| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not agree that they are parallel universes. There is a clear overlap between the objectives that will be pursued in Johannesburg and the Doha process which was regarded as a development round. It is important to recognise that the sustainable development summit will deal not only with the kind of environmental issues to which the noble Baroness referred, which were dealt with in Rio and followed up in Kyoto, but also with sustainability on an economic and a social basis. Therefore, there is a wider agenda which is, given certain conditions, fully compatible with the WTO process.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, will the Minister help to ensure—some groups have pressed for this—that the agenda of the summit enables serious consideration to be given to the subject of reproductive health? Does he accept that the subject of sustainability provides a genuine context in which to try to meet a declared target; that is, the provision of comprehensive reproductive health services for all individuals of appropriate age as soon as possible and no later than the year 2015? Does he also accept that that is in the context of a generally accepted figure of about 350 million couples world-wide who would be prepared, or would like, to use contraceptive services but do not have access to them?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as far as the agenda is concerned, I have indicated the broad range of items which the EU has suggested to the various preparation committees should comprise the agenda for the summit. Reproductive health is not one of those
priorities. I recognise the importance of the noble Viscount's comments. He will know that some developments have taken place on this issue. There have been more such developments in the OECD area than in the UN area. The agenda is not yet closed and there is not a single input into it. However, at the moment reproductive health is not one of the items we are pursuing although the noble Viscount may have noticed that a separate section in the chair's report from the latest PrepCom meeting deals with health in general.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, we on these Benches are glad that the Prime Minister has indicated his intention to be present at the summit in Johannesburg. However, does the Minister appreciate that the way to realise the eminently worthy ideals expressed at the PrepCom session, with which no one could possibly disagree, is to concentrate upon what can be done locally so that efforts in sustainable development are led by individuals and local communities? Is the Minister aware of what is already being done by Churches and local groups under the Agenda 21 umbrella to transform environmental awareness and introduce good practice? Will he do what he can to ensure that the summit meeting does not simply deal with abstraction but enables the sharing of stories of good local practice round the world which can be so inspiring for individuals and groups who are trying to do their bit?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I certainly share the right reverend Prelate's view that this matter will not become a reality unless we build from the bottom up and make sure that local groups, local initiatives, local business and local public authorities take on board the sustainability messages. That is an important dimension of what we see as the priorities for Johannesburg. For that to work properly a framework needs to be established by the heads of government. I am grateful for the right reverend Prelate's recognition of the role that the Prime Minister has played here. He was the first head of government to indicate that he would attend the summit.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, as part of the Government's sustainable development policy, and following a change of direction of the Bush Administration in the United States with regard to new power sources, what are the Government doing to support research into fuel cell technology? Are they currently co-operating with the Americans in that?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government have long supported alternative transport fuels in a number of research and economic studies. Of course, major research is being carried out across the world by motor companies and others into the issue of fuel cell technology. The Government believe that that could provide a carbon-free future for a large proportion of transport. If I may say so, in my previous capacity I very much encouraged the Government to move down that road. That is the Government's position.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is an element of incompatibility between the priorities that the European Union has announced for the G8 Summit and its own aid programme? What measures are the Government taking to persuade the European Union to realign its aid programme so that it fits in particular with the objective of poverty eradication by diverting aid from richer countries in the third world to the poorest?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as is well known to the House, the Government have some reservations about the balance of the EU aid programme and, indeed, the efficiency of its delivery. I and my colleagues both in this House and in another place have emphasised that over time. I refer in particular to the dimension of focusing on building capacity and initiatives at the local level. Therefore, I largely agree with what the noble Lord said.
Railtrack
3.16 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw asked Her Majesty's Government
- How much they estimate they will have to spend, apart from track access charges, in order to get Railtrack out of administration.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, that will depend on the length of the administration. However, the Government made a short-term commercial loan facility of £2.1 billion available to the administrator to pay Railtrack's creditors and keep the rail network running to the end of March.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. It is a fact that since privatisation the cost of rolling stock has actually fallen in real terms. However, the cost of work on the track and signalling has multiplied two to three times. Is that due to inefficiencies in Railtrack, overbearing safety considerations, performance regimes or some other matter because it certainly does not manifest itself in the returns to the contractors who actually carry out the work?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I should be most interested to see the evidence on that matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, refers. I refer to the range of reasons that he gave and to the matter of equally competitive supply markets. However, I suspect that the issue on which he focuses is the quality and skill of procurement on the part of the train operating companies by comparison with Railtrack. Be that as it may, I shall be pleased to investigate the matter further if he will give me the details.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, will my noble friend help a little more as regards the time-scale of Railtrack's administration? Does he agree that the first stage is for the administrator to set up an information room so
that bidders can see the quality and state of the assets? Will he confirm that that is supposed to be done by the end of March, or will he give an alternative date?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, my noble friend is right to emphasise the creation of a data room so that potential proposers are well aware of all the liabilities and assets against which they would submit bids in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Secretary of State at the end of October, shortly after the administration order was issued. That is a substantial piece of work. I am told that the administrator will be working to the end of March, or thereabouts, thus enabling invitations for bids to be issued in April, with a potential submission date some time in July.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, how does the Minister interpret the words "will have to spend" in the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw? Does he interpret that phrase to mean "need to spend" or "to have available to spend"? There is a bit of a difference between the two.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, given where the costs will eventually fall, that is probably a sophisticated but academic question.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, bear me out! In respect of the loan facility, there is a further technical complication about state-aid funding, with which I shall not bore the House. That will effectively mean that Railtrack, underwritten by a government guarantee, will be able to replace the funding that it has from the Government in the short term with commercial funds. That will eventually be a charge against the assets of the company, as one would expect. Likewise, the costs of the administrator will again eventually be a charge against the company at the eventual settlement and, I hope, when it moves out of administration.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, in view of that reply, I ask the Minister to advise the House whether there have been any requests to the Government so far to guarantee or underwrite the finances of a proposed company limited by guarantee for Railtrack. Can he say in principle whether the Government would be agreeable to such an approach and, if so, will there be any limitation to the support that they would be likely to give?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page