asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have the task of assessing for fitness to drive people who suffer from this and other medical conditions. Our general approach was reviewed in a valuable report by the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology. We have today published the Government's response to that report. Our response confirms that we will review the scope for more individual assessment, subject to advice from the Advisory Panel on Diabetes and Driving.

My Lords, that is a very encouraging reply. However, does my noble friend agree that the blanket ban and the current regulations are arbitrary, illogical and inconsistent, as detailed in the recent report by the House of Commons Select Committee? Does he agree that the blanket ban represents an offence against the human rights of 100,000 of our fellow citizens? Further, does my noble friend accept that such unwarranted discrimination could be remedied by the introduction of a regime of individual assessment for those insulin-dependent diabetic drivers who wish to test their fitness to drive Class 2 vehicles?

My Lords, the prime consideration, from the Government's point of view, must be fairness to all road users in terms of road safety. That must be our central concern. There are still a number of accidents which occur to people with diabetic conditions. It is not true to say that there is a blanket ban. Car drivers can obtain a licence for up to three years, and renewal depends on medical assessment. However, the Select Committee made some valuable points, particularly in relation to small commercial vehicles where there is a degree of inconsistency in the regulations and probably a degree of unfairness. That is why I referred in my original Answer to a review to look at the possibility of greater scope for individual assessment.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am experiencing a severe case of gold-plated déja vu? Is it the case that an insulin-dependent driver from the Netherlands would be able to drive in the UK while a UK driver with the same medical condition would automatically not be able to do so?

My Lords, I do not think that it is a question of gold-plating. There are EU regulations on the matter and each member state carries out administratively the means to comply with those regulations. I do not have the precise details of the Dutch provision, but so far as concerns small commercial vehicles it depends on medical assessment. Therefore, it is not the case that any driver with this condition who has a Dutch licence can drive over here. Drivers with a Dutch licence will have been subject to a degree of medical assessment, which is more or less what the Select Committee in another place recommended for this country. There is no blanket permit anywhere in the EU.

My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend for his original reply, but what assessment has he made of what constitutes high and low risk in relation to individual fitness to drive? In particular and specifically, does he agree with the finding of the Select Committee on Science and Technology in another place that a key criterion is whether licence applicants are able to spot the warning signs of hyperglycaemia and are in good control of their blood sugar levels and that those with good control and awareness may be considered low risk?

My Lords, in general terms I agree with that assertion. The area of contention relates to driving vans and minibuses where there is greater danger to others than there is in driving a car. In this area the Select Committee recommends individual assessment. The EU regulations relate to "exceptional circumstances" for this class of vehicle. We have hitherto interpreted that to mean people having a proven record of driving frequently and regularly before they can be considered for exemption. It may well be that that rather blunt identification of exceptional cases needs to be replaced by something closer to an individual assessment. It is not by any means certain that individual assessment would lead to larger numbers being permitted to drive, but it would relate more directly to an individual's condition.

My Lords, following on from the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, does the Minister agree that the statistics should be broken down to indicate those who collapse at the wheel as a result of hyperglycaemia so that we can act on that information? I have heard a figure of 120 for those collapsing at the wheel as a result of the condition. Has the Minister any idea what the statistics are, as they would give some idea of the magnitude of the problem?

My Lords, there are significantly more cases of people collapsing at the wheel due to hyperglycaemia. Not all such incidents result in accident injuries—I believe the noble Lord is referring to injuries—but all have the potential to cause injury and therefore present a problem. Research on the matter is not robust, as the Select Committee pointed out. We are about to commission substantial research which will give a very much better indication of the size of the problem and, therefore, it is to be hoped, scope for a solution.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the post-16 curriculum reforms we are introducing in September are designed to enable students to opt for a wider range of subjects while maintaining current standards. I expect many young people to use the new advanced subsidiary qualification, representing the first half of the full A-level, as a way to continue studying at least one modern language at advanced level. A number of universities have already indicated that they will be giving credit to broader programmes of study in selecting candidates for entry from 2002.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, I wonder whether Her Majesty's Government will consider the proven impact over a long period of time of youth and student exchanges between countries. Over the years, for example, the Franco-German exchange has resulted not only in an enormous enhancement of linguistic ability in both languages and in both countries, but also in an understanding of the culture that lies behind the language. Given the importance of our relations with those countries, will the Government consider actively enhancing the level of youth and student exchanges, not only between France and Germany and the United Kingdom, but between this country and other members of the European Union?

My Lords, there is no better way of learning a modern foreign language than going to the country where it is spoken and using the language there. The Government strongly endorse everything that the noble Lord says about the value of such visits and exchanges. Indeed, the Government support the work of the agency that promotes such exchanges between schools. I accept that even more can probably be done. Under the new Socrates programme which has just been agreed right across the European Union, more work will be done to promote visits by young people, not just in France and Germany but in other European countries also.

My Lords, as the Minister will doubtless know, just one week today we shall have the report of the Nuffield language inquiry that was chaired by Sir Trevor McDonald and Sir John Boyd. Will the Government seize this moment to make a fresh onslaught on our deplorable monolingualism, so that we can start approaching the educational levels achieved apparently effortlessly by our continental neighbours, along with the cultural values that flow therefrom?

My Lords, the Government greatly look forward to the report of the Nuffield languages group. I have had one meeting with some of those who are involved in it; however, I cannot anticipate exactly what they will say. An onslaught on monolingualism is more difficult in a country whose own language and mother tongue has become the lingua franca around the world. But we do need to encourage as many young people as possible to study a modern language beyond the compulsory school leaving age of 16, up to which time they do have to study a modern language. Since young people choose what subjects they take at A-level and AS-level, it is a matter of promoting a climate in which young people think it worth their while to study these subjects rather than of forcing them down their throats.

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it is not so much a question of creating a climate as the cultural richness of being able to converse with and understand people in a foreign country?

My Lords, an understanding of modern foreign languages makes it easier for young people to become more aware of the cultures of our neighbouring countries and those far beyond.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is time to stop referring to a language that is widespread throughout the world as "the lingua franca"?

My Lords, that phrase is often used all over the world, but I apologise if my noble friend does not like it.

My Lords, has the Minister ever been to an international meeting where more of the British people present can speak the foreign language concerned than the foreign people can speak English? If not, I hope that she can look forward to such an occasion.

My Lords, no, except for one occasion when, as my noble friend reminds me, he and I visited Cardiff prison.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, cabling work begun earlier this year in Piccadilly is now complete. Transco and British Telecom are now due to carry out limited work. I understand that as the highway authority Westminster City Council is doing all that it can to minimise inconvenience and disruption.

My Lords, it is not just Piccadilly. Does the noble Lord recall that 84 telecommunications companies have recently added their names to a list of those who can, at will, muck up the highway? Does the Minister agree that they are free to delay, daily, damage and upset others at what is becoming known as a gentlemanly pace; in other words, they are not in a hurry and take a good deal of time off in the middle of the work? Does the noble Lord agree that the time has passed for doing nothing and that the chairmen and chief executives of those companies should be reminded that they are behaving with an almost unique blend of incompetence, arrogance and slovenliness? As they are inconveniencing members of the public who pay for the use of the roads, is it not a good idea that, as a matter of urgency, they should be made to pay a heavy charge?

My Lords, by now I am quite clear that the noble Lord and several others are upset by this activity, and that a number of members of the public share their views. As my noble friend Lord Sainsbury pointed out recently in a debate initiated by the noble Lord, it is important to recognise that this is part of a process of modernising and liberalising the telecommunications system of central London. Therefore, this will benefit businesses and the citizens of London. It is true that there are inconveniences, some of which would probably have been avoidable had greater co-ordination been achieved. Westminster City Council, in relation to Piccadilly and Westminster, together with the City of London—the noble Lord, Lord Levene, spoke in the same debate—and other local authorities are attempting to bring together the various bodies with the right to lay cable and pipelines to try to co-ordinate the work better. As we also indicated in that debate, the Government intend to trigger Section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act which will enable us to charge for overstay. We do not rule out further measures to ensure that this is effective in limiting the amount of time spent on such works and ensuring that they are co-ordinated efficiently.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that I agree with every word uttered by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, except that I believe that he spoke excessively moderately? The random digging up of roads is becoming something between a farce and a national scandal, and some control must be exercised. At present one cannot turn right out of your Lordships' House. Is the Minister aware— I do not see why he should be—that my late father-in-law when town clerk of Westminster for many decades refused to allow any roadworks in the City of Westminster when Parliament was in session? He might start with that. This is a national not just a parliamentary or London issue. Some control over this matter must be exercised by the noble Lord's department, even before a London mayor gets to grips with it.

My Lords, as the reference to the noble Lord's father-in-law implies, in most cases the responsibility rests primarily with the local authority. However, local authorities have limited powers. In response to the noble Lord, who is such a constitutionalist, I hate to suggest that his relative might well have been exceeding his powers in preventing the utilities digging up the roads. The problem is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, indicated, today we are not dealing simply with the traditional utilities, but also with a whole range of cable companies which require access to what is a very intensive commercial base in central London. I hesitate to say that the big wave of such activity is beginning to die down. I suspect that central London has largely been cabled, although we have not reached the end of it. The noble Lord is right to say that this will arise in other parts of the country. For that reason we propose to trigger Section 74 of the legislation. We are looking at other means of imposing a cost—and therefore an incentive to carry out this work in a more sensible way.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is another side to it" Will the Minister congratulate the contractors on demonstrating that one lane in Piccadilly is quite sufficient? Will he go further and suggest that that should be converted into a bus lane and that the pavements should be widened, as should those on Regent Street?

My Lords, the greater provision of bus lanes within our inner cities is primarily a matter for Westminster City Council, which will look at Piccadilly, and for other authorities in line with their own, and our, integrated transport approach, of which I approve.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that his description of the disruption as an "inconvenience" is a total understatement? Does the noble Lord agree that such works bring intolerable chaos to the roads of London which harms the environment and has many other adverse side effects? Is the Minister aware that, for example, only today I passed three sites where in each case roadworks had been completed days and weeks before and yet no one had uncovered the parking meters which had been out of use during that time? Therefore, due to lack of coordination people were unable to park in those areas for many days, sometimes weeks, longer than would otherwise have been the case.

My Lords, the noble Baroness rightly refers to the issue of co-ordination both among the utility and cable companies and between them and the highways authorities. The central London boroughs and the City of London are taking initiatives in this respect. The powers to which I have referred should give them a stick as well as a carrot in relation to the companies. The noble Baroness is right that there is significant inconvenience. However, I stress the other side of the equation: London needs a first-class worldwide communications system, and the liberalisation of telecommunications provides that. Therefore, one must strike a balance here.

My Lords, in answer to a Written Question published yesterday in Hansard, the Minister admitted that the department has no statistics available centrally on which it can make an estimate of the alterations proposed to date. How does the Minister equate that with regard for the whole of the British economy, outside the information technology sector? In the debate on 5th April, his noble friend Lord Sainsbury indicated that this strategy was well worth while because it contributed to the technical updating of the entire communications system. Will the Minister be frank at least and agree that it is high time that the matter was brought under the control of the DETR rather than the Department of Trade and Industry?

My Lords, I am advised on these occasions that the delineation of departmental responsibility is a matter for the Prime Minister.

I recognise that problems are caused by the profusion of cable companies. Nevertheless, my noble friend would be wrong to dismiss the technological advance in communications that this action brings. It was underlined by my noble friend Lord Sainsbury. The Government intend to give powers in this area to highways authorities, including the Greater London Authority and the London boroughs. We need to take a balanced approach. It may have gone too far one way, but I hope that noble Lords will not push the Government too far in the opposite direction.

My Lords, the Minister has a reputation, which he has earned, for good sense, fairness and general helpfulness. Can the noble Lord say whether it is his colleagues or his advisers who are restraining him on this occasion from using those admirable qualities?

My Lords, I am always restrained, I hope, by various forces in this House in order to give a balanced view. That is what I was attempting to do.

There are things wrong with the system. We are addressing them. I ask noble Lords and the citizens of London for a little more patience. We shall have in place very soon the powers for local authorities and the Greater London Authority.

My Lords, the Minister announced the future commencement of Section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act. Can the noble Lord tell us when that will occur?

My Lords, regulations are required to be drafted; therefore, it will probably be in the autumn.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the UK National Screening Committee does not currently recommend prostate cancer screening based on the prostate specific antigen (PSA) test as with existing technology for treatments and testing there is no evidence that a screening programme would save lives, and evidence that it could cause large numbers of cases of impotence and incontinence. However, we believe that that this issue is of such importance that we have asked the committee to keep it under review and consider any new evidence.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply which is contrary to the press reports this week as regards Mayor Giuliani. Does the Minister agree that there is a major difference between the level of screening of women for breast cancer and men for prostate cancer? Is that sex discrimination, a lack of men's awareness of the availability of tests, or simply the traditional unwillingness of macho man to address health issues?

My Lords, colorectal screening for men is being piloted at present. We shall keep under review the issue of screening for prostate cancer. As the national committee advised Ministers in 1997, there are real problems in this area. There is no consensus of medical opinion on how to treat the disease. The test has a limited accuracy and could lead to a positive test for those without the disease.

My Lords, the Minister described how the Government intend to proceed. The National Screening Committee has advised against universal application of the PSA test. However, Britain has one of the worst records for prostate cancer in terms of outcome. Its record is worse even than that of Estonia and Poland. Does the noble Lord have a prescription for future improvement of prostate cancer services?

My Lords, it is good to hear the name of Estonia back in your Lordships' House. I assure the noble Lord that the Government are far from complacent about the impact of prostate cancer. It is important that the decision on action to be taken is made on the best available evidence. The evidence from the committee advising Ministers is that it would not be appropriate to extend testing in the way suggested. We are anxious to do all we can. We have announced that an action plan will be developed over the next few months which will take in research, diagnosis and care. We are anxious that as much information as possible is available to men so that they are able to make informed choices.

My Lords, will the Minister say where the pilot scheme is taking place and how many patients are involved?

My Lords, I assume the question relates to colorectal cancer. I do not have the information to hand but I am happy to write to the noble Baroness.

My Lords, how many research projects are in hand at present which are considering not only treatment but also causation? Has the Medical Research Council plans to fund any more?

My Lords, since 1997 the Government have directly committed more than £800,000 to new prostate cancer research projects. In addition, the department provides support to the NHS for research commissioned by the medical charities and the Medical Research Council. Over £60 million of that funding supports cancer research overall, with £16 million going to the Royal Marsden Hospital. The Royal Marsden Hospital estimates that nearly £1 million of that Department of Health support funding relates to work on prostate cancer.

My Lords, I acknowledge that there is still uncertainty about the most effective treatment for men with early stage prostate cancer, but what role do the Government envisage for the technique known as radioactive seed implantation for the treatment of prostate cancer? Are there any plans to make it more widely available in the UK than at present?

My Lords, the National Screening Committee will keep the matter under constant review. As and when they arise, potential new tests will be considered on their merits. The National Screening Committee is charged with discussing again the whole issue of screening at its next meeting. Alongside that, the development of an action plan by the department in the summer will enable us to keep pace with developments in the UK and other countries and ensure that we keep up to date with the best available evidence. I assure the noble Earl that we shall take into account any new developments which come onstream in other countries.

My Lords, has the Minister seen the report in the medical column of The Times this week? It stated that there is proven evidence of a great decline in deaths from prostate cancer in the United States whereas in this country the figure is described as soaring.

My Lords, I have not seen the article. However, as I said, we shall ensure that any new research which becomes available is fully considered. My figures suggest that the incident rates of prostate cancer in this country are expected to level off in future years. At the same time, it is essential that we develop screening programmes only when we have advice that it is effective to do so. That will remain the Government's policy.

My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Scotland will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on Zimbabwe.

rose to call attention to the provision of essential services to communities in particular need, including banking, post office facilities, transport and health; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This is a debate about two nations, but not as conventionally understood. It is not a debate about the distribution of income and wealth, although I have to say that I find it deplorable that in today's affluent Britain the gap between rich and poor is widening.

Nor is the debate about north versus south. The problems of economic and social deprivation are common to communities throughout the United Kingdom. It is not even about town versus country because people living in both suffer from exclusion for one reason or another. Nevertheless, it is a debate about the haves and have-nots, particularly about those whose quality of life is diminished and seems likely to be diminished further by the absence of or inadequacies in the provision of those essential services which most of us take for granted.

The Social Exclusion Unit in the Cabinet Office recently published a report on neighbourhood renewal. In his foreword to it, the Prime Minister set out what he called four imperatives for successful regeneration. They were, first, to revive the economy. In this case, that is poor neighbourhoods. Secondly, to revive and empower the community. Thirdly, to improve key public services, particularly schools, health and the police, as well as re-engage private services such as shops and banks. Fourthly, underpinning all those, said the Prime Minister, was the need for leadership.

The Social Exclusion Unit report is concerned with the urban problem, particularly how to deal with run-down estates. Almost word for word, the Prime Minister's four imperatives could be applied to the problems of today's countryside. Reviving the economy has an immediate echo for everyone struggling with the consequences of the current disastrous farming crisis. Without a flourishing agriculture, life in rural areas as we know it will perish.

As regards improving key public services and re-engaging private ones, that is precisely the subject of today's debate. Under the umbrella of the Motion before the House, I expect my noble friends on these Benches to refer to all the matters on the Prime Minister's list and also to others, including transport. That is a notable omission when considering rural problems. I am pleased that noble Lords in most parts of the House will bring their experience and authority to the discussion, although I say with regret that judging by the speakers' list there is a startling lack of interest on the government Back Benches about these matters. We can always hope that one noble Lord from that side of the House will choose to speak in the gap.

In the past week, the Countryside Agency published its second The State of the Countryside report. I find it a fair-minded and balanced report. Its tone is calm and it does not campaign, although campaigning would be justified. The report states that the countryside is still a good place to live and mentions, for example, that people living in rural areas are as healthy as or healthier than their urban counterparts.

However, it also states that while:

"the affluent and the mobile may enjoy a good quality of life — a significant minority suffers serious disadvantage".

It continues:

"Average weekly wages are lowest in rural counties such as Cornwall. Northumberland and Shropshire. To make matters worse, many essential services are either closing or face the threat of closure. This creates particular problems for the less well-off trying to get basic services if their post office, doctor's surgery or village shop has disappeared".

The report refers to homelessness and rising house prices which make it difficult for young people, even those in work, to continue to live in rural areas. It also refers to the amount of traffic on rural roads rising faster than in towns, which came as a surprise to me. It also refers to crime, with vehicle crime rising by 24 per cent between 1991 and 1995, much faster than in urban areas; faster even than in inner cities.

The report does not reflect—and given the timescale for publication it could not do so—the debate on rural crime that has followed the Tony Martin case. In an article in The Times 10 days ago, the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, spoke of the manifest and total failure of the Norfolk police. I am not in a position to judge whether that was a fair comment or a hasty one. We should certainly be careful about drawing instant conclusions of whatever kind from those events. The noble Lord was perhaps prudently more cautious in his description of his local police force in Somerset, which he says has a good reputation for professional conduct. As I cannot judge that from my direct experience, I, too, shall be cautious about it.

However, the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, was right to say that,

"in the English countryside generally, burglary no longer seems to be taken seriously … zero policing has resulted in a climate of fear [which affects] the old most of all".

We all know that police houses in many villages stand empty, if they were not sold years ago. The local policeman, who everyone knew and who knew everyone, with his knowledge of how to reach outlying houses and farms, is becoming part of folk history. The local policeman was never off duty. But now, if you think you are being burgled, you may have several telephone numbers to call, some of which may be connected to voice mail. The nearest police station could be 10 miles away and open only from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. So if you think you are being burgled, you must hope that the burglar will take his time because there could be a half-hour wait before the police arrive in response to a 999 call.

It is not just—or mainly—the incidence of crime that causes fear in the countryside, but the extent to which the forces of law and order have apparently disappeared altogether from view. Of course, the picture is not all black. Some areas are better and more openly policed than others, but there is an urgent need to rethink and to explain rural policing in order to give the reassurance that country people deserve. And if that means more resources, so be it.

Last week, under the heading of "More Money to Cut Local Crime", the Home Office invited bids for a share of £30 million in the next round of its "Reducing Burglary" initiative. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that bids for policing in rural areas will be encouraged.

One of the persistent and worsening problems in rural areas is public transport for those who do not own their own cars. More than 20 years ago, the government of the day published a White Paper on transport policy, for which, I confess, I had some responsibility. A chapter on rural areas stated that more than two-thirds of those living there had a car even if they could not afford one. A consequence was that bus services were less used and more infrequent. That increased the isolation of households without cars and other members of a household when the use of the car was reserved for the breadwinner.

That figure of over two-thirds 20 years ago is now as much as 83 per cent and the isolation of those without cars is even greater. The White Paper of 1977, which proposed increased bus revenue support, simplified licensing procedures and rural bus experiments with new legislation to facilitate community schemes. However, despite those experiments and despite that legislation, public transport in rural areas has been allowed to languish for two decades.

In the course of the debate, my noble friends will refer further to rural policing and transport. Among other things, they will also mention problems of access to healthcare, the role of public libraries, rural housing, the threat to sub-post offices (much debated in this House yesterday) and the disappearance of local banking.

With regard to local banking, in closing 171 of its rural branches on 8th April, Barclays only followed more brutally a trend which has been apparent for a long time. Gone are the days when, in the absence of a branch, representatives of a high street bank arrived at least once a week to make its facilities available for half a day at the back of the local shop. For that matter, the local shop may have gone as well., together in some cases with the local pub. They do it better abroad. In Italy, for example, there are few hill villages without banking facilities. I do not know why their banks can provide a service which seems to be beyond the capacity of ours.

As the Countryside Agency says, for many people the countryside is still a good place to live; nor is the argument from these Benches against all change. It is certainly too easy to romanticise the past when living and working conditions for the majority of those in the countryside were often harsh and the quality of life restricted.

For the comfortably-off incomers to the countryside and, even more, the affluent weekenders with a second home, there are few problems. The incomers may run small businesses from their houses or, for those with two family cars, commute 10 or 20 miles or perhaps much further to work. They have chosen where to live and generally have the means to reach all the facilities and services that they require. They have the best of both worlds.

I even recall seeing recently an advertisement for "new executive town houses in delightful rural setting"—an estate agent's oxymoron if ever there was one‡ As for the weekenders, they can load up the family 4x4 at Tesco's or Sainsburys and hurry home to Islington if it begins to rain. I have no complaint whatever against incomers or weekenders—I was once one myself—except where they push up the price of housing. However, they do not face the problems of those born and brought up in rural areas; those who are anchored there and cannot really choose another way of life.

Finally, I return to the paradox that rising standards of living and a better quality of life for most people in our country can further impoverish the lives of an isolated or otherwise disadvantaged minority. Poverty itself is relative, but absolute standards can also be affected by the decline of essential services that most of us take for granted. We cannot allow the two nations of haves and have-nots, as I have defined them, to grow farther and farther apart. That means that in a market economy business must exercise social responsibility if it is to justify its freedom and not simply satisfy its shareholders and overpay its bosses. It means an active role for government, which must be ready to redistribute resources to meet the cost of public services that are inadequate or under threat.

Rural decline can be stopped, just as run-Clown neighbourhoods can be saved. As the Prime Minister said, that needs leadership. In this case, leadership should start with the government of the clay. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, has certainly struck a very opportune note with his choice of subject for the debate today. He made a point about the haves and the have-nots. I hope that some of the have-nots in parts of Hampshire, at whom, I suspect, this debate is aimed, may take some note of what is said today.

I speak as deputy president of the Countryside Alliance. The Countryside Alliance recently commissioned an NOP poll which confirmed a great deal of what we already knew. The April. NOP poll confirmed that only 4 per cent of all postmasters believe that the Government are doing a good job. The previous poll taken in July 1999 found that 27 per cent believed that the Government were not doing too had a job. The drop in the past nine months from 27 per cent to 4 per cent is quite substantial. Well over half the people who run local post offices know perfectly well that the Government are doing a bad job, and 87 per cent know and believe that the Government do not understand the value of local post offices, despite what may have been said yesterday.

There are nine other elements in the rural economy. It is a question not only of the post office, but also of the pharmacy, the physician, the parson, the priest, the publican, the primary school teacher, the petrol pump attendant and the policeman. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, I should like to dwell in particular on the latter two important members of the rural community who are so essential in providing the full range of services: the petrol pump attendant and the policeman.

The rural areas are worst affected by the fuel tax. The motor car supplies the basic needs of every single person who wants to live and work in the countryside. It would be churlish not to welcome what the Government have done with regard to the fuel tax escalator. However, they may have given up the principle but they do not seem to have abandoned the practice. The Countryside Alliance's April survey also shows that the much-vaunted rural bus scheme has made no perceived difference to the people who live in the countryside. Like all government schemes, it is badly run, and a high percentage of the grants under the Rural Bus Challenge seems to have been spent in the metropolitan areas. It is quite extraordinary that the moment the Government start to give a grant, socialist authorities are very apt at diverting the money their way.

As the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said, policing is the next most important problem in the countryside. Independent research for the Countryside Alliance has shown that crime is a concern equal to transport and housing for people who live in rural areas. As the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, so rightly said, the unique element of rural crime is the terrible fear that help is unlikely to arrive in time. That is something that we in the countryside all know. Worse still is the admission by police forces in the counties that I know best—certainly in Leicestershire, Lincolnshire and Norfolk—where the police tell you that if you can identify the criminals and want to press charges, the police cannot be responsible for any subsequent action against your property. That is a really serious situation.

My Lords, can the Government do something about the noise?

My Lords, I was seeking to be as fair as possible to the noble Lord, Lord Kimball. He may prefer to adjourn during pleasure to discover the cause of the noise. We now understand the cause of the noise, but it will take a few moments to rectify it. I am not sure whether the Leader of the House will agree that it is in order to adjourn during pleasure for five minutes, after which we shall be able to listen to the noble Lord properly. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 3.45 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, it seems that even in a central metropolitan area it takes some time for the experts to arrive and fix these problems. That reflects exactly what I was saying about crime in rural areas—help is unlikely to arrive on time.

The police in the counties of Norfolk, Leicestershire and Lincolnshire will tell you that if you can identify the criminals and wish to press charges, the police cannot be responsible for any subsequent action against your property. It is a very serious situation to receive that sort of advice from a district superintendent in your own area.

Many noble Lords will have seen the "Countryfile" programme, which is one of the few programmes on television that is worth watching. It has a very good weather forecast, which is not normally done by a lady, so it is usually right‡ "Countryfile" recently produced the facts that 55 per cent of all farms have been burgled; 45 per cent of all farmers in rural areas have suffered vandalism; 20 per cent have suffered arson, which is a very serious crime; and 10 per cent have suffered physical abuse. In my own parish in Leicestershire, every single farm toolshed and store has been attacked. The perpetrators have not yet succeeded in gaining access to them, but every single one has been attacked. The reason for that, as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers rightly said, is that even the Home Office has had to admit that there is a very serious shortfall in police funding. They admit to a figure of £30 million per year because of the inadequate calculation of the sparsity funding factor. That cannot be put right overnight. It is all very well for the Government to say that they will make the money available, but they have to recruit and train the police officers and revamp the structure of the country forces.

In addition to the list of problems in the rural parishes all beginning with `p', I should like to add to petrol and policing two others that were not in the original list; namely, planning and Poundbury. The health of the rural economy today depends on diversification. Several times this Session we have debated the sad state of agriculture and the rural economy in decline. I shall not develop that further today. But what I should like to point out to your Lordships is the fact that we can no longer succeed in developing diversification on the farms of this country. Grants for adapting farm buildings for other uses have now been withdrawn.

I know many cases, certainly in the wilds of rural Lincolnshire, where more money is brought in on the rent roll from the diversification of farm buildings than is brought in from the actual business of farming. I know that we have the engine of Grimsby and Scunthorpe, leading to a demand for office accommodation and other uses for farm buildings. But what did the Government do in that sphere? They set up the Countryside Agency and stripped it of its grant-making powers. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, referred to the Countryside Agency's report, which is a very serious indictment of the Government's failure to do anything for the rural countryside. Will the Government look seriously at restoring grant-making powers to the Countryside Agency? When it was the Countryside Development Agency, we saw the immense effect it had on rural areas.

One other way of restoring rural prosperity can be achieved through the planning authorities. I should like to make it compulsory for every planning authority in England to visit Poundbury to see what the Duchy of Cornwall has done there. It is the most brilliant example of how to sustain, revive and maintain a rural community. It is a wonderful mixture of housing. I am depressed today by the fact that when there is a new bypass round a village, the land within its compass is sold off and one particular housing contractor builds a number of desirable modern homes. They are just another modern slum. But at Poundbury, there is a brilliant development which has a mixture of all types of housing. Do not let anybody be deluded into thinking that the Duchy of Cornwall is subsidising that in any way. It is a straight, practical commercial development, thanks to the supervision of a really powerful and brilliant architect.

The other important aspect of Poundbury is its acceptance of the motor car. The motor car is digested; it is not a nuisance at all. It is hidden away and the areas above the garages are used properly. Of course, Poundbury is the product of a farmer's mind.

I believe that we all know that the market towns of Great Britain, and of England in particular, are in serious financial trouble. I believe that many of those market towns could be sustained by proper development, in the same way as Poundbury has been developed. After all, all those shops which are going bust in the market town high streets were once houses. They should be put back into the affordable rural housing sector, and linked to proper out-of-town shopping centres. That is the way in which the countryside should develop. Like many other noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, for giving us the opportunity to discuss those issues in this debate.

My Lords, like many noble Lords, I welcome the opportunity afforded by this debate to consider the correlation between services which are regarded as essential with the extent to which they are a reality among communities in particular need. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, for initiating the debate. In particular, I look forward to the contribution of my friend, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, whose rural experience is considerably greater than mine.

I want to concentrate on aspects that are part of my day-to-day experience. The Portsmouth diocese comprises south-east Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, an area which contains great social variations—inner urban, urban, suburban, suburban-rural, rural—much of which scores highly for mention now. However, I want to confine myself to two areas: banking and post office facilities on the Isle of Wight and health in inner urban Portsmouth.

It is a fact that 23 per cent of the population on the Isle of Wight are over 65 years of age and in the view of the county council it is unlikely that many of them will be using the Internet for their banking facilities in the near future. Local leaders are therefore extremely concerned about central government's proposal to pay pensions into bank accounts in order to avoid fraud and to increase security. That has implications for post offices, 40 per cent of whose business is paying out pensions to people who are purchasing goods at the same time.

Existing arrangements for customers to access their banks through the post offices are good but that does not help those who do not have a bank account in the first place. Niton is a village in the south-east of the island, comprising 550 households, 25 per cent of which have no car. It has a population of 1,300, 32 per cent of whom are pensioners. At one time Niton had two banks and a variety of shops. People used to plan to retire there. Now it has few businesses and services and only a small post office with a small shop as part of it. If that were to disappear, the community would suffer even further. The ease of collecting cash and paying bills over the counter is not the only consideration. The post office remains a place of contact where people meet and keep in touch with each other. The scenario I have just described could be replicated elsewhere. It is a symptom of our inability to manage change in an effective and flexible way. We are often told in banking terms that we are becoming a cashless and faceless society. Perhaps that is where the future lies. But it is not here yet.

Many rural communities are increasingly suspicious of the high street banks which appear to them to be driven by what are seen to be their own economic priorities which are gradually replacing face-to-face contact. I am not against the cashless society. That is but a development from turning gold into paper in monetary terms and almost logical with our current technology. The faceless character of our society, however, has far more serious consequences. Computerisation and the Internet are causing a revolution, much of it good in terms of speed and efficiency. As chair of a steering committee for IT skills bases in the regeneration areas around Portsmouth, I have seen for myself children from deprived communities in inner urban Portsmouth being helped in basic English language skills by a computer programme in a way that would have been unthinkable in years past.

But there is a human price to pay. However clever the software, it cannot teach wisdom and the value of human relationships.

One of the answers to the island's problems is a more flexible approach, one which does not discriminate against those who are not computerised as well as one which provides a low-cost banking facility, particularly for the disadvantaged and the socially excluded. I want to ask the Minister what steps the Government will take to enable a credit union to deliver such financial services to vulnerable people.

I turn now to the City of Portsmouth and to inner urban Portsmouth, to be precise, which has the poorest postcode in the south of England. There are five of what we call urban priority area parishes. In three of those, 35 per cent of households depend on benefit. The area has twice the level of unemployment of the rest of the city. Seventy per cent of 17 year-olds are no longer in full-time education; 22 per cent of the population are in serious debt. I know those communities. The clergy working in their parishes are performing a heroic task, usually in partnership with community workers of various kinds. The work of all of them—not just the work of the clergy—is characterised by small results from great resources, such is the degree of deprivation among the people.

Life styles are unhealthy with high levels of smoking, alcohol drinking above sensible limits, and problems of overweight. A high proportion die of coronary heart disease or from cancer, including lung cancer, and 56 per cent are reported to suffer from stress caused by neighbourhood problems of one kind or another but different from that which interrupted us earlier.

In such a community, access to primary care is vital. But reality shows a different picture. In those communities general practitioners have a greater workload with a significantly higher proportion of night visits. There is a decreasing proportion of district nurses per 1,000 practice population aged 65 years and over. Moreover, the caseloads in those deprived areas include high numbers of children with special needs. Statistics reveal a consistently lower uptake for facilities such as cervical and breast screening.

The problems are typical of many of our inner cities, but Portsmouth scores highly indeed. Many of the reasons for what we face today lie deep in history as quick-fix solutions repeatedly reveal. Anyone who has lived and worked in those communities in Portsmouth knows that we are in for a long haul, whether in relation to health or education or even, in some places, housing.

I want to ask the Minister what the Government are prepared to do to persuade the Portsmouth and South-East Hampshire Health Authority to ensure the provision of equitable access to effective healthcare in relation to needs. Can he reveal the adequacy of primary healthcare provision in the deprived areas of the city so that financial allocations to primary care groups take account of differences in health needs and so that staffing levels of GPs, district nurses and health visitors can match needs in the most deprived areas? In conclusion, I call for what has been referred to by someone who, I believe, is a professional colleague of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, as "a real cultivation of the moral imagination". That will help us to bridge the gap between the grand strategy on the one hand and the problems that are with us on the other, so that we can find ways of thinking, analysing and imagining that are in every sense attainable.

My Lords, before we move to the Statement on Zimbabwe I take the opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement on the situation in Zimbabwe which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:

"Yesterday I attended the meeting of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group. I am pleased to report to the House that the meeting endorsed all our concerns. In particular the meeting recorded 'deep concern' over the continuing violence, the illegal occupations, the failure to uphold the rule of law and political intimidation. It demanded fair elections within the time required by the constitution of Zimbabwe.

"The meeting agreed that the Commonwealth Secretary-General should visit Harare urgently in order to bring home to the Government of Zimbabwe and to make clear to the people of Zimbabwe the concerns of the Commonwealth.

"I spoke in advance to most of the Ministers present yesterday and I am pleased at the universal agreement they gave at the meeting to our concerns. The outcome exposes the efforts of President Mugabe to pretend that only Britain is critical of the conduct of his government. All Britain's concerns have now been supported by a body representing all of the Commonwealth and chaired by one of the neighbours of Zimbabwe.

"A major reason why we received ready support yesterday was the recognition that Britain had taken every reasonable step to find agreement with the Government of Zimbabwe on a fair programme of land reform. At my meeting last week with the ministerial delegation, I confirmed that Britain was ready to help to fund land reform and that we were willing to take the lead in mobilising funding from other partners such as the World Bank, the European Commission and the United States.

"However, neither Britain nor any other donor is going to fund a programme of land reform unless it is conducted within the rule of law; it is based on a fair price to the farmer; and it reduces poverty among the rural poor who have no land.

"Ministers in Zimbabwe have complained that Britain is imposing colonial conditions. There is nothing new about these conditions. They were all in the conclusions of the 1998 Land Conference which was hosted and chaired by the Government of Zimbabwe itself.

"Nevertheless last week the Zimbabwean delegation failed to give a commitment to bring the farm occupations to an end. I made clear that in those circumstances Britain could not take further any support for land reform.

"Since that meeting I have briefed Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the opposition movement. I have also spoken to Mr Henwood of the Commercial Farmers' Union, who has supported the firm line we took on conditions for any help with land reform.

"If the Government of Zimbabwe are genuinely committed to land reform, the way is open for them to make progress with international support.

"I am sorry to say that the events of the past two weeks, and President Mugabe's inflammatory speech earlier today, suggest that the Government of Zimbabwe are interested in the issue of land reform only to create a condition of crisis in which they can secure their re-election.

"The whole House will deplore the mounting evidence of political intimidation of the people of Zimbabwe. Opposition campaigners have been ambushed and beaten up. Commercial companies which display opposition posters have had their properties firebombed. Rural communities have been threatened that it will be known which ballot box came from their village. By the end of the past month of election campaigning 14 political activists had been murdered, all of them supporters of the opposition.

"No election can be fair unless there is an election campaign free from intimidation. At the meeting yesterday we agreed that the Commonwealth should send election observers to Zimbabwe, and our Statement stresses that they must be admitted as early as possible. At the weekend I will be seeking the same demand from the European Union for early entry of European observers. While the primary responsibility for ending the violence rests with the Government of Zimbabwe, the presence of international observers may help to deter some of the brutality of recent weeks and may give some confidence to those who want free expression for their views.

"In the present circumstances of spreading violence we have resolved that from today Britain will refuse all new export licence applications for arms and military equipment to Zimbabwe. That will include all licences for spare parts in connection with previous contracts such as Hawk aircraft. We are urgently reviewing all existing export licences to Zimbabwe.

"Further, I can inform the House that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development has suspended the programme to support the supply of Land Rovers to the Zimbabwean police. As a result, the supply of the remaining 450 has been halted and will not be resumed unless there is a clear determination by the Zimbabwean police to restore the rule of law.

"Britain is willing to help, in the right conditions, with the economic and land problems of Zimbabwe. Britain has also taken the lead in mobilising international pressure for free elections.

"But no Member of the House would want to approach our discussion on the basis of President Mugabe's claim that the solution to the problems in Zimbabwe lies in London. It does not. Zimbabwe has been independent for 20 years and President Mugabe has been in power for every one of them. In that time he has already received over —500 million of development aid from Britain.

"It is Zimbabwe's choice what its future will be. That must, though, not be the choice of the Government of Zimbabwe alone. It must be the free choice of the people of Zimbabwe through fair elections without violence, without intimidation and without fear. That was the united message from the Commonwealth yesterday. I ask this House to send the same united message today to the majority of the people of Zimbabwe who want to live in a free democracy and to be protected by the rule of law."

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place about the shocking situation in Zimbabwe.

Zimbabwe should be one of the jewels of Africa. The country is fertile and rich in natural resources. It has an intelligent and educated population, some of the most efficient farming in the world, a judiciary that throughout the recent descent into lawlessness has remained robustly independent in its adherence to the law and the constitution, and a vibrant desire among the people for democracy and for the control of their own destiny.

We have all admired the courage of those in the opposition parties who have remained undaunted by a ruthless and systematic programme of brutal intimidation by murder and violence that at least has been countenanced, if not organised, by the governing regime. It is intolerable that a country that has been blessed with so much should be brought to its current pass by the savage acts of one man and his acolytes.

Although everyone accepts that land reform is important and that Britain should play its part, this is not about land, but an ageing despot who is clinging to power. Does the Minister agree that. Britain certainly should not give further financial support for land reform without guarantees of lawful and ordered change and before receiving a full account of where the £10 million of taxpayers' money given to the Harare government last year has gone? We welcome the Government's refusal to issue further licences for military exports.

The overwhelming priority is that the elections should be held as soon as possible and that they should be open and fair. We welcome the decision of the Commonwealth to send observers to oversee the election process. However, what does the phrase, "Observers should be admitted as soon as possible" actually mean? Does the Minister not think that the delays so far have already seriously compromised any elections, as my noble friend Lord Blaker wrote in The Times this week? Furthermore, does the Minister agree with the two supporters of the Movement. for Democratic Change who were quoted in today's Independent calling for the observers to come now, and not just on election day when it will be too late? Everyone knows that much of the violence is geared towards intimidating future voters. To show the seriousness with which the Commonwealth views these events, will the Minister support an international group of "eminent persons" to head the observers' mission?

Noble Lords will be pleased to learn that at last the Commonwealth has been mobilised to this cause. Does the Minister accept that the Foreign Secretary's first move to engage the European Union in pressuring Mugabe was a false step? There are many instances where the European Union is the right vehicle for action, but it is hard to imagine anything more calculated to entrench Mugabe than the spectacle of all the former colonial powers ganging together against him. It was always obvious that the Commonwealth was the right family of nations to take action here. Why did it take so long to get involved? Does the Minister agree that yesterday the Ministerial Action Group should at least have started the process of suspending the Mugabe regime from the Commonwealth, as many people in Zimbabwe, both black and white, would wish?

Surely it is ironic that it was the Zimbabwean Foreign Minister, Stan Mudenge, who chaired the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group which suspended Nigeria in 1995. That decision removed the veneer of respectability from a dictatorial regime and helped to bring that country back to democracy and the rule of law.

I hope the Minister will agree that all people have the right to a democratic government. I am sure that she will recognise the fact that any policy which showed double standards in tolerating different levels of legitimacy would be both condescending and unacceptable.

My Lords, perhaps I may thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and say that we on these Benches warmly approve of the policies of Her Majesty's Government. The Foreign Secretary has handled this issue as well as he possibly could by giving the Zimbabweans a chance to comply with the conditions which they themselves had set. The Minister pointed that out in the Statement. That was the right course of action and it was not until after that meeting that it was appropriate and proper for the matter to be laid before the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group. In any case, the UK did not arrange the timing of yesterday's CMAG meeting. It was organised some time ago and it was fortuitous that the meeting took place just before a ministerial Statement could be made.

However, that was no reason why the Foreign Secretary should not have taken up these matters with the European Union as well. Surely we should seek for the world community to back the moves now being made. Although we should be pleased with the steps taken at the CMAG meeting yesterday, that should be without prejudice to any further steps that the Foreign Secretary may decide to take in enlisting the support of the European Union for the same policies; that is to say, we should continue to support any measures as regards land reform that comply with the conditions laid down in 1998. If those conditions are satisfied, we should help Zimbabwe to lay a case before the international financial institutions in support of a much larger programme than could be achieved if Zimbabwe tries to undertake the entire task on its own.

Perhaps I may turn to the matter of the election. I, too, welcome the intention of Mr Don McKinnon to go to Zimbabwe to assess the position. However, can the Minister say whether it would be possible for the Commonwealth to do what it has done on previous occasions; namely, to form an opinion beforehand as to whether the conditions exist in which free and fair elections can take place? That happened in the case of the presidential election in Cameroon after a mission had been sent by the secretariat to observe the parliamentary elections. It was concluded, from observations of the conditions under which those elections were held, that it was impossible for the presidential election to be free and fair. I do not wish to prejudge what might be said about the conditions in Zimbabwe. However, two separate statements have been issued, the first from Amnesty International—the noble Baroness has probably seen it already—in which it comments that the failure to condemn and curb acts of violence has led to a state of affairs where people's freedom of expression and freedom of assembly have been seriously constrained. Secondly, the committee for the protection of journalists has produced a similar statement about the lack of freedom of the press in Zimbabwe and the intimidation of the non state-owned press.

If it is found that it is no longer possible for people to express themselves or for the MDC to campaign freely and to hold election meetings—the Minister referred to the 14 members who have already been murdered—then it would not be right for us to send a mission simply to look at the mechanics of polling day. By then it would already be too late. Can the Minister ensure that this point is made to Mr Don McKinnon so that during his visit, or in any further inquiries he may make, he can ensure that the Commonwealth should now form an opinion about whether the right conditions exist in Zimbabwe for free and fair elections to be held? If not, we should not endorse the process by sending observers simply to watch what happens on polling day.

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords who have spoken in support of the Statement and say straightaway that the Commonwealth clearly understands the acute nature of the problem with which it is faced. The fact that the Secretary-General, Mr Don McKinnon, is going to Zimbabwe this month sends a strong message from the Commonwealth. We hope that that gives us an opportunity to see and understand exactly what is happening on the ground.

In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, as to how soon the observers will go to Zimbabwe, "as soon as practicable" means exactly that. We are going a s fast as we can. It is a matter of great urgency and importance. The necessary vigour is being applied with great energy.

The noble Baroness also mentioned aid. It should be understood that we want to make it clear to the people of Zimbabwe that it is Mr Mugabe and his actions at which the international community feels anger and distress, not the people of Zimbabwe, who are suffering greatly. Large sums in aid go to relieve the poverty which exists in the country. The noble Baroness will know that 25 per cent of the people of Zimbabwe are HIV positive. A huge amount of the money given is to relieve that acute situation. Cutting off such aid will serve only to feed Mr Mugabe's rhetoric that Britain is interested only in the politics and not in the people. So we shall not go down that road.

But I say this also: this Government have looked for support in responding to Zimbabwe's needs from wherever we could obtain it. We have excited support from the Commonwealth, from the EU, from our US partners and others. We express gratitude for the support that has been given internationally to Zimbabwe. I do not accept for a moment that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary was wrong to ask for EU support. I remind the House that we seek its support in relation to the observer status; we shall seek its support in relation to land reform, and we need to take all our friends with us. Therefore, in making overtures to the EU, we in no way impeded the similarly strong overtures (which have borne great fruit) which were being made simultaneously to our Commonwealth partners. It was a multi-pronged approach and, with the grace of God, it bore fruit. That is something for which I give thanks, not criticism.

There is still much to do. I should like to take this opportunity to acknowledge all the efforts made by those in opposition in Zimbabwe who have shown great courage. Zimbabwe is lucky that it has people of worth both in its opposition and in its judiciary who still understand the meaning of democracy and the rule of law. We shall give them our support.

My Lords, I welcome the Statement made by my noble friend. In particular I welcome the announcement that the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth is to go to Harare and, further, that efforts are to be made to ensure that a Commonwealth team is there as soon as possible.

All of that is good news. But my noble friend's response on when we approached our Commonwealth colleagues is far from satisfactory. I am all for mobilising, in support of democracy anywhere, those who can help; in particular, I have no objection to the European Union helping if we feel that that is the most appropriate forum, or, for that matter, international monetary and other organisations as mentioned in the recent letter of the noble Baroness, Lady Park. But it takes a bit of explaining as to why the, Commonwealth was the last, rather than the first, of the international organisations to be approached when it has the unique advantage (from our point of view and that of Zimbabwe) in that we are both members of the Commonwealth.

The ministerial advisory committee was set up at the last CHOGM deliberately to keep an ongoing watch on threats to democracy and human rights in Commonwealth countries. Why then have we been so slow in turning to what is undoubtedly the best bet?

My Lords, I understand my noble friend's anxiety but can only repeat what I said earlier. Our Commonwealth partners were by no means the last to be approached.

My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and my honourable friend Mr Hain have been vigorous in the moves they have taken and the conversations they have had in relation to our partners within the Commonwealth. We approached a plethora of people at the same time and if it has been inferred that the Commonwealth was the last to be approached, I regret to say that that is the wrong inference; it was not.

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what the position of the British military training team is?

My Lords, the British Military Advisory Training Team is based in Harare. It focuses on regional peacekeeping training within the southern African development community countries. The training strengthens African forces' capacity to participate in all aspects of peacekeeping operations. Courses include modules on conflict prevention and dispute resolution; human rights and international humanitarian law; the rights of the child; democratic control of armed forces; the structure of the UN and civil/military co-ordination; for example, with the ICRC. The modules also include training in democratic policing. The courses have been held across southern Africa and are of great value.

My Lords, I join in welcoming the Statement repeated by the Minister and, more particularly, the Commonwealth's statement yesterday. On the subject of land reform, is the Minister aware of why the land that has already been bought by the Zimbabwean Government for redistribution to the peasant farmers has so far been distributed to President Mugabe's personal friends and senior civil servants?

The Minister said that Zimbabwe has received in excess of £500 million in aid. My understanding is that Her Majesty's Government have so far given in excess of £45 million for land reform since independence. Is the Minister aware of where that money has gone? Is there any way in which President Robert Mugabe's foreign assets can be frozen?

Finally, there is no doubt that the current instability in Zimbabwe has had a knock-on effect on the entire region of southern Africa. Are any measures being taken to appoint an African leader to mediate in this crisis?

My Lords, perhaps I may deal with the last point first. It is right to tell your Lordships that that position is being looked at. We have been warmed by the whole-hearted support that we received from our African colleagues. It is essential that they are part of the lead in responding to Zimbabwe's need.

It is right also that to date we have contributed £44 million to a land reform programme. One of the hot issues currently between Mr Mugabe and ourselves is how that money has been expended and who now occupies that land. There are pressing questions about why members of his government and others seem to have acquired a lot of the land. This Government have been absolutely clear that no more money will be given until we have a transparent system that guarantees that the land goes to those who most need and deserve it. That is one of the challenges with which Her Majesty's Government and all our international partners who are joining with us are faced and now have to deal.

My Lords, I should like warmly to welcome the Statement repeated by my noble friend and to do so without the rather grudging, carping criticism that was attached to the welcome extended by the noble Lord, Lord Shore. Does my noble friend agree with me that the response is necessarily proportionate to the indolence of President Mugabe in the face of the deteriorating circumstances and that, therefore, having tried reasonable argument, the Government are quite right proportionately to increase their response?

I turn briefly to the question of elections. Is my noble friend aware that a number of Members on this side of the House will be predisposed to agree with the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, regarding the necessary pre-conditions for free and fair elections? It is all very well having the incantation of free and fair elections, but if there has already been so much intimidation, is my noble friend satisfied that the Commonwealth Secretary General will be able to establish whether we are in a state to have those free and fair elections? Is she equally satisfied that the necessary steps for getting constituencies and registers to enable those elections to take place have been finalised? When my noble friend last repeated a Statement a few weeks ago, that was an issue upon which she was not able to assure the House absolutely.

My Lords, I welcome everything said by my noble friend and understand his concerns. Of course, we need to establish what the facts are on the ground. I should not like to pre-judge what the Secretary-General, Mr McKinnon, will find when he visits the area. However, I can say that he and all those who participated in the CMAG meeting have a very clear understanding of the position in Zimbabwe to date. They will be looking with a keen eye to see what needs to be done hereafter. They are judgments, and the concerns that have been expressed are valid. But those judgments will have to be made. I am sorry that I cannot give a clearer expression in that respect, but the issues are not clear in themselves.

We have not been advised of a final position in relation to those elections. However, we are receiving a clear steer from the Opposition, who are in agreement with the process that we are adopting. They are also in agreement with the strategy that has been adopted in the Commonwealth and elsewhere and have given their assent to this being the most appropriate way forward. That lead is something upon which we seek to rely.

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the deployment of the Commonwealth resource at this stage is extremely welcome, although, in my view, a little belated? I cannot help but share the view of my noble friend Lady Rawlings that the involvement of the EU is not perhaps so appropriate and that we would be wiser to listen to the advice of those who say that this matter should be settled in an African context. Indeed, wise voices are saying so. I believe that we should listen to them most carefully.

Does the Minister also agree that, after the farmers and the poor, tragic state of Zimbabwe, the worst loser in this whole tragedy could be South Africa; indeed, the whole of southern Africa and its development? We could see such a situation because, first, global investors are rushing to take their money out of the whole region; and, secondly, the habit of land reform by violence could spread to neighbouring countries. Therefore, can the noble Baroness reassure us that the Secretary of State is in constant and continuous dialogue with leaders like Thabo Mbeki and other African leaders, but particularly those in South Africa, to bring home the point that, whatever the divided opinions on land reform may be, the rule of law is their friend and the rule of anarchy is their deadly enemy?

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. As was said in the Statement, I should emphasise that the major reason for our receiving support yesterday was the recognition that Britain had taken every reasonable step to find agreement with the Government of Zimbabwe on a fair programme of land reform. That was very important with our African colleagues. They recognised that we had behaved absolutely properly and with integrity.

Our African colleagues also understand the possibilities of the ricochet effect of things happening in Zimbabwe adversely affecting the rest of Africa. That has led to real understanding. It is of course important that this matter should be settled in an African context. However, I should emphasise that that must happen with the help and support of their international friends, including the EU, ourselves, America and anyone else who will support them in this endeavour. Africa must have, and, indeed, seeks, those friends. The work that we are doing is in unison with them. We believe that that is a way in which we shall be able to garner support together and, it is to be hoped, bring this matter to a successful conclusion.

My Lords, on the timing issues, does the Minister agree that one of the important aspects of a Commonwealth observer group is the in-depth analysis and pointers for the future which make an independent opinion so vital under all circumstances? Having said that, is the Minister aware that the army's absentee vote is already being placed into urban constituencies where the greatest opposition lies?

My Lords, I understand the noble Viscount's concerns. It is important for the observers to have an in-depth, independent view in relation to this matter. We are fortunate in knowing that there are many people who have a great deal of experience in this regard. We are hoping that they will join us and help to fashion the most appropriate observer group. As my right honourable friend said when delivering the Statement in another place, we are also looking to the EU and others to send observers. We hope that we will garner enough support and strength to ensure that the observers are able to do their job properly.

My Lords, is it not extremely important to obtain the support of all people—that is to say, those in the Commonwealth and in the United States, as well as those in the EU? From the point of view of President Mugabe, is it not also extremely important for him to understand that the world is horrified by what has happened in Zimbabwe? Further, is it not equally wrong for my noble friend to upbraid my noble friend Lord Shore, who, like the rest of us who are friends of the people of Zimbabwe, is angered by what has happened?

My Lords, I certainly understand all noble Lords in this House who feel passionately on the subject. Indeed, that demonstrates the warmth and compassion for which this House is known. I should applaud and commend all those who express that view. I understand entirely the anger and irritation sometimes expressed that more cannot be done and more swiftly. But I wholeheartedly endorse what my noble friend said: everyone must work together. We have had very few things to be warmed by in this debate, but one of the most warming aspects is the fact that there is international consensus on this issue; and we are working together.

My Lords, I have spoken to friends in Zimbabwe over the past few days and they have made two things very clear to me. The first is their sense of the urgent need for the early appointment of outside observers. I was a member of the team that was sent from this Parliament to observe the elections in Zimbabwe in 1979. To begin with, we had to tell the government of the day that they were not responsible for choosing what aeroplane we travelled in and what destination we took. Can the noble Baroness assure the House that we shall ensure that any organisation undertaking outside observation will be sufficiently independent, mobile, secure in its communications and numerous to cover the whole country and give an independent view?

The second thing they bore in on me was a growing concern among black and white communities that the presence of foreign media observers—not political observers—was being used to incite some of the acts of violence so that they would have them to report. Will the noble Baroness use what offices she has through diplomatic channels to bring to the notice of the employers of those teams that this is unsatisfactory conduct? Will she answer the question of my noble friend on the Front Bench about the possible suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth? What does it have to do before it is suspended?

My Lords, in relation to the noble Lord's first point, of course we understand the importance of independence, transparency and efficacy. Those issues will be key when trying to put together an effective observer force. They will be taken fully into account.

Secondly, of course I acknowledge what the noble Lord says about the behaviour of the media. Unfortunately, we have some difficulty controlling our media here. Whether we shall have any greater effect elsewhere I cannot say, but the point is well understood.

As regards suspending Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth, noble Lords will know that before a country can be suspended from the Commonwealth it has to be demonstrated that that country has behaved unconstitutionally. Although we are horrified by what is happening in Zimbabwe, unless and until the elections are proven not to be constitutional and Zimbabwe is proven not to have a constitutional government, we would not be able to suspend it. The rules are rigid and frustrating in terms of the current situation. However, noble Lords will remember that Nigeria was suspended because it had an unconstitutional government. Zimbabwe is not yet in that position. It is certainly our hope and aspiration that it never will be; that fair elections will take place and that Zimbabwe will return a democratic, effective government who are able to express the will of the people.

My Lords, will the Minister—

My Lords, I welcome the Government's efforts to try to bring stability to Zimbabwe and a return to democracy there. I think that all noble Lords on all sides of the House ought to welcome those efforts and do all that they can to complement them. It seems to me that the sole, certainly the primary, objective of President Mugabe is to keep his grip on power in Zimbabwe. His secondary interests—if he has secondary interests—are the people of Zimbabwe, the country of Zimbabwe and, a long way down the line, the white farmers of Zimbabwe.

Given those circumstances, it seems to me that President Mugabe does not care what happens in the part of the world we are discussing unless he has the complete power that he has enjoyed for so long. The worst thing that we, the Commonwealth, the Americans or the Europeans can do is to make a difficult situation that much worse. We should all try to solidify our position in as much as we want a return to democracy. We should demonstrate clearly that President Mugabe is completely isolated and we should ensure that there is a return to democracy. That is all that we want.

My Lords, that is quite clearly a hope and aspiration.

My Lords, will the Minister—

My Lords, I am sorry but we have tried to allocate the available time between the different Benches.

My Lords, I address this question in the context of bus services. Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, I want to define two categories of communities in particular need: first, those who live in cities and larger towns, mostly along radial roads, particularly in areas of dense housing—what is known in public transport circles as "good bus country"—and, secondly, those who live in the further suburbs and smaller centres and in rural corridors.

I intend to leave out of account those living in deepest rural areas where frequent bus services are unlikely to be a viable proposition. Those areas require different treatment. I refer here to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, who said that the rural bus service grant was a waste of money. I believe that he also said that it was wasted principally by socialist councils. I am a member of a county council whose Labour members do not, I believe, describe themselves as "socialists". The money is not wasted—at least not where I live. I travelled by bus to the station this morning in company with quite a lot of other people. Some foolish restrictions are imposed on the way in which the rural bus service grant is spent, but I imagine that the Government will address those as time moves on.

Apart from those who need buses, who are the major target of my remarks, there is a further important group of people who need to be attracted to bus use. Getting those people to switch to public transport has two beneficial effects. First, it reduces car traffic and, secondly—and more importantly—it improves the viability of the bus service which has the potential to create a virtuous circle of greater frequency and more investment in modern buses.

The Transport Bill will shortly arrive in your Lordships' House. This debate provides a useful opportunity to indicate to the Minister some of the concerns felt on these Benches and elsewhere and how we believe concerns for those in need may best be addressed. We must remind ourselves that 80 million journeys a week are made by bus, the vast majority by people who have no alternative.

In the 14 years since bus services were deregulated, we have seen costs in the bus industry reduced to an absolute minimum. We have seen staff numbers and the number of vehicles cut. We have seen management and central workshops disappear in many areas. Indeed, in the bus industry cost inflation now ranges between 4 and 6 per cent. That is driven mainly by rising fuel costs and drivers' wages. Most companies are having to raise drivers' wages substantially in order to attract people to take up a pretty unsociable job. This cost inflation of between 4 and 6 per cent compares with inflation in the economy as a whole of between 2 and 2.5 per cent.

That disparity would normally mean that bus fares would have to rise in real terms. However, we have learned from recently published research—I believe that it was funded by the DETR and carried out mostly by Joyce Dargay of the ESRC Transport Studies Unit—that if you raise bus fares above the level of inflation, there is a sharp drop in the number of people using buses. If you raise fares by 10 per cent, at the end of the first year 4 per cent of passengers will have disappeared. However, 30 months after the fares increase 7.5 per cent will have disappeared. Shortly you find that almost all the revenue gained from the fares increase has been lost.

So if fare increases are not an appropriate response to rising costs, there are two alternatives. These are what is called greater scheduling efficiency which, put simply, means that one achieves more miles from every bus, more hours driven by every driver, and better marketing, which appears to mean stable, regular interval services, good publicity, co-ordinated timetables and fares which are seen to be good value for money.

The greatest help which government at national and local level can give to the bus industry, and to those many people who depend on it, is a clear, unobstructed highway and clear access to bus stops. I stress that this is important both to urban and rural dwellers because most rural bus services start in towns. If they cannot get in and out of the towns, they cannot give a decent service to those who live in rural areas.

There is ample evidence that unobstructed highways lead to the efficient use of resources, reduced journey times and reliability. Today I have been to Harlow in Essex to open a very extensive bus priority system, which has been funded by Essex County Council, Harlow District Council and the developers of a large housing development, the latter having contributed £3 million towards the scheme. It is the kind of thing that we want to see spread very widely.

However, it is a pity that so little real commitment is shown to developing extensive bus priorities and the enforcement which is necessary to make them effective. The Transport Bill provides relatively little hope in this area. Most police forces have abandoned effective enforcement, slashing the number of traffic wardens and traffic officers. We have already heard, and we shall hear again, about the pressures on the police force.

In turn, the Home Office appears to be woefully slow in approving the use of camera technology as a substitute for police enforcement. Fixed penalty fines are often derisory and regarded as a business expense by those who obstruct the highway and the efficient operation of buses. In London, the red routes are enforced because there is what is called a "service level agreement" between the Traffic Director and the Metropolitan Police, which in plain English means that the taxpayer funds the extra traffic wardens necessary.

It is reported that on the priority bus network outside the red routes enforcement is pretty ineffective. The selfishness of the few who obstruct the highway inflicts delay and costs on bus users who have no alternative. Delaying buses makes the service unattractive to potential users and can lead only to a spiral of decline.

I look forward to hearing from the Minister that funds allocated to local transport plans will be concentrated on those authorities which show real determination in implementing bus priorities and have enforcement policies to back them up. I am not speaking about the odd bus lane along the wider sections of the road, but about priority measures which tackle the bottlenecks and give real benefit. I also hope that the Minister will say something about enforcement and give us some hope that the Home Office will quickly give the necessary approval to camera technology for the enforcement of bus lanes, yellow box junctions and banned right turns.

The Government's consultation paper on the bus industry, From Workhorse to Thoroughbred, refers in paragraph 11.4 to extending bus lane enforcement across London by 2003. It also states that they are keen to see the lessons learned extended more widely. I sincerely hope that we shall not have to wait until 2003.

The bus industry needs that help now so that it can get on top of rising costs without increasing fares and provide an efficient service. There appears to me to be no technical reason why camera use should not be widely extended.

The bus industry, very correctly, is being obliged to buy new buses so that compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act is achieved. The industry takes that obligation seriously, but, I ask the Minister, how seriously do the Government take the issue of bus stop abuse, with people parking in bus stop bays? Unless buses can pull alongside kerbs, the benefits of low-floor buses are entirely negated.

Bus companies will feel the full force of the law if they do not comply with the Disability Discrimination Act. It really is time that those who park at bus stops felt that the Government sufficiently disapproved of their selfishness by, for example, adding penalty points to any fine. The rush towards decriminalisation, while it relieves the police of work, should not mean that serious and particularly repeat offenders—people who accumulate 70 or 80 parking tickets a year—should go unpunished.

As well as efficient operation, the bus industry must of course improve all aspects of its marketing. Research shows that simple timetables, giving frequent or at least regular departures, are important. The same research states that 67 per cent of car users would consider using a frequent bus service and that 22 per cent would consider using a regular service. Only 7 per cent said that they would consider using anything else. It is very clear that simple information, network ticketing and co-operation between operators are needed by both the existing users and those whore companies seek to attract.

However, the shadow of the Competition Act hangs over the industry. I believe that the Office of Fair Trading is making progress on the issue of a block exemption for the industry as regards Joint and through tickets. However, I was told today that in Southend, where the local authority wishes to buy block travel on the buses for eligible school children, the two bus companies which would be involved believe that they cannot consider the matter together because if they do so they would be in breach of the Competition Act.

Guidance is needed quickly for the industry on issues such as joint timetables, joint liveries and other things which the public find useful. But the OFT says that it is going to charge £5,000 to give guidance on each particular case and £13,000 if a company wants a decision. That is what one has to pay the OFT. It does not cover one's own costs in briefing one's own lawyers to argue the case.

I hope that the Minister will be able to persuade his colleagues that the OFT should offer some general guidance. Many people believe that the OFT takes the attitude that all the present talk about transport integration is a passing fad and that the real idol to be worshipped is the Competition Act itself which states that market sharing is always anti-competitive.

There is a real dilemma here for all transport operators who are told to co-operate by one government department and by their own customers and by another government department and its agent, the OFT, that to do so risks penalties which, as the Minister well knows, are draconian in the extreme. They are 10 per cent of the turnover not of the local company, but of the whole group.

The final issue to which I want to refer is concessionary fares. Bus fares are very expensive. They rose in the decade after 1986 by 20 per cent Mille at the same time the cost of motoring rose by only five per cent. We very warmly welcome the Government's decision that all pensioners will qualify for a half-fare bus pass which will be issued free of charge. We have some doubts as to whether the £25 million set aside to fund it will meet the costs, but at least we are grateful that we are moving that way. When we come to debate the Bill, we hope to persuade the Government that all persons over 60 years of age should qualify and not men at 65 and ladies at 60. It will cost very little to make that change and it would add significantly to the reduction of social exclusion among those most in need.

I ask the Minister whether the Government will make urgent inquiries about the cost of extending half-fare travel to young people up to the age of 18 years. My contacts in the bus industry suggest that the cost will be very low. This group of people comprises those who want to get out and about, have limited means and are most likely to go out and buy an old car. Often in rural areas young people can be very isolated indeed. More reasonable fares would go some way to meeting the transport needs of that group.

We know that the Government will not welcome amendments to the Transport Bill, but as a regular bus user I know that there will not necessarily be another Bill along for some time. We believe that bus users deserve from the Government at least a fraction of the attention they appear to be willing to lavish on the motoring lobby. Many bus users are poor, isolated and less articulate than other members of the community, but that does not mean that their needs are any less important than the needs of those who have the choice of using a car. I hope that our attempts to improve the Bill in the interests of bus users will be sympathetically received.

It is not my place to advise the Minister on which policies are likely to assist the Government's reelection, but addressing the issue of the cost of bus fares will be cheap and popular, particularly among those groups of the population with which the Government are reported to have lost touch.

My Lords, I chair a police authority in a huge rural area—North Yorkshire—and I am also a deputy chair of the Association of Police Authorities, so I hope that your Lordships will accept my credentials for speaking on rural policing issues today.

I should first like to address the problems of sparsity. The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, has already referred to this matter, but I want to tell your Lordships of the practicalities of the sparsity factor on rural police forces.

Research has been carried out which has found that higher levels of officer availability are required to attend to and deal with incidents in rural areas because they happen across vast distances. The number of officers required per incident in rural forces is approximately three times that required in most urban forces and, because of the vast distances which need to be covered in rural areas, vehicles and resources are thinly spread.

Consequently, officers are vulnerable because backup is generally a long way off. With the introduction of the public safety radio communications project (PSRCP) next year, we all hope that better technology will be beneficial to all our officers. However, in North Yorkshire it will cost us more than £3 million to set up and more than £1 million a year to sustain, which will be taken directly from our core police funding. All this will, of necessity, reduce our ability to fund extra officers or other staff throughout the force area.

A lone officer doing a rural beat out on the moors and stopping a suspect vehicle will still have difficulty summoning help, even with the best equipment; colleagues will still take a longer time to reach him or her than would be the case for an urban officer. This is simply a fact of life. Crime investigation costs are increased by travelling costs, and in rural areas we need more vehicles to travel to remote incidents or scenes of crime.

People living in rural areas are as entitled as their urban counterparts to feel that they have equality of police resources, yet this is barely recognised in the present funding formula. It is to be hoped that this issue will be addressed in the next spending review. For instance, in my own force—the North Yorkshire police—£101 per head of population is spent compared with the provincial average of £115. We drive 8 million vehicle miles a year. A minor increase in fuel prices has a major impact on our operational budget.

The police often provide the only 24-hour public service in rural areas, and we know how important it is for a community to identify with its own officers. Local knowledge and intelligence does not just happen; it must be continuously worked at. My noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank referred to the closure of many small rural police stations. I am happy to tell him that in North Yorkshire we have recognised the importance of having police stations in rural communities and we are opening them deep in the heart of the Yorkshire Dales. In an innovative move, in Hawes we have done so in partnership with a "one-stop shop", where the local community are able to take their concerns and report crime in a much more accessible way than have been able to do previously.

If the police are not visible in our communities, two things happen: first, people feel that there is no point in reporting crime; and, secondly, fear of crime increases. We have seen graphic proof of that in the past few weeks. Chief constables, through their police authorities, must be given sufficient funding in order that they can address these concerns.

New legislation, of course, means pressure on all forces, but changes in practices and procedures can have a disproportionate effect on small rural ones. Indeed, in North Yorkshire we have had to take four officers from their front-line policing duties to review all the force policies to ensure compliance with the Human Rights Act. This is a necessity—one with which I have no quarrel—but it demonstrates, I hope, that an already small force has no "fat" from which to draw extra officers to undertake what are essentially government orders.

So how do we begin to reassure our rural communities and begin to return a sense of safety and security? In North Yorkshire we have a targeted approach; solving crime problems through tasking and co-ordinating units and the proposed multi-agency problem solving units (MAPS). Crime and disorder strategies, now embedded firmly in community safety partnerships, are beginning to see successful outcomes and are reducing the number of incidents of crime. In North Yorkshire in the past year, the total number of crimes recorded was 53,554—a reduction of 1,755 crimes from the 1998–99 figure of 55,309. This is a 3.17 per cent reduction. Domestic burglary was down 9.9 per cent and auto crime was down 10.5 per cent—and yet there is still a persistent cry for every village to have its own police officer because of the fear of crime. So much more needs to be done.

It would be helpful if the Government could give more financial support for Neighbourhood Watch schemes—I must declare that I am its patron in North Yorkshire—and for neighbourhood wardens. I know that the Government support these schemes and that they are providing some funding for the various pilots of neighbourhood warden schemes throughout the country—I wholeheartedly agree with this action—but we need to ensure that sufficient funding is put in place in order that they might succeed. I am not at all sure that the present funding will be sufficient.

Neighbourhood wardens could make a real difference to the quality of life of whose who live in fear of crime by helping to combat a range of anti-social behaviour. The fact that they will be partnership based will help their acceptance into the community in which they will work. What we do not want, however, is to have to jump through never-ending bureaucratic hoops in order to fund such schemes adequately, as we have to do with most other government-sponsored initiatives.

We need to look further still. We need to look at providing retained officers. The Fire Service has long existed with these officers, why not the Police Service? Retained officers would be fully trained and equipped and put to work in those areas in most need at specified times. Such a person could be nominated to look after a rural community and, even on a part-time basis, would become recognised and accepted, providing the "comfort factor" so sadly lacking in rural areas today.

Finally, the Government could and should be starting a campaign to reduce the fear of crime in rural areas and they should explain that it is the fear of crime which far exceeds the actual risk. Heightening the fear of crime by using emotive and ill-considered language is of no help to anyone, and it harms and frightens people unnecessarily. Living in a rural area has many concomitant problems, as we have heard, but with greater support for our services, especially those which go to the very heart of a secure and safe community, we can begin to redress the balance and return confidence to the people in our isolated towns and villages.

My Lords, we are much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for introducing this debate on a subject which is of increasing concern to those of us who live in deeply rural areas and also to many people who live in deprived urban areas. I am glad that my right reverend friend the Bishop of Portsmouth was able to speak from his experience of urban areas in Portsmouth itself. I want, naturally, to speak about rural areas, as I come from an extremely rural diocese.

I am sorry that I was not in your Lordships' House yesterday for the Second Reading debate of the Postal Services Bill. I have skimmed through Hansard for yesterday and I know that some assurances were given by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, at the end of that debate. I apologise in advance if today I make remarks about local post offices which were also made in yesterday's debate.

There is a fundamental philosophical issue to do with the provision of essential services in rural Britain. Is it right to try to make better provision for people to travel to where the services are provided—for example, by better bus services—or should we try to maintain and even improve a system which takes essential services to where people live by means of various forms of mobile outreach or of a decentralised, locally provided system of services? This debate has been going for a very long time and for many years there has been an increasing need for people in rural areas to travel to a main centre for many purposes: most obviously for work in offices or factories, for hospital care, for secondary schooling, for cultural or sports activities of many kinds and even to go to the jobcentre. No one can deny that some services, particularly the more sophisticated and complicated services, must be delivered in that centralised way. That presupposes, of course, the provision of adequate public transport services, even in remote rural areas.

My knowledge of bus services does not begin to compare with that of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who spoke in great detail and with great skill about them, but from my own experience in our area, I believe that there have been encouraging improvements in local bus services in rural areas, particularly on Sundays when in the past buses never ran at all. What I want to urge is that those services and the financial help that makes them possible are maintained for long enough for them to pick up the customers, who will take some time to recognise that the services exist and then to start using them. The real danger is that the subsidy is offered and the bus service is put on, but, "Oh dear, no one is using the bus", so it is taken off again. It needs to be left running for a long time to build the custom. That may be expensive in the meantime, but it is absolutely vital.

The relentless decline in the local provision of the most basic services is alarming, especially as it affects elderly people, the disabled, the poor and those who, despite frantic efforts to keep an old car going, cannot have their own transport. Village shops and post offices are the most essential services and are under severe pressure, as everyone knows, but there are many of the simpler medical and social services which can also well be taken to people in the country. I have been involved in helping to fund, through a local charity of which I am a trustee, the excellent scheme of mobile day centres, run by Help the Aged. A specially equipped van, based in a market town, goes out in turn to various villages and parishes and stops outside the village hall or community centre. And, thank goodness, village halls are among the more encouraging aspects of rural life, with some very welcome help available for restoration or replacement projects.

From that location in front of the village hall, services such as hairdressing, chiropody or minor medical care can be offered to people within walking distance of where they live or, in the case of the very isolated and disabled, at a place to which they can be brought by a very short car or minibus journey. People's lives are made very much easier and more pleasant. Much time, worry and expense of travel are saved and an excellent social atmosphere is created for an hour or two while the mobile service is in the village.

It is a splendid system, but it is expensive. Without able and willing volunteers and without the financial help—in our case, from the charity with which I am associated—it simply could not operate. It is an excellent example of social inclusion at work in a way which is very much valued and appreciated by all those who benefit from it. But it has required energy and imagination to provide it and it would, in the absence of the charitable funding, need considerable input from overstretched and underfunded social services. That issue raises the matter of the standard spending assessment, which is notoriously weighted against deeply rural areas, although I acknowledge that there has recently been some improvement, especially in respect of the cost of maintaining domiciliary care for elderly or disabled people. Can the Minister give us some indication of whether social service funding might be increased to provide this excellent form of mobile outreach to those in the deepest country?

But it is village shops and post offices which are bound to be the main focus of our concern. I particularly want to draw attention to what I believe is a remarkable success story about a village shop and post office and to try to draw some conclusions from that story. Let me take your Lordships for a moment to the village of Dorstone in the Golden Valley, west of Hereford, under the Black Mountains. It has a population of about 250 in the village centre and also in farms and cottages scattered far up into the hills. Its village shop closed just over five years ago. The post office, which had been located in a private house, had closed before that. There was a general sense of gloom, as in many villages.

But a small and enthusiastic group of people would not give up. They were determined to get back their post office and a shop as well if it was humanly possible. By making ingenious and imaginative use of a range of funding sources, they managed to achieve their ambition, and last year a brand-new purpose-built shop and post office with disabled access and proper parking was opened with due ceremony by one of the oldest inhabitants of the village. Money for that came from the Rural Development Commission, as it then was, from the village focus budget of Herefordshire council, from local contributions in £15 shares and £25 debentures, non-returnable and paying no dividend, bought by local people who made up the Dorstone Village Shop Association, which is in legal terms a provident association. But most of the money—around half at least—came from the European Objective 5b fund.

The shop and the post office are open from eight o'clock in the morning until two o'clock in the afternoon, six days a week. They provide employment for a local young man who combines running the shop with a part-time catering business and for a part-time post mistress. It has proved to be of immense benefit to the community and is very much appreciated. But its economic base is fairly fragile. Just as it required a complex package of interrelated funding to provide it in the first place, so it requires a continuing interrelationship of these three activities—the shop, the catering business and the post office—for it to survive at all. If any one of those three were to fail, the whole project would fail. That is why the threat to the post office posed by the possibility of the ending of cash payments over the counter of pensions and allowances is so deeply serious.

The Country Landowners' Association has estimated that 40 per cent of village post office business depends on those cash payments. That figure has already been mentioned today. But the Dorstone post mistress believes that in her particular case it is 90 per cent of the post office business. People come to collect their money. They then pay a good deal of it back over the counter in contributions towards electricity, council tax, water rates, television licences and telephone bills. Cash payments make it possible for pensioners in particular, who can just get by financially, to manage their money carefully and well. Any other system, involving as it would bus fares to a bigger centre and bank charges of various kinds, even if people would or could open a bank account, would severely disadvantage them. And if they did not come to the post office, they might well not come to the shop, or enjoy the modestly priced fish and chip supper provided one evening a week by the shopkeeper.

It is a delicate balance. It works well: it fosters friendship and mutual care, and it keeps people in touch with one another. It is a model for what might be achieved elsewhere. But in the village I have mentioned, that balance depended on the presence of some willing, public-spirited, able, articulate and determined people to make it happen, and such people simply do not exist in many areas of serious deprivation. The village was extremely fortunate to have a retired building society chairman living in it who took charge of the financial side of things—and even he had to go on a course to learn how to get money out of Europe. I cannot emphasise too strongly that the whole operation depends on the post office functions continuing as at present in terms of cash payments—although, of course, further extensions and improvements to the role of the post office would also be welcome.

Perhaps I may make four brief final points. First, I have a "good news" story about policing. The new divisional police superintendent in Hereford has been in touch with the Church authorities about his plans to provide a beat manager for every cluster of villages and to enlist local support in the work of policing. We find an uncanny resemblance between the Church's plan of developing local ministry teams under the rural dean and the paid incumbent and keen, trained, able, responsible lay people not just being given jobs to do but sharing leadership and responsibility. The policing plan is to recruit such people, not as vigilantes but as a kind of mobile extension of the neighbourhood watch scheme: people undertake to travel round the district on a regular basis noting strange people, vehicles or activities and feeding information back to the beat manager at the police station.

Secondly, continuing rate relief for the sole village shop is vital to its survival. I shall be grateful if the Minister will assure the House that such rate relief will continue to be available.

Thirdly, there should be a basic presumption against the granting of planning permission for change of use from retail to residential for the last retail outlet in any rural community.

Fourthly, I hope that consideration might be given to a change in charity law to enable a village shop, despite the fact that it is a trading outlet, to be registered as a charity, provided that no profit accrues to shareholders but any profit is ploughed back into the community. That may not apply in many cases even with the most precarious village shops, but it certainly does in some cases, and, in view of the financial fragility of the village shop, it could make a critical difference between its survival and the withdrawal of yet another of those essential services on which rural communities depend.

My Lords, I should like to talk about the role of the public library system in our country and its relevance to the important dissemination of information. It has always been one of the aims of the British public library system to make information available to the widest number of people. That is one of the most important features of a democratic and prosperous society. Those who disturbed the peace on London last weekend should perhaps have borne that in mind. Conversely, one of the first actions of a totalitarian regime, when it gains a foothold on power, is to prevent the dissemination of information. The seizure of radio and television stations in coups in all parts of the world is familiar to us, together with the closing of newspapers, the destruction of books—that remains in the memory of those of us who have reached a certain age—and the persecution of journalists, film-makers and all those who are a threat to the power of undemocratic and authoritarian regimes.

The public library system in Britain was a product of that great rush of mid-19th century philanthropy which resulted in the libraries Act which allowed for a halfpenny rate from local councils to make collections of books available free to all who needed them. That has become one of the fundamental pillars of culture and education in our society. It has been very successful, and continues to be so. However, changes are taking place quickly, and there are alarm signals of which we must be aware.

Apart from providing an opportunity for citizens to borrow books in order to entertain, educate and improve themselves, one of the great benefits of the public library system is that it is of particular value to the deprived in our society, as was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. In passing, perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the enormous value of libraries in the prison system. They help some of the most deprived people in our society. The admirable attempt to get those who find themselves behind bars to progress down a road of learning and information within the libraries in those institutions is one of the most useful ways to lead those who have indulged in criminal activities towards a productive and useful life.

Libraries are not just places where people go to learn. Unhappily, communities are under threat, and libraries are places within the community where those who suffer in some way—apart from the very old and very young, who are particularly vulnerable—can find peace and quiet and can interact with others and find solace in a friendly, calm environment. That is essential—a view which I am sure is shared by other noble Lords. Through peace and war, the public library has become a familiar institution, and one that is viewed with affection. You can always tell when an institution is viewed with affection because it is taken up as a means of comedy. Scenes in plays, films and television programmes where the silence of the library is broken by some well-expected disturbance and the rather unfairly portrayed schoolmistress-type librarian casts stern, censorious looks on the offenders have become as familiar as those of the policeman with his helmet knocked off (perhaps an unhappy subject to mention today after the weekend's events) or the mother-in-law joke. The public library plays an important part in our culture and in the structure of civic life.

Parents and their children, the elderly and the unemployed are particular beneficiaries of the library system. The closure of libraries is perhaps inevitable because an economically advanced society such as ours, with all the controls over budgets and taxation that that implies, always examines the economic effectiveness of institutions and the services provided to the taxpayer.

My experience in the area where I live is that the rush towards the modernisation and rationalisation of libraries, although in some ways admirable, does not take sufficient account of the effect on, and the shock to, certain people in our society as a result of closures. Without naming particular authorities, several take the same view as the financial controller—having worked in business for many years, but not being an accountant, I share it—that in their present state a number of libraries are not economically viable because they have too many branches which do not provide the benefit expected of them. There is a quick rush to reduce the number of branches and consolidate in large new buildings where the latest technology can, it is true, be presented in a more appropriate way, together with the books, videos and other items that are presently available.

The idea is an attractive one, but the sudden removal of a familiar institution in this way has had an effect on people. In some areas there is evidence that the enthusiastic support of the accountant's mentality (without seeking to offend noble Lords who have been accountants) has meant that libraries have been deprived of new books on a gradual basis. When, consequently, less use is made of the libraries it is said that the public do not want to use the facilities. They do not use them because they cannot find the books that they want. The books are not available because the libraries have not purchased the requisite books. That situation arises where reform is urged without proper account being taken of the effect on what are, usually, the most deprived in our society. I suggest that the two outstanding groups are the very old and the very young.

As expected, there has also been budgetary pressure in local government on opening hours. Opening hours have reduced steadily over the past 20 years or so. Twenty years ago the majority of public libraries opened for 60 hours a week. I am informed by a very effective briefing document supplied by the Library Association that over the past 20 years opening hours have reduced substantially. Over 200 libraries fall into the category of those which have reduced their hours substantially. There have also been many closures. All of that must be viewed against a scenario in which supermarkets move towards 24-hour opening. Supermarket shopping is now becoming a leisure activity as well as a necessity. In many small towns a good deal of the architecture with which we are most familiar, such as the church, the school hall, sometimes the cinema—sadly, not often these days—the small theatre and the pub is often overshadowed by a supermarket. I am aware that the Government are taking steps to ensure that the indiscriminate proliferation of supermarkets does not take place any more than is necessary. However, this development has changed the profile of the community in a dramatic way.

The Government funded the excellent initiative People's Network with the aim of connecting public libraries with the information super-highway by the year 2002. Libraries have always been in the vanguard of new technology and have never resisted it. They were the first institutions to use microfilms and bar codes. In 1995 Internet access was taken up in a big way by both the young and old. I have not yet been coaxed into that activity. However, I am informed that there are wonderful opportunities around the country, albeit in a patchy way, where talented people are able to instruct the old. I am told that when they get the hang of it they become obsessed by the new horizons which the Internet opens up to them. That is a wonderful development, and I congratulate the enlightened and imaginative people who have made this possible. Public libraries have been, appropriately, the first to react to such matters as the BBC's campaign "Computers Don't Bite", with which many of your Lordships are familiar.

I return to one of the most important matters: children. I do a considerable amount of work with one of the play group charities. By statute pre-school children are provided with various facilities in public libraries. Those are increasingly used by single parents and their children. Therefore, closure of those facilities would cause particular harm to that group. In those areas where there is no nursery school or play group provision and a lone mother or father and child are deprived of public libraries the effects on the family unit are absolutely disastrous. Provision is made for schoolchildren in public libraries as long as the necessary expert teaching is available. That expert teaching is disappearing with budgetary constraints. While able volunteers come forward, one needs a nucleus of trained teachers to work with young children. One needs to provide information on parenting, opportunities for story-telling and so on. The holding of a library card by young children is a civic right. A library card is perhaps the first document that a child is likely to hold. School visits to public libraries are also useful. In inner-city areas libraries are particularly valuable to children whose first language is not English. There is no better place for them to go, perhaps without parental interference, than their local library in order to become proficient in a language other than the first language spoken at home.

I do not wish to say any more about library closures. I hope I have made the point sufficiently well that we have here a facility—I referred to the ability of the elderly to keep sharp of mind—which will continue apace. A library is, or should be, a reassuring place. The library has been a familiar part of the town and village landscape and it will be a pity if it disappears. I only hope that the new buildings, some of which may be excellent but may require to be improved, are also attractive and reassuring places for all those who use them. Modernity is good. The Government are keen on modern things but, when rushed, modernity can be intimidating. I hope that architects bear that in mind. The community as we know it is under attack. I suggest to noble Lords that the library is an essential part of the community and must be retained at all costs as effectively as, if not better than, in the past.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for raising these important issues and for allowing me to be a form of unpaid mercenary alongside the Liberal partisans as they seek to defend the hills and valleys of rural England—not for the benefit of the people but for their own political benefit.

Oh!

My Lords, it is like a little operetta, with cast and orchestra singing off the same hymn sheet, but with different hymns orchestrated like some form of conference. However, I have great appreciation for their objectives and the points raised. It is probably the only time during my attendance in your Lordships' House that I have felt that we have been outnumbered by the Liberals but never outgunned.

It may be strange but people have political motives for speaking. I have a hereditary motive. My grandfather was postmaster general—a very great and important title, and an important job in those days. He sought desperately to extend the postal services and the sub-post offices into rural England. While others have sought to encourage decline, it is on his behalf that I speak.

For many years I was with the Midland Bank. It had 3,000 branches. One could always find a Midland Bank branch because it was always near a pub. There was no point in giving the address; the branch was always in the middle of the city and the community. Every day each branch received one application for charitable funds, with a further 10 per cent at head office. The bank manager was part of the community. Many managers would resist promotion in order to retain their position in the branch. I have often thought that I would like to have retired to a rural Midland Bank branch (if one exists any more) and be a lay preacher.

I have three reasons for speaking today. One relates to the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth. When I was at school—I see one of my school colleagues, the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, in his place—we had always to support a charity—I think that it was the church of St John in Portsmouth. When I joined the Navy I became a Portsmouth rating. I still remember my number: PJ963040. When I sailed in the Solent and around the Isle of Wight my lifeline in storm and calm—I was not the most brilliant of navigators—was Niton radio. Therefore I have a great affection for Niton.

I am not sure what the term "essential services" means. Services usually have to support something that is desirable or viable. As recent debates on agriculture have demonstrated, in rural England grade three land is no longer viable. Therefore the decline of rural England as an economic entity today is inevitable; perhaps it has already taken place. I would hate to say that the failure of any noble Lord from the Back Benches opposite to speak in the debate is indicative that the Labour Party has no interest in the rural community or people. We have, to an extent, become a country of corporate communists. Everything is corporate; everything is controlled. The community and the individual have been destroyed to some extent by circumstances and by events that we have failed to foresee.

When the Prime Minister recently visited the west country—he would have been more openly attacked had he not fled from one destination to another—it was strange to hear him say, "We must modernise. That is the solution". As the right reverend Prelate pointed out, one cannot modernise in one go. There has to be a period of gestation and change.

I was brought up to believe that the pillar of the community was, first, the Church. One had to go to church. But I find now that the first to close the church buildings is the Church itself because its flock has diminished. As do others in rural communities, the churches have to lock their doors because they may be robbed. It is an amazing change. Because I sometimes had to read lessons in church, I used to panic—as I may do when having to make a speech in your Lordships' House—but the Bible was always there to read in churches. I was brought up on the old edition of the Bible; I do not like the new edition. The role of looking after one's neighbour within the community is good; the Church always undertook that. We were grateful for the vicar. (I have always referred to everyone, including important people like bishops, as the vicar.)

The role of the policeman has been mentioned today. When a youth—a term no longer used—had committed a misdemeanour the policeman might put into the bottom of his glove a few coins and give the youth a clip round the ear. That was a known discipline. Within the community people knew "whodunit".

Then we come to the landowner. My grandfather on my mother's side taught me that one had to look after anyone sick or ill who had worked on the farm. I remember, with an old nanny who stayed with my family for 90 years, being made to walk on my own, sometimes returning at dusk, with a basket containing a bottle of port, a chicken and some eggs, for those on the farm or within the community, perhaps in tied cottages—which others tried to get rid of later.

Then there was school, and the school teacher, respected by society, who often received recognition for work outside the school in the community. That was another part of the community.

However, it was the banks and post offices which became an essential part of life. One needed communication and money. Money oiled the wheels and made the world go round. The closure of banks destroys many historic ingredients which cannot be replaced within a community. The presence of building societies in town centres to replace shops is another matter. And we add to that the closure of the post office, seeking to replace the service through bank accounts. I had the privilege of being involved with the launch of the original Giro system, introduced many years ago. In those days, only 30 per cent of people had bank accounts. Some said that no more than 30 per cent should have bank accounts. Bank accounts cause anxiety today; and the banks have forgotten the one basic principle of a bank manager: "Know thy customer". It is almost a legal requirement within banking that one should not do business with people one does not know. Nowadays it is impossible for a manager (if such he is called) to know anyone. He is protected by systems which take the relationship back to a branch or centre miles from the community.

We have found that economic circumstances have destroyed the community environment. How can that be corrected? Let us take the Church. It is part of the community whatever one's religious beliefs. It is a meeting ground. More people now go to church at Christmas than at Easter. On the continent of Europe the attendance at many churches, Catholic or non-Catholic, is relatively high.

The post offices should not be closed unless there is a suitable alternative. People with pensions do not want to have money transmitted electronically to bank accounts. There are many fears. Recent reports have indicated that the security services will examine the Internet. We know that electronic transfer systems are not perfect. We know that anything electronic is not perfect. There is no human element; and some people believe that nothing exists unless one can touch and see it. Payments to people through post offices have been invaluable throughout history. To remove those is a major mistake.

We have to consider why these things have occurred. Let us take transport, an issue which noble Lords beside me support strongly. I wonder why, when we have North Sea oil, we have the highest transport costs in the whole of the European Union. We have the highest prices for petrol, the highest prices for cars, the highest bus fares, the highest train fares and, until recently, the highest fares for internal air transport. That may be accidental or the political demands of government to tax the motorists and receive as much revenue as possible from the transport sector. That does not make sense.

Why do we penalise the old who have less money? A transaction within the Post Office costs about 70p. If it is for only £2 or £3, 70p is a large proportion of it. For breadwinners and earners, the costs of banking and making financial transfers are not as proportionally high. When we are over 60, we receive various kinds of support; for instance, from British Midland Airways when we fly abroad. Why should we not consider providing support for the old and retired people in urban areas, as we do in inner cities and other areas?

I do not want to criticise noble Lords opposite or their Government, but I believe that the Government have forgotten how to care for people. The Ministers care for people, but their hands are tied. The debate has raised issues which, as regards services, may not be financially essential or desirable, but the removal or destruction of such services destroys a large part of our country. That is something that we cannot afford.

My Lords, I do not know how to respond to the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, about these Benches. Perhaps it is best to pass over them and treat the matter with good will.

I want to remark briefly on topics that have been raised. First, I refer to the suggestion made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford that village shops should attract charitable status. I have been pursuing that rather hopeless task for a long time and I know that the problem is that village shops are not exclusively charitable because they serve the needs of all the inhabitants of their catchment area, not merely the poor and needy. That is the stumbling block.

I turn briefly to the predicament of village shops. First, I must declare an interest as a patron of a charity called VERSA, the Village Retail Services Association. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, who is also a patron, will speak about the charity, too. Village shops and institutions are making a vigorous attempt to preserve and better themselves. One such attempt is SAVE, Sainsbury's Assisting Village Enterprises. It is an imaginative partnership in which Sainsbury allows village stores to stock its standard products at standard prices. Thus, it does good to both the local inhabitants and the stores. It is an imaginative effort and is to be commended. About 200 stores are utilising it and I suspect that many more will do so.

As regards rural police, we have heard a great deal of informed comment not least from my noble friend Lady Harris. My home town of Sudbury in Suffolk is a thriving market town—it no longer has a live market—of 20,000 people and serves at least 30,000 more. Its local police force has been so reduced in numbers and competence that last week, at an incident in one of the town's off-licences in which a gang of rowdy and, I am happy to say, not-too-brutal youths was causing trouble for the manager, it took an hour for the police to arrive. They came from Bury St Edmunds. Indeed, it took them one and a half hours to arrive at the site of an accident in a village just outside the town. They came from Felixstowe, which is 40 miles away.

I want to raise briefly the issue of rating relief. It is utter nonsense to allow second home owners rating relief. Where that derived from and the justification for it is, I suspect, beyond modern understanding, but surely we can abolish it.

I now turn to the main purport of my comments tonight: law and justice locally. I do not confine myself to villages or market towns because the subject of the debate is communities, which exist also in the larger cities. Where they do not, it is vital that we encourage them to coalesce and to revive. I am sad to say that legal aid, which I am sure noble Lords will agree is a crucial pillar for the poorer sections of our communities, particularly where they are not thriving, is not in good fettle. We had long and anguished debates on the Access to Justice Bill and I have to tell the House that the Legal Aid Practitioners Group, which is the front line of legal aid service providers, is in a state of alarm at the degree to which the new regime discourages solicitors from making their services available to legal aid clientele. Only this morning, an inner London solicitor told me that each day he is turning away between 30 and 50 individuals seeking legal aid. That is not even being done on a carefully considered individual basis; people are simply being turned away in shoals. That is the story across the country.

The simple reason is that this year legal aid rates of remuneration have been frozen for the eighth year running. I am not talking about real remuneration rates; I am talking about absolute remuneration rates. The level of remuneration for legal aid has fallen eight years in a row and it is now a serious issue in terms of maintaining communities of all kinds at a point of the greatest pressure.

I should like to spend five minutes talking about the position of local courts with regard to the strength and health of local communities. Perhaps I may again refer to my home town of Sudbury. Since the war it has lost its Quarter Sessions and county court, and its magistrates' court is now under threat. In 1998, Suffolk got rid of five magistrates' courts, leaving five in existence. We are already one of the most, if not the most, underserviced counties as regards magistrates' courts facilities in the country. The basis on which closures are undertaken is a matter which I am sure your Lordships will want to contemplate and which I hope that the Government will want to review. It is common ground that local justice is important in all manners, aspects and dimensions. One cannot have justice of the people, by the people and for the people if it becomes a distant enjoyment.

The main reason given for the closures, which are occurring in large numbers all over the country, is on grounds of efficiency, particularly on grounds of better facilities as regards premises. Perhaps I may refer to an Answer which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave to a Question that I asked on 7th February (col. 385 of Hansard) about court closures. I asked whether there would be taken into account the extra travel costs and time spent by users of courts when, after local court closures, they had to attend more distant, alternative premises. The noble and learned Lord answered that it was important that facilities were not substandard. He said that the use of,

"satellite courts, for example parts of local council chambers which lacked essential facilities"—

although he did not say what "essential" might mean—should be terminated. He talked of "secure accommodation", although where a prosecution case involves someone in custody whom the police consider to be particularly dangerous there is no problem about having him transferred to a larger court complex. He also talked about,

"waiting areas for victims and witnesses away from defendants; consultation rooms; and access for the disabled".

He referred also to the lack of "'reasonable staff accommodation" and to "unsound" courts in terms of structure. He went on to refer to a variety of other reasons for closure.

There is a heavy preoccupation, if I may express it in that way, with premises. I am bound to say t hat it is not a preoccupation which most users of the courts share and it can go far too far in the balance which must be struck between keeping open a rather old and old-fashioned court and closing it and moving to a shiny new complex 20 miles up the road.

Perhaps I may refer to the case of Haverhill, a town whose court was one of those closed in 1998. It has a population of 20,000 and is one of the fastest-growing towns in Britain. It has serious problems which are not typical of the county of Suffolk; for example, at the last council elections it had a turnout (I believe I am right in saying) of 7 per cent. It has a higher than average crime rate. The report which provided the basis for the recommendation by the Magistrates' Courts Committee for its closure referred to the court's premises in these terms:

"There are no roads signs to the court".

It added that there was no private access to a telephone for solicitors.

"There are no refreshment facilities",

it opined; and,

"There is no security guard at the court".

Oh dear! Then, the crowning criticism:

"The women's toilet was observed to be in an untidy state with the paper towel dispenser being too small for the towels so that it could not be closed properly".

My Lords, one cannot have courts where dispensers are too small for the paper towels which need to be dispensed from the same! The whole matter is lunatic and ludicrous.

The consultation which is carried out with regard to court closures is grotesquely inadequate. The solicitors who use the court were not asked what they felt about it; nor were the users. Above all, in coming to their finale as to the financial savings which would accrue (we are talking about employee, premises and facilities cost savings), the total saving for the Haverhill court would be—believe it or not!—the princely sum of £11,160 a year. The saving of that, dare I call it, "piddling" sum set against all the other non-financial aspects relevant to the closure of that court is beyond my understanding. In relation to the £11,000 saving, the report stated:

"It does not account for any additional expenditure that may be placed upon other organisations/individuals as a result of such [closure]".

The expense to the public of Haverhill of now having to go to Bury St Edmunds, which I believe is 15 miles up the road, or Sudbury, 'which is further than that, is enormous. It involves delay, bus costs and frustration. One-fifth of households in that town and vicinity do not have a car, and the residents suffer from the paucity of travel services in the countryside. I do not need to go on; others have said it.

Finally, I urge the Government to practise what they preach in terms of joined-up government. Other parts of the governmental establishment are saying things that are not consonant with some of the things now taking place in the countryside. I refer in particular to court closures. Because I believe that it is so good, perhaps I may read quickly from this year's Report of the Policy Action Team on Community Self-Help:

"self-help is an end in itself, as well as a means to an end. It is at the core of the empowerment of communities … It is about involvement and consultation, but also about moving towards self-sufficiency. It is, in its purest form, about communities shaping their own destiny—doing, not being done to".

How absolutely true that is.

I know that other noble Lords have referred to the matter, but it cannot be too strongly said that one cannot continue to salami-slice from outer communities the services that they are able to provide for themselves without having a catastrophic impact on those communities. That is particularly the case in terms of the leadership of the communities. I give as an example the courts. If one takes away from a town the solicitors, police, social workers and others who service the courts, those people will go to the nearest large or larger town. One is therefore inflicting body damage on the ability of that community to help itself out of its particular problems.

Leadership is all; self-sufficiency is all. As do many other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, for which we are so grateful to my noble friend Lord Rodgers, I hope that the Government will take back that message and relay it across the departments so that it has real impact in other areas of government.

My Lords, in responding directly to the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, the part of the hymn sheet from which I intend to speak today is that which deals with the question of access by the public to primary healthcare services; that is, those which are essentially the first port of call, such as GP surgeries and accident and emergency services. Therefore, I hope that the Minister is relieved to hear that I shall not go on at length about the Government's record on waiting lists and waiting times, as those relate effectively to secondary care.

To date, access to and quality of health services have formed an important part of the campaign for the London mayor. It is rather ironic that in the Bill there is so little formal power for the mayor over health matters, despite considerable pressure on the Government during the passage of the Bill. However, I have great confidence, particularly as a result of the London mayor campaign, that in practice the mayor and assembly will have a major influence on health policy.

London has a disproportionate number of people who can be considered to be in particular need of primary healthcare services. We have some of the worst areas of deprivation in this country. A recent survey carried out by the NHS last October showed that the universal complaint by those surveyed in central London was that they had too little time with their GP, it took too long to obtain an appointment and there were major difficulties in arranging home visits. London certainly has particular groups with whom we should be concerned, particularly in the inner city.

There are old people. There is growing evidence that the elderly are being discriminated against and are now the victims of a concerted rationing of treatments by the NHS. There are the poor. There is now evidence that the poor are being penalised unfairly by the health service. Noble Lords may have seen reference to a survey of 26,000 Scottish heart patients conducted between 1986 and 1997 and published recently in the BMJ. It showed that poorer patients and younger female patients in particular were less likely to be classified as urgent and, as a result, had to wait an average of 24 days longer for surgery—24 days longer!

Then there are ethnic minority groups, particularly in the inner city, and also those who suffer from mental health problems. Again, the number is disproportionately high in the inner city. However, as noble Lords have spoken so eloquently today about the problems of isolated rural communities, we must not underestimate the problems in those communities. Recent figures from the Royal College of Nursing indicate that over 80 per cent of rural parishes do not have their own GP. Also, we must not forget that on average there is a greater proportion of older people in rural areas rather than in urban areas.

In the name of modernisation, the Government are implementing sweeping changes across the NHS, from the patient-practitioner interface to the authorities responsible for providing primary care. Those changes are having, and will continue to have, a profound effect on the structure and delivery methods of the health service in this country. It is vitally important that those most in need of the support services are catered for by these changes and are not left trailing in their wake.

Perhaps the most high-profile example of the health service front line is accident and emergency departments. Recently, the Government announced a £115 million capital investment in accident and emergency, designed to enable improvement schemes to be carried out in 182 hospital trusts in England. Yet, although we welcome that level of capital investment, there must be doubts as to whether the investment will solve current problems. The recent survey by the Royal College of Nursing and the Association of Community Health Councils highlighted a number of horrendous situations: an elderly woman with a broken pelvic bone left on a trolley for 40 hours in the accident and emergency department of Northwick Park Hospital, Harrow; an elderly man left to wait on a trolley for over 30 hours at the same hospital; an 83 year-old woman who died of burns after being left to lie by a boiling radiator at the Royal Surrey County Hospital. Those are just a few of the horror stories revealed by that survey.

The announced investment in the infrastructure is therefore welcomed, but surely a large part of the battle concerns investment in staff and their recruitment, as that survey made absolutely clear. The survey clearly demonstrated that the lack of staff beds elsewhere in the hospital is the major cause of bed blockages and delays in accident and emergency departments. What workforce planning assumptions are the Government making to go alongside the bricks and mortar improvements? Will the Government's new proposals for local workforce planning achieve what is necessary to increase the number of doctors in accidents and emergency departments?

There is also a very worrying tendency for the left hand not to know what the right hand is doing in NHS planning. The NHS is in the process of closing 80 accident and emergency departments nation-wide, while figures for emergency cases have steadily increased from 3,700,000 in 1997–98 to 3,900,000 in 1998–99. These closures are already creating major problems of access for the public in both rural and urban areas. This, added to the widespread closure of community and cottage hospitals, represents a massive loss of amenity and access to the Health Service. How do all these closures square with the Government's commitment to improving health and tackling health inequalities, which was one of its key health objectives in the public health White Paper, Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation.

One of the key issues before us all, recently highlighted by the BMA in their publication Shaping Tomorrow: issues facing general practice in the new millennium, is the future of GP practice. Demand for primary care in the future will need to be met in a variety of ways. I welcome many of the innovations that are taking place, such as NHS Direct. According to the consumer surveys, NHS Direct is garnering high praise among its users—in some cases as much as 97 per cent. But there are issues surrounding NHS Direct, especially in its relationship with the voluntary sector specialist helplines for the mentally ill who need access to those specialist helplines, and that interface is not yet coherent.

It is also not clear whether adequate provision is being made for the needs of ethnic minorities, in particular with regard to the language barriers that they face. Neither is it clear what impact NHS Direct will have on GP workloads. There are some very divergent views, with statistics being quoted on all sides, as to exactly what the impact will be. Claims are made that it will reduce the workload of GPs. It is far from clear whether that is actually the case.

In principle, I also welcome the introduction of walk-in centres. They will certainly meet a need for much better access to primary care services. But the location of some of the existing and forthcoming walk-in centres, which will total 36 in the pilot schemes, casts some doubt on the Government's commitment to improve health in the most deprived areas. Part of the Government's argument for walk-in centres is that they will provide a filter for hard pressed GP practices in deprived areas. Yet newly-opened sites, such as Fulham, Soho, and forthcoming locations including Bath, Loughborough, Manchester Airport and the Wirral, are hardly in the most deprived areas. By what criteria are the Government deciding the location of these centres?

Whatever the innovations, I am convinced that the backbone of primary care will continue to be the GP practices. That is why I welcome the 300 or So personal medical services pilots which are now being developed throughout England. These, in some cases, involve developing existing practices and setting up new practices with salaried GPs who can concentrate solely on the provision of medical care without the need to concern themselves with running the infrastructure of a practice. A notable example of one of these PMS schemes is the Pennywell estate in Sunderland, where PMS has provided primary care when none previously existed. That particular practice now has 2,000 registered patients, and that is a testimony to what can be done if proper innovation is applied. There is now on site a team of doctors, nurses and other health workers, catering for some of the poorest and most socially disadvantaged estates in the country.

I also welcome some of the NHS beacon examples, such as the rural downlands practice in Berkshire, which covers 13 villages, with which I am familiar, where they are developing a model of patient partnership. Their response to the rural isolation of their patients is to run a mini-bus service in which they can bring their patients to surgeries and deliver medicines to their patients. There is little doubt, however, that these new initiatives are tolling the bell for the traditional single practitioner doctor. In the BMA publication, Shaping Tomorrow, there is a general consensus that the traditional family GP to whom one goes throughout the course of one's life is very likely to disappear. Calls for on-demand appointments, and particularly out-of-hours services, make this practically inevitable. Single GP practices simply cannot provide these services. There is a likelihood with a multi-partner practice of patients seeing many faces rather than one familiar face.

Some doctors are concerned that easy access to medical care may well result in a deterioration in the quality of care provided. I am not persuaded, however, that this will result in a deterioration. One of the problems that besets primary healthcare in London, particularly in east London, is the number of single practitioners who cannot provide the level and range of care provided by the larger practices to a clientele who desperately need better primary care.

I also welcome the fact that the recent development of the past few years may well mean that the front line for patients in the future will soon be a trained nurse potentially with the ability to prescribe and administer a wide range of medication, rather than the GP or accident and emergency doctor. I believe that this has the potential to provide much better access to healthcare and a better use of scarce medical skills for the benefit of patients. It will also help to ease the current intolerable workload on doctors. I noted that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth referred particularly to this point.

In this context, the removal of barriers to nurse prescription is of enormous importance. Perhaps I may ask, therefore, why the Government are not pushing further and faster ahead with this than they have to date. District nurses and health visitors, with appropriate training, now have limited rights to prescribe. Why are practice nurses in particular not being given prescribing rights? Surely they are in the front line. We should be ensuring that they do, with sufficient training, have the right to prescribe. The Government's intentions in this respect need urgent clarification.

Although many of the changes that I have mentioned are welcomed, there is an important issue surrounding the potential loss of continuity of care, particularly for the elderly, those with chronic complaints and the mentally ill, where multi-practices are involved. The management of these multi-practices and a very close relationship with patients will be absolutely crucial, and I very much hope that the PMS pilots and the NHS beacon schemes will provide some of the answers. However, I believe that one of the key areas in which we can find answers is the area of community pharmacies. I believe that part of their role should be to provide that level of continuity. They have a very important role in the community, but yet again we see no strategy on the part of this Government. The Government promised a community pharmacy strategy about two years ago and we are still waiting for that strategy. We need urgent clarification of the Government's proposals in relation to community pharmacies, not just in urban areas but also in terms of the pattern of community pharmacies in under-served, rural areas, where the current subsidy scheme is of great importance.

There is no doubt that the NHS needs to modernise and embrace change, and it is heartening to see that willingness not only in the NHS but also among other health professionals. It is heartening, too, to see that the resources are, after three years of this Government, finally beginning to make themselves evident. Above all, we need to ensure that those resources are used in the most effective way and directed towards those in need of support, so that they can be provided with the services that they need.

I believe that the Government have begun to recognise the needs of those deprived communities, both in rural and urban areas. But it is not yet clear that they have pulled that together in a coherent strategy. They need to share their strategy with us, perhaps through the six task forces that were recently set up by the Prime Minister. But at all events the Government need to assure us that there is an integrated strategy and that the necessary resources will be provided.

There are a number of great changes taking place with important implications in all those new initiatives. Professionals are worried about the level of resources. Indeed, there is competition for resources between rural and urban areas. All those matters need to be resolved. The Government must make their intentions much clearer than currently is the case.

My Lords, I wish to concentrate on the provision of financial services to communities and individuals in particular need. In that regard, the emphasis is equally on urban communities and rural communities. Indeed, it is worth bearing in mind that the very poorest communities in the UK are all in urban areas. There are very poor pockets of rural deprivation but the major concentration of poverty in this country is in the inner cities and urban areas.

Estimates of the number of adults in the UK without access to any form of bank account currently varies between 2½ million and 3½ million people. Most of those people are on very low incomes and their main source of income is likely to be state benefits. Without a bank account, people cannot receive or make electronic payments; they cannot deposit cash or cheques; they cannot obtain cash from cash machines or use retail cash-back facilities at the supermarket.

A lack of access to a bank account is not simply a problem in terms of not being able to plan your finances very well, to make savings or gain access to affordable credit. It is also extremely costly. Research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Don Cruickshank's report on the banking industry both demonstrate that, for example, paying energy bills by standing order or direct debit could, or indeed, would, save a low income household some £50 per year, a figure which rises to £75 per year if pre-payment methods are used.

Given that there are substantial financial benefits in having a bank account, why is it that so many people do not have one? First, many people are simply refused them because they are seen as bad credit risks. Research by the Office of Fair Trading in 1999 showed that up to one-quarter of all applicants for a current account were refused and the main reason was the fear by the bank that the account might become overdrawn, remain overdrawn and the bank literally would not get its money back.

Secondly, many poor communities simply do not have banks. Therefore, why would anybody go to great trouble to open an account when there is no easy access to it? As noble Lords have already said, that situation has become worse over recent years as over 25 per cent of retail bank branches have closed and branches are concentrated increasingly in more prosperous areas.

There was an extremely interesting article in the Sunday Times last week about the situation in Skelmersdale, which no longer has a single bank branch. It used to have two or three. Therefore, not surprisingly, it has become an entirely cash-based economy and increasingly a black economy. Therefore, the lack of banking brings with it social costs which go well beyond the immediate cost to individuals who do not have access to the bank.

In that regard, I welcome the commitment by Lloyds not to close any further branches which are the last branches in that community. I only wish that other banks would follow suit.

The third reason why people do not open bank accounts is that they often have little access to information about the type of banking products which may be available. No doubt many of your Lordships are bombarded, as I am, by mail shots inviting me to open yet another bank or credit card account, the last thing I need. The poor do not receive those mail shots. Nor are they regular subscribers to Which?, to Moneyfacts or to any of the magazines which give comparative information about financial services.

That high degree of non-banked adults can and must be addressed in a number of ways. The first and most important is the Government's plans, now well advanced, for basic bank accounts. Those accounts would not offer or allow overdrafts and that would overcome the poor creditworthiness problem which has excluded many poorer people in the past. The main banks are all committed to introducing those accounts by October. They are eagerly awaited and long overdue.

The Post Office is also looking at what it calls a universal bank, funded by the large commercial banks, which run in parallel with the basic accounts operated by the commercial banks. I am not quite sure whether that proposal is as welcomed by the commercial banks as it is by the Post Office but it too deserves serious consideration.

As regards lack of information among low income groups, the citizens advice centres have been grappling for years with inadequate resources in order to bring information on basic financial facts to those who seek it. Their resources are inadequate to the task. Yet when the Financial Services and Markets Bill is enacted, the FSA will have squarely in its remit a responsibility to promote awareness of financial products to consumers. It will need to do that vigorously and imaginatively among poorer communities. In my view, it should pay particular attention to educating teenagers, not only because they will then open bank accounts themselves but because they will also encourage their parents to do so.

All those positive steps will, however, be undermined if people do not have proximate physical access to banking facilities. That is where the Post Office comes in. Here, the Government's proposals on the automatic payment of benefits have threatened many post offices and cause many potential short-term problems.

But there are also major longer-term opportunities to use the Post Office network to deliver financial services to those without bank accounts. Of course, the short-term problem is that automated benefit payments threaten the livelihood of sub-post offices. In turn, that poses a threat to the viability of many communities, particularly rural ones, as many noble Lords have already described, in which post offices remain the focus of community life.

It poses a problem also for recipients of state benefits who not only do not have a bank account but who, for one reason or another, should not be forced to open one against their will.

There are two major roles which the Post. Office can play in dealing with those issues. The first is in providing financial services. Already, it is possible, if you are a Co-op bank account holder, to cash Co-op cheques at post offices. That facility should be extended to encompass more banks and building societies. The Post Office has already put out to tender to various banks a proposal to provide cash machines of the traditional kind in many of its branches. Again, that should be pursued vigorously.

Secondly, there remains the question of benefit payments. Here, an extremely sensible proposal for dealing with the problem has come from what at first sight is an unlikely source; namely, the Link network. As noble Lords will recall, Link sprung to notoriety a couple of months ago in connection with the row over banks charging for the use of cash machines. Link is the computer network which links all the cash machines owned by individual banks. The banks and building societies in turn, between them, own Link.

The Link proposal is that all those receiving benefits but without a bank account would receive a card, like a credit card, which could be used at any cash machine and would give the user access to, in effect, their own state benefits account. The account would receive all the benefits paid to an individual from whatever source; would be accessed like a bank account; and account holders could draw out money as and when they needed it. The scheme would be based, in large measure, on the existing cash machine infrastructure so there would be a low cost attached to introducing the system.

Such a scheme could also assist the Post Office. Link has been in discussion with the Post Office about introducing a simplified variant of the cash machine in which benefit claimants will be able to gain access to their accounts but instead of getting cash from the machine they would get a slip that they would take to the Post Office counter to cash as though it were a cheque. That would give post offices more business and would help to deal with the underlying problem of automatic benefit payments which could take away their business.

One desirable precondition for such a joint venture would be for Link to free itself from its current bank and building society owners. As the Cruickshank report has already proposed, Link should be restructured into a private sector company. That would enable it to raise the substantial funding needed if it is to engage in the new activities that I have described. It would also free it from any potential conflict of interest with the banks as owners and users of the network. In my view, at least the banks could facilitate such a restructuring of Link.

Enabling post offices to provide some degree of banking service along those lines is likely to be a key to their survival in many places, although in many cases that may not be enough. The Government have acknowledged in Clause 102 of the Postal Services Bill that subsidies may be needed. The question is when and under what circumstances such subsidies may be paid.

Yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, said of that clause that,

"this is an enabling clause which will enable us, if necessary, at a suitable time in the future to produce a scheme to subsidise the post office network. It is not proposed to use it at present and we have not tried to put in place a system of subsidy which would not be appropriate at this stage".—[Official Report, 2/5/00; col. 982.]

Why not? Post offices are closing every day. How many will have to close every day, every week, every month before the Government feel that it is appropriate to consider putting in place a scheme that will allow subsidy to be paid? Can the Minister explain to the House what cataclysmic event within the sub-post office network would be necessary before Clause 102 in the Postal Services Bill may be triggered?

To sum up, I have described four matters that will go a considerable way towards combating financial exclusion: basic bank accounts; a high intensity awareness campaign; a greater use of post offices for day-to-day banking services; and benefit payments by personalised accounts at existing cash machines and new terminals at post offices.

Indeed, there will be a role for credit unions, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth mentioned. There will also be a role for LETS (local exchange and trading schemes) but the main progress to be made in this area will involve the principal banks and the post offices.

Financial exclusion has not had as high a profile as other forms of exclusion have had in the past. However, sorting out the problem is vital to building thriving communities. I believe that much action is now under way, although the Government are overdue in regard to giving high priority to the issue of access to financial services for communities that are in particular need.

My Lords, listening to the previous 11 speakers has been rather depressing. I feel that underlining each speech has been a yearning for the good old days of times past: the time when the vicar and the bobby did their rounds in the parish and the village, the squire was in his mansion and the workers were at the doors of their tied cottages waiting for largesse. In the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, one could almost hear the clang of the blacksmith's hammer on the anvil and of leather against willow at the village cricket match. Noble Lords have said that those were the good old days and they have asked what has happened. The House has heard nothing but a tremendously long whinge from one noble Lord after another about where this is leading us and that there seems to be no hope for the future.

In fact, that is quite right in some areas. It is debatable how much longer noble Lords like myself will be able to continue to declare their interest in hill farming. The future of hill and upland economies in the remoter parts of Britain must remain uncertain unless some new element is introduced which can retain the existing rural populations while creating fresh sources of income to subsidise farming and the other traditional businesses of the countryside.

My hill farm is situated in one of the remoter parts of Dumfriesshire. Getting a fresh loaf of bread or other essential requirements like banking, health and veterinary services involves a round trip of 30 miles. There are no signs of new industries, such as the forestry that there was in the 1960s, coming into the district to save the day. As has been said by a number of noble Lords, the lack of local services in the countryside, including education, shopping, banking and police, has accelerated a population drift to the towns and has discouraged an inflow of new residents or businesses.

However, I do not believe that noble Lords are aware that help may be at hand in the form of BT's new broadband telephone system, ADSL, or, to give it its full title, Asynchronous Digital Subscriber Loop. I believe that there is no need to whinge about the loss of the good old days. I wonder why no one, including the Prime Minister, whom I am informed apparently has listened closely to a briefing on the subject of ADSL, given by the chairman of BT, seems to have reacted to it.

Civil servants in the Cabinet Office have just compiled what, in my view, is an outdated and rather self-congratulatory document for the Prime Minister, and they too seem to have missed this latest development in information technology. The document in question is entitled Sharing the Nation's Prosperity, and is subtitled Economic, Social and Environmental Conditions of the Countryside. In spite of being 190 pages thick, with picturesque graphs and statistics, it makes no reference at all to the role of online services.

In fact, the statistics—the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, mentioned one of—them show that death rates are lower in the countryside than in towns, but that is highly suspect. Although I can still drive a car, many at retirement age cannot. Therefore, they end their days in the towns as they can no longer look after themselves in the countryside. Once people cannot reach the services that they need, they have to move to the towns.

The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, also avoided mentioning online services or information technology. That is sad. Yesterday the Minister for Science, in his introduction to the Postal Services Bill, at col. 936 of Hansard, gave the appearance of having no alternative but to press on with spending half a billion pounds on the ill-fated and outdated Horizon project to distribute social benefits. Why did he not make any reference to ADSL which I would have thought would be far safer and a more user-friendly medium to provide pensions and benefits to rural communities?

Incidentally, can the Minister explain to the House how Horizon, which I understand is based on a barcode system—itself outdated and which was never intended to be a security system—is the most up to date or the safest way to prevent the fraudulent receipt of benefits?

What is ADSL? Just in case some noble Lords do not know of it, I shall refer you to last weekend's Sunday Times which summarised ADSL as BT's broadband Net connection capable of delivering voice, data and television into the home via existing copper telephone lines. According to BT, by next month over 7 million households will receive those services either through a television set-top box connected to the telephone or by a conventional Net connection via a telephone and a PC.

As from July, BT, and later its competitors, will be able to deliver, along existing telephone wires to homes in urban or remote environments, a complete range of online services that will include banking, shopping, unlimited radio, broadcast quality television, video films and e-mail. What is more, all this can be achieved without digging up the roads. We have the ability and the services available to provide these benefits without taking that course.

Medical and veterinary services in the countryside could be transformed by this service. A householder or farmer will, through ADSL, be capable of face-to-face communication with either a doctor or a vet situated 30 or even 300 miles away. Would not the marketing of sheep and cattle via ADSL be greatly enhanced by potential purchasers seeing for themselves the animals on site and the conditions in which they had been reared? Scottish beef and lamb could then be seen to be the best in the world and perhaps at long last receive a price to reflect that.

Much has been said in the debate about the role of the police. The police have telephones and for most rural householders the telephone is their only link to the outside world. The police can communicate face to face with a householder through this system. Indeed, any individual in the community can communicate in this way; the doctor or the vicar can use it. Why has this system not been mentioned so far? Indeed, why am I the only noble Lord who seems to read the newspapers? What has happened to the 6 million households who already have access to the system? The Government are set on modernisation, but I wonder where they stand on ADSL?

Could not the village hall or the local post office become local cyber centres? They could play a pivotal role in entertainment, distance shopping and home delivery from the nearest town via postal delivery services. At the moment, village halls remain locked for most of the year and seem to open only for occasions such as the annual flower show or to give shelter to itinerant morris dancers when it rains. Why cannot such halls become teaching centres for the new technologies? Why cannot they become meeting places for the old, the retired and village people who do not understand computer technologies so that they can learn? As has already been mentioned by one noble Lord, this is where the community can help itself to understand information technology without which—I include the village postmaster or sub-postmaster in this—it will he finished.

I do not see why postmasters should continue to exist if they cannot be bothered to learn how to work a computer. This is what the future is about. If postmasters want to have a future in the countryside, they have jolly well got to learn. The entire community is perfectly capable of taking this on, given proper support from the Government. ADSL is a revolution that is capable of transforming rural life. Why does it not seem to fit in with the Government's concept of modernising Britain, which they are so keen to do? I wonder whether it is a question of cost, or is it simply ignorance of what is available?

My Lords, the noble Lord is giving the House a fascinating description of this form of communication. However, can the noble Lord explain a point to me? If a householder electronically communicates face to face with a policeman who is some 40 miles away to inform him that his house is being broken into, how will this wonderful system arrest the offender?

My Lords, I did not want to go into arresting the offender, but rather to make the point that communication can be made with the police. It is up to the local police services as to how they work with their communities. That is a point that was discussed by the right reverend Prelate. In my contribution I am discussing communication. The exercise of the law is a matter that must be developed along lines that have already been suggested.

Perhaps I may return to the question of cost. The cost of bringing ADSL to the countryside and to the remoter parts of the land is a question of modernising the telephone exchanges. BT is a commercial organisation just like any other and as; such it will focus on urban areas where there is the maximum concentration of people with telephones. Either that company must be persuaded to provide or the Government must invest in the provision of modern local exchanges. I believe this to be an urgent matter. At present rural exchanges will be the last to be modernised because they serve the lowest concentrations of people with telephones. Perhaps the Minister can comment on this. Some £500 million is to be invested in the extremely doubtful Horizon system for the post offices. Could not the Government spend a little of the £23 billion the Chancellor received from the telecommunications companies to modernise countryside telephone exchanges? If that is not done, I doubt whether either BT or its competitors will do it.

We have here an opportunity to give a future to the countryside. We should be prepared to take that opportunity, but we need some encouragement from the Government. However, BT should not be too smug. Over the Christmas period we had no telephone services in Eskdalemuir for some 10 days. Indeed, we had no power either. The Government should ensure that adequate back-up is put in place so that proper services are provided in areas with low populations. If everyone is to use the BT system, everyone must be assured that an efficient service with appropriate back-up is provided. The telephones must work. However, I appreciate that this is a difficult problem in hill and upland areas which can experience excessively bad weather for most of the year.

Local universities are springing up everywhere—one is being set up in Dumfries—and I envisage another role for them. Students could develop a role within the communities in their regions whereby they help to educate local people to understand information technology and become computer literate. That is because without computer literacy both the individual and the community will not have a future. For that reason, it is no good whinging about the lack of services; people themselves must get up to date.

Perhaps I may finish by saying that I had thought that several noble Lords would have mentioned such services in their contributions and that they would appreciate how exciting the future will be. As far as I can see, the future does not lie in many of the subjects that have been raised in the debate today.

Finally, some noble Lords, like myself, have the luxury of owning two homes. We will no longer suffer from the age-old dilemma expressed by the poet Horace, whom noble Lords will recall from their schooldays. Two millennia ago Horace made the following cry from the heart in his Satires:

"Romae rus optas absentem rusticus

urbem tollis ad astra levis".

"When in Rome, give me the countryside you cry

but when there, you praise the distant city to the sky".

From now on, with ADSL or a similar system, it will be possible to enjoy the benefits of the distant city while still enjoying the comforts of one's home in the countryside.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may correct a point he made. I did not wish to create the impression that I was against electronic communications. However, I am in favour of personal communication—person to person rather than down a line.

Perhaps I am a little old-fashioned, but I preferred it when I lived in Newbury at the time when the telephone operator was not "electronified". The operator knew where everyone was and knew who was talking to whom. If one called the doctor, she would intervene to say that he was, "With Miss So-and-so". I do not believe that electronic communication can replace personal relationships.

My Lords, perhaps I may say in response that I, too, liked the personal touch of the local operator. However, at the same time I did not enjoy having no privacy at all. There were occasions when I should have liked to be able to make a private telephone call. Telecommunications are the face of the future—and without the operators.

My Lords, this debate which I am privileged to wind up from these Benches has given the House a clear picture of the year-on-year substantial loss of essential services to communities, both rural communities and urban neighbourhoods. It is a continuing loss, not a loss that has taken place only through time. I believe that it has happened because of the neglect and unwillingness of governments to invest in essential services. This began in the Conservative years when we lost cottage hospitals, small schools and public transport of all kinds. That took place when the Conservatives were pushing their philosophy of, "Every person for himself".

In his excellent introduction, my noble friend Lord Rodgers made the point about our two nations: the haves and the have-nots. Through the 1980s, a feeling was strongly engendered that if one wanted to go somewhere, one should buy a car and if one wanted one's child to play, one should buy a swing. It was not a time that looked kindly on investing in public services of any kind. Not only did it leave the people who could not afford the "buy it" solution without the services that they desperately needed, it also left communities where little value was placed on community resources. We now have to climb back from that base.

In terms of housing, that philosophy left vast under-investment in housing to rent and in affordable housing. Sadly, this Government have not committed new money to investment in social housing; they have only released the councils' own accumulated capital receipts. Nor have they defined what "affordable" means. I am beginning to wonder when, in a village where I live which is neither particularly special nor desirable, small and not especially remarkable houses are selling for between £80,000 and £90,000 yet salaries are frequently between £15,000 and £20,000.

Services too are lost by the private sector's obsession with "big", so well typified by the current Barclays Bank advertisement. It is incredible that it has the gall to continue to run such a campaign in the face of the fact that thousands of customers and small businesses face a future with no bank in their communities.

A number of noble Lords made the point about personal banking services being important. My noble friend Lord Newby made several important points in that regard and painted a clear picture of the FSA's duty to people in poorer communities and the role it could choose to undertake. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth mentioned credit unions and their importance to communities. An interesting article in the Guardian last week pointed out that the FSA could choose to push credit unions, which may choose to be a community-based facility, down the road of imitating the larger financial institutions. I hope that that is something the Government will guard against. The small credit unions were set up to provide the very services that the banks fail to provide.

Economies of scale too have hit food purchasing. There may be more choice at a huge supermarket, but it is no choice at all if one cannot get there. The planning system has desperately let communities down as it allows inspectors to come in from outside and overturn decisions of local councils not to allow out-of-town shopping in favour of huge supermarkets being developed on the outskirts. The Government have changed that system through planning guidance. They produced a sequential test which should maintain the health of town centres. But it does not guard against inspectors not understanding local issues—a point highlighted by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth—such as, for example, keeping the last shop in a community. Permission may be refused for that shop to change its use. But a planning inspector can come in and overturn that decision.

The loss of services continues. Even through the honeymoon period of this Labour Government the emphasis on "Education, education, education", did not translate far enough to stop public libraries, particularly in Labour authorities and inner cities, being run down or closed. It is surprising that the tie-up between education and libraries was not made more strongly by the Government. My noble friend Lord Falkland, in his excellent speech, emphasised the role that libraries have to play.

The Treasury decision to pay benefits through an automated credit transfer system was made before considering the effect that that might have on post offices. The panic measures introduced at Third Reading in the other place for an undefined subsidy with no date of introduction, no clear source of funds, unless it is more clearly defined as my noble friend Lord Newby said, is unlikely to be seen as much more than an election sop.

Why does the Post Office strike such a chord nationally? Partly because its services are essential, but partly because it is the last focus for many communities. When a post office closes, the village or neighbourhood information point and sometimes the food shop close with it. Again, close to home to me, the post office was sold. The new owners could not manage to maintain the food shop part and the business is being sold for the second time in six months with no buyers in view. An informal help centre for the village will close at the same time.

If to save government money the ACT system drives thousands of sub-post offices out of business, how much money will then be spent by the DETR on regeneration of those communities? The voluntary sector and local authorities spend large amounts of time, energy and resources putting together bids to central government for regeneration. That system suits central government because it means that they can decide what the focus of a regeneration agenda will be and award bids on that basis—a basis to match their political agenda rather than local needs.

Local people have far less say as to how they want their services to work. Is it surprising then that they take less interest? The Government are currently trying to find measures that will make people turn out and vote more in local elections and give time to the voluntary sector. But if they want that to succeed, they must establish a clearer link between local government finance and local service provision and what local people want. Perhaps they will bear that in mind in their forthcoming review of local government finance and focus not on an increasingly specific national target, but on meeting local needs.

I should like to turn to some of the specific services mentioned by noble Lords and, in particular, transport. My noble friend Lord Bradshaw described the virtuous circle of when more bus use equals better bus services. That applies in fact to many of the services that we have been discussing. The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, highlighted the deficiencies of the rural bus scheme. Of course, it has had problems. But the problems arose because a large amount of grant was awarded that had to be used up in an extremely short time. The idea behind the scheme was correct, but there should have been more thought to giving local authorities time to reflect local consultation in their applications. Now, some years into its establishment, the scheme is beginning to have a better effect. But I hope that the next time the Government award grants on that basis they will take account of the time, a point raised again by my noble friend Lord Bradshaw, that it takes effectively to implement a scheme, particularly in a dispersed geographical area.

My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones painted a grim picture of access to health services and highlighted in particular the importance of community pharmacies. Although the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, spoke interestingly about new technologies, health is certainly one area where personal access and person-to-person contact is very important, not only because of the physical symptoms that may be present, but also because issues of loneliness and depression are involved. Talking to a computer terminal will never solve those problems.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I did not say that we should be talking to a computer service. Through the ADSL system, we will talk face-to-face with a doctor or, as in this case, with a vet. He will be able to see, to some degree, how serious a situation is or to offer immediate advice. But one will not be talking to a computer terminal or bits of writing on a screen.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for elucidating that point and I shall return to that issue later in my remarks.

I should like to touch again on the issue of crime. My noble friend Lady Harris gave a particularly good account of the difficulties faced in rural policing. She touched also on the imaginative one-stop shop approach to re-open a police presence in rural areas. Again, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, whose speeches I always enjoy on these issues and no less today, talked of the possibility of mobile services. He also described the complex integrated approach of getting capital together to provide a village shop and post office, and highlighted the need for a similar integrated approach to a revenue package.

My noble friend Lord Phillips illustrated the problems faced by village shops. The Government have yet to understand the difficulties faced by local communities when they put together complicated packages first, to save something, and then to enable it to continue to run. The example of a shop not being ab7le to be a charity, illustrated by my noble friend, was particularly salient. I believe that the Countryside Agency is doing some work on some of the barriers to village shops, but far more consideration needs to be given by the Government to removing all the obstacles facing communities wanting to create their own facilities.

So through these years of declining services every government have shirked the idea of laying down a set of standards for access to services. Do we know how far it is reasonable to expect people to travel to a hospital or a food shop? How long a journey should a parent have to make to take a baby to childcare or a child to school before getting to work? Of course there are targets for emergency services, but there is very little provision for day-to-day living. The fact that national government have been remarkably silent on the issue of laying down standards for access to essential services has, again, enabled them to shirk the issue of what to do as regards closing essential services. People have no basis upon which to judge whether or not they are getting a raw deal if they have to make an hour's journey to see a doctor or take a £1 bus ride to buy a packet of aspirin.

In answer to the concern of my noble friend Lord Phillips about court closures, I am sure that the Minister will say that it is a local matter; and so it should be. However, it needs to be judged against a national view of how hard it may be for users to access alternatives. There could then be a real assessment, both locally and nationally, of the real costs of closure.

As we approach the next spending round, I hope that some of the problems highlighted by the Index of Local Deprivation, which is an excellent and jargon-free report, will give some indication of the extraordinary lack of information about how people can access services physically. When focusing on measuring access to services, it concludes that it can only be measured "as the crow flies". But very few crows are trying to access services. The report says that unfortunately detailed information is not available for the whole of England as regards the routes that public transport or cars would need to take to access services and that it is,

"unlikely ever to be available".

That will make life very difficult.

The Minister may choose to turn to new technology as the means that people will use more and more to access services which do not need an actual physical presence. Here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, in that it is a very exciting area. I do not fully understand the technology to which he referred. However, I serve as chair of my local food-links (set up by Somerset County Council) in which I must declare an interest. We are creating a website so that farmers may sell their produce direct to local businesses and, indeed, to local people. New technology is playing a huge role in commercial transactions of that nature, and also in service provision.

But what kind of work are the Government doing to prepare for these changes? Computer ownership and access is threatening to create a new type of two-class system—similar to that created by car ownership in the past century. If you have a smart new model, you can have better and faster access than people with an old model or none at all. This is already becoming an issue in schools where children with access to a computer at home are doing better at their homework. Government service planning needs to consult on ITC use and on how it can best be used for accessing services, especially in needy communities.

Our debate today has been about investment in communities. Up until very recently, services have been seen as distinct from one another; and, indeed, are still seen as such by some government departments. I believe that people are increasingly beginning to understand that diminishing one essential service has a knock-on effect on the way that the rest of the services work, or do not work, in their community.

In its key publication last year, A Better Quality of Life, the Government—and especially the Prime Minister in his foreword—spoke of the importance of living in strong communities. The Government identified their three key indicators for sustainable communities: Number 1 indicator was the number of local authorities with LA21 plans, so that is defined; the second indicator was "community spirit", but the Government say that that is an indicator simply to be developed. The Number 3 indicator was "voluntary activity" but, again, that was an indicator simply to be developed. Can the Minister say whether the Government have carried out any work on developing the "community spirit" indicator? If they have, can be tell us how communities are faring?

Community spirit is certainly what Liberal Democrats and Liberal Democrat local authorities invest in: it fights for essential services and gets together to build new community facilities, to repair old ones, to bring a baby clinic to the village hall or to start a lunch club for the older generation. The Government must realise the importance of community spirit or "social capital". Social capital is how you get on with your neighbours and how you help each other. It affects people's health and how safe they feel in their homes. That brings to mind some of the issues raised by my noble friend Lady Harris regarding the fear of crime and its perception. We need mixed communities—mixed by age, by income, by working and by being retired. Communities that share problems and create with local and national partners are vibrant and decent places in which to live. That is what we should all be working towards and investing in.

My Lords, this is a most timely debate coming as it does in the midst of the furore about the bank closures in rural areas and the future of sub-post offices both in such areas and in the inner cities. I add my thanks to those already expressed by others to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, for giving us the opportunity to discuss these pressing issues for those who live in isolated and/or deprived communities all over the country.

We have had a fascinating afternoon. Perhaps I may just mention a few points and then return to my brief. I was most interested by the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, because in a way what he said epitomised one of the problems facing us as a society. As we move forward, we need to be looking forward and using all the modern equipment that is available to us. At the same time, I very much support my noble friend Lord Selsdon in his desire, which I believe many in this Chamber would support, to keep the very things that we believe to be important in this life. I do not necessarily mean in the era upon which my noble friend reflected; namely, that of his youth. However, if we cannot have an interaction one to one, an understanding of one another's problems and a willingness to help one another, we shall in today's society, with all its modernism, be that much the poorer. I look to modernism because it has ways of helping us, but I very much hope that we preserve the things that most of us feel are of great value.

Perhaps I may also reflect on the very good contribution of my noble friend Lord Kimball. We share Leicestershire as home base; and, indeed, the noble Baroness opposite started her home life in the area. It was interesting to note that my noble friend recorded the "Country File" programme that focused on rural fears: 55 per cent burgled; 45 per cent have experienced vandalism; 20 per cent have experienced arson; and 10 per cent have suffered physical violence. As I listened to my noble friend giving us those statistics, I thought, "Yes, Hazel, you qualify on numbers one and two and your brother-in-law qualifies on number three". Fortunately, we do not qualify on number four—physical violence. But those of us who live in rural areas experience extreme difficulties from time to time.

It is very upsetting when one is burgled because someone actually enters your home. But as those of us involved in farming and in rural communities know very well, there is the deliberate—and I mean "deliberate"—vandalism to our property; for example, people coming along with wire cutters and opening gates. They then turn cattle out on to the roads, which could cause accidents. These are equally pressing problems for those who live in rural areas. I should like to express my thanks for the suggestions that came from the contributions to which I referred. Such matters are important in society today.

I am not against modernising. Last weekend, if I may go local again, the way in which we need to use modern techniques while having regard to our past experience was epitomised for me a t the Leicestershire County Show. I noticed the way in which one farmer promoted his product. He was using modern technology to do so, but he said that it was essential to have good husbandry in the first place. That is why he is producing good quality animals that people want to buy. That example fits in well with today's debate.

I, too, struggled a little over defining "essential services". Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, set us quite a task in that respect and many speakers produced their own themes. I should like to begin by concentrating on one or two of the obvious services.

First, I turn to banking. Banks are commercial institutions. They are in business to make profits. They make profits by offering financial services to individuals, to companies and to other bodies which either have enough money to need it serviced as opposed merely to held safely for a short time, or have enough money to be able to afford expenditure on a range of services, or have enough money to have acquired some of the more valuable items that money can buy such as property, foreign currency accounts or investments.

Even in these days of e-commerce banks prefer their customers to be situated in fairly large numbers close to each branch. By and large, banks do not find it profitable to site branches either in rural areas—only 9 per cent of English villages have one—or in deprived inner-city districts. People who live in such places have to travel, sometimes quite long distances, to visit their bank. They can switch from the bank of their choice to another which has a branch closer to their home if they are lucky enough to have that choice; they can switch to telephone banking, as many hundreds have; or they can make little or no use of banks and employ other methods of holding money, paying bills and gaining access to cash.

The latest regional development council survey of rural services found that only 57 per cent of villages still have post offices. Some 70 per cent of these have combined post offices and shops which are interdependent, as other noble Lords mentioned. I do not have figures for post offices in the inner cities—I do not know whether the Minister will be able to provide them—which are threatened with closure when the Government adopt automatic benefit payment. The new system will also pose great difficulties for those who live in heavily populated, deprived areas.

Government Minister Mr Rooker said on 24th January that the Government will pay benefits only into a bank account. Yesterday we discussed this at length. I should be happy for the Minister to respond to some of my points in writing. Will he compel one or more banks to open accounts for people whose sole income may be the benefit to which they are entitled and for people whose sum total of worldly goods may not even reach four figures? Will the Minister forbid those banks the right to charge account holders for converting computerised benefit transfers into hard cash? Will he assure us that he will institute a foolproof method to ensure that none of those accounts will be eligible for overdrafts, for personal loans or for security for credit cards at only 21.9 per cent APR. and an annual fee of a mere £10? The situation is frightening. It may cost the Government less in money terms to pay all benefits through ACT, but I remind the Minister that government are to a democratic people what oil is to the internal combustion engine—without it there is a horrible noise and nothing works for long.

I now turn to health. As recently as last night in "Case Notes" on Radio 4 we were assured of the proven links between health—or should I say ill health—and poverty, not even dire, old-fashioned Dickensian poverty but relative poverty. Mr Blair's study pronounced the quality of life in rural areas as being better in many respects than in conurbations. I have no doubt that those living in straitened circumstances in villages are likely to be healthier than their counterparts in the city. However, there are developments in health provision for both sets of people that cause me grave concern. Will the Minister confirm that the number of GPs applying for city vacancies is falling? Can he tell me how much of a work overload this is creating for existing city practitioners? Is the Minister also aware of persistent reports that practitioner committees are directing that one or two doctor practices, where an incumbent dies or retires, will be amalgamated with larger units? Can he say how many such moves have already been made and whether any of them has occurred in inner-city areas?

I have received a number of reports that primary care groups have instructed their members to stop writing repeat prescriptions to cover three or six-month periods, as has been past practice. If that is true, I am mainly concerned for those who have difficulty reaching a phone to ask for a prescription renewal or getting to the surgery to pick one up. However, this measure will also prove an added cost for those who are not exempt from prescription charges and I fear the resultant workload for doctors and their staff because of all those extra incoming calls, prescription forms and collection visits. Will the Minister explain what is going on and the reasons behind the measure and state whether it results from instructions issued by the Department of Health? For many years prescriptions have been left at some post offices for people to collect. That is an important role.

Several of the points that I have made under the health heading will have a considerable impact on transport requirements. Unfilled vacancies in GP practices, the closure of practices and increased frequency of prescriptions will all result in some patients having to travel further and more often to seek the help that they need. As has already been said, the problems of rural transport are well known. Therefore today I draw attention to a problem of inner-city transport.

It is possible for someone wishing to bring a child to London for the day from the Midlands to do so for as little as £1. However, someone who needs to take a child a mile and a half to a doctor or to a hospital appointment may be faced with a fare of at least that much. London Underground has a minimum fare of £2 for all children over five. Is the Minister aware of any moves to tackle this problem?

I return to the rural areas. The National Federation of Women's Institutes recently published its 1999 survey, The Changing Village, which considered the state of rural services. It contains many points of relevance to today's discussion. I hope that it will be widely read in the corridors of Whitehall. Among the most important demands for improvements is that for youth facilities in some remote rural areas where there are few such facilities. The survey listed four main concerns which have not all been mentioned today: housing, the closure of shops, the increase in traffic and the lack of public transport. I am sure that the Minister is aware of many of the good innovations in some rural areas. For example, youngsters in Warwickshire are loaned a bike for a year which enables them to travel to jobs that otherwise would be inaccessible. Other areas provide community bus services which are not included within the scope of rural buses. However, I understand that there is talk about the withdrawal of the VAT exemption from some of the charity/community bus services. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.

Yesterday I spoke at great length about post offices and the ACT system for the payment of benefits. Like the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, I, too, am a patron of VERSA, which helps to encourage the preservation of rural villages and their shops, which often also comprise post offices. It is difficult to decide which are the priority issues in this area. I refer to transport, post offices, health and dental services. In some areas it is becoming extremely difficult to access dental provision. Community hospitals and the withdrawal of some of their services have not been mentioned directly today. I refer also to appropriate housing, particularly in rural areas, and affordable housing for first-time buyers and for retired people. I believe that small businesses have not been mentioned. Rural areas contain many small businesses which survive, grow and, I hope, become big businesses. The majority of such businesses in rural areas employ fewer than 10 people.

Another matter that I touch on is education and accessibility to jobs. Another speaker mentioned magistrates' courts, and not only in Suffolk, where I know there is a problem. Colleagues in Derbyshire have experienced exactly the same situation where many magistrates' courts have been closed. It may be easier for those who work within the service, but for those who want to go to court and have to appear it is an extra cost which sometimes involves three or four changes of transport.

Before I sit down perhaps I may put one more question to the Minister as regards magistrates' courts. There is increasing use of stipendiary magistrates. I believe that communities are immensely important to us all in the Chamber tonight. Many of us have slight concerns about having more stipendiary magistrates rather than people who live and work in the community and who know it.

I am sorry that my winding-up speech has been so wide-ranging. In particular I thank noble Lords on my Benches who have spoken in the debate. I do not particularly envy the noble Lord in making his response but I know that we look forward to hearing it.

My Lords, I appreciate the noble Baroness's reply because, as a result of the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rogers of Quarry Bank, I have to act as a one-man joined-up government in a way which we do not have to do very often in this House. Therefore, I congratulate the noble Lord on laying the foundations for this debate, which is wide ranging, although it has some common themes. One of them, which he enunciated at the beginning of the debate, is that within our relatively prosperous economy there is a significant, and perhaps growing, proportion of people who are deprived in the traditional sense of the word, and who also lack access to services such as education, technology and jobs.

Much of the debate has focused on rural areas. In one sense one would expect that of this House. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for pointing out that many of the most inaccessible and isolated communities are in the centres of our cities. It is important that we treat both communities in that context.

The Government recognise that many of our communities are failing or going into retreat. Last month we published our consultation paper National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal. As many noble Lords will know, that stems from the 1998 report of the Social Exclusion Unit Bringing Britain Together and the recommendations of the 18 policy action teams whose activities are designed to tackle the deep-seated problems, particularly those of the deprived communities.

One can argue about the level of deprivation between rural areas and the inner cities and between one area of the country and another. We know the symptoms. Social exclusion is a shorthand label for what happens when individuals and communities suffer from a combination of linked problems. They include unemployment, low incomes, poor housing, poor skills, high crime rates, bad health and family breakdown. Whatever their general ideology and approach over the years, governments have long had policies to try to address those problems and, by and large, they have been addressed singly and, sadly, with mixed results.

What we are trying to do that is new in this area is to tackle the interaction between these problems and to prevent them to some extent arising in the first place. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, that we have a big inheritance in terms of decay in the infrastructure and services which we have to reverse. Many noble Lords have identified these problems as being the failure of state provision, government intervention, local authorities or of the services themselves.

It is also a failure of the market and changing economic circumstances. People are left behind as a result of progress. The problems associated with inner-city areas, perimeter estates and rural areas are the same. They include disillusionment, demoralisation and the misery of people in such situations. The problems know no geographical bounds. It is therefore crucial that the strategy we adopt addresses these different areas. It is also crucial that we engage with the other players in the communities, including the voluntary and private sectors, the public agencies and, most importantly of all, with the communities themselves.

Sustainable regeneration is not primarily about what government do for people or what they and other outside agencies do to people; it is about helping people to create neighbourhoods in which they wish to continue to live, work, and play. To quote the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, again it involves the recreation of a community spirit in a new age with new kinds of jobs, communities and industries in both rural and urban areas.

The debate has revealed visions which are in part nostalgic in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, and futuristic in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw. We need the merger of both. However, they both need people to identify with them and not to feel that those visions are being imposed on them.

The role of government in that respect is in part a question of the allocation of resources. The major reallocation of such resources in our system is, in a sense, through local government. The importance of such government in this area is vital. The balance of spending is determined by the priorities of national governments. In our review of local authority financing we are trying to devolve more decisions to the local authorities themselves.

One can always argue about the balance of spending and whether it totally reflects the real deprivation felt in rural and urban areas. One can argue that whatever index one uses, someone is going to feel that they have missed out.

Perhaps I may correct some of the impressions as regards recent allocations through the standard spending assessment; for example, the more sparsely inhabited areas have received average increases of 4.7 per cent and the shire counties 5.1 per cent, which are significantly above the 4.4 per cent average. Nevertheless, it is not just a question of the allocation of total resources, but of tackling the problems in relation to particular services identified in the course of this debate and beyond.

In view of the recent debates about crime and particularly rural crime, it is important not to get the recent hysteria out of proportion. It remains true that rural areas are relatively safe areas in which to live. I regret the degree of media and political opportunism which has arisen as regards particular cases in identifying the real problems of rural crime. It has grown, but it is still the case that it is less than one-third or one-half of the rate of crime in other areas of deprivation in our inner cities.

Police funding in that context was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, and others. It already reflects a sparsity element in recognising the additional costs involved in policing rural areas. Decisions on future funding will be taken up in the spending review to be announced in the summer. Some of the points to which the noble Baroness referred as regards police allocation can be addressed there. The resources for rural police, and her suggestion about retained police officers on the fire service model, are currently being studied by Home Office Ministers, as are other innovations in rural policing and crime concerning mobile police stations, better communications and the possible use of ancillary facilities.

The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, himself raised the question of whether rural areas will be able to bid for the reducing burglary initiatives. The sum of £60 million spread over three years is available on application from any area where there is a burglary problem, including rural areas.

The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, referred to the examination of the police funding formula, including the sparsity element. As I said, the formula is currently under examination for the current spending review.

I was slightly surprised by the reference that the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, made to the chief constable—I think he said—who indicated that those believed by the police to be the perpetrators of crime could not expect the police to offer appropriate protection, either to themselves or to their property. I find that a surprising comment for a police officer to make. I should be grateful if he or other noble Lords could furnish me with particular details, which I undertake to pass on to the Home Office. I hope that it is not true—I believe it not to be true—that that is the attitude of the police.

In relation to the issue of magistrates' courts, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, I take note of the noble Lord's concerns, which were reflected by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, about the closures of magistrates' courts and the way in which we conduct our justice system in rural areas. Formally speaking, of course, such decisions are matters for the Magistrates' Courts Committees. I shall ensure that those issues are raised with the Lord Chancellor's Department.

I move from the justice system to the slightly firmer ground—for myself—of rural and other transport. It is quite clear that good transport provision remains crucial to ensuring that people have the means to access all the other services we are concerned about, particularly in rural areas. Accessibility may simply be a function of remoteness and economic isolation.

I take many of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. We have to be realistic about transport in rural areas; for the foreseeable future a very large proportion of rural transport will continue to be conducted by private car. That does not mean that we can ignore those who are unable to drive, or cannot afford to drive, or do not want to. We need, therefore, to concentrate very much on the provision of bus and related services.

For some reason, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, referred to the White Paper before the one we published in 1998. Certainly in the intervening 20 years there was a serious decline in rural bus services and bus usage generally. Since then, this Government have gone into action and our initiatives to improve rural bus services are making a significant difference. There was another £50 million last year to provide additional services, and the first year of the rural bus subsidy grant generated 10 million extra passenger trips on more than 1,800 new or enhanced bus services. So I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, that this money has not been well spent. The allocation of the money depends on the number of small locations in local authorities, and has therefore primarily been used for rural routes.

Often though, fixed bus routes are not the most appropriate solution. We need to be more imaginative than to think only of "conventional" services. Our rural bus challenge grant system aims to encourage innovative travel projects and more flexible, on-demand services—perhaps something between a bus and a taxi—and there is possibly a role for bicycles in certain circumstances. To date, we have announced more than £28 million for 104 successful innovative schemes in this programme, providing start-up money for projects such as demand-responsive and community-based services.

The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw is correct: it is no use relying on buses if the roads are congested and the buses cannot move, whether we are talking about inner cities or congested trunk roads. The Government are determined to give a greater priority to buses, both in the cities and in other areas where there is a problem with road space. That means a combined and integrated policy of reducing car usage, of prioritising bus lanes, of effective enforcement and of building on the experiments in which we are now engaged in relation to safety cameras for the enforcement of speed restrictions, bus lanes and detection of other traffic offences. It also means a better system of information to potential consumers, as the noble Lord rightly pointed out.

All of this will be taken up by some of the powers in the Transport Bill, which the House will shortly be debating, and in the announcement we hope to make in the summer about the 10-year transport strategy. The Bill will strengthen the powers of local authorities. We will provide another £780 million this year for local transport capital spending, which will include bus priority measures, joint ticketing arrangements and better passenger information.

So far as concerns ticketing information, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, raised the issue of competition laws and the apparent contradiction between that and an integrated transport approach. We understand that the Office of Fair Trading is proposing to bring forward a blocking exemption, as he hinted. This would exempt most joint ticketing schemes from the Competition Act. We expect the draft to be produced quite soon. The Government have also promised to bring forward amendments to the Transport Bill to deal with competitive issues as they affect the local authorities' new bus powers. Again, we shall shortly be debating that matter in this House. The noble Lord also referred to concessionary fares. Again, a number of adjustments are being made which move in his direction.

Therefore, there is a whole package of measures in relation to improving rural transport in particular and to providing a more flexible system of transport within our inner cities. Transport is often I he key to access to the other services that have been referred to in relation to health and education.

Of course, rural areas are still heavily dependent on agriculture—and agriculture is in a poor state in many parts of the country at the moment. The Prime Minister, who met farmers' leaders a few weeks ago, set out a new programme of initiatives for the support of agriculture and agricultural change. Beyond that, however, we need to look at diversification within rural areas—the small businesses, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred; and the information technology, to which the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, referred. All of this is part of a transformation of the rural community into new services, new businesses and new technology, without abandoning the community spirit which often still exists within those areas.

Some of this requires government intervention and government help. The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, referred to the Countryside Agency and its loss of grant-making powers. That is not entirely true. Some of those powers have been transferred to the regional development agencies, but they will be for rural development purposes. Some of the grant-making facilities are still there within the Countryside Agency; for example, the scheme for the support of small shops.

I move as rapidly as I can to the issue of banking services and the post office network within rural areas in particular, which probably provoked this debate in the first place. The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, referred to his ambition to be both a lay preacher and a local Midland Bank manager. It is quite clear that he would have made an excellent lay preacher; I reserve judgment as to whether he would have made a great hank manager.

My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. I like to feel that the pressure that we, on all sides of the House, could put on the banks would be considerable if it came from Leicester. In order to be the chief general manager of the Midland Bank, it was always deemed that one had to be, first of all, the manager of the Leicester branch.

My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Farrington and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, are present, I am not going to disagree with that.

It is clear that in terms of both quality of life and economic viability, the financial sector is very important. We have made it clear to the banks that we expect them to play their part in eliminating financial exclusion, which is an important part of social exclusion. They need to develop appropriate products and delivery channels to ensure that they reach people in deprived communities. That does not necessarily mean that we can expect the reopening of all the banks that have closed over the past half-decade or so in both inner cities and rural areas. There is no single solution; diversity and choice are important.

I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that we are encouraging the main banks to develop accounts with no overdraft facilities and no frills—bank accounts which are appropriate for the kind of people who at present do not have bank accounts but whose failure to have access to financial facilities is not only an enormous financial loss to themselves but a social cost to the community as a whole. I am pleased to say that some of the banks are committed to this concept. We need to ensure that they all are. To respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, we are not going to compel the banks to issue bank accounts to people to whom they would not otherwise issue them, but we are encouraging them to have a broader view of their role, which eventually must be profitable and commercial to them as well.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is he able to comment on the article in yesterday's Independent on the establishment of a social bank for the 2 million people who do not have a bank account if the banks are not to be forced to provide banking services? If he is not able to comment, I quite understand.

My Lords, the noble Baroness ha .s the advantage of me in having read the Independent yesterday. I am aware of general provisions in relation to social banking, some of which relate to what I am about to mention in relation to the Post Office.

Before we leave banking as such, there is a problem if banks do not seize this opportunity to play a more social role in these communities. There is a problem for them, and their image has seriously suffered. The other week I was accused of calling for a boycott of the banks when in the very same breath I had denied that I was calling for a boycott of a major bank. But that is the way it goes. What I was concerned about is the banks' boycott of customers. Indirectly, they are effectively boycotting some of the rural area customers who have relatively simple banking requirements. We have to change.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, referred to new financial arrangements for the Post Office being part of the Link arrangements and to the Post Office's role there. It would be disingenuous to pretend that the Post Office is not also under serious pressure. It has lost 10 per cent of its network over the past decade. But we are committed to the maintenance of a nation-wide network of post offices. The role the Post Office can play may well change as a result of arrangements it is making with the banks. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, was deeply sceptical about the Horizon project, but in the immediate period it is technologically quite important—the automation of all post offices by 2001. To date, a quarter of them have been converted. As the noble Lord said, a significant amount of money is going into the Horizon project. That will be an efficient delivery mechanism, but it needs to be sufficiently flexible to move into the next stage of modernisation, including taking advantage of the ADSL operations, which even in rural areas will probably be commercially viable for BT.

In immediate terms, customers of certain banks—the Alliance and Leicester, again, the Giro Bank, the Co-op Bank and Lloyds TSB—already have access to banking services at post offices. We now have an extension to Barclays customers and Co-op Bank customers in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Once the Horizon programme is fully implemented, those agency agreements could enable the Post Office to play a major role effectively as a social bank but in co-operation with the banking community as a whole.

The right reverend Prelates, the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, and others criticised the decisions in relation to the payment of benefits. We are committed to the migration of all benefit payments to secure electronic means by 2005. That has been made clear by my colleagues. However, we have also given—my noble friend Lord Sainsbury mentioned this yesterday—an assurance that those claimants who wish to continue to collect their benefits in cash at post offices will continue to be able do so. We will therefore see a Post Office providing both traditional banking services and locking itself into Internet-based services. One can envisage a situation where post offices develop beyond that, much on the lines envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw—either for banks or village halls or village shops—and where they form the basis in this Internet society of other information services for rural communities, or act as bases for larger retail outlets—the relationship between village shops and Sainsbury was referred to—as a way of delivering services, both physical and electronic, to the inhabitants of our more remote communities. Post offices seem to be well placed to play a major role in those developments, as do village shops and other village-based outlets.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked whether we would trigger the clauses in the Postal Services Bill relating to subsidy. We are currently awaiting a report from the Performance and Innovation Unit on the future of post office networks. While we put the enabling power in the Bill, we will need to assess the situation in the future. The major revenue stream from the Benefits Agency will not cease to operate through post offices before 2003. In that sense we can take a reasonably medium-term approach to future potential subsidies.

Many other areas were referred to. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, referred to libraries. I accept some of what he said, but I also recognise that library services, particularly in some of the smaller libraries, need to develop and modernise. There was a fair degree of concentration on the health service. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, was to the forefront in referring to the need to develop the health service. We have established primary care trusts and primary care groups. We have established health action zones, which now cover 50 per cent of the population of England—some 13 million people—who live in deprived areas. The noble Lord referred to NHS Direct. I appreciate that there are differing views on that. I nevertheless appreciated the noble Lord's comments. We are talking here about a 24 hours a day, seven days a week service which already covers 65 per cent of the population of England. It represents a major increase in accessibility to NHS services and one which should benefit many of the more deprived people who do not have a continuing relationship with their GP, particularly in inner-city areas but also in some rural areas where there is not a convenient GP surgery.

There are substantial problems of investment, staff planning and motivation, to which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred. Many of those can be dealt with within the substantially increased allocation to the health service which the Chancellor announced in the Budget Statement. That will include the development of walk-in centres located in areas of which, one hopes, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would approve, and well as some others. We will look at the way in which we use staff, including, for example, the prescribing powers of nurses and other paramedics. It will also involve mobile delivery services and the engagement of local pharmacies with GPs in order to provide a very direct and accessible service, particularly on estates and in rural areas.

I have rushed my speech and I have still managed to take up 26 minutes, which shows what a wide-ranging debate it has been. I hope that on other issues I may write to noble Lords, in some cases after consulting colleagues on their areas of responsibility. It has been a worthwhile and timely debate. I reject the deeply pessimistic note that the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, struck at one point in his address. In order for us to address the problems of rural areas and rural poverty, and of inner-city areas and inner-city poverty and isolation, we need a combination of government action and of facilitating self-help in those areas. That involves both local and national leadership. It involves a degree of joined-up government. It involves co-operation between the private, voluntary and public sectors. It involves a serious degree of engagement of all public and private service providers in those areas. It involves reasonable access to essential community services.

How we define "reasonable" and how we define "essential" has probably not been completely addressed in the course of the debate. But we all know broadly what we are talking about and we all know that a significant percentage of our population currently suffers, and probably suffers more than it would have done in relative terms, and in some cases in absolute terms, from lack of access to those services, from isolation and from cumulative deprivation. Our neighbourhood renewal strategy must address those problems; and, together, we must address the prevalent trend in some of those areas; namely, of both public and private services in retreat—which means, in consequence, that those neighbourhoods are in retreat.

As I hope noble Lords will appreciate, the Government have made an energetic start. We do not believe that we have yet tackled all of the problems as effectively as we need to. We are building on that in terms of the allocation of resources and joining up activity, and in terms of the priorities of government. It is only a start. People in deprived communities striving to make a better life for themselves deserve more from us, and the Government are committed to ensuring that that happens.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has done as well as any Minister could have done in replying to so diverse a debate. I thank the Minister on behalf of the other 14 contributors for all that he has said, and for the fact that, in so far as he has failed to answer any specific questions, his Private Secretary will be busy making sure that there are letters for him to sign.

The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, who is no longer in his place, said that the debate had been one long whinge. That is precisely what it has not been. I have been restored by the extent to which local initiatives of one kind or another, referred to on all sides of the House, hold out more hope than otherwise might be the case for many of the deprived areas.

In his spirited comment, the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, suggested that there was a particular interest on these Benches in the issues raised. He is right. But I believe that it is shared by Members on all sides of the House who are deeply concerned with problems of deprivation, whether mainly in the countryside, which we have principally discussed today, or in towns, cities and urban areas in general.

We shall return to these matters in due course but, meanwhile, in thanking all those who have taken part in the debate, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Gardner of Parkes.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

moved the amendment:

Page 1, line 12, at end insert-

(""hedge" means a number of woody plants, whether capable of growing into trees or not, which are so planted as to be intended to be in line and, when mature, to be so integrated together as to form both a screen and a barrier;")

I rise to support the amendment, and also to express some disappointment. Before the House went into Recess, after collaboration with the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, I asked her to add my name to the amendment. As the Clerk at the Table will tell us, that is not appropriate, and I needed to speak directly. I was given the telephone number of the Clerk on duty during the Recess. I telephoned him last Friday and asked him to put my name down. When I came to the House yesterday and found that it had not been added to the amendment, the Clerk in the Printed Paper Office was kind enough to say that perhaps the provision only begins to operate when the House returns, and therefore it should be down today. Unfortunately, it is not down today. I note that I have the attention of the Clerk at the Table. I hope that he may cause inquiries to be made as to why, having spoken to the proper source, my publicised support for the amendment was not made available to the packed Benches listening with avid attention to what is undoubtedly a major legislative matter.

The situation as the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, and I see it is simply this. First, we are grateful for the progress that has been made by what might be called the hedge industry, the hedge agitators, or the group of people—the many thousands—who want to see some improvement made. For many years, primary legislation has been required, and there is enormous pressure on time. The Minister who will reply will recognise, as we do, the enormous burden that is carried by her department on a range of issues. We should be hard put to it to make out a case that this should take precedence over other pressing matters. Nevertheless, those who are affected are often frightened, timid and poor; they cannot face the prospects of a court case possibly costing tens of thousands of pounds. A very good friend of mine, Michael Jones, spent a fortune and eventually won, but the case had to go through the courts.

The purpose of this provision is to take the burden off the individual resident and place it on a third party. The Government fairly and helpfully produced a document entitled high hedges/possible solutions which offers four options for action. The one that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner or Parkes, I and many others favour is Option 4. I hope that the Minister can tell us a little about where the 3,000 replies fall. I am convinced that the vast majority of them will favour Option 4.

In essence, Option 4 provides that,

"Legislative provisions could be introduced for a tailor-made system for taking action against hedges which cause problems. There are at present no relevant powers to introduce such measures through secondary legislation. Primary legislation would, therefore, be required.

"One approach would be to allow people who have problems with high hedges to complain to a third party, probably the local authority. If the authority upheld the complaint, it would specify the remedial action necessary and enforce it".

That encapsulates not merely the solution but all of the problems in arriving at the solution. Ultimately, in most planning matters enforcement is the nub. It is all very well having legislative provisions, sections and subsections, but how do we enforce what the law lays down?

There is a range of options and possibilities. I was very pleased at the enormous breadth of the consultation that took place. I hope the Minister will refer to it. The document contains a list of consultees, including the Association of London Government—and I declare an interest as vice-president. There is a body called Birch Homes. I wonder which branch that is! The list also includes Fairview Homes; the Federation of Private Residents' Association; Hedgeline; Leech Homes; the Local Government Association; and Mediation UK—it may have a part to play in this. It goes on to mention the National Farmers Union and the National Housing Federation. I congratulate the Government on the breadth of the consultation. Perhaps the document is itself part of the reason why this matter has come before the Committee. It is understandable that people should spend a good deal of time on this matter because the options are explained and the arguments are teased out so well.

At the end of the day, this amendment seeks to keep alive a Bill which, as the noble Baroness and I recognised at Second Reading, could not proceed without government support. If the Government say tonight that they are not in a position to be more helpful than to tell us that 3,000 responses have been received but not what they say nor what they intend to do in response—it is for the noble Baroness opposite to decide what to do with the Bill but the Government should be under no illusion that there are thousands of people with legitimate concerns to raise.

I have an interest in people who live in park homes. Sometimes the site owners are very bad. Some of the people who live on these sites are old, frail, frightened and poor and require muscle from someone who is willing to use it: the Government. The noble Baroness and I and many others, including the Minister who is to reply, have served on local authorities. The Minister will understand that, if local government is to have a sufficient number of officers to carry out this task, an enormous burden will be placed on it. Unless we deal with the little people and the little issues, the quality of life in this country will be the poorer.

I look forward with a great deal of interest to hearing what my noble friend has to say. I fully support the amendment, which has been properly tabled and whose genesis can be found in the report itself. In paragraph 5.25, one sees:

"A definition of a hedge which has been used in a civil legal judgement is 'a number of woody plants, whether capable of growing into trees or not, which are so planted as to be intended to be in line and which, when mature, to be so integrated together as to form both a screen and a barrier'".

That is precisely the wording of the amendment. If that definition is good enough for the courts it should be good enough for the Committee. I fully support the amendment.

This amendment and the Bill as a whole have the support of these Benches. We hope that the Government will find time to support the legislation. We regard the planting of particular kinds of trees not only as environmentally undesirable but as an instrument to be used aggressively to bully vulnerable neighbours. We support the amendment.

I echo the definition that is offered in the amendment to which my noble friend referred. Some time ago I recall looking at a wide variety of former enclosure Acts. In those Acts the word "fence" was frequently used as a description of a hedge. The description offered in this amendment is far more appropriate than "fence", which would not necessarily be regarded as a hedgerow in the 21st century. I trust that noble Lords will be sympathetic to the amendment and ensure that the Bill completes its Committee stage rapidly.

I support my noble friend's amendment which provides a good, commonsense description of a hedge. Sufficient has already been said in the Chamber. We on these Benches await with interest the response of the Minister.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for giving us a further opportunity to discuss the problems caused by some residential hedgerows and specifically to consider the question of what is a hedge. The noble Baroness's amendment to this Bill seeks to define what constitutes a hedge and thus what type of boundary feature might be subject to inspection by environmental health officers to determine whether they are a statutory nuisance. The definition proposed by the noble Baroness supported fully, if not in name, by my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton, is taken from the legal judgment in the case involving Michael Jones, the founder of Hedgeline. That definition was also mentioned in our consultation paper to which reference has been made. The paper recognised the need for any new legislation to specify the types of hedges to be covered and to ensure that any system of control focused on problem hedges. It also suggested that the definition used in Michael Jones's case might be a good starting point but sought views on possible alternatives.

While, therefore, the noble Baroness's amendment represents one possible way to define a hedge, we want to reflect further on the matter in the light of the results of the consultation. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, and my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton have pressed me in advance of today's Committee stage to say something about progress with our consultation on possible solutions to nuisance hedge problems. As the Committee will recall, the Government sought views on four options, which included voluntary and legislative action. We are currently analysing some 3,000 responses. We made clear from the beginning that we did not have a preferred solution but looked to respondents to help us to decide whether more should be done to relieve this source of long-running and distressing neighbourhood disputes. We shall take account of the best way forward and hope to make a statement by the summer setting out our decisions and the reasons for them.

The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, and my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton have asked about the nature of the responses. I do not believe that it would be helpful at this stage to seek to go into details. The Committee will be as impressed as the Government by the number and range of the responses, including nearly 200 from local authorities, which represents about a 40 per cent response rate. The noble Baroness and my noble friend are worried that we are not moving quickly enough. We understand that people feel they can wait no longer for an answer to their problems. However, these are sensitive issues and it is important that we consider them carefully.

We have heard much today, and on previous occasions, about hedge victims and the bullying and problems that can occur, which have been witnessed by me and other members of the Government. But a hedge has two sides. The responses to the consultation show that some owners believe that they have a right to deal with, for example, the intrusion of noise or being overlooked from neighbouring properties and they do not see why the law should interfere. As ever, we recognise the need for a balance to be struck. If we rush in without thinking it through properly the law may become unenforceable, which will help no one. It is important that we arrive at the right answer.

The noble Baroness offers her Bill as a possible vehicle to implement any government proposals for legislative action on nuisance hedges. It represents, however, only one of the possible options to deal with hedge problems. The consultation paper included other legislative solutions as well as some that did not involve passing new laws. Noble Lords will understand, therefore, that I would be pre-judging our consideration of the consultation responses if I were to commit us today to supporting or amending the noble Baroness's Bill.

I understand people's desire for early action to bring them relief from the ills associated with these hedges. The noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton believe that the Bill offers a simple solution to nuisance hedge problems, building as it does on the established system for dealing with statutory nuisances. However, as I explained to noble Lords at Second Reading, the Government have concerns about whether using the statutory nuisance regime to control hedging is the best answer. The main point to bear in mind is that currently statutory nuisance laws regulate activities that are prejudicial to health. The courts have shown that they expect more stringent tests to be satisfied for any matter to be a statutory nuisance. Therefore a person would need to establish that there was a direct causal link between the alleged nuisance and an illness.

In the case of problem hedges, the matter is far from straightforward and the outcome in any particular case uncertain. Therefore we have to consider whether the statutory nuisance route is unlikely to provide the clear-cut remedy that the noble Baroness and my noble friend seek to address in raising the plight of nuisance hedges.

I repeat: we understand people's desire for early action but the best way we can serve them is by making certain that we come up with workable solutions. We should have more to say on the matter in the summer.

Before the noble Baroness sits down—I may have missed this point—we are told that consideration is being given to the 3,000 responses. After three months she is unable to give us positive news. Can she tell us when she expects the outcome from the analysis of replies to be available? From her long experience, the Minister will understand that this private measure needs to clear its stages in the House of Lords and in another place—and we know what can happen in the month of July to Bills which do not have government approval.

As I said, what the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, does at the next stage is entirely within her gift. However, the Minister may be able to help us. We do not intend to allow the issue to go away. The Bill may not be the solution, but we should like to engage with the Government on the best way forward.

I am sorry not to be able to be more helpful to my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton than to repeat that we understand the urgency of the situation. We hope to be able to make an announcement in the summer about the evaluation and the Government's preferred option with regard to the different choices.

Of this year?

The summer of this year. Before I seek to sit down, the only thing that I can say with any certainty—and I cite one of my noble friends on another occasion—is that summer follows spring and precedes autumn; and I cannot be drawn further on the time.

I thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on the amendment, which has clarified the present position. It is a long time since the consultation ended on 31st January. It is natural that people are impatient.

I have received many letters, but perhaps I may refer to two which I have received in the past couple of days. One sought to deal with the issue through an anti-social behaviour order. The person stated:

"I have tried without success to get the police to act on an antisocial behaviour order and I enclose a copy of the Prime Minister's speech at the Labour Party Conference stating that it is within the police powers to act; also a recent letter from the Home Office stating a similar line, all to no avail".

The Home Office letter is a detailed page in small print. The writer highlights the relevant part of the Prime Minister's speech stating that,

"from April antisocial neighbours can be taken to court and punished. I say to the police, use those powers, and I say to the public, help the police to make them work".

The writer is upset that having tried in every way he can to use the antisocial legislation, he has had no success.

The other letter goes on at great length for a couple of pages, but one paragraph is headed "Government policy" and states that the question at the core of this issue is whether a small number of bullies should be allowed to cause grievance and nuisance to neighbours and reduce the value of neighbours' homes. It asks whether, alternatively, the Government will stand up to the many against the bullying few as they promised to do when elected in 1997.

I have referred to those letters because they were the most extreme in their declarations. But other letters have reflected the great frustration and unhappiness being caused. The Minister says that there are two sides to a hedge. There certainly are: the sunny, bright, light side; and the dark, shady side. I agree with the noble Baroness when she says that the answer must be right and enforceable. I should like to say how greatly I appreciate the helpfulness of the noble Baroness and of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, when approached with questions on this issue. I appreciate that the Government want the solution to be thorough and right. But it cannot be right that the only person who has succeeded at present is Michael Jones. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, mentioned the cost; but he did not say that the case had taken 20 years. I have received many letters saying that people cannot believe that any issue could take 20 years.

I agree that the consultation document is somewhat complex. The writers of some letters have enclosed copies of their responses to the department. I have some sympathy with the department on the time it will take to analyse those responses. Some indicate that they like option four, but also like a little bit out of option one, and perhaps a taste of option two. On reading the letter, one hardly knows which option the writer supports. If more people have written with a clear-cut answer, it will be easier to analyse the responses. Otherwise the analysis will be extremely difficult.

The noble Baroness referred to the regulation of activities prejudicial to health. There are clear-cut cases. We have received correspondence from women whose husbands have died from the worry caused by such cases. So it is not the case that one cannot establish that the situation is prejudicial to health. However, the Minister referred to the courts' expectations. I do not think that the majority of cases would come to court. In the vast majority of cases, a word from the council—and I emphasise that the council would come only if requested to do so, and it should be able to charge for its services; it would be wrong otherwise—would draw an individual's attention to his hedge. While sometimes the nuisance is deliberate and the bullying element comes into the matter, it is at other times simply a lack of care and thoughtlessness. People do not notice the hedge because it does not affect their light. They are on its sunny side.

I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment. I commend it.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.

rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to encourage the use of vehicles powered by environmentally friendly fuels.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the fuels used by vehicles and the effect that they have on both air quality and climate change. I believe that these issues are generally well-known and understood. It is my contention that the Government are doing well but could do a little better. That is the premise of the debate.

The Government have already set up the cleaner vehicles taskforce, which will soon publish a further report with recommendations for the Government. I thought that its previous report in August 1999 was good, but how much of it is being acted upon? We have the policies, but we are moving too slowly and other countries may be getting ahead of us.

I welcome, as elements in government policy, the air quality strategy, the Energy Saving Trust's powershift programme, the climate change programme and the DTI's foresight vehicle and advanced fuel cell programme. I hope that the successful candidate for Mayor of London will agree to consider the issue as important and decide that it is far better to use a carrot than just a stick and provide incentives for cars and other vehicles which use environmentally friendly fuels and want to come into the City of London.

I believe that the use of fuels can influence not just noise levels but emissions such as carbon dioxide, benzene, carbon monoxide, particulates, sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen and ozone. There are several types of environmentally friendly fuel. Some can be used immediately in existing vehicles while others have high conversion costs. We as a country should not be backing only one system, but should be examining the various systems and seeing which turn out to be the best.

There are four basic approaches. First, there are reformulations of petrol and diesel; for example, lead-free petrol, low benzene petrol, ultra-low sulphur diesel and ultra-low sulphur petrol. Secondly, there are alternative fuels of which there are two main types: liquid petroleum gas and compressed natural gas. Thirdly, there are the electric options: batteries and fuel cells. Fourthly, there are the hybrids: the use of petrol and LPG, or the use of petrol and an electric battery together in one vehicle.

The electric battery has a constraint on the distance which can be travelled before it is recharged. Fuel cells do not have that constraint, but they have another difficulty; that is, the high cost of manufacture. Developments have taken place. For instance, a company called ZeTek Power has developed a zero emission taxi which was first unveiled in July 1998. Furthermore, trams and trolley buses represent an environmentally friendly option. The costs of producing some of the vehicles which can use LPGs, electricity and so forth, are high. The people who want to use them say that prices would fall if we could achieve economies of scale.

Several vehicle manufacturers are developing their own approach to green vehicles and there are therefore many different solutions. I am grateful to those which have written to me with their suggested way forward. For example, Toyota has developed a vehicle called Prius. It is a hybrid using petrol combined with an electric motor and it is the first mass-produced hybrid car in the world. It will be sold in the UK within four or five months. Peugeot believes that diesel is the best way forward. Vauxhall believes that the fuel cell is eventually the way forward, but that in the meantime more should be done to encourage LPG in duel fuel vehicles using gas and petrol. It believes that LPG could be an important way forward, but there are high costs of conversion. Of course, there are insufficient refuelling points for people who have converted. The ZeTek company is developing fuel cells which can be refuelled with hydrogen and I understand that the operation takes just five minutes. However, charging an electric battery car can take several hours, if not the whole night.

Regrettably, because of lack of government backing or that of other agencies, ZeTak is building a factory in Cologne after scrapping plans to build in Ramsgate, Kent. However, I understand that it is talking to Rover at Longbridge, so perhaps with some Government encouragement there will be a way forward.

There are other examples of good practice. Safeway has a fleet of natural gas powered vehicles. Honda is moving in that direction. A factory in Ballymena, Northern Ireland, makes electric buses. Camden has a 16-seater community bus in which I have travelled. It takes people to old people's day centres or disability day centres and has a range of 200 miles. The battery can be charged overnight and therefore journeys can be planned. I understand that Westminster City Council has a fuel cell van for use in parks.

Nevertheless, I believe that we are slipping behind other countries. I visited Rome some time ago and saw in the city centre small electric buses taking people on shorter journeys in that area. As regards LPG, other countries are way ahead of us. The Netherlands has 400,000 LPG vehicles; Italy has 1 million; France has 150,000; and according to industry estimates we have about 15,000 LPG and CNG vehicles. It was earlier estimated that, given the right policy framework, there was a potential market in this country of 500,000 LPG vehicles by 2003. I fear that that looks unlikely.

I now turn to the suggestions that I want I o make to the Government. The first concerns a range of duties and charges. I welcome the fact that in the Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland the Government said:

"central government has a role to play in providing the overarching regulatory and fiscal framework that promotes cleaner, more efficient vehicles and fuels".

I believe that there are a number of ways forward. For example, why not allow cars which use the most environmentally friendly fuel—and by that we would mean electric cars—to park free of charge on sites where parking is allowed? I understand that Westminster City Council has such a scheme, although I have never seen the details. There are also opportunities within vehicle excise duty and fuel duty—and within congestion charges if they are introduced—to balance the situation more in favour of vehicles which are environmentally friendly.

Some of the changes are short-term and others will take longer. We might in the short term have to do more to develop those changes which can be made quickly and then concentrate on those which will take longer. Therefore, my second suggestion is that there should be a differential to support the introduction of low sulphur petrol. Next March, the Chancellor intends to introduce a 1p differential, which I believe is too low. The take-up of cleaner vehicles by the bus industry is somewhat constrained by the fuel duty rebate and I wonder whether a greater incentive could be given to the use of cleaner fuel.

However, there are serious problems when petrol stations want to sell LPG; they must obtain planning permission, which can take a long time. Can anything be done to help them? I also believe that the Government, local government and the public sector as a whole can set an example. I wonder how much the Government are doing by using some of the environmentally friendly vehicles. Even the use of ultra-low sulphur diesel would be a step forward as the change can be made easily. I believe that there is a need for a long-term commitment—say, five years—in order that any tax or duty advantages can become part of the system to encourage manufacturers and customers to make a change. For example, it would be useful if there were a longer-term duty differential between LPG and diesel. I believe that it would be right to reduce the duty on products such as LPG to the EU minimum. There is a need for capital allowances where vehicles must be converted and also a need to install refuelling points. Here, I refer to LPG but the same applies also to other fuels. We need to look at greater vehicle excise duty concessions, including those for company cars, for environmentally-friendly vehicles.

I wonder what the Government are doing with regard to fuel cell research and other research in the UK. What is being done to encourage the location of manufacturing plant here? I do not want to see all those developments take place simply in other countries. Presumably, whereas the EU exercises constraints on subsidies to motor car manufacture, there would be fewer such constraints on research spending. I wonder what the Government can do to help in that direction over and above what is already taking place. I have already referred to Rover at Longbridge, and I wonder whether more could be done to encourage this type of research there.

I turn to a suggestion which arose in the Cleaner Vehicles Task Force report with regard to grading vehicles. Perhaps all vehicles could be graded, say, from A to E in terms of their greenness and their beneficial effect on the environment, rather as white goods in shops are graded A to E. Then, benefits in terms of free parking and nil excise duty, and so on, would be possible.

Finally, I believe that the proposals that I have mentioned should be accompanied by publicity. Again, that was recommended by the Cleaner Vehicles Task Force. It is only right that where a public vehicle uses an environmentally-friendly fuel, that should be writ large on the sides of the vehicle so that people know that that is happening and that the Government are setting an example and, indeed, developing the environment. Therefore, many things can be done. I know that some are being done already. However, I believe that they could be speeded up and I should like to see more energy and enthusiasm behind the initiatives. I hope that the Government will respond along those lines.

My Lords, I am enormously grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for giving us the opportunity to have this debate. As several noble Lords will know, I have an interest to declare as a director of ZeTek Power, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has already referred. It is a company which makes fuel cells, some of which end up in vehicles. Therefore, in parts my speech will be biased, but I hope also in parts well informed. I am sure that the Minister will be wise enough to separate the two and respond accordingly.

This debate asks the Government to encourage the use of vehicles powered by environmentally-friendly fuels. Why should the Government do that? For the foreseeable future, the vast majority of vehicles will continue to be powered by good old petrol and diesel, and environmentally-friendly fuels will remain restricted to a small number of vehicles. They will, as it were, be a flea on the elephant of the great vehicle industry. It is far more important for most of us that the emissions from the elephant are controlled than that we should have a few more fleas on it.

At first sight, it is not obvious why the Government should do a great deal, and perhaps that is why this and past governments have not done a great deal. There is a strong public wish to see something done and there has always been a cosmetic level of support for natural gas and other technologies. I believe that the Government have always understood the need to participate in this kind of public exercise in order to encourage the automotive companies and others to take seriously the need to improve their own act in reducing, as it were, the elephant's emissions. In that, I believe that over the long term the Government have succeeded.

However, I believe that there is another strong reason why the Government should wish to move further in the direction suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs; that is, the probable creation of a very substantial set of new industries in this area. I believe that the recent events at Longbridge and the possible future events at Dagenham should have brought home to us all the danger of not being the country where a large industry is based and of having reached the position where we are not at the research and manufacturing heart of those industries. Thus, when jobs come to be shed and when reorganisation takes place, it is our workers and our industry that suffer.

It is important that we should take measures now to ensure that new industries are based here. We are doing that in a Bill already before this House with regard to e-commerce—a little late but, none the less, welcome. We should be doing that in the industries which will, with good fortune, come to exist in the area of environmentally-friendly fuels.

There are two important things that the Government can do to help: first, regulation; and, secondly, practice. Regulation is, of course, the stick with which they can beat people into doing what they want. However, it is also a hurdle which is placed in the way of anyone who tries to develop a new product or a new service in this country. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, pointed out, many hurdles stand before people who try to produce environmentally-friendly vehicles and who work on environmentally-friendly fuels. Complicated regulations surround vehicle production on anything but the tiniest scale.

As yet, there has been no great government effort to get out there and find what the industry needs by way of new regulations. Inevitably, new questions will be raised, particularly when electric vehicles become common in any form. First, they will be silent. You can no longer rely on the noise of an approaching car to warn you not to step out into the road. Secondly, they will probably be a potent source of electrical interference. These matters need to be considered well in advance One cannot wait until companies are producing hundreds of such vehicles a year, then step in and say, "Halt. We need five years to consider what is going to go on here".

If we want to encourage these industries to develop here and if we want to encourage the big North American companies which are leading some areas of fuel cell research, for example, to base some of their operations here, we need to provide the type of environment where their initial products will be welcomed. That means that we must get going now on ensuring that, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, the right regulations on vehicles and on planning permission for refuelling stations are put in place.

There is also a need to become involved in practice; that is, to ensure that the Government encourage in their own activities the use of those vehicles. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, Westminster has purchased a fuel cell van from ZeTek. Others in the local authority area may well follow, but as yet government have taken no action. While there is no distribution infrastructure for the fuels used by those vehicles and, naturally, they remain considerably more expensive than petrol vehicles, it is very important that the tax policy on those fuels none the less offers an advantage to users of the fuels.

This is the type of situation which we should like to find in this country. It is one which exists in Germany and in the United States. The welcome given there to those new technologies is of an order of magnitude greater than that available in this country. That is the fundamental reason why, having tried for several years to obtain government support for building a factory in this country, in a few short months we have found ourselves in the heart of the hydrogen infrastructure and government-funded research infrastructure in the Ruhr and hope shortly to be in a similar position in New York.

It would be wonderful if this country would wake up to the opportunities that exist. Even John Brown of BP recognised in his Reith Lecture that the hydrogen economy is coming. Of course, hydrogen is not an energy source; it is merely an energy carrier. However, it is the most likely convenient energy carrier for the medium-term future when we are beginning to rely on all kinds of different potential sources of energy. There is a big infrastructure to be developed. Hydrogen can be environmentally friendly in its production and is certainly environmentally friendly in its use. Like the Internet, we are at a very early stage when there are many opportunities, many companies and many ideas which will turn out to be failures. However, it is important that enough of them should arise here so that some of the successes also occur here.

Fuel cells are by no means the only technology. Microturbines, Sterling engines and all sorts of other things are happening, none of which seem to be receiving significant support from this Government. There are all sorts of sub-technologies associated with fuel cells: reformers, capacitors, batteries, electric control systems, material science, to mention a few, all of which would be enormously helped if there was a growing industry in fuel cells in this country. In addition, there are all sorts of spin-offs of fuel cells for end users which, should they be developed to a point where they are more commercial than they are at the moment, would make a great impact on transport, refrigeration, buildings and all sorts of other industries.

We are very well placed in this country, with a host of small engineering companies and a long tradition of engineering excellence, to make use of developments in the area of environmentally friendly power sources, if the development takes place here, so that those small companies can on their own doorstep become involved with the originating companies and the expertise, rather than having to wait for some big American company to import the finished product.

It would be very nice to see, for instance, the Government's Powershift project having more room in it for fuel cells. It does not at the moment seem to. Most of the money goes to natural gas, which is finite. In my opinion, what appears to be happening, namely picking winners, is not the right way to go about this. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, it is important to encourage as many alternatives as possible. We are in a ferment of opportunity. All sorts of things are happening. It is impossible to tell which technology will turn out to be right at the end of the day. There are so many different alternatives. There is so much to be done in all of them. It is important not to pick the winner but to hold the race here, so that the winning takes place in this country for the benefit of our citizens.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is a Minister in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. All three areas are involved in this subject. The environment is obviously involved; transport, for the benefits that this new industry could bring to our whole transport industry; the regions, because, when it comes to clean air, the benefits of environmentally friendly fuels happen locally. One of the great observations that I bring back from Germany and the United States is that it is regional enthusiasm, the enthusiasm of the City of Cologne, the enthusiasm of the City of New York, that makes things happen. Concentrating these matters too much in central government seems in this country to have a stultifying effect. I hope that the noble Lord will encourage his Ministry to learn from this and that we might see a greater degree of delegation to enable innovative councils to make things happen in this country.

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for so eloquently introducing this, to my mind, perhaps one of the most important debates ever to take place in your Lordships' House. I must declare an interest. I am a farmer in the Scottish Borders and I grow industrial oilseed rape, most of which goes to France and Germany and is converted into fuel.

Why do I say that this debate is so important? First, farming is in one of the worst recessions ever. Secondly, there have been no major discoveries in the North Sea in the past decade. Thirdly, OPEC will soon be back in control, and that can only lead to rampant inflation.

Every time in the past five years that we have debated agriculture in your Lordships' House, I have implored both this Government and the last one to spend more money on research and development for alternative fuels that can be more efficient and environmentally friendly. My pleas, sadly, have always fallen on deaf ears.

It is pathetic that we spend just £1.9 million per year—half of what Germany spends—on research and development. Only biofuels (biodiesel and bioethanol) recycle carbon. Cutting the penal tax rate on biodiesel, imposed illogically by the previous government, would be the obvious way to achieve crisply a useful environmental and political gain.

The price of fossil oil has more than doubled in the past year, with Brent crude currently standing at 24 dollars per barrel. It has in the last six months been as high as 30 dollars per barrel. It may be wise now to establish even a small domestic renewable source of diesel fuel prior to what seems an inevitable price hike when OPEC once again takes control of world sales and prices. It is demonstrably true that biodiesel energy life cycles and emissions are both better than those for fossil diesel taken overall.

On researching information for this debate, it is quite fascinating to realise that 100 years ago one-fifth of the farmland of England was given over to transport fuels. I refer to oats and hay for horses. In view of the changing structure of British agriculture today and the current nonsense of "set aside", it is quite possible to foresee a similar amount of land being used again for energy crops. There are about 30 million acres of farmland in England. Currently some 1 million acres are used for oilseed rape, which is used mainly for cooking oil and other food applications.

The best growers can achieve a yield of around a tonne per acre. Therefore, 500,000 acres could be put into industrial cropping for biodiesel to produce 500,000 tonnes of biodiesel itself, making valuable use of the land, the sunshine and indeed the rain to produce energy from our current account, rather than living off our fossilised capital account. Judging by the strange terms of a letter sent to BABFO recently from the Head of New Crops and Sugar Division, MAFF has no grasp of the reality of this matter but wanders into realms that would not seem to be the proper concern of an agricultural ministry. Here again, I make a plea for more funds to be made available for research and development.

In practical terms, within five to seven years British farmers could produce half a million tonnes of diesel from fields which might be relatively unproductive. This would be a 3 per cent start to tackle the problem of how to cope when the mineral oil runs short, as indeed it surely will. Given an appropriate tax regime, such production is likely to start very quickly in either Hull or Liverpool, both of which are areas in need of a vast amount of extra employment. Biodiesel cooking oil is also likely to be boosted by purification and recycling of used cooking oil, and this could amount to perhaps 50,000 tonnes per year, solving a tricky waste disposal problem at the same time. I implore Her Majesty's Government to take this on board.

The public likes the concept of clean, green road fuels and wishes them to be available. The present so-called "green" fuels are, by and large, phoney, as they merely reduce emissions while leaving the main greenhouse gas problem untouched. They are finite and polluting. Biodiesel and bioethanol, by contrast, are renewable, sustainable and biodegradable. Promoting these fuels would be a widely understood and popular move in the bear garden of the current debate on road fuel taxes.

The wisdom of British governments, however, has been far more damaging to our pockets, let alone the environment. Although it was Lloyd George who first taxed fuel in 1908, the increase in fuel taxes, compared with the increase in the retail prices index, did not appear unreasonable until the early 1980s. By 1993, in my view it was unacceptable, and since May 1997 it has become outrageous. Every £10 that we spend on fuel includes £8 going straight to the Treasury. Our fuel is already among the most expensive in the world and I believe passionately that expensive road fuel is the ignition light for inflation.

When Rudolf Diesel demonstrated his engine of that name in Paris back in 1908, he ran it on peanut oil. Peanut oil was effectively the first biodiesel fuel and it is pathetic what little progress has been made in the past 92 years. Biodiesel in this country is mainly derived from oil seed rape and sunflower oil. It has a sister called bioethanol derived from wheat, potatoes and sugar beet.

Although presently costing more to produce than fossil fuels, they are less toxic than table salt, less harmful to the skin than soap, are biodegradable in water, contain negligible sulphur, do not contribute to global warming and yield significant reductions in the most harmful of emissions. The tail pipe emissions from bioethanol are particularly low which make it an ideal fuel for inner-city low emission zones.

Currently eight European cities use biodiesel in public transport systems. It is growing (in both senses) in popularity in the United States and is sold at over 700 filling stations in Germany. Virtually all diesels can run on it with little or no modification, but you will not find it here because in 1995 the last government imposed full duty on it, making it uneconomic to produce, and the present Government, sadly, have kept the status quo.

If we were to reduce the duty to 10 per cent of present levels, production of this cleaner, renewable fuel would be achievable. It would reduce our dependence on the Saudis and perhaps do something to restore this Government's reputation among farmers. My Lords, does that make too much sense to be part of any British government's transport policy?

By producing environmentally friendly fuels, everyone will benefit and I urge Her Majesty's Government to take action by pump priming tax derogation now and spending more on research and development before it is too late.

My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for initiating this extremely important debate this evening.

Some of the cleanest and most environmentally friendly transport is powered, as has already been said, by electricity. Of course, the true measure of how friendly it is depends on how the electricity is generated. But now that more and more of it is powered by wind and waves and other clean sources, transport which can use that electricity is important.

I want to take up with the Minister this evening—and I have given him notice of this—the matter of the financial and bureaucratic blocks being experienced by the Bristol electric railbus, which is one of the most promising developments in that field. I have no interest to declare except a lifelong friendship with the person behind it, Mr Jimmy Skinner, who was also for a long time a colleague of mine in the Liberal Party.

The Bristol electric railbus uses 34 per cent of the energy of a conventional roadbus and runs on an easy-to-build lightweight track. Its unique feature is a steel flywheel which acts as a rechargeable source of energy. It has been running reliably now for three years along a half-mile length of track, and its proponents, who have sunk a lot of their own money in it from a sense of public duty—I can vouch for that as the reason—and Bristol now want the opportunity to use it on a longer and eventually commercially viable track.

One of the ways in which that could be done without noticeable extra expense is by the use of derelict track owned by Rail Properties Ltd and, therefore, under the direct control of the Government, and the objections so far seem to be of a purely bureaucratic nature. I ask the Minister to see what can be done to resolve that.

On the wider scale Bristol is applying for extra money for development, but the doctrine, sound in principle, that local authorities should be responsible for their own transport systems has blocked progress. Mr Rickett, head of the Integrated Transport Task Force—another of these hybrid animals—has said,

"The government is not going to change its policy that local authorities should decide what forms of transport are best suited for their area".

I should say in passing that I am far from clear what authority he has for saying that the Government will or will not change their policy. I should have thought that was up to Ministers. But in any case, we are not asking for that policy to be changed; we are asking for a policy of backing innovative clean transport and research, experiment and deployment for local authorities that want it to be funded centrally for the good of all.

I say that the doctrine that it should be done locally is sound in principle, but local authorities are strapped for cash and innovative systems which could have a national, and indeed an international, use should surely be funded nationally. I understand that when Glenda Jackson was the Minister responsible there was such a fund but that it appears to have disappeared.

When publicly minded individuals and firms come up with ideas which they test satisfactorily and which everyone except the immediate competition—in this case buses—can see is a very good thing, it is appalling that those ideas should be frustrated.

In addition to my first question about the use of rail owned by Rail Properties Ltd, I make a further plea to the Minister that he will apply himself to seeing that the main principle is addressed. He has a reputation in this House and far beyond for being a man not tied down by shibboleths and bureaucracy. I beseech him to urge the Government to apply themselves to the realities of progress in this field.

My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Dubs for raising this very important Question. Indeed, I hope that the Government will listen to what he said and take heed of his suggestions and, indeed, of the many other suggestions which have been made by other noble Lords this evening.

There is no doubt that traffic fumes from all sources are certainly a health hazard and, indeed, some estimates have put the annual death toll from traffic fumes at some 10,000 in London alone. So there is certainly a health aspect to this problem which should be addressed. Indeed, on that count alone, the issue is important.

Traffic fumes also create a smelly, unpleasant environment which interferes with people's enjoyment of facilities, and especially shopping in towns. Let us take Oxford Street, for example. Oxford Street is probably one of the finest shopping streets in Europe, if not in the world. Cars are banned. But large numbers of buses and taxis belching diesel fumes make shopping for many, especially asthma sufferers and others with breathing problems, a nightmare indeed.

That is a place where we should certainly be using environmentally friendly fuels of various sorts, or at least of one sort. The electric fuel is the one which I favour. A start should be made in converting to environmentally friendly fuels for all vehicles.

Many suggestions have been made this evening. Liquid petroleum gas—my noble friend Lord Dubs mentioned it—is certainly a fuel which should be considered as an alternative. Of course, biofuels should also be considered, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. All I would like to say to him is that I believe that in Reading there was an experiment with one of those fuels in the public transport system and the whole town smelt of fish and chips. Of course, some people like fish and chips; others do not. Nevertheless, it is an idea which certainly needs consideration.

My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would give way. We are both familiar with the town of Reading. Indeed, I was born there. Would the noble Lord agree that the smell of fish and chips is different from the smell of ginger nuts that for many years used to permeate through the entire town of Reading?

My Lords, Huntley and Palmer's ginger nuts, and indeed their breakfast biscuits, were renowned throughout the world. I am sorry that they are no longer made in Reading. Unfortunately, they are not made anywhere.

Apart from the other fuels that I have mentioned, there is electricity. In my view, that is undoubtedly the most environmentally-friendly fuel. We have not yet reached the stage when electricity can be used extensively for cars, but there are certainly possibilities for urban public transport, as has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont.

I want to concentrate my remarks on public transport. I have the honour to be the president of the British Trolleybus Society and the chairman of its trustees. That is an organisation whose dedicated members have kept the interest in trolleybuses alive for many years and who have maintained and restored many trolleybuses from various parts of the country at the Sandtoft Transport Centre near Doncaster. Indeed, last year I had the privilege to re-launch a rebuilt Reading trolleybus—number 113—and I had the opportunity to drive it. I had never driven one before and it was certainly a different experience from driving my car. Noble Lords will be glad to know that I had no accidents and I managed to stop the trolleybus at the right stop. That was a good experience.

My interest in trolleybuses stems from my experience as chairman of the Reading corporation transport undertaking in the 1950s and 1960s when I came to realise that the trolleybus was a fine vehicle for urban stage carriage bus services. They are clean, fumeless, quiet, smooth riding and they have superb acceleration which is needed for stage carriage work and an efficient braking capability. Although they are silent, if someone steps out in front of a trolleybus, the driver can brake quickly because they have retroactive brakes. They are superb vehicles. They have a long life and low maintenance costs.

With such great advantages people may ask why they were discontinued. In my view, the answer is that there was enormous pressure from the oil lobby, although other factors such as lack of flexibility and frequent bunching leading to bad timekeeping, were cited as major reasons. Many of the reasons given were spurious and are certainly now capable of remedy through the application of new technology which could facilitate overtaking and better batteries that would enable trolleybuses to run off-wire for reasonable distances. In my view, technically there is no barrier to the reintroduction of the trolleybus.

As to running costs, even when oil prices were low—the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, pointed out that they are now sky high even without tax—the operating costs of trolleybuses were only marginally higher than those for diesel buses. With oil prices high and electricity prices lower in real terms, it is likely that costs per mile would now be in favour of trolleybuses.

It may be said that support for the trolleybus is backward looking. However, I must point out that although we, in this country, may have forgotten the trolleybus—some people under 30 have never seen one—in many countries they are an integral and an important part of the public transport system. In Europe and in many other parts of the world, the trolleybus is an essential and an integral part of their stage carriage services in towns and cities.

If many other countries operate them successfully, is it not time that we, in Britain, re-examined our attitude to them? Therefore, my plea to the Government is that they should finance research and development into electric vehicles and especially into a possible new role for the trolleybus in our public transport infrastructure. By that I mean assistance with re-installing the necessary overhead infrastructure and an accelerated change-over from diesel buses to trolleybuses or other environmentally-friendly vehicles. I believe this matter is urgent. We need to deal with the problems of motor vehicle exhaust urgently.

As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, pointed out, there are other advantages. We would have to manufacture new trolleybuses which would create an opportunity for a new industry to be formed at a time when some industries in the automotive sector are closing.

I hope that my noble friend Lord Whitty will be able to give some encouragement to all noble Lords who have spoken and that the Government will listen to what has been said and will treat this problem as a matter of urgency.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for introducing this subject. I speak from some practical experience in public transport. Before the debate I inquired why compressed natural gas vehicles are not as welcome in the bus industry as they once were. In one British city there is a fleet of 11 such buses but they have turned out to be more expensive to run than was expected. Worse than that, from an engineering point of view they are complex. Their fuel tanks are so big and heavy that they cannot be fitted on double-decker buses and the view now is that their maintenance costs will be very high.

As noble Lords may know, I am a member of Oxfordshire County Council, and I was involved in the introduction of electric buses in Oxford. From an economic point of view they were almost catastrophic. Rarely were the five buses ever available. Breakdowns were frequent. A normal diesel bus would carry 25 seated and nine standing passengers, but that had to be reduced to 18 seated passengers because 4 tonnes of batteries had to be carried on the vehicle. They simply did not perform well. We must be realistic when taking decisions on which technologies it will be possible to extend economically to the bus industry.

The available evidence suggests that, at least in the short term, we should concentrate on the use of the best ultra-low sulphur diesel fuel, catalysts and particulate traps. Of course, new vehicles will be equipped with the best technology, but unfortunately there are weak business incentives to retrofit vehicles with systems such as particulate traps. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, referred to the fumes in Oxford Street. Buses should not be emitting black smoke, but certainly older buses need to be retrofitted with particulate traps.

Perhaps this is an area where the Government could help. I believe that out of the £280 million set aside in the Budget for transport, a sum of £6 million has been identified for the task of cleaning up pollution. Funding for the retrofitting of particulate traps to the newest of the older vehicles would be a good way of spending the money.

Modern engines, called Euro II engines, burn more fuel than the older engines, but they appear to offer the best way forward. As the Disability Discrimination Act comes into force and local authorities enter quality partnerships, this is likely to include a requirement to consider air quality. For that reason, I believe that we can look forward to the introduction of diesel buses with increasingly better engines that pollute far less.

In the longer term, if the Government are to put money into research, it would be much better to go one big step further into the area outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. The hydrogen fuel cell appears to offer a great many advantages. It is a plentiful fuel and one that does not produce greenhouse gases. Furthermore, it appears to be possible to build fuel cells of a reasonable size. However, a great deal of development work still needs to be done.

I take the point made earlier about picking winners, but I should be reluctant to see more money being spent on projects such as battery technology. When I joined the railway in 1959 that technology was hailed as an imminent and useful source of energy to propel trains. In reality it has advanced little over the past 40 years. I would much prefer to see the adoption of a technology that appears to have a realistic prospect of success, not only for fuelling vehicles but also for the provision of work in a new technology in which this country could take the lead.

One area of transport requires the Government's close attention. A great deal of pollution comes from old cars that are used as taxis. I suggest to the Government that a case can be made for imposing an age limit on taxis. That would be a local authority matter, but is something that could be required for local transport plans. Nowadays taxis should always be fitted with catalytic converters. Taxis spend a good deal of time with their engines idling in town centres to keep the drivers warm. That is by far the most polluting part of the cycle. Furthermore, taxis and private hire vehicles—I am referring to both types of vehicle—should have more regular emission tests than only once a year. Because they cover a much greater distance than the average private car, a strong case can be made for more frequent tests on such vehicles.

Mention has been made of electric traction. Certainly that is something for which we should aim. I, too, used to live in Reading and I very much regretted the departure of the trolley buses to which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, referred. I can remember the day of the last trolley bus in that town. It was most regrettable when they were taken out of service.

A matter that has greatly disappointed me—although I realise that I run the danger of having the Minister tell me, physician, heal yourself—is that neither in the network management statement of Railtrack nor in the calls for franchise renewal have I seen much evidence of extended electrification of the railways. That is an important point because it touches on what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer; namely, that we are already extremely dependent—and in the future will be even more dependent—on imported fossil fuels, not only for our road transport but also for our railways. This is in marked contrast to continental Europe, where a much larger percentage of the railway network has been electrified. To some extent this is a strategic issue. Not all of one's transport infrastructure should be tied to a common fuel base because then you can be held to ransom that much more easily.

Those are the points that I wished to contribute to this debate. I look forward with great interest to what the Minister has to say.

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for introducing this debate. I am not sure that I go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, in his description of its importance, but it has been interesting for all of us who have an interest in transport and cleaner technology.

I declare an interest as the user of a petrol-driven motorcar. Before we go any further with this debate, we should pay credit to the motor industry for the enormous advances in technology that have taken place over the past several years. They have eliminated completely the general use of leaded petrol; introduced the catalytic converter and vastly improved technology in the building of engines and cars themselves. I understand that cars now produce only 10 per cent of the pollution they did 10 or 20 years ago. In fact, some manufacturers claim that in polluted areas, that which comes out of the exhaust pipe is cleaner than that which goes in through the carburettor, though I feel that one would have to live in a fairly polluted area before that became true.

The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, mentioned the case of Oxford Street—I, too, had it down in my notes for mention—which I gather is the single most polluted street in central London; and that has a ban on private cars. So the pollution is caused only by diesel-driven buses and taxis. Having said that, I shall be the first to regret the passing of the old Routemaster bus. I hope that whoever becomes mayor of London tomorrow will ensure that it survives. At the same time, I hope that the new mayor will ensure that those buses are re-engined with the latest technology.

Noble Lords referred to a number of different technologies available for environmentally friendly vehicles. Electricity, of course, is by far and away the cleanest fuel at the point of use. But one must remember that that electricity has to be made somewhere. So one may be shifting the pollution from one place to another. Also, those vehicles suffer from a lack of power, performance and range.

The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, referred to trolley buses. I can assure him that I am old enough to remember trolley buses in London. As far as I can remember, the problem was that the trolley would come unstuck from the electricity supply above. The driver would have to come round and rehook it up at the top; meantime an enormous jam would have formed behind. But if one could find the kind of trolley bus which could survive on its own for at least a limited distance, that may be a step forward. To give one anecdote, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said that they were in use in various different countries. I visited Ulaanbaatar in Mongolia some years ago when I was a Minister in the Foreign Office. They used electricity-powered trolley buses which were extremely clean. The only problem was that that city was naturally prone to smog and the power station was only two miles up the road. Whenever there were smoggy conditions, the whole city was covered in the smoke from the old-fashioned coal power station, so any benefit to the population was immediately lost. I am not saying that that means that we should not look into that avenue for the future.

In relation to gas, I declare a past honorary interest as president of the Natural Gas Vehicle Association. I was disappointed to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, although I have not really kept up with progress. I read somewhere with great excitement that there was going to be a doubling of the number of outlets for compressed natural gas, which sounded good until one read that it meant a rise from 30 to 60 over the whole country. It is one of those times when the use of percentages tends to mislead.

There are problems with the lack of infrastructure, but liquefied petroleum gas can be useful for depot-based fleets. Those vehicles have another advantage which I do not believe has been mentioned this evening, in that they can be much quieter than conventional diesel-driven vehicles, particularly for something like a refuse cart which has a compressor as well as an engine. That could provide significant advantages for local residents. Of course, the problem is that, due to the lack of infrastructure, private motor cars would have to be dual-fuelled, which means that they would have to have a petrol tank as well as a gas cylinder. So the owner would lose most of the boot space.

I should like to ask the Minister a serious question on the matter. It is one to which I know that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred. It relates to the granting of planning permission for LPG facilities at refuelling stations. I understand that BP Amoco had hoped to install LPG facilities at 70 filling stations this year. But, so far, I believe that it has received planning consent for only three. Similarly, Shell had a target of 100 for the year, but it has reduced that number to 60 merely because of the difficulty in getting planning permission. Can the Minister tell us what the Government are going to do to assist by way of giving guidance to local authorities in order to make it easier for planning permission to be granted for LPG refuelling facilities at petrol stations? I understand that this might be included in the final version of PPG13, but can the noble Lord tell us what progress has been made in that respect?

I turn now to diesel. Like other noble Lords, I, too, was briefed by Peugeot on the matter. I take a good deal of interest in what the company has to say. Diesel emits 20 per cent less greenhouse gases and 50 per cent less hydro-carbon pollutants than petrol. When we shortly have particulate filters that will completely eliminate any particulates coming out of the exhaust, that will be a very significant improvement.

However, we in this country seem to be going in completely the opposite direction to any other country in Europe. Over Europe as a whole, the number of diesel vehicles as a percentage of the total has risen from just under 25 per cent in 1998 to 28.5 per cent in 1999 and, in the first months of this year, the number rose to over 30 per cent. In Germany, France, Spain and Italy the number has risen during each of those periods but, because of the tax regime on diesel, the increase in vehicle excise duty on diesel-driven cars and the increase in duty on diesel itself, we seem to be the only country where the number is decreasing. Why are we taking this step, which seems to be completely different from steps being taken anywhere else? I am not suggesting that we should always follow the example of other European countries, but they seem to have proved a good point in this case.

Certainly, as far as the industry is concerned, Peugeot is not the only company which believes that diesel in efficient modern new vehicles—not the old buses to which I referred earlier—is a very important way forward. My noble friend Lord Lucas told us about fuel cells. I am not familiar with the technology involved, but I have heard that great developments are taking place at quite a rapid rate at present. As my noble friend said, it is a pity that such developments are taking place elsewhere and not in this country. Many people seem to regard the fuel cell as the "thing" of the future; indeed, it may well be. People seem to regard it as something worth waiting for, and that is perhaps why we have not made particular progress in other methods of reducing emissions.

I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred to a report on the costs and environmental benefits of modern technology that is expected shortly from the Government. Can the Minister tell the House when that report is due? I understood that it would be produced this month. It would be interesting to read its findings. I wonder whether we shall receive it as early as expected.

I conclude by saying that we on this side of the House would very much welcome progress in this respect. We would certainly make further reductions in fuel duty on cleaner fuels. I am pleased that the Government have continued with what we started on the duty on natural gas and on LPG. We would also introduce tax discounts for alternative environmentally friendly fuelled cars and we would grade vehicle excise duty according to the environmental standards of cars. If I may say so, the present proposals from the Government are not sophisticated enough in that direction. They seem to rely entirely on engine size rather than necessarily on fuel efficiency.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, once more for introducing the debate and I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.

My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lord Dubs on, and thank him for, initiating this debate, which has proved instructive. Noble Lords who are present in the Chamber have a significant interest in, and knowledge of, the areas we are discussing. Some of that knowledge is new to me and I shall consider their points on international experience and on technology.

From the Government's point of view this is a timely debate as it follows recent announcements of government initiatives to encourage cleaner vehicles and fuels. For example, changes to the company car tax system and to VED rates—the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, mentioned this—for new cars relate to the emissions index rather than to engine size as for old cars. From next year the charges will relate to CO₂ emissions. Increased funding for the Powershift programme was announced as part of the Budget package. These are all clear signals of the Government's determination to promote cleaner, more fuel efficient vehicles.

We are adopting these measures to help us tackle two of the greatest environmental challenges facing us: climate change and air quality. Road transport is the third largest source of carbon dioxide emissions—the main greenhouse gas—in the UK. Measures to reduce CO₂ emissions from transport will play a central role in meeting our Kyoto targets. Conventional petrol and diesel vehicles will become more fuel efficient in coming years and will help us to meet those targets for 2010; cleaner fuelled vehicles will also play a significant part. New technologies will need to be adopted to meet the targets for 2010 and more significant greenhouse gas reductions will be needed in the future.

My noble friend Lord Stoddart referred to air quality. The problem of the quality of the air that we breathe as pedestrians or as motorists is an acute one. In support of our commitment to improve air quality, we have set tough air quality objectives to be met throughout the UK over the next few years. Our new Air Quality Strategy, published in January, identifies the major sources of air pollution in the UK and sets out a programme of action for delivering cleaner air.

As road transport is one of the major sources of air pollution, especially in urban areas, any attempt to improve air quality must consider measures to reduce pollution from transport in terms both of engine design and of fuel technology. As the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, indicated, much is already being done to reduce pollution from conventional car and lorry petrol and diesel engines. They are becoming cleaner thanks largely to tougher European emissions standards and consequent efforts by motor manufacturers and also fuel processors. As a result, total emissions from transport are declining in terms of local air pollutants despite increases in road traffic.

However, even with these improvements, our air quality objectives for particles and nitrogen dioxide may not be met in some urban pollution hotspots. We need further measures to reduce emissions from road transport in those areas. Under the system of local air quality management, local authorities are required to identify any air pollution hotspots and to draw up action plans to deal with them. Cleaner fuels and technologies are measures that could further reduce vehicle emissions and deliver air quality improvements.

In terms of carbon emissions we are still faced with a situation where the growth of traffic is outpacing technological improvements. I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, made that we take into account not only immediate emissions and environmental effects, but also the whole life effects of that technology from manufacture through to scrapping. He also made the point that it is not only a question of emissions but noise which can bring environmental benefits if it can be reduced. Some cleaner fuels and technologies also produce significantly less noise than conventional motors. For example, gas-powered vehicles are much quieter. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, indicated, electric vehicles are also very quiet in operation although there are certain side costs involved which need to be addressed. The benefit from gas-powered lorries, for example, delivering in residential areas is not only as regards a reduction in pollution, but also the noise is far less disruptive to the quality of life in residential districts.

That is the background. Perhaps I may explain how the Government are encouraging the wider use of cleaner fuels and vehicles. The Powershift programme is sponsored by my department and administered by the Energy Saving Trust. It provides grants towards the additional cost of buying gas and electric vehicles. Clearly, the ability to increase the growth of the market depends on reducing the cost differential with conventional vehicles. Only vehicles offering significant emission benefits qualify for such grants. Powershift has already directly assisted the purchase of over 3,000 gas and electric vehicles.

In recognition of the continuing success of Powershift, my noble friend Lord Macdonald recently announced a substantial increase in its budget of up to £10 million in this financial year. That is three times the previous budget. It will enable Powershifi to keep pace with the increasing demand for cleaner fuel vehicles.

In addition to Powershift, the Government have introduced a range of tax incentives to provide and support cleaner vehicles. Road gas fuels such as liquefied petroleum gas and compressed natural gas benefit from a much lower rate of duty than conventional petrol and diesel. Electric vehicles benefit from no fuel duty on electricity and lower VED at £40 a year. Gas, trucks and buses can benefit from savings of up to £1,000 a year on the annual road tax. As I have said, new, cleaner fuel cars will benefit from lower rates of VED from next year and from the reformed company tax regime from the year 2002.

So it is not just alternative fuels that benefit. We are also encouraging cleaner petrol and cleaner diesel. For example, leaded petrol was banned at the beginning of this year. Ultra-low sulphur diesel now effectively accounts for all diesel sold in the United Kingdom thanks to the fuel duty incentive. In the recent Budget the Chancellor announced a 1p. per litre incentive for ultra-low sulphur petrol to take effect from 1st October 2001. As noble Lords have said, the Government set up the cleaner vehicles task force to bring together the motor and oil industries, environmentalists and others to promote the production, purchase and use of cleaner and more efficient vehicles.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, the task force's report on cleaner fuels will be published on 31st May. That will compare the performance of a range of fuel technologies and will include a series of recommendations including recommendations aimed at government, industry and users on how cleaner fuels and technologies can be used.

The work of the task force has already led to a number of new initiatives. For example, there is a £6 million programme for a new cleaner vehicles programme. That initiative is a direct response to the recommendations to reduce pollution from existing vehicles and in particular from buses and taxis. As my noble friend Lord Stoddart and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, they are still substantial polluters. There is a slower rate of turnover of a fleet than in the car sector. Urban vehicles such as buses and taxis will benefit from that programme by fitting catalysts and particulate traps.

In addition the new Motorvate scheme arose from a task force initiative. The scheme, which will be formally launched in June, sets simple, achievable targets to ensure that we have lower CO₂ emissions.

The cleaner vehicles programme will include retrofitment of particulate traps to buses, and it will be for local authorities—or, in London, the Public Carriage Office—to take up those proposals. There are a number of technical options available.

The Government, of course, have a responsibility in relation to public sector vehicles. I am keen that government departments and agencies take up the benefit of cleaner vehicles. There are some limited success stories to mention. The Government Car Service is currently operating 33 LPG cars and is planning long-term trials of LPG vans. The DSS has taken a proactive role and is currently operating 73 LPG vehicles and intends to order a further 30 cars. Local authorities are to the fore in this area in the use of both LPG cars and CNG vans. The development of the use of electric vehicles is taking place in a few local authorities, notably Coventry and a consortium of London authorities.

Again in relation to conventional fuels, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, raised the question of the differential between petrol and diesel and the difference between ourselves and certain other countries. Certainly it is true that the motor industry is making tremendous strides in reducing harmful emissions from diesel, but emissions of particulates and oxides of nitrogen are still expected to be significantly higher compared to emissions from new petrol cars. That is why the differential is there. Nevertheless, recent developments in diesel after-treatment technologies have the potential to offer significant emission reductions, to the extent that some diesel cars could eventually have comparable emissions with clean petrol cars.

Questions were raised in relation to the infrastructure for gas vehicles. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, and my noble friend Lord Dubs referred to the issue of planning. I can confirm that the revised transport planning guidance (PPG13) will encourage local authorities to view planning applications for refuelling facilities much more favourably. There are now some 360 LPG refuelling points within the United Kingdom and around 30 or so CNG points, as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, said.

As to electric vehicles, the Government are keen to encourage their wider use. They have a lower VED rate; we offer grants under the Powershift programme; we are encouraging local authorities to use them in their fleets where the vehicles' relatively low range can be incorporated; and we are encouraging other potential users.

As to trolley buses—an issue raised by my noble friend Lord Stoddart—I, too, have nostalgic views of trolley buses despite never having lived in Reading or ever visited Ulan Bator. There is some prospect of progress in this regard, but the overall cost of trolley buses given the huge infrastructure outlay—we may have made a mistake in taking out the infrastructure in the first place, but putting it back will cost money—is likely to be higher than traditional buses with cleaner fuels and retrofitting for existing buses.

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, raised the question of the regulation of electric vehicles. Although many of the features that apply to conventionally fuelled vehicles will apply to electric vehicles, new regulations will be required, and we are taking a proactive part in the drawing up of those regulations in Europe. As the noble Lord will know, vehicle regulations are now determined at EU level.

The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, referred to biodiesel. We certainly recognise that biodiesel is a renewable source of energy that has some major advantages over conventional mineral diesel. However, the production and distribution of biodiesel can be quite energy intensive. Unless this energy is produced from renewable sources, biodiesel cannot be considered as truly renewable. Nevertheless, we consider that it has potential advantages. Technology has been developed in Germany and elsewhere. Biodiesel is often considered to be carbon-neutral as the carbon absorbed by the oilseed rape when it is grown offsets the carbon emissions when biodiesel is burnt. We propose to keep under review the whole scope for rapeseed or indeed other organic crop-based fuels. For example, there are advantages with short-rotation willow coppice which are greater than those for rapeseed. There are significant areas that need further examination. The Government will undertake that.

Noble Lords have referred to fuel cells as the technology of the future. We agree that fuel cells may well be the best bet. However, we need to cover the whole range of technologies that will come into play over different timescales. An expanded Powershift programme is already supporting fuel cells and the programme contributed to the costs of the vehicle referred to in relation to Sevco and Westminster Council. We are very aware of the potential of fuel cell vehicle technology. We would hope that both research that the DTI, under its advanced fuel cell programme, is already supporting and, it is to be hoped, eventual production could accrue to this country.

I come now to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, in relation to the development of what I refer to as ultra-light rail options. A number of innovative systems are being promoted in this field. To develop this commercially and operationally, it would have to fit into the priorities for the local transport plan. Funds have been made available as part of the innovative public transport project with the aim of producing a prototype of an innovative public transport system. A number of bids are currently being considered. We are undertaking various small-scale research programmes in this area.

I have run out of time. This has been a fascinating debate. There are a number of potential options here. I shall study all noble Lords' comments as we look into developing further our strategy in all of these alternative fuel areas.

House adjourned at eighteen minutes before ten o'clock.