does he mean affected to such a degree that they need to be purchased, or is his description broader?

My hon. Friend comes to my next point. I meant that 25 houses will have to be purchased. There is a wider degree of blight, as is inevitable with such a proposal. The third point that impresses me, however, is that the promoters have undertaken that where blight notices have been served they will deal with them sympathetically and with minimum delay. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham, who I know is most concerned about possible delays as a result of blight, will take note of that. Those three proposals remove many subjects of concern to me and enable me to support the Bill.

I still have four concerns, however, which I shall briefly mention. The first is that, frankly, there is still a lot of iffiness about the funding of the proposal. Understandably, there is no Government commitment at this point, but the promoters of the scheme will not start unless they are convinced that it will be financially viable. As a result, there is a higher standard of assessment of the risk. That is why private loans do not feature in the public sector borrowing requirement. Such loans tend to be more tightly controlled than Government loans and are therefore less risky.

That argument is at the heart of the privatisation debate. Private organisations tend to make a more detailed analysis of the financial risks. I hope that we can have greater clarity about how much public money may he forthcoming and how much might be needed to remove many of the concerns being expressed about funding.

On funding, one point has not been properly aired. Property that is enhanced by the proximity of the line will increase in value, and the beneficiaries might like to chip in towards the line's construction costs. That is not without precedent. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford) smiles. He knows much more about local government than I do, but a precedent was established when the developers of Canary wharf, which will benefit from the construction of the Jubilee line, undertook to chip in towards the cost of that line.

The borough council owns some property near the tramlink route, but lacks the powers to sell it at the enhanced value and apply the proceeds to the scheme. I hope that in due course the Government will consider what powers might be needed to facilitate the sale, because that money should be readily available.

Will my hon. Friend welcome the opportunity to visit the residents association of Lynden Hyrst, for example, where the residents feel that when they step on to the pavement the tramlink will virtually run across their toenails? Perhaps he would like to ask them how they feel about the benefit, and whether they would care to donate towards the scheme.

My hon. Friend's argument is valid, but it has nothing to do with my argument. If property is financially enhanced by the proximity of the line, its owners might like to chip in towards the cost of the scheme. Of course there are objectors. I have dealt with the objectors who are affected. The line is not going through my constituency, and none of my constituents objects to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central has constituents who object. No doubt he will deal with the matter in his skilful way.

My second concern is the disruption that might take place during construction of the scheme. I understand that in the city of Sheffield, as a result of traffic congestion, retailing fell by about 30 per cent. during the construction of the light railway. There is a pattern to shoppers' habits. If they know that they are likely to run into traffic jams in a certain area, they do not go there, and local retail trade tends to drop.

My third concern is the British content of the proposed scheme. I appreciate the promoters' efforts, but it must be accepted that two out of three promoters in the group are not British. What is the matter with the British? It is not much of a compliment to British industry if we have to rely on foreign input to build a tramlink in the middle of Croydon.

Hon. Members who have attended Transport Question Time, or, indeed, Prime Minister's Question Time, will have heard the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) banging on about subsidies that might be given to Asea Brown Boveri, which is based in his constituency. I happened to be driving past ABB in Derby the other day and I thought that I would look in and see how it was getting on. It certainly does not need help from the Government to get off the ground. I was impressed to hear that it recently won the contract to supply all the tram rolling stock in Strasbourg, of all places, the heart of the European Community and the home of the European Parliament.

Why cannot ABB try to win the contract in Croydon so that we could have a genuine British element in the scheme? I hope that there will be a fair chance for British bids to be fully appreciated. Of course we need a fair competitive basis for tendering.

My fourth concern is the possible spur off the proposed tramlink to Purley. I hope that, during analysis of the scheme, such a possibility will not be ruled out. Trams used to go to Purley, and that could happen again. My initial soundings reveal that there is no overwhelming local enthusiasm one way or the other for such an idea, but it should be discussed. Indeed, I approached the Purley and Woodcote residents association on that point. My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London will be pleased to hear that the association says that it already has reasonable bus and rail links from Purley to Croydon. However, trains from Purley to Croydon do not operate so regularly as trams would.

The scheme is imaginative, it has been well thought out, it will do much to ease traffic congestion in the Croydon area, it will add to Croydon's prosperity, and it has my full support.

7.52 pm

On behalf of the Labour party, I also welcome the Bill. Its concept of rapid, modern transport, which we have envisaged in our manifestos in recent general elections—circumstances have frustrated us in developing such themes—is greatly welcomed. The innovation and pioneering concept of the Bill's promoters should be recognised.

For a country the size of ours, very few modern transport projects have been promoted by any town or city since the second world war. Reference has been made to Manchester, and there is obviously docklands and Tyne and Wear, but there have not been many initiatives by local authorities, transport undertakings or, for that matter, Governments of either colour to modernise our transport system. This is a new and welcome departure, particularly as the scheme is in Greater London.

The immediate beneficiaries will be people who live in and near Elmers End, Beckenham, New Addington, Wimbledon, and along the routes linking those areas with the strategic shopping and commercial centre of Croydon. However, other residential areas and parts of south London will also benefit from the project. The link to Wimbledon will enable people who live along the Network SouthEast line serving Kingston and Sunbury to have much greater access to the eastern side- of the Greater London region south of the Thames, but to avoid the necessity of going to Clapham junction.

That theme can be developed further if one considers that people from Guildford travelling via Surbiton to Wimbledon will have access to Beckenham and Croydon while avoiding congested Clapham junction. They will have less travelling time. To complete the picture, I refer also to people who reside in Hampton Court or along the Chessington-Tolworth-Malden Manor line. There will be a great travel benefit to those people, too, if the line is linked with Wimbledon.

It has already been said that the project has all-party support in Croydon. As far as one can ascertain, there is demonstrable support for the project among the people of Croydon. That is very important, notwithstanding the representations of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant). The councils of the London borough of Merton and the London borough of Bromley wish the Bill well, at least in principle.

The Bill is only the first chapter in the project. If the project is to succeed and be constructed and, more important, be realised operationally, there is much to be done. Probably the most important aspect is the need for reassurance on funding of the project. We look to the Minister to give an idea of the extent to which, in terms of money and spirit, the Government will back the project. It is certainly a large project. We are talking about £140 million at a time of recession and commercial uncertainty. Therefore, we need significant backing and enthusiasm from the Department of Transport.

Many people who support the project are looking for reassurances either from the promoters or from the Department of Transport that it will be part of an integrated network. Implicit in that is the fact that tramlink must have a system of through ticketing with buses, Network SouthEast and, I hope, the London underground.

In a debate which, to a large extent, will be bipartisan, I hesitate to mention travelcard, but it is important that the Opposition should again remind the Minister for Transport in London that he and his Department have failed to give guarantees about the future of travelcard for existing public transport networks in London. That is bad and it is causing great disquiet. As we try to develop new systems of public transport in Greater London, the need for low-cost transferable ticketing throughout the various modes of transport in Greater London is underlined yet again. We should like a guarantee that travelcard will be not only used on existing transport networks but be extended to the Croydon tramlink.

It is inevitable that, in preparing for today's debate, hon. Members studied the report of the debate in another place. I was concerned to note that the principal sponsor, Baroness Gardner of Parkes, hinted that there might be a need for premium pricing to fund what is demonstrably an expensive project. That would be more than disappointing and would go against the spirit of promoting a modern, swift and cheap new form of public transport within Greater London. I hope that the sponsors and the Department bear that in mind during the Bill's parliamentary stages.

From my reading of the debate in another place, it appears that there were those who expressed an over-confident opinion about the funding for and the viability of the project. Although I wish it well and believe that it could and should be funded, it is somewhat shortsighted for their Lordships to take the view that the scheme will be largely financed by private capital and therefore
"subject to the most intense expert scrutiny by those putting up the money."
There needs to be an undertaking from the Government about funding of construction and an undertaking that once the project is operational it will not be allowed to go bust, in any circumstances. That might appear to be an extreme scenario, but throughout the 20th century many public transport projects have subsequently been found not to be financially viable in strict commercial terms.

Once the project is completed, Governments of whatever colour must ensure that it survives. By then, where people live and work and much commercial activity will be based on the existence of that public transport system. Therefore, once the Bill receives Royal Assent, that commits all future Governments to being the ultimate guarantor—

We want a guarantee not just that the project will survive, but that it will survive in its entirety. With any privately funded scheme, the concern is always that those putting up the money might say, "We have looked at the economics and part A is all right, but we are not going to put up the money for the other parts." If people are to lose open spaces and suffer other disadvantages, it is important that in return they get the whole scheme, with all the advantages, not just part of it. That is especially true in areas such as New Addington.

I accept my hon. Friend's point, which he puts more ably than me, that Parliament will be making a decision that morally binds future Governments to maintaining the project once it is constructed.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the crux of the scheme is private funding and that that will involve bidding? To give any guarantee along the lines that he suggested would undermine the likelihood of realistic bidding from the private sector.

I accept that the concept of the Bill is that the project should be commercially viable and that there will be bidders and franchises. During our debates on the Railways Bill, the Government stressed that entrepreneurs, companies and consortiums were prepared to fund transport systems and make a stab at operating them. The jury is still out on that. The hon. Gentleman buttressed the argument for privatisation by supporting the Bill in the Lobby. Therefore, I am surprised that he should question that principle in respect of the Croydon Tramlink Bill.

The hon. Gentleman is talking about two different cases. The British Rail proposal involves negative bidding. The rail system exists and we want to keep it running. The Croydon Tramlink Bill is quite different. We are talking about the construction and running of a system. Because that has not started, any Government guarantee on finance would undercut the sharpness of the bidding from the private sector.

I was not inviting the Government to issue a blank cheque or give a commitment that, as from this evening, they will underwrite the project. It would be naive of me to expect that from this Government. If there were a Labour Government, they, too, would hesitate to write a blank cheque. Nevertheless, if the Bill receives Royal Assent and some consortium constructs and subsequently runs this exciting project, but 20 years down the road it fails, the party that is in government must not allow the tramlines to be pulled up. That would be foolhardy. That is why we are at such an important stage; it sets the agenda not only for this project but for future projects.

I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I urge him not to go too far down that track —if he will excuse the pun—because one of the important parts of the project is to put the bulk of the risk in the private sector. The private sector must be under no illusion in its bidding. It must rigorously go through, as it has, the estimates of demand, usage and fares, in the knowledge that it will not be bailed out in 12 months if it gets it wrong; to do so would he a misuse of public funds. Nevertheless, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that in the very long run it would be disappointing, to say the least, if we had the infrastructure but it was not used for trams. We need to strike a balance between ensuring that the risk is firmly in the private sector and avoiding a difficult problem 20 years ahead.

I am content to say, "Hear, hear" to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. There is not a blade of grass between us on this point. He has expressed himself in the same spirit in which the Labour party approaches the project and with some confidence and hope that private finance can be found.

Like a number of hon. Members, I have some knowledge of and association with Croydon. I stood in Croydon, Central as a Labour candidate in the 1983 general election and, subsequently, in a much wider sphere as a European parliamentary candidate in 1984. l have some identification with and appreciation of not only the territory but some of the personalities involved—both those promoting the Bill and, in one or two cases, those petitioning against it. I am aware of the beautiful open spaces along the proposed route. I urge the Bill's promoters to remember that many of the points raised by petitioners are legitimate. An urgent attempt should be made to assuage their anxieties. Meeting some of those points would not be fatal to the project.

I want to mention a few of the points made by petitioners. In the other place, Lord Lytton argued that, before Royal Assent, there should be a scheme in place to ensure that blighted properties are bought, if the owners so request, with the utmost expedition. I hope that such purchases will not be confined to the 25 properties to which reference has been made. I hope that common sense and good will will prevail in respect of other properties that may suffer some degree of blight, or where personal circumstances—particularly affecting elderly or retired occupants—ought to be taken into account.

Many petitioners are not yet confident—although I believe that their concerns may be overcome—about the proposed design. The scheme should be sensitive to the needs of pedestrians and cyclists, particularly where the link goes through open areas such as Lloyd park. Also, the rail cars should take into account the needs of the infirm and semi-ambulant. Wherever possible, the line of route should segregate the trams from cars and lorries, if not from other forms of public transport.

Mention was made of the need to attempt to reinstate high-value land and to replace land that is lost. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made the valid point—this is a flaw in the Bill —that an assumption is made that the promoters cannot or will not find land to compensate for that used by the tramlink. Parliament should send a signal that, notwithstanding Croydon council's extremely good record of providing land on its own initiative, an effort should be made to replace land used for the route. One cannot be satisfied at this stage that that principle has been taken on board by the promoters.

The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), replying to an intervention, argued that a contribution could be made by those who will benefit from the line of route. I am not opposed to that principle, but inevitably there are people who have a rapacious appetite for commercially exploiting new public projects. There is anxiety in Croydon that Sainsbury would like to develop 36 acres at the bottom of Gravel hill on the Kent Gate way. Croydon borough council, as the co-promoter, has made it abundantly clear that it is opposed to that land being developed by Sainsbury—but it will not be able to stop Sainsbury legitimately pursuing through the planning process and a public inquiry an opportunity to exploit land that abuts the tramlink.

Prospective developers and others will inevitably seek to offer to contribute to the project in return for some advantage to themselves. That is a commercially legitimate practice, but we should be on guard against attracting resources to fund the project in a way that compromises good planning principles.

Is not the hon. Gentleman also concerned that, if and when the tramlink starts operating, there might be pressure—particularly from the operator of the New Addington line—to construct park-and-ride areas? Given that the line will run through two miles of countryside and will attract few passengers, except from New Addington, the operator might want to provide park-and-ride areas to make that line more viable.

The hon. Gentleman makes a legitimate point, about which I am not unsympathetic. In a number of areas, there will inevitably be a temptation to create park-and-ride facilities where none is currently planned. Equally, Croydon council is anxious not to eat further into open spaces or the green belt by making substantial and frequent provisions for park-and-ride. More thought must be given to providing a balance. The hon. Member for Beckenham suggests that New Addington will become one big car park, because that major junction will attract traffic from Biggin Hill and other areas adjoining Bromley.

There would also be extensive opportunities for undesirable parking in the Lloyd park area, in a number of streets off Coombe road. However, that is not an argument for frustrating the passage of the Bill tonight, but the Bill's promoters must give greater consideration to this point of great anxiety among the petitioners.

There are two aspects to be considered. The first is the Canary Wharf principle, whereby private developers that enjoy enhanced value could, as a condition of relevant planning permission, chip into the construction cost. I take the point about safety, but that could be a condition of planning permission. That concept is not unknown. Secondly, I understand that one or two derelict acres in the centre of Croydon, next to a railway line, belong to the local authority. That land will have enhanced value, but the borough does not have the power to sell it and plough the proceeds into the scheme. Perhaps the Government could address that matter.

I am sure that the Minister and the promoters have taken note of that point. It is new to me, but it appears to justify further consideration.

Notwithstanding bus deregulation and privatisation, London Regional Transport should use its good offices to ensure that extensive Hoppa bus services feed the tram stops without causing unnecessary traffic congestion and parking problems.

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about possible further encroachment on open space as a result of further planning permission being granted for a superstore or park-and-ride facilities. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Croydon council's urban development plan strengthens the safeguards in respect of the Kent Gate way? Although Sainsbury is fighting an inquiry, the company will be strongly resisted, as it should be.

There is a link between that and park-and-ride because other people take the view that the same land would make a wonderful park-and-ride site. I believe that it would be disastrous to use open space in that way, and I am pleased that the promoters take a similar view. They believe that the demand for the tramlink will be such that park-and-ride facilities would have only a small effect on the level of patronage. The promoters consider that the tramlink will be economically viable without park-and-ride facilities, and have not included them in the Bill for that reason. The promoters have no desire to see park-and-ride facilities provided.

A number of petitioners consider that that point deserves more consideration; I agree, although I support the concept of the Bill. We do not suggest that there should be extensive park-and-ride facilities, for the reasons cited by the hon. Gentleman. I entirely agree with him about the Kent Gate way site: I would expect the London borough of Croydon to resist any applications to develop that land, just as I would expect Sainsbury to try —legitimately, from its selfish point of view—to obtain planning permission.

No doubt that will be sorted out later. The point is that the promoters do not seem to want to consider the parking that will be generated in New Addington, and in and around the Lloyd park area. More homework needs to be done.

The promoters' plans are very imaginative, but they will raise an eyebrow or two among those who are familiar with a very congested part of south London. It is proposed that much of Addiscombe road and the area immediately outside East Croydon station should be used almost exclusively for the tramlink; that will involve the redirection of traffic around Chepstow road, Barclay road and the vicinity of the Fairfield halls. Do the promoters really believe that—even given the widening of the area involved—there will be sufficient capacity to absorb the heavy traffic that must negotiate it? I feel that an alternative must be found.

I understand that the current road widening is not related to the tramlink—so they say.

So they say; but road widening is in progress. My point is that, whatever the motive and the funding for it, the promoters should reconsider the idea that the tramlink road should monopolise the area immediately outside East Croydon station.

We welcome the Bill in principle. It will be good for people living in the boroughs of Bromley, Croydon and Merton; it will also produce increasing benefits for those living and working in a much wider area of south London and north Surrey. We hope that it will have a good run in the House, and that those who examine it will bear in mind the need to explore new ways of providing mobility at low cost—in regard to both the workplace and recreation.

8.22 pm

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) on his skilful and persuasive presentation. He helped me greatly: now I need not detain the House long in explaining the Government's position.

We see the advantages of the proposed tramlink. In its non-technical summary of the environmental statement, Halcrow Fox said that the link was being promoted because
"present widespread traffic congestion at peak times in Croydon is predicted to increase by 15 to 20 per cent. between 1986 and 2001, affecting travel by bus and car and commerical operations and increasing problems of 'rat-running', noise, air pollution and other adverse environmental effects; scope for increasing capacity through new road building or widening existing roads is severely constrained and very unpopular with the public."
According to the summary, Croydon council's transport strategy suggests that public transport should play a greater role in meeting the predicted demand for movement; light rail provides an attractive alternative to road building, increasing capacity on key routes with minimum environmental impact, and offers a real choice to travellers as against the car or bus. The Government consider that to be an accurate summary of the scheme's advantages. It involves a 17·5 mile link—or 28 km, as I should say nowadays—centred on Croydon, with branches to Wimbledon, Beckenham, Elmers End and New Addington.

There is no doubt that traffic congestion is a serious issue in Croydon, and that communications should be improved. I do not think that many people would suggest that a massive road-building programme is the answer; certainly, I do not believe that there is any local enthusiasm for such a move—even from my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant), whose reservations will be appreciated by other hon. Members.

However, a light railway system has advantages. For instance, it involves minimal environmental intrusion, and is energy efficient. No harmful fumes are emitted, as they are from cars and other vehicles. Moreover, choice, is enhanced: passengers have a real alternative to the car or bus. The Government consider the tramlink scheme worth while, and accordingly support the Bill in principle.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East pointed out, this is essentially a private sector project. That is very much in accordance with the Government's policy of involving the skills of that sector, as well as its capital, to the maximum extent to allow the transport infrastructure to provide the best value for money for both taxpayers and, ultimately, users. My hon. Friend referred to the work of the project development group. I can confirm that the promoters are making good progress: they have already appointed a private sector project development group.

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) pointed out that two of the companies involved were not British. They are Transdev, the French operator of transport systems, and AEG(UK). Although AEG is not a British company—it is building the rolling stock—AEG(UK) will provide the United Kingdom with substantial employment opportunities. Tarmac—a British company—is also involved in building the infrastructure for the line.

Those companies are funding the development work themselves: private capital is going into the project development group. The work is now well advanced. Subject to parliamentary approval of the Bill, the promoters expect to be able to invite private sector bids for the concession to build and operate the scheme early next year, including one from the project development group.

Let me make two points about the way in which the project development group will work in relation to eventual bidding for the scheme. I suspect, from what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South, that there may be a hint of misapprehension about the group's role. In wishing to ensure that the taxpayer's involvement was minimal at this stage, the promoters determined to use the device of a project development group funded by the private sector, with expertise drawn from the relevant sectors.

Those companies would, in effect, prepare a development brief which would then be the subject of tenders for the various aspects of the line—for its construction, for the construction of the rolling stock and for the operation of the line. At that point the project would be open for any company to bid, within EC rules. I should be disappointed if the only bid forthcoming was from the promoters.

Of course the promoters have become involved in the project, because they believe that it has a future, and no doubt they will want to tender for the work. I applaud their initiative in doing what they have done to provide mechanisms in the process for considering tenders that will ensure that members of the project development group do not enjoy an unreasonable advantage—that would be improper—but that, none the less, if the promoters do not win the contract, the costs that they have borne so far will be passed on to the successful bidders.

The members of the project development group are applying their skills to working the scheme up, and no doubt they look forward to bidding for the tender in open competition in due course. However, there is no guarantee whatever that they will be successful. If my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South is keen that British companies should be involved in tendering for the project, as he is the Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade he should use his extensive contacts to encourage as many British companies as possible to bid for the contract and beat off the foreign competition. The Government applaud and welcome the approach that the promoters have adopted towards the project development group. We think that that is the right way to proceed.

Grants have been mentioned, and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East said that an element of grant might be sought to support the project. I am sure that he and the promoters, and other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), will understand the grant position well. The Government will consider any application for grant on its merits by examining the public benefits that will be secured by the scheme—those are conventionally known as the non-user benefits—and relating them to the amount of grant sought. I must not disguise the fact that we shall have to do that against the background of competing schemes and the overall availability of funds. The scheme is attractive, but it would be wrong of me to give guarantees about any level of grant that may be forthcoming in due course.

It is a great pleasure to see the hon. Member for Thurrock in his place. He is the Labour mascot for the other 15 Members of Parliament who represent Essex in the Tory interest. He is much loved by all of us and, I hate to say, will be greatly missed. However, if he will forgive me, I must tell him that I took exception to his accusation —I believe that I noted it accurately—that I had failed to give guarantees on travelcard.

The hon. Gentleman nods in assent. I do not know what I am supposed to say that would reassure him. He is a fairly literate chap, so I need not descend to monosyllables to make my point.

I was recently reported in the Evening Standard as having offered my resignation if travelcard were not to survive. As it happens, I had not done that, but when the next journalist rang to ask me whether it was true I thought that I had better say yes, because otherwise he might say that I was trying to climb down from the commitment.

Since then, I have repeatedly pointed out, and I welcome the opportunity to do so in the House, that anyone who understands how public transport operates in the capital city recognises that travelcard is not an option, but is essential. It is the method by which millions of people in this city make their journeys. If one did not preserve and develop the advantages of multimodal travel such as the scheme now offers, one would not be doing the residents of this great city a service.

Were it not for the appalling precedent, I would have been tempted to ask the hon. Gentleman to read my lips, but remembering when that expression was previously used, I thought that it might be ill advised. None the less, I tell the hon. Gentleman in the clearest possible terms that the travelcard is in no danger. It is safe in my hands—there I go again, with yet another inappropriate reference. I hope that I have made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that he should not be disturbed.

Indeed, I fear that my normally generous sense of humour might wane if he were to continue along that line, because I do not believe that he is the kind of chap who would like to mislead millions of people in this city and leave them in doubt about the continued availability of the most popular device for getting around it.

Before I give way to the hon. Member for Thurrock, may I give way to my good friend the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen)?

I am grateful to my good friend the Minister for giving way to me. May I ask him two questions?- First, will the travelcard apply to tramlink? Secondly, although I appreciate that he is saying that he strongly favours keeping the travelcard, could that not mean a card completely different from the present travelcard? People can use the existing card all day to make as many journeys as they like, but could not the travelcard that the Minister means be one that runs out if someone makes too many journeys? Would that not be a completely different travelcard?

O, ye of little faith. It is important to relate travelcard to the Bill, and I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that everyone involved in the development of the scheme recognises that it should be part of the travelcard system, especially as about 70 per cent. of the people who will use tramlink will move on to other modes of travel.

It is not appropriate for that to be in the Bill, any more than it appears specifically in, for example, the Railways Bill. However, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Secretary of State will give the franchising director powers to require potential franchisees to be members of travelcard. I have made it plain that, with the leave of the House, I intend to introduce similar clauses in forthcoming legislation on the deregulation of buses in London. However, I must tell the hon. Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Leyton that negotiating the precise terms of entry into travelcard for Croydon tramlink is a matter for the promoters, for LT and for the other members of travelcard.

Before I give way to the hon. Member for Thurrock, I shall answer the second question asked by the hon. Member for Leyton by saying that his fears are unfounded. The card will continue in the form that he and I—and millions of people in this city—recognise. No doubt the system will develop. For example, I believe that stored value ticketing, which will enable us to use the same facilities for transport as the phonecard currently provides for telephoning, is likely to be widely taken up.

Passengers will enjoy having a simple ticket, like the phonecard, which, if they need to get on the tube or the bus, will obviate the need for change so that they can use the system more easily. There is a great deal of merit in that. When one is totally convinced of the importance of the device in the public transport system, one is beyond the political stage of bantering about whether or not travelcard will survive. That parrot is well and truly dead.

I welcome the Minister's reiteration that travelcard is safe: he has, in fairness, spelt that out in explicit terms this evening. Anyone reading the Official Report tomorrow morning who believed his utterances and his point to me in their entirety would also believe St. Paul who said within the walls of Damascus, "Quite honestly, I have always been preaching Christianity".

There was a stage when the Minister did wobble, to say the least, on the future of travelcard. The political reality —a London borough election next year—no doubt concentrated his mind. I welcome what he has said and if we can put the matter to rest, so be it, but it was important that we should have raised it tonight both in terms of the capacity of people to have the choice of ticketing throughout Greater London, through various modes of transport, and specifically in relation to the new, exciting tramlink. I hope that the Government and their successor will ensure that they are locked into a travelcard system as we presently know it.

I am sorry at the hint of sadness in the hon. Gentleman's voice that was implied by his reluctant acceptance that we might actually mean what we say. Of course, I understand that his deep knowledge of scripture brought to mind the concept of Pauline conversion, but neither that nor the London borough elections figured in my mind.

It is perfectly sensible, and it is important in the context of the Croydon tramlink, that the overwhelming view of operators, private and currently public, is that there is no need for legislative underpinning of a travelcard scheme because they believe that it offers huge advantages. They think that using a travelcard enables bus operators to get people on board much more quickly than currently. However, such an option to enter travelcard would not satisfy either hon. Members on either side of the House or myself. That is why I made it clear and quite explicit that travelcard will continue.

I sense that I would stray from the principal purposes of our proceedings tonight were I to digress further on the subject of travelcard and I shall not do so, but it is important. Of course, if 70 per cent. of the users of the Croydon tramlink transfer to other modes of travel, they will almost certainly want to do so with a travelcard. Therefore, the House should be aware that negotiations are foreseen by which Croydon tramlink would be part of the system. How revenue is apportioned is a complex calculation, as the hon. Gentleman knows, so I shall not go into it further.

The hon. Member for Thurrock said that he had been a prospective Member for Parliament for Croydon, although in my experience he had been a prospective Member for Parliament for most constituences before his happy arrival in the charming spot that he represents in God's own county. He asked for a guarantee that the scheme would not go bust. That was a breathtaking request, because it illustrates a profound ignorance of the way in which any market system works.

It certainly points me to the conclusion that one ought to draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention the definition of the word "risk". The concept of transferring the risk in the project to the private sector is that it will be the job of the private sector to make sure that it is a profitable railway that offers a standard of service which customers appreciate and therefore continue their patronage of the railway. However, I cannot disguise from the House the accuracy of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North-East, the sponsor of the Bill, when he said that the essence of risk was precisely that there could be circumstances in which the owners of the project might have to seek alternative financing for it and that might result in the diminution of their own equity or even in its extinguishment.

The substantive point about which the House was concerned was whether the promoters could bring forward the Bill and then simply build parts of the tramlink. That point was raised by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, among others. As the House knows, I am not the sponsor of the Bill; my hon. Friend has done that job very ably in the House tonight. I merely remind the House that the Committee will no doubt wish to look at the guarantee that the whole project will be built. It will be a matter for the Committee. Its members are as yet unnamed and I can therefore say with some assurance that I know they will treat that matter with assiduity.

I am sure that the Minister is aware ghat the Department normally gives evidence to the Committee on a Bill such as this. Will he confirm that, in his evidence, he will be asking for guarantees that the whole scheme is built, not just the more profitable bits of it?

I fear that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. He has been in the House long enough to know why. It is not appropriate for the Department to say that; it is for the Committee to determine whether it is appropriate and, if it is, to obtain it from the promoters of the Bill.

The Department will give evidence as to the desirability of the scheme, and the transport implications of the scheme; and, as I have told the House, the Department will be indicating that it favours the scheme.

The Bill has already passed its Second Reading and opposed Committee stages in the other place. The Committee there decided, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South said, that the promoters had made out a case for the Bill to proceed and it was very complimentary about the scheme. There remain those who object to the scheme on various grounds and to various degrees—including, as I understand it, my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham.

I paused for a moment before intervening because I thought that my hon. Friend might be coming to a point which the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) raised earlier and which still presents quite a serious problem. What happens if the budget goes ahead and the railway is built? Historically, railways have often gone bankrupt, sometimes quite soon after they are built. Given that there is a good deal of injury to the people affected by the route being built, what happens if they find themselves with a new railway that has worked for two years and then cannot sustain itself?

My hon. Friend will understand that I am not speaking as the sponsor of the Bill but merely offering advice which I hope will be of help to him and his constituents.

Let me first explain that there will be no question but that compensation which is due to any person who is entitled to such compensation under the terms of the Bill, and in light of the scheme, will be paid. If the operators of the system become insolvent, no doubt they will have to seek an arrangement with their creditors, and if an arrangement ultimately results in their bankruptcy or liquidation, the responsibility for operating the railway will pass to another. As it will pass at a price which reflects the then partronage and ability to render the railway profitable, it will also ensure its rapid transition and its continuence.

My hon. Friend is well aware that there are many great buildings in London built by developers who did not survive. I remember reading an article in The Times by Simon Jenkins that pointed out that Cubitt and Nash, not to mention Reichmann, had all gone bust while building the greatest buildings in London. It may be a fate that will perennially beset developers with imagination. The last thing that happened was that the local council occupied the building or knocked it down. The facility is there and it will continue.

The merits of the scheme embodied in the Bill are such that I can invite the House to support it. The Government support it. [Interruption.] I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), who says that if I say so, that is good enough for him. I look forward to him joining me in the Lobby later if required, although I hope that the Bill will receive an unopposed Second Reading.

I point out to those hon. Members who have it in mind to oppose the Bill—not that I believe that such a thought would pass through the minds of hon. Members—that it is an enabling measure. It will facilitate the development of the scheme to the point at which, for example, the project development group is able to make an application for grant. The amount of grant required and the efficacy of the scheme that is produced will ultimately be the test of whether the scheme will proceed.

The Committee will ensure that the legitimate interests of those affected by the Bill are properly dealt with. I have no doubt that it will examine carefully the point raised by the hon. Members for Thurrock and for Denton and Reddish about the necessity for adequate compensation. Knowing the promoters well—as the hon. Gentleman and I do—I recognise that they are organisations of substance and are not in the business of short-changing those with legitimate claims for disturbance or other compensation.

Although it is proper for hon. Members to express their concerns about the Bill, it is proper for the Bill to receive a Second Reading tonight so that it can proceed on its way to what it can represent—a valuable piece of imaginative and creative infrastructure in one of the most important development centres in the country, Croydon. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.

8.52 pm

Before I add my support to the Bill, I was amused to hear the Minister refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) as the Labour mascot in Essex. I see him more as a beacon and a forerunner. Indeed, I know that role in formerly Tory Croydon, so I sympathise with my colleague.

While I welcome the Minister's support, I advise him, albeit humbly, to renew his acquaintance with a dictionary of political quotations over the summer recess. As he recognised when he was reciting them, to support the travelcard with "read my lips" and "safe in our hands" falls short of what we require. For a moment, I thought that we would get some Neville Chamberlain—waving the travelcard, the Minister would proclaim, "a travelcard in our time". The people of Croydon are locking up their travelcards tonight as they wait to get into hospitals that are safe in the Government's hands.

I have started on entirely the wrong note, because I rose to confirm the view of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) that the Bill has bipartisan support and the unanimous support of the substantial Labour group and the majority Conservative group on the Croydon council. Councillors have given their support after assessing the environmental factor and other factors that have been discussed today. They care about their environment and do not lightly support the measure. There is a strong consensus in Croydon for the measure, but there are some legitimate concerns that we need to recognise.

I have been told that Croydon last saw trams in 1951. Historians can correct me if I have got that slightly wrong. I am pleased that trams—albeit different, more modern and more energy-efficient ones—may soon be returning to Croydon as the first place in greater London for that to happen. That is an important factor.

I support the Bill for three major reasons: social, economic and environmental. I support it for social reasons because I am aware that the New Addington housing estate is isolated from the centre of Croydon in many respects. The estate has many strengths as well as many problems. In a sense, it is poor testimony to that phase of our housing and planning policy when such large estates were built.

Anything that we can do to enable the people in New Addington in the constituency of the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir. P. Beresford) to get better and faster access to the centre of Croydon, not least for employment purposes, will be an improvement. That is important because more than a third of the people of New Addington have no access to a car. As has been pointed out, there is no rail link for a substantial town of 25,000 people. In peak times, it takes a bus 45 minutes to get from Addington to the centre of Croydon.

Those are all important facts and powerful reasons for supporting a modern transport system, not least for the people of New Addington. It is certainly important for employment because Croydon, like other areas in the south, suffers from unemployment. According to official Department of Employment figures, 18·8 per cent. of the men in New Addington are unemployed. If we enable them to have better access to a wider employment market, that may make a helpful impression on that high unemployment figure. Therefore, I support the measure for social reasons.

Another social factor is the great diligence shown by the planners to make tramlink accessible to people with frailties or those who have difficulty gaining access to buses or trains. I am thinking of people with disabilities, especially those in wheelchairs, as well as people with heavy shopping or people pushing buggies. All those groups will welcome tramlink. The Bill is impressive in terms of the regard shown by the planners for ramps and ticket machines that will be accessible to people with disabilities. It will be possible for people to take their wheelchairs on to tramlink easily and information will be provided in braille for blind people or those with poor sight. I am impressed by the social policy aspect of the measure.

Like many business people and others in Croydon, I believe that the measure will have a positive impact on the economic health of Croydon. As has been said, it has been welcomed by the Croydon chamber of commerce. It improves, by definition, the east-west transport links. Therefore, its economic impact along the route could, broadly speaking, be beneficial. It also relates to a more national concern that was well articulated in 1989 by the Confederation of British Industry in a report on transport.

The CBI said, among other things, that the nation's transport infrastructure was hopelessly inadequate, that congestion had enormous economic costs and estimated them at £15 billion a year or in excess of £10 a week for every household—the costs of poor transport on our economy and our business often not calculated, often hidden. It went on to say:
"Public transport facilities should be greatly improved."
Within our local economy of Croydon and other economies, tramlink helps to move things in the right direction.

We have rightly heard a lot about the environmental impact of the measure and clearly there are still doubts which have been articulated and which need further thought, as the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East is the first to recognise. We are still at the beginning of this story and there is time to improve on these matters. We need to make a balanced assessment and calculate both the potential negative impact on the environment and the beneficial impacts. We have heard about the former.. but not the latter.

Obviously, there are negative impacts. It may seem as though only a few houses will be affected, but if we lived in one of them, we would not want the railroad running through the middle of it. I will not break into song, although I remember one of that title. There may be only a few houses, but to those affected it is their house and it is important. I recognise that a larger number of houses will suffer an adverse environmental impact.

We must be greatly concerned about the impact on open spaces and the ancient woodland along the route. I am worried about these matters. An hon. Friend, who told me earlier that he had to leave the Chamber for a meeting, made some important points about open spaces. I do not know the details, but if we can persuade London Transport not to sell some open land for development, but to keep it as open space, perhaps we can make some environmental gain. I would be worried if we lost too many trees.

Let us see whether, through planting a wide variety of trees, we may come out of the scheme with more rather than fewer trees. I shall certainly urge the planners, as will my colleagues on the other side of the House who represent Croydon, to talk to the Ramblers Association and other organisations about these matters. I am bound to say that I am impressed by the way in which the planners, together with Labour and Conservative councillors, have loked at many of these things sensitively and in detail to develop a route that does the least environmental harm.

We have heard less about different types of environmental gains. We all know that in congested city areas, not least areas such as Croydon, the great enemy is the motor car. Many of us drive motor cars, so we cannot afford to be sanctimonious about this. We need to develop public transport systems with the right mix of public and private funding, which enable people often to opt for public transport rather than take the car.

The other day I looked at the 1991 census figures for Croydon and noticed that in part of the borough—indeed, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway)—some 10 per cent. of households now have three or more cars. We do not need to be very clever or great experts on conservation and the environment to know that we cannot go on buying more and more cars and using them more and more often. If, as a result of schemes such as Croydon tramlink, more of us are persuaded to use public transport rather than our own cars, environmental and energy gains become substantial.

I have been looking at figures and I am told that the car and motor vehicles more generally generate some 45 per cent. of the main greenhouse gas—carbon dioxide—and up to half the man-made emissions of nitrogen oxide. Those emissions contribute to acid rain. If one assesses the environmental impact as one should and develops an environmental impact statement for Croydon tramlink, there are items on both sides of the balance sheet, not just one. My judgment is that the environmental gains of the scheme outweigh the disadvantages. In Committee and through more consultation, we can look at those questions in more detail than perhaps we have so far.

I accept the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument on pollution, and so on, but does he accept that tramlink would not be helpful in reducing pollution emissions from motor cars because the promoters say that only 10 per cent. of people who travel on tramlink will be taken from motor cars?

It depends whether one regards that 10 per cent. as a significant or a small proportion. In the battle against the motor car and people's obsession with it, a 10 per cent. gain is important. It remains to be seen whether the atmosphere in the centre of Croydon will be improved if we can couple the tramlink with greater pedestrianisation and more curbs on the use of private cars. As in many other towns and cities, atmospheric pollution in Croydon is above EC guidelines and we should be concerned about that. I would welcome a 10 per cent. impact.

Concerns have been expressed by many groups and I want to meet those groups and hear more about their concerns. I wish to remain as open-minded as I can on those matters. Nevertheless, I am struck by the fact that the Association of Croydon Conservation Societies supports the measure in principle. I suppose that it welcomes its environmental impact.

For those three reasons—social, economic and environmental—I support the Bill. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South made a good point when he talked of the need to enable and encourage British companies to contribute fully to the scheme. As one of his humble constituents, I like to agree with him, and I agree with him on that matter—[Interruption.] I never tell people how I vote.

Asea Brown Boveri has already been mentioned. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) has in his constituency the works that are currently building trams. ABB is now building trams for Strasbourg, which is another important European city, alongside Croydon. It is building something called a "supertram". My hon. Friend has invited me to York to look at those trams—

The trams are being built in Derby. I know, because I went there the other day.

I hope to go to York soon and have a more fruitful discussion with my hon. Friend the Member for York about the building of the trams. Things can happen in two places at almost the same time. My hon. Friend the Member for York is clear about where some of the trams are being built. If we can encourage British firms to put in good bids, gains will be made all round.

I am glad that the first trams in London for 40 years or more will be introduced before too long, with support from both sides of the House, in London's largest borough. In terms of population, Croydon would count as England's tenth city. I am bipartisan in regarding it as becoming a modern European town. It is already a major centre of business and retailing, but it has a council and community who care deeply about their environment and they support the measure for environmental as well as social and economic reasons.

I support the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East. The tramlink is good for Croydon and is on the right lines.

9.7 pm

It was intriguing to listen to the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks), who justified much of his position on this evening's debate on rambling. He said that he had been rambling through my constituency.

I entirely agree with many of the points that have been made, particularly those about New Addington. I welcome the prospect of a decent transport system for people in that area. I shall ignore the fact that the hon. Gentleman has pre-empted great portions of my speech while rambling across my constituency and the parks.

Considerable credit must be, and has been, given to Croydon council. It unanimously supported the Bill, and promoted and pushed it forward in conjuction with London Transport.

Many comments have been made about the positive aspects of tramlink—the light rail idea—and bringing together so many different councils, including Croydon, Merton, Sutton and Bromley, as well as London Transport and British Transport. That shows the difficulty which the council, as promoter, must have had when bringing together the different organisations involved in the project.

The scheme is essentially to be constructed and funded by the private sector. The fact that it is anticipated that it will be self-financing when it is up and running also highlights the extraordinary ability of the promoters in pushing the scheme forward.

The scheme's benefits have been mentioned. It will be a quiet, low-pollution service linking central Croydon with Wimbledon, New Addington and Beckenham—I suspect that there may be some dispute about that later. It will link trams, trains, buses. Many of the stations involved have been mentioned, including Wimbledon, West Croydon, East Croydon, Elmers End, Beckenham Junction, Mitcham Junction and Birkbeck. The potential benefits have been extensively promoted this evening.

I wish that, over the years, the same approach had been taken by the council and the Department of Transport to the M25 link with Croydon—but that issue related to earlier events today.

Much credit must be given to the promoters for the care and thought given to assisting passengers, particularly for shoppers and those using wheelchairs, prams and trollies, through the use of canopies over the bus stops and train stations, as well as modern technological devices such as automated ticket machines and information displays and television cameras. Those issues were mentioned by the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West.

It is worth quoting from a fact sheet produced by the tramlink team in August 1992, which states:
"Whilst tramlink has been promoted by London Transport and the London borough of Croydon, it is intended that the scheme will be financed, constructed, and operated, by the private sector".
That is an extremely commendable and bold statement, which greatly enhanced my attitude towards tramlink.

Unfortunately, the very next sentence in the statement states:
"A public sector contribution may be required to reflect the benefits to other road users of easing congestion".
That may cause some Conservative Members difficulties. Such a scheme, which anticipates considerable public benefit, must strongly tempt my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London to slip into the scheme a pump-priming sum. However, such a proposal presupposes that, despite all the demands on the limited budget for future years, the funds will be available. It also presupposes that it would be only a small pump-priming fund.

The prospect of a tramlink in an urban district such as Croydon presents considerable difficulties for many people along the route, particularly where the route is new. Many residents live along the route that is already under way between Wimbledon and Croydon. Much of the route which runs through to New Addington is new. It has raised many fears with residents which may or may not turn out to be justified.

Certainly the residents' fears have been all too real for them since the initial planning of the development. The fears have been greatest among those who wish to sell their houses and move. The scheme will affect many of those people—certainly in their own minds, and those of the estate agents. Their properties will fall outside the normal remit of compensation. I know that purchase of the properties would be prompt, but many of the residents who qualify for compensation do not wish to have their properties purchased, but wish to remain.

I wonder why such a long and tedious technique—the use of the private Bill procedure to take the Bill through both Houses—was chosen. An alternative, which was available, has been mentioned. Given the openness and relative speed offered by the alternative, I was a little surprised that the private Bill procedure was chosen. There has been considerable consultation, and some support, but there has been also considerable vocal and written opposition. I have received one letter in favour of tramlink, but I have received hundreds—not all of which were organised—against the scheme. People are worried.

Nevertheless, the hundreds who wrote opposing the scheme will be probably portrayed as few compared with the numbers of people who will be served by the tramlink and who live further from the area of development.

I add my congratulations to the promoters. Many of the arguments in petitions have been met. Variations in the routes have been considered—perhaps the rambling of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) will be allowed to continue freely through my constituency.

Many points, even if they have not been met, have been carefully looked at and assessed, but a few things need elaboration, because we have still to come to the Committee on the subject.

Mention was made earlier of the Park Hill area. Many residents of Park Hill—with considerable justification—feel anger at the widening of Barclay road, Fairfield road and Chepstow road, and the bulldozing of trees that that has made necessary. I accept that the council has tried to replace the trees, but the claim that the project was needed but was not related to tramlink stretches the credibility somewhat.

The tram will run adjacent to properties in Addiscombe road and through the frontage of Lloyd park. There is justifiable concern in those areas. Many protestors anticipate environmental damage, and I have mentioned that the Lynden Hyrst residents association has been particularly vocal. I will use a slight exaggeration, but the residents feel that their toenails are trimmed by the scheme when they step out of their properties on to the pavement.

Many estate agents in the area believe that the development has reduced the value of local properties, but that will be overridden when the tramlink is running. I suspect that the estate agents will then use a reverse process and say that a property is worth more because the tramlink service is there, but until that day, there will be a considerable blight.

Going a little further, the tramlink service will progress down Gravel hill. The majority of local residents will be relatively unaffected—they will be across a multi-lane highway from the service, and also above it—but it is worth mentioning one petitioner; a lady who purchased a property before the announcement of the plans.

Her property is situated at what is effectively the bottom of the hill, where it is proposed that the tramlink will cross the multi-lane highway using an extensive and complicated system of lights. One can see in the plans that drawings that relate to tramlink noticeably—one could say, cynically—skirt the boundary of her property in such a way as to remove from the tramlink scheme the obligation of purchasing the property.

The lady would prefer to stay in her home—she has bought and extended it—but she does not want to stay with the tramlink running across her toes at the front of her garden. If tramlink proceeds, she would prefer to have her property purchased with full compensation. She would then move and start again. I believe that the promoters are looking seriously at the situation, and I encourage that. The knowledge that some public utilities may need to be changed in that area may well mean that the lady's hopes will be met.

It needs to be mentioned that the route will have a negative effect on the residents of the New Addington section in my constituency. Mention has been made of the prospect of park-and ride problems, and those problems need to be faced. However, the residents of Parkway and Central parade who live adjacent to the proposed tramlink face the prospect of living cheek by jowl with the route. That is particularly so when the route has to deviate to go around the medical centre. During the run-up to building the link, the perceived blight for those people will be considerable, even though the road is narrow at that point.

I expect that the blight will be considerable even when the tramlink is built, because that area is the stopping point at which the tram will move up to a blind junction and reverse down in front of and close to the properties of several people. Worst of all, I suspect that the rules and regulations on compensation are such that those residents will receive no compensation. I hope that I am proven wrong.

It is right that this paving Bill should progress through the House. The details show that it proposes a 10.-year period during which commencement of building must be undertaken. At this stage, we face the prospect of a £140 million building programme, but it appears that there is a touch of guesstimate rather than estimate in that figure.

Many of us are aware that the full assessment of the costs of key factors such as the realignment of public utilities has yet to be completed. I suspect that the original estimate of those costs may prove to be on the low side.

We need to bear in mind the importance of Croydon to such utilities as British Telecom, Thames Water, electricity suppliers, gas suppliers, cable companies and so on. I understand that building the tramlink will cause particular difficulties for British Telecom, because it has a key junction with key facilities at an important point. As I understand it, the effect of that has not yet been taken into account.

My personal view is that any funding beyond pump priming from national coffers would be wrong.

My hon. Friend's point about British Telecom is a fair one. Is he aware that interference from electrical discharges would have an impact on British Telecom apparatus, and that large quantities of that apparatus would have to be moved? Does he agree that that charge should be levied on the promoters of the scheme?

I understand that British Telecom will be a petitioner in Committee. It will probably be more appropriate to discuss points of such technical difficulty at that stage.

The promoters expect that the line will be self-sufficient once it is up and running. On that point, the most sceptical eyebrows have been raised. For example, the link between Wimbledon and West Croydon has been running for many years under the gentle hand of British Rail. The line is poorly utilised, and I understand that it is accepted as a loss maker. Anticipation of a marked improvement in use to such a degree that the viability of that line in revenue terms would be increased stretches credibility.

When one takes into account the fact that commuters may be required to pay a premium, especially at key peak times, one wonders about the potential viability of the line in the light of the competition that will definitely come from bus services as a result of deregulation and lower bus fares in real terms.

Does my hon. Friend concede that one of the problems of the West Croydon to Wimbledon link is that British Rail has ensured that the service runs only once every 45 minutes, which misses out much of the market? More significantly, it would be linked only between West Croydon and Wimbledon, whereas tramlink links not only West Croydon and Wimbledon, but Wimbledon right through to East Croydon and beyond. That link to East Croydon is especially critical because it links Victoria and further south.

I thank my hon. Friend for his points. The infrequency of the link could be related more to supply meeting demand, which, in that context, was not considered. I remain unconvinced that, apart from myself, the use of a line from Wimbledon straight through to New Addington would be of tremendous advantage to anyone. The attraction of using tramlink to travel from Wimbledon to Croydon and on to New Addington or Beckenham probably passes by most of the residents of Wimbledon and may continue to do so for some time, but I may be proved wrong.

There is the possibility that the Bill will be passed and left on the shelf for 10 years because the finances to build and run the scheme will not materialise. It worries me that, if that occurred, it would be difficult to remove the Bill from the statute book during that time. The plans will therefore blight the area for a further 10 years unless something is built into the Bill to allow Croydon council, perhaps, as one of the promoters, to withdraw it in the event that it proves not to be economically viable. Nevertheless, I support the Bill, as it is a paving Bill, because the crunch decision time will be when the bids are made.

9.27 pm

I shall try to be brief, as I know that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) wants to speak.

I am a supporter of trams in London, although they are more like light railways these days than the old trams. Trams are an alternative to road building, and that is to be welcomed. I went to Croydon to look at the proposals for the scheme yesterday and also meant to see those who object, but due to the usual muddle, for which I take responsibility, I did not see them and I apologise to them.

There are merits in the proposals, as my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) said earlier. There would be big benefits in terms of creating employment, especially in the New Addington area, where 17 per cent. of the population of 25,000 are unemployed. The residents there are currently inadequately served, and under the scheme they would have the opportunity to get into central Croydon in 17 minutes, they would have access to part-time work in Purley, and they would have easy access to British Rail stations in central London. Those benefits should be taken into account.

Other advantages of an efficient public transport are the saving of travelling time, and a reduction in accidents and overall traffic congestion. However, I take on board the representations made by the objectors, that other traffic-calming measures would also be necessary if overall congestion is to be reduced.

My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made some good points about open space. One of my concerns was that the scheme would use the edge of woodlands, although it could be argued that it gives access to those woodlands. However, compensatory land and trees need to be provided, and the objections of the ramblers, for example, should be fully taken into account.

There should also be better compensation for those who are affected by blight. Such compensation relates not only to this scheme, but to many others where it is unfair that people on the edge of schemes do not receive compensation. The Department should look into improving the compensation schemes for people just outside the affected areas.

The trouble is that the schemes seem to be chosen at random—first docklands, now Croydon. Although they are worth while, there may be other areas that would benefit even more from similar projects. There is no co-ordinated Government approach to trams, and there have been no studies of where they might best be sited in London. There has been no commitment of public money, and local authorities have not been helped to encourage the private investment which the Government claim to want.

This is a serious criticism. The Government have not co-ordinated tram projects and light railways in London. There is plenty of scope for trams in east London; the docklands light railway could be extended to my part of the world—

The hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair. The Manchester metro receives substantial Government support, as does the south Yorkshire supertram project. Indeed, the very purpose of section 56 is to provide grants for systems such as this. The hon. Gentleman's reference to east London reminds me of Barking, which has expressed an interest in a light rail project. We shall be interested to see what it comes up with.

The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the fact that it would be quite wrong of the Department to set a national plan for light rail systems. Local communities should develop their own plans and then submit them to the Department. Such cases may be eligible for grant, and the Department considers each on its merits.

I am grateful for that statement. I welcome the projects in Manchester and elsewhere. London lags behind the rest of the country. The Department has been a factor in that. Many local authorities wonder whether they would really find approval in the Department for schemes that may involve pump priming with public money.

Would it not also be an advantage if rolling stock were interchangeable, and if encouragement were given to the buying of rolling stock made in Britain?

Those are both good points, and they make the case for involving the Department and promoting trams throughout the country, particularly in London.

If mainly private money is involved, that is fine by me, but the gap will have to be filled with public funds. The hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford) talked about a small element of pump priming, but for this scheme alone that is likely to amount to £45 million—probably good value for money, but hardly a small sum. I repeat that the Government should decide which areas should be given tram systems as a matter of priority, particularly in London. That is another argument for Department of Transport involvement.

There is some concern that fares may rise. I hope that they will he properly regulated, and that operators will not be given carte blanche to charge what they like. I also hope that pensioners will still be able to use their concessionary fare cards on the trams. With those provisos, I still think that there is merit in the scheme.

9.33 pm

My views on this Bill seem to have had a good airing this evening already. It is almost as if, by a process of osmosis, hon. Members have discovered what I intended to say.

It will come as no surprise to the House to learn that I have serious reservations about the Bill: in fact, I do not like it at all. I have listened to the debate with great interest and I have heard echoes of my own concerns in many of the speeches given. I believe that, if one were to delve a bit deeper into hon. Members' views, one would find that many share a number of my grave doubts.

I have listened to the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon). As I would have expected, he handled his brief with skill and charm. He is a close colleague of mine, whom I greatly respect; I admire his current work in his constituency and his past reputation as a councillor in Croydon borough. He is my next-door neighbour, so the House will not be surprised to hear me say that, but it is my genuine opinion of him.

I share my hon. Friend's views on most local issues, including the quality and quantity of British Rail services and the future of South Norwood country park, which are particularly relevant to the Bill. We have worked closely together to save the park from a proposed development by Bromley borough, which would have devastated it. I therefore find it peculiar that he is now supporting a scheme that involves some destruction of the park.

I have never made a secret of the fact that I would have preferred the scheme not to go through South Norwood country park. There was an option at an earlier stage that the tramlink should go up Elmers End road, but, unfortunately, Bromley council was not prepared to accept such a route. I can understand that, but the decision was unfortunate; hence the need to go across the country park. I would stress to my hon. Friend, however, that the impact on the park has been minimised, and that the route goes nowhere near the environmentally sensitive areas of the lake and the wetlands.

I appreciate that my hon. Friend has concerns about the country park, and I am glad that he has expressed them.

Two immediate options are open to the promoters. One is for the system to end at Elmers End. That would bring the system into the Beckenham area—which my hon. Friend and the promoters seem to feel is an important and significant location. It would probably be possible to build a park-and-ride facility there, because there is a great deal of undeveloped land around Elmers End station.

The tramlink will come in to Elmers End, but only on a tiny shuttle service, which is projected to carry so few passengers that one wonders whether it will be worth running an hourly service on the line. The rest of the route into Beckenham could be left aside.

If the promoters feel that there is an advantage to be gained from taking the link further into Beckenham—which I question—another possibility is for the tramlink to run further alongside the British Rail line up to New Beckenham. There is a British Rail line, running from Elmers End right through Beckenham, which stops at stations such as Clock House, which is as close to the centre of Beckenham as Beckenham Junction station. That line also provides a direct route up to central London. If I have time, I will express some broader criticisms of the route into Beckenham junction and the need for it.

I want to make it clear that, although I am very critical of the Bill and many of the things that the promoters have suggested, I am not critical of my hon. Friend. I appreciate his position; he is, in a sense, a vehicle for the promoters of the scheme. I also appreciate that he recognises the need to ameliorate the traffic problems that exist in central Croydon. But the essence of my case is that, if there are problems there that need tackling, I do not see why it needs to involve the Beckenham area and running a link right up to Beckenham Junction.

I shall now turn to some of the remarks that have been made by other speakers this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East, who put the case for the promoters, rather simply and quickly dismissed the possibility of running better services on existing British Rail lines. I should like to ask him, and through him the promoters, what detailed studies were carried out on the alternative routes that could have been built up around the existing British Rail system in that part of London.

I believe that, if such studies were carried out properly, one would see that it was perfectly possible to run a high level of service, if there is a demand for it, on existing British Rail lines, possibly with one or two fairly inexpensive adaptations, rather than building a whole new rail system costing, we are told, some £140 million.

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that many of the problems between tramways in Britain as opposed to tramways in Europe is that Europe has a whole series of regulations that allow joint running between tramways and heavy railways? So far, those regulations do not exist in Britain.

Clearly, one of the problems with many tramway schemes is that they cannot run, even for short distances, on railway tracks on which heavy trains run. I realise that there could be a major problem with possible accidents, but I would have thought that, with modern signalling, it should be possible to have joint running.

I entirely accept that point. It is a genuine one, and relevant to the argument. The Department of Transport recently produced a detailed briefing on light rail systems, but it makes rather arbitrary distinctions between trams, light rail systems, rapid transport systems. Indeed, at the end of the day, what is a railway?

There is no clear divide between any of those different systems, other than the definitions that are imposed on them. There is a slow transformation from the heavy rail system at one end to the miniature light railway at the other. Only where regulations are drafted does there become a legal distinction between the two.

There is scope for investigating the possibility of having lighter vehicles on British Rail lines, perhaps at times mixed with existing heavy British Rail rolling stock. It should be possible to find means of allowing the tracks to run in closer proximity than they do at the moment—perhaps to be interchangeable to an extent.

The point with which I was dealing before the hon. Gentleman intervened was the use of existing British Rail track, not for the rolling stock to run on, but for the tramlink to run alongside. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East rightly said, over a large section, but not all, of the route in Beckenham, that is exactly what is proposed.

However, my criticism relates to what my hon. Friend said. It particularly relates to the promoters, who say that, because these people have a British Rail line running at the bottom of their gardens, it does not matter that they should also have a light rail system operating there as well. It is a very peculiar argument that, if one is already troubled, it does not matter if one is troubled a great deal more, and troubled continuously.

For people who live close to a railway line, there is a great difference between a line that carries only a couple of services an hour and none after 8 pm, which is the situation over most of the stretch in Beckenham, and the line that runs from Beckenham Junction via Crystal Palace to Victoria. The former is very much a secondary line, although it is important for the people who travel on it.

That line is not heavily used. That will change with the arrival of tramlink into the area, as through trams will run possibly from 6 am until midnight, eight times an hour in each direction. That is a completely different situation. I reject the argument that it is acceptable to intensify use on that line. If anything, I believe that that is the one thing that should not happen. If we must have new transport systems in that area—something I challenge—they should not be in areas where people are already disturbed.

My constituency measures three miles by two miles and contains 14 BR stations serving destinations north, south, east and west. As some of my hon. Friends have explained, although there is a radial rail system in London which emerges from the centre of London, lines in my constituency run at perfect right angles to that. It is possible to travel east and west slightly more easily than it is to travel north and south. In addition to lines serving central London, it is possible to travel to Croydon on the existing BR system. However that service is difficult.

At present, there are two ways of travelling to Croydon. One way is via Addiscombe station, which will disappear under the tramway proposal, as that station will be removed and there will be no service to that area. Addiscombe is half a mile from East Croydon, and it is one and a half minutes by car—I know, because I have driven there.

Although I accept that that route is not as convenient as travelling right into the centre of Croydon, perhaps something could be done at the Croydon end to improve matters. However, there is a service at the moment from Beckenham to Croydon via Addiscombe. The other service runs via Crystal Palace.

With that transport infrastructure, it is questionable whether the people of Beckenham would benefit from the proposed tramlink.

Will my hon. Friend at least concede that the best judgment about whether the people of Beckenham would see great value in tramlink lies with the assessment of the private operators as to whether the scheme would be viable? They judge that it would be viable as an integral part of the network. Will my hon. Friend at least concede that they, and not he or I, are the best people to judge?

I have examined in extreme detail the assessments of the predicted number of passengers who would travel on every section of tramway. I have read the summaries and alternative proposals, which have been studied professionally and with great expertise. I believe that the promoters' figures for the use of the tramlink system are deeply and fatally flawed. I simply do not believe that the custom exists to make the system a viable project.

In addition, the prospect of capital finance emerging to make the project work is very unlikely. I suspect that, when people in the private sector are asked to come forward with large amounts of cash to finance the project, and they study in great detail the likely demand and passenger flow, they will conclude that it is a risk which is not worth taking.

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North-East made great play about the private sector providing capital for the scheme. I am not against the private sector doing that if it wishes, but the promoters have made it clear to me —I have pursued the matter in some detail because it is of great importance to me—that they will definitely need the addition of public funds in order to raise sufficient money to build the tramway system.

We now have a curious situation. The promoters say that they would like to build the system but that they will need public money and that they hope to raise private money on the back of the public money that will be pledged.

In addition, my hon. Friend the Minister has said, quite rightly, that he can give no pledge about public money for the system. He said that he would consider any application and that he might be in favour, but rightly added many caveats. He said that he would need to be convinced that the system was viable and that it would have to take its place among other competing systems.

The House has passed other such Bills. Indeed, I was on the Committee on one of them, and I did not oppose it, because I do not oppose light rail on principle. The system will have to take its place among those other demands and, most crucially, it will have to take its place alongside other Government priorities.

Perhaps I am doing an unusual thing, but I am offering my hon. Friend the opportunity not to have to come up with a large sum of public money. I am offering him a way out by suggesting that, if the Bill does not go through and the scheme is not developed, he can save the money that he might otherwise have felt obliged to put into it.

In such an eventuality, the money could be used for improving the road infrastructure in Croydon.

That is possible, but I am sure that, if the House were offered £40 million and hon. Gentlemen were invited to decide how to spend the money, there would be no shortage of requests for it to be spent on a wide variety of alternative projects, either in transport or elsewhere.

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) said something that was echoed by a number of other hon. Gentlemen and caused me considerable concern. He said that this was only an enabling Bill. The implication is that it therefore does not matter much, and that we should give the project the go-ahead and see what emerges after all the details have been worked out. If we reach that stage, to whom should the promoters go for permission to continue? They will have to go to no one because, if they have the money, they can go ahead with the scheme within the wide powers given by the Bill.

My interest is the ordinary people who live in my constituency and, to an extent, those who live elsewhere but will be affected by the project, who have expressed grave concern about the impact that building and operating the tramlink will have on their houses and daily lives. They have a right to be heard, and they are entitled to have their concerns taken into account.

I know that the Committee will consider much of their evidence, and I am glad about that, but it will know that this is only an enabling Bill, so its members may feel that, on balance, the principle of the Bill is acceptable so long as various measures are taken to look after the concerns of the hundreds of people who will be affected by the tramlink.

When the pressure is off—the pressure of the commercial and transport lobby, who are pushing the scheme so hard—will the promoters be prepared to talk to those people who live in the houses affected? I suspect that they will be far more interested in pushing ahead with the project, if they can get the money. So I am worried about the Bill being dismissed as simply an enabling Bill.

We have just been through a similar debate in relation to Southampton. The House failed to pass a similar project because no provisions had been made for park and ride. Can my hon. Friend tell the House how much provision has been made in this case for car parks, so that people can park their cars before getting on the tramway system? That is fundamental to the viability of the system.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that, because it is essential. Very few, if any, light rail systems of this nature can operate without feeder passengers and park-and-ride facilities. That is simply because enough passengers cannot be attracted from a wide enough area to make such a system viable, particularly in the deregulated and competitive atmosphere that we are likely to face by the time the project, if it goes ahead, is built.

The only way in which such systems can become viable is by having good park-and-ride provision. There is no such provision in the system. It is not catered for by the Bill, and its promoters have been extremely coy about the possibility of it. In fact, they have effectively said that they have rejected the addition of park-and-ride facilities in most areas of the system.

In Beckenham, about which I am most concerned, the Beckenham Junction link has no park-and-ride facilities at all. That is of grave concern to my constituents, because they feel that the immediate danger they face is that people who use the system will come in—

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 199, Noes 8.

Division No. 356]

[9.55 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms DianeBurns, Simon
Alexander, RichardBurt, Alistair
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)Butcher, John
Allason, Rupert (Torbay)Butler, Peter
Allen, GrahamCampbell-Savours, D. N.
Amess, DavidCash, William
Ancram, MichaelChapman, Sydney
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)Clappison, James
Arbuthnot, JamesClarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)Cohen, Harry
Austin-Walker, JohnColvin, Michael
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)Congdon, David
Baldry, TonyConway, Derek
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Barnes, HarryCorbyn, Jeremy
Bates, MichaelCousins, Jim
Bayley, HughCox, Tom
Beckett, Rt Hon MargaretCryer, Bob
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Benton, Joe.Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Beresford, Sir PaulDay, Stephen
Bermingham, GeraldDeva, Nirj Joseph
Blackburn, Dr John G.Dewar, Donald
Boateng, PaulDixon, Don
Boswell, TimDouglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Boyes, RolandDover, Den
Brandreth, GylesDowd, Jim
Brazier, JulianDuncan, Alan
Bright, GrahamDuncan-Smith, Iain
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Durant, Sir AnthonyMarshall, David (Shettleston)
Eggar, TimMarshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Etherington, BillMarshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)Maxton, John
Fishburn, DudleyMilligan, Stephen
Forman, NigelMitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Forth, EricMontgomery, Sir Fergus
Foster, Rt Hon DerekMorley, Elliot
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)Mowlam, Marjorie
Fraser, JohnMullin, Chris
Freeman, Rt Hon RogerNelson, Anthony
Fry, PeterNicholls, Patrick
Gallie, PhilNorris, Steve
Gerrard, NeilOnslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Gillan, CherylPage, Richard
Godsiff, RogerPaice, James
Goodson-Wickes, Dr CharlesPatnick, Irvine
Gorman, Mrs TeresaPickles, Eric
Gorst, JohnPike, Peter L.
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)Porter, David (Waveney)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Grocott, BrucePowell, Ray (Ogmore)
Gunnell, JohnPrentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Hague, WilliamPrentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)Prescott, John
Hampson, Dr KeithRichards, Rod
Hardy, PeterRobertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Harris, DavidRoche, Mrs. Barbara
Haselhurst, AlanRooney, Terry
Hayes, JerryShepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Heald, OliverShort, Clare
Hendry, CharlesSimpson, Alan
Heppell, JohnSkinner, Dennis
Hinchliffe, DavidSmith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Hood, JimmySmith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Hoyle, DougSnape, Peter
Hunter, AndrewSoames, Nicholas
Jack, MichaelSpearing, Nigel
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)Spellar, John
Jenkin, BernardSproat, Iain
Jessel, TobySteel, Rt Hon Sir David
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)Stephen, Michael
Khabra, Piara S.Strang, Dr. Gavin
Kirkhope, TimothyStraw, Jack
Knapman, RogerTaylor, Ian (Esher)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)Thomason, Roy
Knight, Greg (Derby N)Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Knox, Sir DavidThompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)Tracey, Richard
Legg, BarryTrend, Michael
Leighton, RonTrotter, Neville
Lennox-Boyd, MarkWallace, James
Lewis, TerryWaller, Gary
Lidington, DavidWalley, Joan
Lightbown, DavidWardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Llwyd, ElfynWatts, John
Loyden, EddieWells, Bowen
Luff, PeterWhittingdale, John
Lynne, Ms LizWicks, Malcolm
McAvoy, ThomasWilletts, David
McCartney, IanWinnick, David
McFall, JohnWise, Audrey
MacKay, AndrewWood, Timothy
Mackinlay, AndrewWray, Jimmy
Maclean, DavidYeo, Tim
McLeish, Henry
Madden, MaxTellers for the Ayes:
Mahon, AliceMr. Vivian Bendall and Mr. Richard Ottaway.
Maitland, Lady Olga
Marek, Dr John

NOES

Beggs, RoySpink, Dr Robert
Bennett, Andrew F.Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Horam, John

Tellers for the Noes:

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Mr. Piers Merchant and Mr. Edward Leigh.

Shaw, David (Dover)

Bill read a Second time, and committed.

Estimates And Supplementary Estimates, 1993–94

It being after Ten o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates), put forthwith the deferred Question on Estimates and Supplementary Estimates, 1993–94 (Class VIII, Vote 1) and the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the other estimates appointed for consideration this day.

Class Viii, Vote 1

Resolved,

That a further sum, not exceeding £1,807,298,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Home Office on compensation for criminal injuries, probation, police and superannuation payments for police and fire services.

Class Viii, Vote 3

Resolved,

That a further sum, not exceeding £745,493,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Home Office on police, the forensic science service, emergency planning, fire, the Fire Service College, court services, other services related to crime, probation and after-care, miscellaneous services, prevention of drug abuse, control of immigration and nationality, issue of passports etc., community services; and on administration (excluding the provision made for prisons administration carried on Class VIII, Vote 2).

Class Ix, Vote 1

Resolved,

That a further sum, not exceeding £427,760,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Lord Chancellor's Department on the court service, magistrates' courts, legal aid administration, tribunals, the court building programme, certain other legal services and a payment to the Land Registry Trading Fund.

Class Ix, Vote 5

Resolved,

That a further sum, not exceeding £135,693,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1994 for expenditure by the Crown Prosecution Service on administrative costs including the hire of private prosecuting agents.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Question which she was directed to put pursuant to paragraph (I) of Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.)

Resolved,

That a further sum, not exceeding £92,536,513,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1994, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 495, 496, 497 and 711.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the five foregoing Resolutions and upon the Resolution of 10th June and the eight Resolutions of 8th July, relating to estimates, by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Michael Portillo, Mr. Stephen Dorrell, Sir John Cope and Mr. Anthony Nelson.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No 2) Bill

Mr. Anthony Nelson accordingly presented a Bill to apply a sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on 31st March 1994, to appropriate the supplies granted in this Session of Parliament, and to repeal certain Consolidated Fund and Appropriation Acts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 192.]

10.10 pm

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 7 February 1992, as can be found in column 325 of Hansard, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) asked a question about the Widgery tribunal, which was answered by the Attorney-General. I tabled a question for 18 October, which came fourth in the list of questions to the Attorney-General on that subject. I have now received a letter saying that it has been transferred to questions on Northern Ireland—which means that, as far as oral questions for 18 October are concerned, it has disappeared. However, it is clearly established by precedent that such matters should be dealt with by the Attorney-General: he deals with tribunal issues.

I seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. How can I ensure that my question is re-established on the list of questions to be answered orally by the Attorney-General?

That is not a matter for the Chair; the hon. Gentleman must pursue it with the Ministers concerned.

Suppression Of Terrorism (India)

10.12 pm

I beg to move,

That the draft Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 (Application of Provisions) (India) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.
Extradition is the cornerstone of the international effort to ensure that criminals cannot escape justice by crossing frontiers. It is increasingly recognised by Governments that this effort needs to be reinforced. The order will enable the United Kingdom to ratify the extradition treaty that we concluded with India in 1992.

Extradition arrangements with India go back for over a century. This new treaty strengthens them, and sends an important message to terrorists that their activities will not be tolerated. To a very large extent, the treaty replicates the existing arrangements—the Commonwealth scheme —under which we and India are already able to extradite suspected or convicted offenders between ourselves, and indeed almost all other Commonwealth countries. Some hon. Members have asked why we need to have a treaty at all. As I will demonstrate, the treaty is an important joint statement of our mutual determination to defeat terrorism, for there are two new features which the order will enable us to introduce for the first time into our arrangements with India.

First, we and the Indian Government have agreed that, for the purposes of extradition between us, a fugitive will no longer be able to resist his extradition on the grounds that any of the offences listed in the treaty was of a "political" character, and therefore outside the scope of extradition. That will bring our arrangements with India into line with those with almost all western European states, and with the United States of America.

The listed offences, which find their equivalent in schedule 1 to the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978, are serious, and they are those most likely to be terrorist related. Among other things, they relate to the hijacking of aircraft, hostage taking, murder, manslaughter and serious physical assaults, causing explosions, and some firearms offences. I am sure that no Member of the House would wish those accused of such crimes to be able to escape extradition solely on the ground that they are politically motivated. Indeed, I do not believe that our courts would accept that incidents of terrorist violence should be regarded as political. So this element of the treaty is not so much a curtailment to one of the traditional safeguards that all extradition arrangements have contained as a tightening of the law.

Let me assure the House that the treaty does not affect any other safeguard for the fugitive. Every case will continue to be considered on its merits and in strict accordance with our law. Offences under military law will continue to, be outside the scope of extradition, unless they are also offences under the general criminal law of both countries.

Will the Minister tell the House how many applications for extradition India has made in the past 10 years, and how many complaints it has made about the current provisions of the Commonwealth scheme?

I am not aware of any severe complaints about the Commonwealth scheme, but since the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 came into force on 1 September 1967 the Indian Government have extradited one person to the United Kingdom in 1978, and that person was later convicted here of perjury and various forgery charges. I understand that three applications are currently outstanding, two from 1985 for conspiracy and deception suspects and one from 1987 for a conspiracy and fraud suspect. I hope that that is a full answer to the hon. Gentleman.

The important point is that the country to which a fugitive is returned will continue to be unable to add on any new charges for offences that were not disclosed by the same set of facts as the extradition offence, unless the returning country has consented. All requests to this country will continue to be scrutinised twice by Ministers, and at least once by the courts.

My hon. Friend's statement so far assumes that the Indian Government act as a democratic organisation, but they do not. Some of my hon. Friends and I believe that if people are deported, their human rights will not be recognised, as is often the case in India now.

I shall come to India's human rights record in a moment, and to the firm assurances that the Indian Government have given the British Government. I know that there are deeply held views on both sides of the Chamber and on both, or all, sides of the argument. However, I must be concerned not with political matters but with ensuring that any application that comes before the British Government and the British courts is treated fairly and objectively in terms of British law. I assure my hon. Friend and all hon. Members that, whatever their individual opinions may be about the political situation in other countries, including India, that is not a consideration for the British courts.

When such cases come before Ministers and before the British courts, the facts will be studied. A prima facie case, which would satisfy our courts that there is a case to answer, will have to be produced. I do not think that my hon. Friends would want the British courts to start involving themselves in extraneous political considerations.

My hon. Friend will know about the present problems relating to the availability of legal aid. Will he assure the House that any individual subjected to such pressure will be properly represented in court? Surely we should guarantee that as a basic right of any individual in such a position.

I do not think that my hon. Friend is suggesting that we should make special or additional changes to the legal aid scheme. He knows how it operates and all those who are eligible for it. I would merely stress that any applications coming before the British Government will be scrutinised twice by Ministers and at least once by the British courts. We will be scrutinising them on the basis of the facts and whether there is a prima facie case to answer.

With how many states outside western Europe have the Government separate extradition treaties?

We have an extradition treaty with most countries in western Europe and with the United States of America. We have now concluded an extradition treaty with India. Whether we have further extradition treaties with other countries is a matter for negotiation and consideration. The countries that would want to seek reciprocal arrangements with us are inevitably those that have an interest in terrorist matters. Those countries that have no terrorist problems are unlikely to want to conclude a treaty with us, although we have deep concerns about terrorism.

Extradition will remain the ultimate discretion of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and his decisions will continue to be the subject of scrutiny by the courts. He must refuse if there is reason to believe the request is not bona fide or if the person's trial or treatment on return would be prejudiced by his or her race, religion, nationality or political opinions. We take that duty and obligation very seriously.

I appreciate what my hon. Friend is trying to achieve and I am not against the general principle. However, is he aware that a large number of Sikhs who are British citizens are very much opposed to many of the efforts of the Indian Government, particularly on matters of human rights? They must be at least uneasy about some of the provisions.

I note and respect the point that my hon. Friend has made. Of course, I am aware of those concerns, which will be felt in many quarters, and I shall talk about human rights in a moment.

I repeat the sentence that I have just uttered about the duty on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and myself in considering the cases. We will operate as we are required to do by law. We must refuse if there is reason to believe that the request is not bona fide or if we suspect or have reason to believe that the person's trial or treatment on return would be prejudiced by reason of race, religion or nationality. I can give my hon. Friend that firm assurance.

The hon. Gentleman rightly talks about the role of the courts here. However, is he equally aware that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber are concerned about the role of the courts in India? What assurance do we have from the Indian Government that anyone who is extradited from this country to India will soon be brought before the courts, will have adequate legal representation in the courts and will not be subject to pressures—whatever pressures they may be, and there will most certainly be physical pressures —once they are returned to India?

We would not have concluded the treaty or be bringing the order before the House if we had good reason to believe that those suggestions would turn out to be the reality.

Of course, we shall monitor carefully any requests for extradition. If one were received and granted, we would monitor carefully what happened if and when a person was returned.

I have given way a great deal already and many hon. Members want to speak. I wish to conclude my remarks and hon. Gentlemen may make their own speeches.

The Secretary of State must also refuse if it would be unjust or oppressive to return the person either because the offence was trivial or committed a long time ago or where there is reason to believe that the accusation was not made in good faith or in the interests of justice.

Genuine political refugees have nothing to fear from the treaty or from the order. Our law will continue to preclude extradition where we believe that the request has been politically motivated, and the treaty contemplates nothing less. [Interruption.] I must make progress. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs also wishes to speak in this debate.

Order. Hon. Members know that, if the Minister does not give way, they must resume their seats.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Many of us know that we will not be called in this debate. If we have reasonable points to put briefly to the Minister, as a courtesy to the House he should at least let us put them to him.

I deliberately kept my speech short to allow as many hon. Members as possible to intervene. I have already given way a number of times in this short debate—[Interruption.]

I will not give way.

I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that suspected terrorists should not be able to exploit a defence that was certainly not intended to shield them from the justice of our democratic partners. We cannot allow the United Kingdom to be seen as a safe haven for such people. The effect of the order is to say to fugitives that they cannot escape justice for serious crimes simply by claiming that they were politically motivated. If we are satisfied that they will receive fair treatment, they can expect to be returned.

It is obvious that some hon. Members will remain concerned at the prospect of returning terrorists or, indeed, anyone else to India because of anxiety about human rights in that country.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister spoke of "returning terrorists" to India in advance of a trial. Surely, he should not say that. He should say people who are accused, suspected or indicted on charges—he should not say that they are terrorists.

That is a point for debate; it is not a point of order for the Chair.

I am sorry that the debate has come down to such semantics. If it makes hon. Members happy, of course I mean suspected terrorists.

We recognise the genuine concerns of hon. Members about the human rights situation. We have spoken frankly to the Indian Government about the importance that we attach to human rights. We have been encouraged by the decision of the Indian Government to legislate for an independent Indian human rights commission. The Indian Prime Minister has assured us that violations of human rights are and will be fully investigated and wrong-doers punished. He is determined to ensure that his country deserves international respect, of which this treaty is an expression.

I explained earlier that the treaty and the order contain two differences from our previous extradition arrangements with India under the Commonwealth scheme. I have spoken briefly about the first difference and, undoubtedly, many hon. Members will have points to make about that. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is here to take on board those points and respond to them, if he has an opportunity to do so.

It is a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is the second time in 24 hours that a Home Office Minister has come to the Dispatch Box and read out a speech prepared by the Home Office without giving way to hon. Members on either side of the House. This order is as important as any other business before the House. It concerns the ratification of a treaty that has been signed by a Minister.

It is not a matter of order for the Chair. As I said before, and as the hon. Gentleman knows full well, it is a matter for whoever has the floor of to decide whether to give way. As a matter of fact, the Minister has given way.

For the record, I have given way five times in a one-and-a-half-hour debate.

The second new feature is the extension of United Kingdom jurisdiction over certain of the more serious offences listed in schedule 1 to the 1978 Act when they have been committed or attempted in India.

Extra-territorial jurisdiction can be a valuable tool in our efforts to bring criminals to justice. It is an alternative to extradition, rather than a replacement for it. For example, under the order, a person could be prosecuted in the United Kingdom for causing an explosion in India with intent to endanger life if, for some reason, extradition were not possible and all the evidential requirements of our system could be met. The same would apply in a case of murder, kidnapping, hijacking, and other serious terrorist offences. This new jurisdiction in the case of India will also enable us, in due course, to ensure that our courts arc able to enforce the orders of Indian courts confiscating terrorists' funds. That will be the subject of an Order in Council under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.

Because certain serious crimes of violence committed in India will, as I have explained, become offences in the United Kingdom, it will as a consequence become an offence in the United Kingdom to conspire to incite in the United Kingdom people to commit such serious crimes of violence in India. Once again, this will bring our arrangements with India into line with those with most western European countries and the United States of America. Just as it is unacceptable that those who commit in India serious crimes of this nature should abuse the extradition procedures of this country—

I shall conclude this section and then give way briefly.

Those who organise crimess from this country cannot be allowed to escape the consequences, simply because their intention was to see a very serious crime committed in another country. Needless to say, any such charge would have to be accompanied by sufficient evidence to persuade our courts that it was substantiated.

Many of my constituents who are Sikhs and Kashmiris are concerned that, whereas in Europe we are reasonably satisfied that the judicial arrangements for the people who are extradited are acceptable, in India the judicial system is not as effective and has a political background to it, so there is a risk of not getting a fair trial. Would my hon. Friend wish to comment on that?

We take the view that, if we can conclude an extradition treaty with another democratic Government, it is because we have been satisfied that the judicial system is such that trials will be fair. I repeat: before anyone is extradited, he or she will have to satisfy British legal procedures and British Ministers that there is a prima facie case to answer. The burden of proof will he the same burden as we have in British courts in the present committal proceedings.

Obviously, genuinely held doubts and concerns will remain in some quarters of the House. Let me re-emphasise that, to a very large degree, the treaty represents nothing more than an endorsement of the current state of affairs. But it also shows, importantly, that we intend to fight terrorism in co-operation with the Indian Government.

The Indian Parliament is already part-way through the process of making the necessary legislative arrangements to enable ratification of the treaty. The order will come into force only when the Indian procedures have been completed, and on the day when we exchange instruments of ratification.

The bulk of the treaty requires no legislation in order to give effect to it in this country, but its two special features, which are the subject of the order and which I have endeavoured to explain simply, mark it out. They send a firm message to terrorists that neither we nor the Indians will tolerate their activities within our borders and that we will ensure that they face justice in one or other of our countries if they do not take heed.

I commend the order to the House.

10.32 pm

Last night the Government introduced a series of petty, grudging and introverted measures to handicap our immigration and asylum appeals system. Only one day later, they bring to the House another measure which may be the subject of widely differing interpretations. The Labour party and. I hope, every hon. Member fully supports initiatives intended to combat terrorism and human rights abuses. The danger is that the Government may be seen to be dealing with one of those problems, through this extradition treaty, at the expense of the other.

The treaty was widely criticised for the context in which it was signed. We certainly want to increase trade with a close friend and ally, as India is, but is this order the political price being extracted for a number of trade deals? When the Prime Minister visited India—indeed, when he addressed the British-Indian parliamentary group earlier this week—were human rights as high as trade issues on his agenda? I hope that the Minister will answer that question.

The Labour party welcomes in principle terrorism extradition provisions, wherever they apply. Terrorism is not merely a blight on the democracies of the west but, sadly, must be faced by all democracies. We must be constantly vigilant against it and the Labour party has always supported all reasonable international attempts to bring terrorists to trial.

The Government cannot, however, hide behind our loathing of terrorism. A number of questions about the order must be answered and I hope that the Minister or his colleague will answer our five basic questions—the Minister has already tackled one or two of them in his speech—when he winds up the debate.

First, why do the Indian Government require additional powers? Has a case been made for saying that the Commonwealth extradition agreement is not adequate to tackle the problems of the issue facing India and the United Kingdom?

Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) asked, how many complaints have been received about the inadequacy of the Commowealth extradition agreement? At face value, only one request in 10 years from the entire area hardly shows a massive demand for change.

Thirdly, what new powers will be exercised under the new treaty? Is it window dressing or a diplomatic symbol agreed because of the Prime Minister's visit to India?

Fourthly, if India can get a separate treaty, are the Government negotiating a further treaty with any other country with terrorism problems?

Fifthly, on a more technical issue, do the provisions of the extradition treaty apply to people with dual nationality as well as to Indian nationals?

Our welcome for the order is tempered by a grave disquiet about continuing reports of breaches of human rights in India, many of which are alleged to he perpetrated or implicitly condoned by those in positions of power in both the military and the Government there. I will elaborate on that issue shortly.

My hon. Friend mentioned violations of human rights. He will therefore recognise the problem of Kashmir. Is it not strange that, although the Government said that the relevant United Nations resolution should be applied to Kashmir, they now seem prepared to waive that? How will they regard a political offence in relation to Kashmir when for many years they have clearly refused to carry out the United Nations resolution?

Will my hon. Friend take on board the concern felt by many hon. Members who represent Kashmiri communities about the Indian Government's failure to allow Amnesty International, the press and Members of Parliament from this country to visit India to investigate the position there? The way in which the measure is being railroaded through makes the British legal system look like an instrument for Indian oppression. Is there not a deep and abiding concern that the term "terrorist" may be being used instead of the term "freedom fighter"? We are against genuine terrorists, but the United Kingdom cannot act as an instrument of oppression of another state.

My hon. Friend will know that Labour Members—not least my hon. and right hon. Friends from the shadow Foreign Office team—have raised those matters continually and will continue to do so. However, I am pleased to welcome the fact that the Indian Government are prepared to allow international human rights organisations to enter areas of concern. I understand that for some years Amnesty International was not allowed to visit parts of Kashmir. I shall seek further reassurances on the subject, but I am pleased to hear what I understand to be an agreement to the effect that Amnesty International will be allowed to go in and investigate matters where it feels it appropriate to do so.

On the issue of human rights abuses, Amnesty International's 1992 report states:
"25,000 political prisoners, including some prisoners of conscience, were held without charge or trial under special or preventative detention laws. Torture and ill-treatment continued to be widespread and systematic, resulting in scores of deaths in custody. Hundreds of people 'disappeared' or were extra-judicially executed in 'encounters' staged by the police or security forces. The security forces deliberately killed unarmed civilians suspected of supporting insurgents. At least six people were judicially executed."
I think that the House will agree that if that report is correct it is profoundly disturbing for a country which holds a special and honoured place in the fellowship of modern democratic nations.

The hon. Gentleman said that the fact that the Indian Government were expressing a willingness to open up to Amnesty International and take action on human rights was to be welcomed. Does he agree that it would have been better if the British Government had waited until the measures were in place so that the Indian Government could point to an improved human rights record before the order was brought before the House tonight?

The response from both sides of the House to the hon. Gentleman's intervention shows hon. Members' feelings on the subject.

While an examination by Amnesty International or other human rights organisations of the conditions in which prisoners are held is important and necessary, and should have been available for 20 years, does not a fundamental problem remain? The police in India have taken upon themselves—with Government support—the power to arrest and detain without charge or trial for unlimited periods, in secret prisons and without the opportunity for the due process of law. It is on that basis that torture follows.

The Acts passed in India which legitimise many of the practices to which Amnesty International and I have referred lie at the centre of the problem. The state appears to feel that it is under threat and therefore passes Acts which legitimise actions that would be deplored by all hon. Members. That is one of the reasons why we are less than enthusiastic about supporting the extension of extradition rights, which were previously limited to our European Community partners and the United States.

Such issues have led my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, West, for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) and many other colleagues from both sides of the House to attend the debate. I pay tribute to them for doing so. It should be placed on record that many hon. Members from all parties are present. To my knowledge, there is no three-line Whip for the debate. The fact that both sides of the House are crowded at this time of night and on such a day shows the seriousness with which hon. Members view the subject.

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has been saying, and what he has just said about the presence of hon. Members from both sides of the House who are extremely concerned about the human rights aspects of the matter. Without wishing to embarrass the hon. Gentleman, as the official Labour spokesman on the subject, will he join in the Lobby a number of us who feel that we must vote against the extradition treaty?

I hope that it will become clear as I continue my speech that the Opposition feel that the extradition provisions on terrorism are obviously necessary in some parts of the globe. I do not believe that anyone would wish to be associated with any weakening of the fight against terrorism. But equally, I hope that the reservations that I have outlined so far will make it clear to hon. Members on both sides of the House that we have some profound difficulties with the way in which the Government have drawn up the agreement and the way in which they are proceeding tonight.

No, I wish to make some progress. I have been relatively generous in giving way. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later.

It would be unfair and unbalanced exclusively to blame the Indian authorities for abuses of rights in India. There is no question but that militant groups have also been responsible for breaches of human rights. For example, in their report on human rights in Jammu and Kashmir. Asia Watch and Physicians for Human Rights identified executions, rape, torture and indiscriminate attacks by militant groups in Kashmir. Those abuses can never be ignored or condoned, regardless of any personal views about the status of Kashmir.

If the Government had accompanied signing the treaty or publication of the order with a condemnation of rights abuses of all natures by all parties in India, and made positive proposals to help to reduce them, perhaps their stance would be more acceptable. No one underestimates the massive and intractable difficulties facing India and its political society. Once again, however, I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity, either in his reply or in an intervention, to reassure the House that the Government will make every effort to promote the cause of human rights in India.

We unequivocally welcome the apparent change in the Indian Government's policy on allowing Amnesty into areas to which it was previously denied access. If the provisions are not to lead to miscarriages of justice, abuse of rights—as I have said, hon. Members are right to have expressed anxiety at the extent of abuse in India—it is vital that the British Government effectively enforce articles 9 and 16 of the treaty. Article 9 allows refusals of extradition on the grounds of political opinion, and article 16 allows refusals on the grounds that the death penalty may be incurred.

We need reassurances from the Minister not only that adequate safeguards exist but that the political will exists to enforce them. Assurances must be given that the treaty would be suspended if the death sentence would he imposed on anyone extradited from Britain under the treaty. I urge the Minister not to hesitate to refuse extradition if a real risk exists of the accused receiving an unfair trial.

The hon. Gentleman has rightly identified some reservations that are held by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, but four times I have counted the hon. Gentleman saying that his party has supported the general fight against terrorism. Why, then, has his party consistently opposed the Prevention of Terrorism Act?

I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving way to the hon. Gentleman. He becomes a bigger joke every time he opens his mouth.

The Minister might also take the chance later to comment on the worries that many hon. Members have about the long delays in bringing cases to trial in India. Commenting on other nations taking a long time to bring cases to trial may wear a little thin when we look at the record of the judiciary and legal system in Britain. None the less, the delays are a serious matter and I hope that the Minister will take them into consideration.

The Government must also be sensitive to the signals that the order may give to the settled communities in the United Kingdom. Fears have rightly been expressed about the implications for legitimate fund-raising activities in the communities in the United Kingdom. That fear is that they might eventually be drawn into the extradition net as well. I understand that further proposals to limit fund raising are possibly in the pipeline. I hope that the Minister will reassure the wider communities who do a great deal of perfectly legitimate fund raising that there is no possibility of those who raise such funds being caught by any provision which might result in their extradition.

Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the activities of the Indian security services among the Sikh and Muslim communities in this country?

If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence of such activity, we shall all be interested to hear about it. I have none.

This order is a small piece of a larger puzzle. That puzzle is not a matter for us; it is a picture that the Indian Government and people will have to piece together. It will involve establishing a safe and democratic role for India in the international community. India will have to resolve its relationship with its neighbours, especially Pakistan. It will also have to work out solutions to the ethnic and religious troubles from which its communities suffer. These problems are the province of the people of India and only they can resolve them. As a long-standing friend of India, the British Government have a crucial role to play. We shall be respected as India's friend only by being—and being seen to be—even-handed.

10.50 pm

It might be said that nothing could be more reasonable or right than an extradition treaty directed against terrorism. Treaties of this kind, however, should only be concluded between countries whose legal processes and methods of upholding justice and order show a close correspondence. It is to my great regret that that cannot be said of our country and India, despite the fact that it is a great country with which we wish to enjoy the warmest relations.

There must be serious doubts about the wisdom of concluding an extradition treaty with a country whose recent human rights record reads as badly as India's. For many years, I have been a member of Amnesty International. It has a first-class record of investigating allegations of human rights abuse and of recording their outcome without fear or favour. Any country whose record is under scrutiny is unwise to seek to undermine Amnesty's reputation.

Recognising pressure from this and other directions, India has often, and for many years, promised to open up the country to visits from human rights organisations, but invariably applications for such visits have ended up with refusals or obstruction. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) should pay close attention to that fact.

Recently, assurances have been given that such visits would be acceptable in principle, provided that state and central Governments were both in agreement. But only a matter of a few days ago, Amnesty's visit to Bombay—I remind the House that there is no insurgency there—was refused. It is therefore hardly surprising that some scepticism about such announcements has developed.

Interestingly enough, three days ago, on 17 July, the Indian High Commissioner in London, Dr. Singhvi, stated on a BBC World Service broadcast that international human rights organisations would now be allowed to enter Kashmir "under certain conditions". He repeated the offer on Monday in the presence of many of the hon. Members who are present for this debate. Although the commitment is welcome in principle, it would be helpful to know what those conditions are.

Will Amnesty officials be allowed to talk not only to security officers and Government officials but to representatives of opposition groups and nongovernmental organisations? Will they be able to travel freely without military or Government escort? We need answers to these key questions. As Her Majesty's Government have in the past urged India to admit human rights organisations, I hope that they will press for this agreement in principle to be put speedily into effect, with none of the restrictions that would throw doubt on the ability of human rights organisations to investigate fully and freely.

Concern has been expressed about how the treaty will relate to the disputed areas of Jammu and Kashmir. Many would argue that, since those areas are still subject to dispute, special provisions should apply to that treaty.

One cannot overlook the reports of apparently deliberate killings of unarmed civilians by members of the security forces. One cannot ignore the widespread claims of torture, rape and the arbitrary arrests of suspected separatists. An increasing number of them are alleged to have disapeared or died while in custody. Since 1985, nearly 500 cases of deaths in custody have been recorded in India. Very few have been investigated properly. Amnesty and other organisations have recorded hundreds of such cases, and I wish there was time in this short debate to refer to them. I shall, however, refer to one.

In December 1990, a doctor in Srinagar made a statement about a patient that he had treated in hospital. It is important to note that, in late 1989, extra powers had been granted to the security forces in response to mounting violence on the part of armed opposition groups in the state. The doctor reported:
"I yesterday discharged a patient aged between 18 and 20, who had been in this hospital for three months. Twenty per cent. or more of his body had suffered deep burns from a hot clothes iron. These burns were … so serious that I and other doctors had only just succeeded in saving his life. He had also been shot by a bullet in the armpit. His torturing with the clothes iron had all been done during interrogation by the regular army at Sopore."
It is because of that case, and so many others, that great concern has been expressed, here and in the Indian subcontinent, about the way in which those who are extradited and the many others held in Jannu, Kashmir and other disputed parts of India will be treated in custody.

I remind the House that special laws are in force in Jammu and Kashmir that curb legal safeguards and encourage human rights violations, for example, the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act and the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act. That legislation tends to give the security forces carte blanche for their actions.

Allegations about human rights abuses have also been made in Assam and Punjab. Earlier in the year, numerous allegations were made even in Delhi about human rights abuses and deaths in custody following torture by the police.

The Indian Prime Minister, Mr. Rao, has issued a clear condemnation of such behaviour. On 17 February, he addressed the Indian police and acknowledged the threat to the reputation of India on the world stage. He urged the police to
"ensure that excesses are not committed, especially in custody. Human rights are of paramount importance in a democracy like ours."
Recognition at the highest level of a serious problem of custodial violence, which demands to be addressed, has not been matched by an ability or determination to carry into practice the commitment, given in the name of India, to protect human rights. Last year, the Government said that they would strengthen legal safeguards for detainees in custody, but they have obviously failed to take the necessary action.

Such injustices can be remedied, even in part, only by ensuring that, in all cases of torture and death in custody, a speedy independent inquiry is held, and those responsible are brought to justice. I believe that the extradition treaty should not have been concluded until such a commitment had been given.

It is true that murders and atrocities have been committed by armed opponents of the Indian Government, many of them separatists. Surely it is worth bearing in mind the fact that nothing feeds militancy more assiduously than oppression and unpunished atrocities committed by those who are supposed to be responsible for upholding law and order. It is hardly surprising that the number of people seeking separation from India has swelled since India moved 500,000 security forces into Jammu and Kashmir and gave them such wide discretion to act. It should be noted that India has as many troops occupied with those people it regards as its own, as it has dedicated to external defence.

India is, of course, under pressure and I believe that that pressure should continue. Last month, the United States Congress passed an amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill cutting $4·1 million from US overseas aid to India. It is worth remembering that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said shortly after taking office that the British Government's policy in future would be to link foreign aid to a country's human rights record, and that India is this country's leading recipient in terms of foreign aid.

In relation to the need for an extradition treaty, my hon. Friend the Minister said that passing this measure tonight will send a signal. I suggest that, to a considerable extent, it will signal to India that Britain is willing to tolerate abuses of the kind to which I have referred. I am sure that we would not be willing to tolerate that, but that is the signal which, regrettably, many people will understand. In this country, the treaty will be seen as a threat hanging over those who wish to express their views in our free society in the United Kingdom.

We should be concerned, not just about the Government's intentions in bringing the treaty before us tonight, but about the perception in Britain and in the Indian subcontinent. Considering that perception, I must say that there is no way in which I can possibly support the treaty. Indeed, I must oppose it.

11.1 pm

Like the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), I regret that I also cannot support the treaty—not because I am not as committed as any hon. Member to combating international terrorism, but because I do not believe that the order contributes to achieving that. I also believe—this legitimate fear is shared by many hon. Members—that the treaty will be used by the Indian Government to persecute still further Kashmiris who are seeking to do nothing more than to assert their legitimate right to determine their own future.

The treaty will include all Indian citizens. Many people in Jammu and Kashmir do not consider themselves Indian citizens; they consider themselves Kashmiris. However, the treaty presupposes that they are Indian citizens and that the whole of Jammu and Kashmir belong to India, and it includes all the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir in its provisions.

The Minister told us that the order will simply extend the provisions of the Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 to enble international terrorism to be combated in a better way. We have already heard the number of cases where India has asked for extradition and the number of cases where the United Kingdom Government have asked the Indian Government for extradition. That clearly shows that the current arrangements are working perfectly well. There is no need for this measure.

We are told that India's democratic institutions and judicial arrangements mirror our own, and that it is therefore quite appropriate for us to have an extradition treaty with India. That might operate in theory, but it most certainly does not operate in practice in the Kashmir valley.

The Kashmir Bar Association recently provided figures that show that 15,000 bail applications are pending in Indian-held Kashmir. Some 5,000 bail applications were granted, but the authorities refused to implement them, and 500 cases of habeas corpus are outstanding.

Indian-held Kashmir is not run by a judicial authority; it is run by the Indian military. To do that, vast numbers of troops have been deployed throughout Indian-held Kashmir. Indeed, the latest figures suggest that, for every 10 Kashmiris, there is now one Indian troop in Indian-held Kashmir. As the hon. Member for Keighley pointed out, Amnesty International has documented many hundreds of cases of human rights abuse, but, against that background of abuse, the Government are seeking to pursue an extradition treaty which will put relations with India on a par with arrangements with other western countries.

Our own suppression of terrorism legislation grew out of the accord of the European convention on the suppression of terrorism. All signatories to that convention are European countries. They were signatories to the European convention on human rights; India was not. They were all signatories to the Helsinki agreement; India was not. As a matter of interest, they were all signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; India was not.

We are being asked to give India special provisions that only one non-European country has been accorded, and that is the United States of America. Whatever our feelings about the United States of America, I am not aware of any part of the USA being under martial law or of the human rights abuses that have been catalogued in Jammu and Kashmir occurring in the USA.

How can the Government argue that there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that, under the treaty, the person being extradited
"would not be prejudiced … or be punished, detained or restricted on grounds of political opinion"
when the Indian army is daily carrying out a war against the people of Indian-held Kashmir and when, under the Indian constitution, it is an act of treason for any Indian national to advocate secession by part of the union from the state of India?

That means that, if any Kashmiri were to argue the cause of self-determination for the people of Kashmir and secession from the Indian union, in the eyes of the Indian Government, he would be guilty of treason. In that case, would the Indian Government have the right to ask for him to be extradited back to India to stand trial for treason?

I cannot but believe that the British Government have put human rights at the forefront of their consideration of the issue. I cannot help but feel that what is really driving the treaty is our desire to increase commerce with India and, above all, to increase the arms trade to India. One third of our current exports to India relate to the arms trade. A junior Defence Minister is actively involved in promoting the arms trade with India.

Senior executives of Marconi have a long list of examples of export licences being conveniently rearranged to ensure that words such as "atomic" and "nuclear" are left out of those licences. We are well aware from available evidence that India is acquiring a massive nuclear arsenal, and the British Government are only too happy to assist with that.

The treaty is unnecessary. If the Indian Government were to implement the United Nations resolutions of 1947, 1948 and 1960 and give the people of Jammu and Kashmir the right to determine their own future, and if those people then determined their own future, perhaps the Indian Government would have a just case for bringing such a treaty to the British Government and asking the House to approve it. Until the Indian Government do that, and until they clean up their human rights record, I am not prepared to support the treaty.

11.8 pm

I endorse everything that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) said about Kashmir and the Punjab. The treaty is not needed, because an acceptable one is already in place, linking this country with the other Commonwealth countries. The Government have been conned by the Indian Government, who see British recognition of the treaty as a way of saying to the rest of the world, "Britain recognises our problems and supports us." My hon. Friend the Minister gave the game away when he referred to terrorists being sent back to India. He slipped, so he then said that he meant potential terrorists. He made the slip and it is on the record. He can wriggle and twist, but it is there for all to see.

India is referred to as the largest democracy in the world. I call it the biggest hypocrisy in the world. It talks about democracy while it practises state terrorism. It is amazing that, when President Clinton recently launched a missile attack against Iraq, our Prime Minister rightly said that Britain was opposed to state terrorism and supported Clinton. Why on earth is my right hon. Friend, through this treaty and by meeting India's representatives, supporting India's state terrorism, which is even worse than that in Iraq?

Because Kate Adie does not go to the Punjab, there are no headlines telling us about India's state terrorism. She goes to Bosnia, so Bosnia becomes a major international issue. Nothing is heard about the Punjab and the suppression of human rights in India, because the media do not want to go there. Like colleagues on both sides of the House, I have tried to get the media to raise the issue, but they do not want to know, because it is not a major issue. Of course it is not a major issue, because the media do not want to make it one and because of the so-called wonderful, friendly relationship between our Government and the Indian Government.

We are supposed to believe that there have been new moves to allow human rights organisations to operate in India. I have tried six times to get a visa to go to India and the Punjab. The Indian high commissioner does not even have the decency to reply. He answers my letters on any other matters, but will he let me go to India? No. I offered him a deal, both on the radio and in writing. I said, "Let me go. If my Sikhs are telling me lies about the suppression, murder and rape of people in the Punjab, I will come back and call them liars. But if they are telling the truth and the Indian Government are lying, I will come back and say that." "Oh no," they said, "we can't do a deal like that." Of course not—the deal was too fair.

The Indian Government know that they are liars and that they are misleading people. They know that my Sikhs and the Sikhs and Kashmiris throughout this country are telling the truth about what has happened to their relatives. The Indian Government do not want to know. I say to them, "If you have nothing to hide, why are you hiding something?" Their abuse of human rights makes the abuse in Iraq pale into insignificance, and it has been going on for a damned sight longer—since 1984.

Other hon. Members have said that Kashmir has a right to self-determination; so does the Punjab. There is nothing wrong with fighting for that cause, provided that it is done in a reasonable way. I accept that a handful of terrorists are making it bad for the genuine people who want self-determination, but we must put that aside and ask whether there is a cause and a justification. The answer is yes, there is a justification—and I am sick and tired of telling my Government that there is. This is my fourth speech on the issue in three or four years. My Government do not want to know because of their damned cosy relationship with the Indian Government.

Some hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), belong to the curry club. They pop off to India every other week, have a dose of curry and chips and come back saying that India is a wonderful place. I just know that my hon. Friend will say that when he speaks in a minute or two.

The Government should now take three steps. The first is not to sign the treaty until there is clear, practical evidence from the Indian Government that they are beginning to listen to us. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is a wonderful friend of the Indian Government. They can do nothing wrong. He said to me, "Terry, those people are all terrorists, you know." He virtually implied that anyone who wears a turban is a terrorist.

That is the view of the Foreign Office, which never does anything in the British interest unless it coincides with the Foreign Office interest. If it does not, the Foreign Office interest comes first. I say to my hon. Friends—if I can call them that tonight—on the Front Bench that the treaty must not be signed until we get guarantees and evidence of good will by the Indian Government.

Secondly, if we do not get those guarantees, we should cut off overseas aid to India—£104 million of taxpayers' money goes to that dreadful regime so that it can suppress decent people going about their business in the Punjab and Kashmir.

Finally, if the Indian Government do not learn from that lesson, we should cut off diplomatic relations and say that state terrorism, like individual terrorism, is not acceptable to the British Government. I say to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, "Stand up and be counted. Stop bending over backwards for the Indian Government. Stand by decency, by human rights and by the things that the British people and the British Government have always believed in."

11.13 pm

I agree wholeheartedly with all hon. Members who have expressed their opposition to the order, for which there is no necessity because extradition provisions are already in place. The Government are introducing this measure only to give a pat on the back to the Indian Government—to give them a seal of approval.

I have no idea how the Government can do that, when human rights abuses—especially in Indian-held Kashmir —are continuing on a daily basis. The Indian forces allegedly moved into one village and raped every woman there—from young girls to old women—and murdered the young men. To give such a regime a pat on the back is absolutely horrendous.

Human rights abuses are being committed thoughout Indian-held Kashmir. The Indian Government are totally opposed to the international covenant on civil and political rights, which they signed and to which they committed themselves—but to which they do not adhere.

Article 3 of the Geneva convention says that the wounded and sick should be collected and cared for, but Asia Watch has already reported a number of cases in which sick people—even those on life support machines —have been arrested and taken into custody.

The Indian Government do not allow the International Red Cross to give aid, and so much for their assurance that Amnesty International will be allowed to enter the area. Unless Amnesty International is able to monitor the situation and to move freely around the entire country, I for one shall not believe the Indian Government's reassurances. According to official estimates alone, 7,000 people have died, but I believe that the true figure is nearer 22,000.

Time and time again, the all-party parliamentary group on Kashmir has been refused permission to enter Indian-held Kashmir. The Indian Government should now bow to pressure from right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House, but our Government are giving the Indian Government a pat on the back because they want more trade contracts with India. We should say no to any new extradition treaty.

At a meeting with the former Home Secretary, I asked the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) whether there had ever been an occasion in the past few years when, under the existing treaty, the Indian Government could not have extradited someone from this country. He said that no such case came to mind. If that is so, why is a new extradition treaty needed? The order merely gives a seal of approval to the Indian Government, and we should reject it.

11.17 pm

I declare an interest in that for the past 22 years I have served as an officer of the all-party Indo-British parliamentary group—first as secretary, then as vice-chairman and chairman. I may tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) that I have never been served with curry and chips. I do not know whether that is what they eat in Hayes and Harlington.

It is the purpose of the Indo-British parliamentary group to uphold good relations with India—that is, with the whole of India and with all the peoples of every province throughout that republic.

The heading to this business in the Order Paper is:
"Prevention and supression of terrorism".
The House should never sanction or condone terrorism or terrorists from any country or in any part of the world. The terrorist is the most vicious type of criminal. He cares nothing for the sanctity of human life, the victim or the victim's family, however innocent they may be. He tries by bomb or bullet to achieve political objectives that he cannot achieve through the ballot box.

The terrorist is therefore the enemy of free democracy, which is a cherished ideal both in India and Britain. He is the enemy of human rights, because the most important human right is the right to stay alive. There has been little mention so far in this debate of the human rights of the terroist's victims.

We should never give any quarter or safe haven to any terrorist, wherever he may come from.

Is my hon. Friend suggesting that people who have committed terrorist crimes could not be extradited under the existing arrangements? How can that be squared with the former Home Secretary's comment that he could not recall any case in which extradition was sought but could not be obtained under the existing arrangements?

That is the whole point. Extradition exists for other types of crime, but does not work in respect of terrorism. If a terrorist says that he has a political motive, he is not extradited. The purpose of this measure is to catch suspected terrorists, bring them to justice and put them out of harm's way. If that is right within any free democracy, it must be right between free democracies—and that means extradition.

I asked the Library which crimes that would apply to, and the Library provided me with a much longer list than that read out by my hon. Friend the Minister. According to that information,

"For the purposes of this Treaty the following offences shall not be regarded as offences of a political character."
It goes on to mention the unlawful seizure of aircraft, acts against the safety of civil aviation, taking of hostages, offences against diplomatic agents, murder, manslaughter, culpable homicide, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, the causing of an explosion likely to endanger life, the making or possession of an explosive substance by a person who intends to endanger life or cause serious damage to property, the possession of a firearm or ammunition by a person who intends either himself or through another person to endanger life, the use of firearms, damaging property with intent to endanger life, kidnapping, abduction, false imprisonment or unlawful detention and incitement to murder.

Anyone who commits any of those acts ought to be brought to justice, whether it is within a country or whether it entails the crossing of a boundary and thus requires extradition. It is absurd that the situation has been allowed to continue for so long without extradition. The order should be approved, and approved quickly.

11.21 pm

While the Minister was telling us about his confidence in the Indian judicial system, I was recalling my remarkable visit in 1990 to Amritsar high security prison in the Punjab. I was told before I entered that I would find no one there under 18; in the event, I met 500 prisoners—they were arranged in a circle under the noonday sun, which was extremely hot even in March—among whom were half a dozen young men under 18. The youngest was 12. I also found a man who had been in the prison for six years. He had been released at the end of each six months, re-arrested at the entrance to the prison and re-imprisoned. In India, it is called the "revolving door" judicial policy.

At present, 50,000 people are in Indian prisons without trial. In 1992, the Government issued an official brief which said:
"The violence in Punjab has had a profound and damaging effect on the lives of Sikhs and others. The Indian Government admit that human rights violations against innocent civilians, including many Sikhs have occurred. The British Government have regularly expressed concern about the situation in Punjab."
On 17 July, in The Guardian, John Rettie wrote—referring to Kashmir, which I also visited in 1990 —
"But the rule of law does not exist—the Indian security forces simply ignore the courts—and to an outsider the valley feels like an occupied country. Delhi contends that the Kashmiri militant groups enjoy no popular support except what they enforce by 'fear of the gun'. This is inconceivable. No insurgency could last so long or be so effective without widespread popular sympathy. The sense of alienation from India among Kashmiris is overwhelming."
My hon. Friends and many Conservative Members have testified to that point of view.

I believe that the treaty is wholly unnecessary. To be implemented, it will require the approval of both Houses. I have no doubt that the payroll vote will ensure that the order is approved tonight, but the other place will presumably consider whether to approve it in the autumn.

I challenge the Indian Government, between now and the autumn, to give us some confidence in their determination to combat the gross human rights violations taking place, and to allow Amnesty International, the International Red Cross and Asia Watch free access to all parts of India, especially the Punjab, Kashmir and Assam, so that they can freely investigate the catalogue of gross human rights violations reported in all those states. If the Indian Government were prepared to do that immediately, that would go a considerable way towards dispelling the concern about the situation in which the treaty is being agreed.

No doubt the Indian Government desperately desire the treaty as a political weapon. They will be able to say to Indians in India and to the international community,. "Look here, we would not have this treaty unless the British Government agreed with us that our terrorist problem is almost unique." They will even be able to go further and say that, by agreeing the extradition treaty, the British Government not only recognise their terrorist problem but endorse their anti-terrorist policy and give a seal of approval to the methods and tactics that they use to combat terrorism.

That is a dangerous signal for this country to send, at a time when our Prime Minister tells us that good government and the observance of human rights are priorities for his Administration. Like other hon. Members, I attended the Indian parliamentary group meeting on Monday, which was addressed by the Prime Minister. He spent all his time emphasising the benefits of investment, and of trade and business with India. He did not utter a single word about the gross abuse of human rights in India. That was a remarkable omission.

Did my hon. Friend get an inkling from the Prime Minister's talk that there had been any linkage between the order which we are being asked to approve and the enormous volume of arms sales now being made to India? Those arms could, of course, be used in both the Punjab and Kashmir.

My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that the Prime Minister made no such reference, but clearly it is well known to all of us that a major part of the trade between Britain and India consists of armaments and that the second biggest item in the Indian budget is defence.

Many other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate, so I shall finish by saying that I believe that the treaty represents a major political blunder. We should not have agreed to it unless there had been a dramatic improvement in the human rights situation in India. I hope that the Government will insist that India take positive action. There are numerous cases, many of which I have referred—

Is my hon. Friend aware that we are in danger of endorsing a treaty even though democracy has effectively broken down in parts of India, such as Kashmir, where there have been no elections since 1990 and there are no plans for any elections on a local, regional or national basis? The judicial system, too, has broken down altogether. Martial law effectively exists in many parts of India.

My hon. Friend is right.

I also hope that the Minister will give us some information about the conditions for those against whom an extradition application is made. Will the person be held in custody in the United Kingdom? Will he or she be subject to strict bail and reporting conditions?

The agreement on terrorist funding which has also been made adds to the powers which already exist. There are seven pieces of legislation which give the authorities powers to investigate financial holdings. Will the police be encouraged to undertake inquiries into the financial affairs of Gudwaras and other United Kingdom-based Indian organisations because it creates an environment of intimidation and harassment?

The hon. Gentleman has spoken already and I am about to conclude.

It is quite wrong for the treaty to be approved at this time. It is saying to many people in Britain that we are equating all turbans with terrorism. That has been the victory of Indian propaganda.

I have to say, particularly to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), whom I respect completely, that the mother and father of terrorism is state terrorism. State terrorism, suppression and repression breed militancy and terrorism. Therefore, it is in the interests of the Indian Government to ensure that human rights abuses are not perpetrated, particularly by Indian security forces.

I hope that that message will be given firmly by the British Government. We have had enough of fine words and expressions of concern. Before we give approval to such treaties, we want positive and immediate action from the Government of India to combat the gross human rights violations which are taking place in many parts of India.

11.31 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
(Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd)

We are debating emotive issues. I am aware, and have been for some time, of hon. Members' concerns about human rights in India. I have reflected them in my dealings as the Minister responsible for our relations with the Indian Republic and explained hon. Members' concerns to Indian Ministers and to the contacts I have. I have added that the Kashmir, Punjab and Sikh problems are legitimate subjects for debate in the United Kingdom because they affect the lives of United Kingdom citizens.

I know that it is wrong to refer by name to individuals in the Gallery, but one may do so collectively and we are all aware that this debate is being watched and listened to and will be read about by a large number of British citizens.

However, we must consider the offences that we are talking about. Members of the Jammu and Kashmir liberation front abducted and later assassinated the assistant Indian high commissioner in Birmingham in February 1984. Six extremists were later convicted and gaoled in the United Kingdom for his murder. The Sikh militant, Paramjit Singh Sidhu, was arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism Act and sentenced to 11 years after conviction on an explosives charge in 1990. Other Sikh militants were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment on conspiracy charges in July 1991. There have been several assassination attempts in Britain against prominent Sikh moderates. That is the British situation, but let us consider some of the international problems.

In 1985, Canadian-based Sikh militants caused a mid-air explosion on an Air India flight from Toronto to London; 329 people were killed. There was a related bomb at Tokyo airport which killed two airport staff. Those are some of the problems that we will be facing. Canada has concluded a similar extradition agreement with the Republic of India.

Have any perpretrators of those acts been brought to justice without this extradition treaty?

The purpose of this extradition agreement is for the House and the Government to say that, in such cases, it would be an outrage in this day and age for people to say that they acted with political intentions and therefore should avoid extradition and trial for alleged offences of that magnitude. The sort of offences about which we are talking—my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jesse]) referred to this—must be clarified. We are not talking about trivial offences—far from it. We are talking about offences involving hijacking, taking hostages, serious crimes of violence, murder, manslaughter, serious assaults, kidnapping, explosives, firearms offences and financing of terrorism.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) has strong views on this subject. We have often discussed those views privately—we often discuss things privately. Can he say that it is right that the argument that such offences were politically induced should be available in this day and age, when air travel is so easy and so available, which is what we are talking about?

Is my hon. Friend arguing that, in such cases, the defence of political purpose has been used successfully in a British court to resist an attempt by the Indian Government to obtain extradition? In his earlier remarks, has he not recited a number of instances of crimes committed in the United Kingdom where people have been properly convicted and punished by the courts? What is his argument for the need for this repulsive treaty?

Those crimes were committed in the United Kingdom. The treaty is mutual. There will be mutual recognition of rights of extradition—it works both ways.

It is right that the House should be so concerned about the protection of individuals. First, the matter must be considered by a British Home Office Minister. He must make a decision as to whether it is appropriate for the case to go to the Bow Street magistrates court. The decision of that court is appealable. The matter must then be considered by the Home Secretary, whose decision is open to judicial review. Indeed, the first decision of the Minister is open to judicial review if any applicant wishes to appeal. The Home Secretary must be satisfied that all the matters have been appropriately considered.

How cart people of Kashmir origin in the United Kingdom have any confidence in assurances of scrutiny from a Government who deported a Kashmir leader, Mr. Amanullah Khan, after he was twice acquitted of all charges by British courts?

If the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with the conduct of Ministers, he should remember that the Bow Street magistrates court must consider the matter. Any decision is appealable on a writ of habeas corpus. The Minister's first and second decisions are subject to the process of judicial review. Ministerial decisions can be considered up to four times by a British court.

Hon. Members have expressed their concerns dramatically and extensively. It is fortuitous that this debate should be this week, because next Monday, the Indian Parliament is commencing its committee on legislation to set up an independent Indian human rights commission. It is good timing to have the debate today. I have no doubt that the views expressed by hon. Members will be noted by the Indian high commission in London, and that copies of the Official Report will be made available to parliamentarians in India. I defy hon. Members to assert that there are not parliamentarians in India who take human rights interests strongly to heart and express concern about them.

I wish to reply to the questions of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) about access to India for human rights organisations and the signs in recent days of the Indian Government modifying and changing their policy in that regard. It has been one of my tasks to urge the Government of India to allow access to international human rights organisations and other groups. Therefore, I am particularly pleased by their recent statement on the issue.

If I may, I shall make clear what the Indian Government said and my views on it; then, if there is time, I will give way.

It may be helpful if I read out the precise passage. In a statement, the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs said:
"In furtherance of the earlier initiatives, Government has now decided to allow certain human rights organisations to visit India to see for themselves how human rights safeguards operate in various parts of the country."
Hon Members will dispute some of the phraseology in that statement, but it clearly says "India" and does not exclude any part of India. It simply states that India will be open to human rights organisations. I hope, and I shall certainly press, that it will not be too long before Amnesty International and other human rights organisations may be able to visit Kashmir and all parts of India to carry out investigations that they may legitimately seek to follow.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).

The House divided: Ayes 123, Noes 38.

Division No. 357]

[11.42 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)Cran, James
Alexander, RichardCurrie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Amess, DavidDay, Stephen
Ancram, MichaelDeva, Nirj Joseph
Arbuthnot, JamesDouglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)Dover, Den
Ashby, DavidDuncan, Alan
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)Duncan-Smith, Iain
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)Dykes, Hugh
Baldry, TonyEggar, Tim
Bates, MichaelElletson, Harold
Beresford, Sir PaulEvans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Blackburn, Dr John G.Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Boswell, TimFabricant, Michael
Bowis, JohnFishburn, Dudley
Brandreth, GylesForsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Brazier, JulianForth, Eric
Bright, GrahamFox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Browning, Mrs. AngelaGallie, Phil
Burns, SimonGillan, Cheryl
Burt, AlistairGorst, John
Butler, PeterGreenway, John (Ftyedale)
Cash, WilliamGriffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Clappison, JamesHague, William
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)Harris, David
Clifton-Brown, GeoffreyHaselhurst, Alan
Coe, SebastianHeathcoat-Amory, David
Colvin, MichaelHendry, Charles
Conway, DerekHughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)Jack, Michael

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)Robathan, Andrew
Jenkin, BernardRobertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Jessel, TobyRobinson, Mark (Somerton)
Kilfedder, Sir JamesRyder, Rt Hon Richard
Knapman, RogerShaw, David (Dover)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)Sims, Roger
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Legg, BarrySpeed, Sir Keith
Lennox-Boyd, MarkSpink, Dr Robert
Lidington, DavidSproat, Iain
Lightbown, DavidStanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Luff, PeterStephen, Michael
MacKay, AndrewSweeney, Walter
Maclean, DavidSykes, John
Maitland, Lady OlgaTaylor, Ian (Esher)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)
Merchant, PiersThomason, Roy
Milligan, StephenThompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Nelson, AnthonyTrend, Michael
Neubert, Sir MichaelTwinn, Dr Ian
Nicholls, PatrickWardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Page, RichardWells, Bowen
Paice, JamesWhittingdale, John
Patnick, IrvineWilletts, David
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir GeoffreyWood, Timothy
Pickles, Eric
Porter, David (Waveney)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Sydney Chapman and Timothy Kirkhope.

Richards, Rod
Riddick, Graham

NOES

Abbott, Ms DianeLoyden, Eddie
Barnes, HarryMahon, Alice
Cann, JamieMarshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Cohen, HarryPike, Peter L.
Corbyn, JeremyPowell, William (Corby)
Cousins, JimPurchase, Ken
Cox, TomRendel, David
Cryer, BobRooney, Terry
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)Skinner, Dennis
Dicks, TerrySpearing, Nigel
George, BruceSpellar, John
Gerrard, NeilTurner, Dennis
Godsiff, RogerWaller, Gary
Graham, ThomasWalley, Joan
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)Watts, John
Hardy, PeterWise, Audrey
Heppell, JohnYoung, David (Bolton SE)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Tellers for the Noes:

Leighton, Ron

Mr. Max Madden and Ms Liz Lynne.

Lewis, Terry

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Suppression of Terrorism Act 1978 (Application of Provisions) (India) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.

Incumbents (Vacation Of Benefices)

11.53 pm

I beg to move,

That the Incumbents (Vacation of Benefices) (Amendment) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
At this comparatively late hour, I need not detain the House too long in advocating the measure. It is both reasonable and desirable and, for the Church of England in its official councils, quite uncontroversial. The measure received final approval in the General Synod last year—it was unanimously approved in all three Houses.

That is to say that no bishop, no clergyman and no layman voted against it. The voting figures are on page 7 of the Ecclesiastical Committee's report now before the House, if anyone wants to look at them.

I have stressed the unusual unanimity because the measure touches on sensitive issues in the life of the Church of England. It deals with cases in which a major problem arises in a parish not because of any grave misconduct on the part of the rector or vicar—the Church of England has separate disciplinary procedures for dealing with that contingency—but because the rector or vicar has a serious health problem or there is a serious breakdown in the relationship between him and the parishioners.

In such cases, where the work of a parish church cannot go forward effectively, some sort of action has to be taken to resolve the problem. The synod attempted to set up a mechanism for doing that in the parent of the present measure as long ago as 1977. The 1977 measure laid down a carefully formulated procedure and provided for a judicial tribunal to investigate the breakdown and recommend what should be done to resolve it. The earlier measure envisaged the possibility, as a last resort, of recommending that the rector or vicar should be required to leave the parish. Hence my reference to the sensitivity of the matter that we are considering tonight.

However, the original 1977 measure, like other attempts to tackle difficult and sensitive problems which have not been dealt with in a formal way before, was found to have some shortcomings. Hence the amendment measure that we are considering tonight, which seeks to remedy the earlier defects. I shall give just a few examples.

The earlier measure proved unsatisfactory on compensation, about which I shall say a few words presently. Above all, the 1977 measure did not lay sufficient emphasis on seeking to secure a preliminary reconciliation between the rector or vicar and the parishioners in cases where the relationship between them had broken down and before invoking more formal judicial procedures. That shortcoming is the first matter which the amending measure before us tonight seeks to remedy.

The amending measure provides that before any formal legal process is set in motion, there should be a carefully structured reconciliation process following a code of practice laid down by the House of Bishops. The bishops have already published a draft of the code, which is set out in the Ecclesiastical Committee's report before the House tonight but which the bishops have expanded a little to take on board some of the suggestions made by our colleagues in the House who are members of the Ecclesiastical Committee.

Among other things, the code provides for a third party who is acceptable to both sides, so to speak, to act as a conciliator, and for the parties to have a trial period of working together, where that seems both feasible and desirable. Only after that conciliation has failed can the more formal tribunal procedure, with various penalties up to enforced resignation, be invoked. Then the procedure can be invoked only if the relevant bishop approves—that is, it is at his discretion. The penalties recommended by the tribunal can in turn be imposed only if the bishop, at his discretion, authorises it.

The measure improves the procedure under the 1977 legislation in several further important ways. One example is that, in ill-health or disability cases, the tribunal will now have power to direct that the rector or vicar involved should have a proper medical examination and to draw the appropriate inferences if he refuses. Another example is that, in cases of the breakdown of the relationship between the rector or vicar and parishioners, it will now be possible to abort or withdraw the formal proceedings, even after they have started, if there is any hope of more informal reconciliation procedures taking effect. Under the 1977 measure, once a procedure had reached a certain stage, the only way to stop it was the resignation of the rector or vicar. To that extent, we have made things very much more flexible and sensitive.

Three points caused some concern or dissent among a minority of our colleagues on the Ecclesiastical Committee. First, some colleagues—including, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans)—thought that the Church of England should change to a system more like the law on unfair dismissal which applies to secular employment, and that the clergy should have clear performance criteria with dismissal as the penalty if they fail to meet those objective requirements.

I concede that it is important that everything possible be done to help the clergy to work effectively, and to work to objective standards if possible. Only a few days ago, the General Synod passed a motion asking the bishops to implement a system of regular review and work development for all clergy, and a group has been set up to examine the terms and conditions of service which might apply to them. However, most hon. Members will agree that the work that a clergyman does is of a special kind, and depends for its effectiveness on the quality of his relationship with his parishioners.

The parishioners are not employees of the Church; they are partners, with the clergy, in carrying forward the Church's mission. Thus, cases where the relationship breaks down are not on all fours with cases where an employee is dismissed. What is needed is a procedure for putting a disrupted relationship back on its feet, if possible. It is only as a very last resort that it should be deemed irreparable and the clergyman concerned required by the bishop to leave the parish.

One or two colleagues on the Committee were concerned about the compensation provisions in the measure. When a vicar or rector has resigned on grounds of ill health, or has been required to resign on those grounds, he receives the same pension and other benefits as any other member of the clergy who retires owing to ill health. The measure makes no change in that respect.

The 1977 measure also provided for very generous compensation in cases of a serious breakdown of relationships—so generous that many dioceses could not afford it, and clergy who received it had no incentive to find other work. That was unsatisfactory, because it was inconceivable that a clergyman would be removed from office under the measure on grounds of a breakdown in the relationship with his parishioners unless there had been some fault or failure on his part.

The amending measure sets out to strike a balance between treating vicars and rectors justly and the wider interests of the Church of England and of the lay people who contribute to its finances. It does so by providing that the rector or vicar and the diocese agree whatever compensation terms they wish. We would certainly encourage dioceses to be generous if the clergyman concerned had special needs—for instance, a need for retraining.

My right hon. Friend says that it is inconceivable that the relationship would break down unless there had been some fault or failure on the part of the incumbent. Could it not break down because of a dispute over some theological point which could not easily be resolved but which could hardly fairly be described as resulting from fault or failure on the part of the incumbent?

I shall come to that later, when I describe how the measure defines such breakdowns in relationships.

The measure lays down that if the parties fail to agree the incumbent should be provided with reasonable compensation in the form of financial support and reasonable help with housing costs. The details are spelt out in schedule 2 to the measure. The word "reasonable" may seem to beg a question, but the clergy in the Synod, who are the category primarily affected, as well as all the other categories in the Synod, accepted that the schedule 2 formula for compensation struck a fair balance between the interests of all concerned. They did not vote against it. The unanimity of the vote, including that of the clergy, is a reflection of the fact that it was felt that the compensation provisions were reasonable.

In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies), a number of our colleagues on the Ecclesiastical Committee—my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth may have been among them—felt that the new definition of a serious breakdown in pastoral relationships, which appears in the new measure, was too wide and could leave almost any rector or vicar open to being proceeded against, perhaps by some local crank.

The original 1977 legislation contained no definition at all, which made it difficult to interpret. The Synod has now tightened matters considerably by providing that the provisions on the breakdown of a relationship will apply only where the situation is impeding the whole mission of the Church of England in the parish. The legislation therefore cannot be invoked because of a trivial dispute or a disagreement between the rector or vicar and a small minority of the parishioners.

The actual trigger mechanism is formulated under paragraph 10 of the measure and refers to the impeding
"of the whole mission of the Church of England, pastoral, evangelistic, social and ecumenical"
in the parish in question. Nothing trivial or secondary would be caught by it. Matters relating to theology or doctrine could not have the effect of impeding that whole mission in such a way as to be caught by the definitition. That definition relates to the kind of breakdown which occurs when the clergyman is seriously ill or mentally disturbed. It goes far too wide for a mere theological dispute to trigger the judicial procedures involved.

The new definition also highlights the real purpose of the measure, which is to further, positively and constructively, the mission of the Church of England in the parishes. The Synod wholeheartedly accepted it as something which would help to achieve that aim. I hope that the House will add its support to the Synod by supporting the measure.

12.7 am

I do not need to speak for long, because the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) has spelt out to the House the flexible nature of the measure and its infinitely superior quality in comparison with that of 1977. The right hon. Gentleman has reminded the House that the 1977 measure did not command the same support and unanimity in the Synod as that shown for the new measure.

Hon. Members may believe that matters concerning the Church should not be considered in the Chamber. While the Church is established, however, Parliament has the obligation to consider such matters.

We should respect the measure because it provides for fair dealings for members of the clergy. Conservative Members may not share my opinion and that of my hon. Friends that the role of the good priest in many parishes is far more stressful than it has ever been. When society is dominated by greed, and when it is entirely materialistic in its political evaluation, the stress facing the good priest is enormous.

The majority of people may never give much thought to the priest or to the Church, but at times of crisis, both individual and community, the Church is seen as relevant and the priest must be there. Many of our priests are readily available. They share grief and anxiety. They share the very real economic and social burdens that affect the people in their pastoral charge.

The strain on many of the clergy can be enormous. It is perfectly appropriate for the House to ensure that clergy who suffer a breakdown of health as a result of being at the interface of stress within their parishes should be treated decently. I hope that the House will approve the measure for that reason.

As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may recall, I was brought up in nonconformity. I recall that, on occasions, my parents were very angry when they returned home from chapel business meetings. It sometimes seemed that the qualities of Christian charity were not always readily exhibited. In the operation of the management of the established Church, I suppose that sometimes personal animosities and irritations are taken to such an excessive point that an outside influence seeking to pour oil on troubled waters would be desirable.

I think that the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) is a member of the legal profession. He may be much more well disposed to bureaucracy than I am. He may well wish to see a tightly bureaucratic, structured arrangement that may well be very profitable or more interesting to members of the legal profession than to the rest of the laity serving the Church.

I will give way in a moment.

When we deal with human relationships in our surgeries, many of us would not dream of advising constituents to go off and consult their legal advisers. We would not do that for many reasons, not least because of the cost. I would prefer a more flexible arrangement. The quality of this measure is one of flexibility and reasonable generosity.

I hope that the hon. Member for Monmouth shares my view that there is a place for flexibility rather than for the more bureaucratic approach which, I suspect, he may favour rather more than I do.

Surely the hon. Gentleman has, at his surgery, advised people who have been unfairly dismissed that the way to get justice and fairness is to go to an industrial tribunal? Why should we treat the clergy of the Church of England to a much lower standard and give them much less protection than ordinary employees and trade unionists who have been unfairly dismissed? That is the injustice of this proposal.

One would hope that no one employed by the Church, as clergy or in any other capacity, would be treated in the way that many of my constituents have been treated when they have claimed unfair dismissal.

One is entitled to expect the Church to conduct itself in a way that would avoid that degree of confrontation, which would not serve the Church or the person who appeals to the tribunal well. I do not believe that there is a need for such confrontation. If that arrangement were made, it would be a confession that the Church was incapable of applying Christian practice and approaches. For that reason, I would not like to see the Church in that position. That is why I could not possibly support the approach that the hon. Member for Monmouth appears to advocate.

We must make it clear in the House that we recognise the stress and demands placed on the conscientious clergyman. Such a clergyman would not wish to expose the Church to the attention that would follow a case for unfair dismissal. The hon. Member for Monmouth may have acted for clients in those tribunals. He will be aware that pretty sordid tales often appear in the media after such cases. I do not think that the human relationships involved are best dealt with in such a tribunal.

The structures that the right hon. Member for Selby has presented are admirable. They are far better than the 1976 measure, for the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman gave. We have a duty to ensure that the clergy serving the Church, while it is an established organisation, should be treated as decently as the measure proposes. I certainly trust that the measure will be approved.

12.14 am

The speech of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) was powerful, persuasive; humane and trusting of the Church of England. I regret to say, from my professional experience as a member of the Bar advising clergymen in difficulties, that I have seen grossly unchristian behaviour. I have seen the behaviour of Mr Gradgrind—exactly the kind of conduct from which our system of industrial tribunals protects workmen and employees. If a Conservative Member proposed to abolish protection from unfair dismissal, Opposition Members would be outraged. This proposal weakens the position of an incumbent clergyman and puts him in a worse position than an employee. That is startling and wrong. It is unjust and unworkable.

The hon. Gentleman should consider that the House of Clergy did not provide a single vote against the measure. When considering the same arrangements in the early 1970s, the House of Clergy managed to secure a majority of six. That suggests that, in the intervening years, the Church has produced a much more acceptable arrangement. If the clergy who might be the hon. Gentleman's clients are prepared to vote for the measure, it appears that the hon. Gentleman is taking his representations too zealously.

I am afraid that that is not a fair observation. The point at stake is that there might be a touch of unworldliness in debates in the Synod. The English Clergy Association is certainly concerned about these matters now that it has had a chance to examine them.

The first difficulty with the proposals is simply that the 1977 measure upon which they are based and are meant to reform has not worked. The Legislative Committee described it in quite brutal terms in its remarks to the Ecclesiastical Committee: the 1977 measure has
"major defects in practice… It was found to be complicated, difficult, and very expensive to operate and to result in serious adverse publicity for the Church."
Upon questioning, we discovered that it has been used only twice since 1977. Synod debated it in 1981, because there was extreme disquiet about it. In fact, the arrangements of the measure which we are seeking to amend have not been used, because the system is fatally and completely flawed.

I shall go back to basic principals. Vicars and rectors, who are still the great majority of Anglican clergymen, hold a freehold office until retirement. They can ordinarily be removed only for a proven criminal ecclesiastical case proved in court. That very rarely happens. The late Mr. Michael Bland, hon. Members might recall, succeeded as a result of the effects of Lord Howe of Aberavon. Apart from that case and one or two unhappy incidents of adultery, proven cases of clerical misconduct have been noted for their absence.

There are situations—this is what the 1977 measure was directed at—in which a parson's church congregation dwindles, the quota is not paid, the parochial church council is at war with itself, and the parishioners are not talking. Something must be done as a practical matter to deal with that, as a matter of sense and justice. If we were running a voluntary organisation or a political party and things went backward to that extent, we would want to see what could be done.

The Church of England's solution in 1977 was to set up a fudge. We are talking about the reform of a fudge. There are two vital features of the 1977 measure. The first was irretrievable pastoral breakdown. What on earth does that garbage mean? It is taken from the no-fault divorce phraseology of the statute—irretrievable breakdown of marriage—and it means what anybody wants it to mean. This was a basic, fundamental problem of definition.

The second fault was that, if one was dispossessed and deprived under the 1977 measure, one was compensated for one's whole loss. That was a job for life until death. It was large and generous compensation, much better than a workman would get.

What happened? The Church of England discovered that, in the two cases where proceedings were brought under the 1977 measure, they were either wholly embarrassing and the pastoral inquiry a matter of scandal for the popular press, or, if the parson was actually deprived, the cost was appalling and prodigious. So be it, the thing failed.

What are we to do now? One might have thought that the Church of England would see fit to reconsider the basic premise of the 1977 measure and produce some new scheme. It might have come to Parliament saying that the whole system was wrong, which might have been rather controversial. It might have come to us and said that parsons should hold their office only for a limited number of years. It might have said that there should be performance criteria or standards that they should observe —.[Interruption.] We can assess, to some extent, whether a church is emptying, the quota not being paid and the funds not being raised. There must be fairness.

If there is a problem, there must be a system by which the people concerned can be removed and compensation should be adjusted according to the degree of fault. A blameless parson, or one who is only partly to blame, should get much more than one who is wholly at fault. That is what an industrial tribunal decides—it adjusts the compensation according to the contributory fault. That is the approach that the Church of England could have adopted.

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the national minimum stipend is not very attractive. I suspect that it is rather less than the national average wage.

Instead of dealing with the problems, we are being asked to build on the 1977 measure. There are two striking and fundamental faults. I do not mind the extra ACAS-type provisions such as reconciliation and dealing with the sick, but the fundamentals of the proposals are as follows.

First, there is a new definition of "irretrievable pastoral breakdown", which my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) read out and which refers to
"the whole mission of the Church of England, pastoral, evangelistic, social and ecumenical."
What on earth does that mean? Let us put it in the party political context. Would we want constituency associations of hon. Members to get rid of those who failed the whole mission of the Conservative party or the Labour party? We can see immediately how that sort of wild language could be twisted to the detriment of the person there at the moment. It is pliable language: it is not precise, fair and good legislation.

Is anyone saying that if there is a pastoral mission it is not always possible to find a cause—doctrinal disputes have already been mentioned—for gossip against the vicar if someone disapproves of the sermon, for whatever reason? Are we really intending to create a position in which troublemakers can cause difficulty in the parish and have the parson removed simply by citing a breakdown of pastoral relationships? That cannot be just or fair.

If I were to be very rude to those who drafted the measure before us, I would say that the new section 19A is almost the equivalent of charging somebody with un-Anglican activities. It is as bad as the activities of the late Senator McCarthy, and it is unworthy of legislation.

The second fundamental failure is that if a parson is deprived under these proposals, regardless of his fault or contribution to his deprivation, he gets very much reduced compensation. He gets a buy-out that is not conspicuously generous. Instead of the whole loss for the rest of his life, it is a basic award of one year at the minimum stipend and the next year at three quarters, if he is aged 49 and started at 25. There are resettlement and housing allowances.

Those are modest sums to give an almost blameless parson, who is turfed out of his home and loses his living and his professional respect.

There is a fundamental moral difficulty about which the code of conduct is remarkably coy. If the parson suffers because no one gets on with him, is he to blame or is he not?

The draft code says that it is not necessarily blameworthy, even if one is deprived of one's living. It is wholly unjust to give the same modest compensation to the man who has fallen out with the gossips in the parochial church council and the women's institute as to the mad, bad vicar who justly deserves to be removed.

In a different context, an industrial tribunal can apportion blame, decide contributory fault and reduce the compensation accordingly, fairly and in balance. We have known that system for years. My right hon. Friend asked whether it was wrong to apply the model of unfair dismissal, but I thought that that model would be particularly attractive to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who might have regarded it as an achievement in the history of the working man.

In another place, the Lord Bishop of St. Albans took the same point as my right hon. Friend. He said:
"the work of a clergyman in a parish is a special kind of calling which takes special qualities and needs the active co-operation and support of parishioners. The parishioners themselves are not employees of the Church but partners with the clergy in carrying forward the Church's mission."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 July 1993; Vol. 584, c. 509.]
He went on to say that cases where the relationship breaks down are not on all fours with unfair dismissal.

Imagine yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the full-time paid secretary of a charity and you have volunteer workers with whom it is difficult to deal. Charities fall out like parishes. Party political agents in our constinuencies are full-time workers, and they are known to fall out with the volunteer side. But I say to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) that many full-time charity workers do the same sort of job as an ordained clergymen, pursuing God's mission—but such people in secular employment are protected by the law of unfair dismissal. Why should parsons be treated any less well?

One cannot, as a private body or as a disestablished church, tear up arrangements such as the parson's freehold without an Act of Parliament. The Church of England enjoys a special, convenient legislative privilege of delegated legislation and the procedure that we are observing now.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is wrong if provisions slip through in this fashion without the full examination that would occur at all stages if they were the subject of a proper Bill.

I have often remained to hear measures affecting the Church of England debated, but the truth is that we should not debate the actions of the General Synod. There are many faiths in Britain, but for some reason or another Church of England measures come before the House late at night. Frankly, I do not think that we have any business discussing them. If the General Synod makes a decision, that is its business.

I am greateful for that wholly unsympathetic and unfair intervention. The hon. Gentleman does not care beyond a certain point about parsons' civil liberties and rights. He is interested only in his own constituents —some of whom may be parsons.

Wherever the Methodists, Baptists or Congregationalists want to unify, alter their trusts or terms of contracts, or change the law, it is not a case of ignoring Parliament. They must come to Parliament and face the full difficulty of getting a Bill passed. The Church of England has a convenient system that benefits and assists the Church. But if matters are to be dealt with in that way, the highest standards of legal drafting for legislation must be observed, using systems that are fair, just and workable. At the same time, the Church of England in particular has a moral obligation to observe the highest standards towards those who serve it. It is wholly wrong for parsons to be treated in an unfair and unworkable way.

I do not usually use the language of civil liberties, which is not my cast of mind or the temper of my political prejudice. However, on whichever side of the House one may sit, this measure is either a back-door attack, in Tory terms, on the parson's freehold or, viewed through left-wing glasses, an attack on the civil liberties of parsons. These proposals are fatally flawed, and I invite the House to reject them.

12.29 am

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) could not have presented more vividly, convincingly and perfectly the reason for which we want to try