Lords Sitting of 29 October 1997

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.

Lord Levy
Michael Abraham Levy, Esquire, having been created Baron Levy, of Mill Hill in the London Borough of Barnet, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Jakobovits and the Baroness Jay of Paddington, and made the solemn Affirmation.
Lord Blackwell
Norman Roy Blackwell, Esquire, having been created Baron Blackwell, of Woodcote in the County of Surrey, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord McColl of Dulwich and the Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach.

Lord Dholakia
Navnit Dholakia, Esquire, OBE, having been created Baron Dholakia, of Waltham Brooks in the County of West Sussex, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord McNally and the Lord Steel of Aikwood, and made the solemn Affirmation.
Lord Young of Graffham—Took the Oath.
Viscount Head—Took the Oath.

Single Currency: Advantages
2.50 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harryasked Her Majesty's Government:
What advantages they foresee for the United Kingdom in joining the single currency in 2001–2002.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out the Government's policy towards a single currency in his Statement on Monday last. The Government believe that in principle British membership of a successful single currency would be beneficial to Britain and to Europe. The potential benefits for Britain of a successful single currency are obvious in terms of trade, transparency of costs and currency stability. But it would not be in our national economic interest to join the single currency until we have achieved durable and sustainable convergence.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, with which I broadly agree. However, perhaps I may take him a little further down the road since Monday. Does not a heavy duty now lie on the
1048
Government to ensure that the ordinary citizen of this country is well informed about the consequences of economic and monetary union before we join? Will the Government therefore consider, for example, commissioning an independent study from the Bank of England—a plain man's guide to the single currency—detailing the fact that after joining the single currency the British Government would still be able to raise and lower taxes? British pensions will not be affected. The monarch will not be affected, nor will the voting rights of hereditary Peers. Such a guide would, I believe, be very useful and should be available to every household in the land so that its members know precisely the issues before they vote in either a referendum or an election.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for both the tone and the content of the noble Lord's question. As he will know, the Chancellor launched a national debate on the single currency in July, with the publication of the report by my noble friend Lord Currie on the pros and cons of EMU and a practical guide for business. Eighteen thousand copies of the Currie Report have been sent to libraries, sixth-form colleges, universities and the general public.
The Chancellor said in his Statement that we should begin to,
"build a new consensus—modern and outward looking".—[Official Report, 27/10/97; col. 903].
That is what we shall do. In the meantime, the Standing Committee, headed by the Chancellor and including the Governor of the Bank of England, will look into the matter of public information. I am sure that they will take very seriously the valid point made by the noble Lord that we need good public information—independent and objective public information—on this important issue.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, given that the—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, with great respect, we have plenty of time. I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, could ask his question first and then my noble friend could ask his.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, given that the North American Free Trade Area and ASEAN have both operated for many years very efficient trading blocs without even considering the need for a single currency, why is it crucial for Europe?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, those are very different organisations, with different objectives. Europe has for many years set itself to be much more than a free trade area. Had it not done so, no doubt the European Free Trade Area would still be in existence.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I, and many other people, believe that a single currency in 2001–2002, or at any other time, will not be good for this country and is completely

1049
unnecessary for our trade with Europe or the rest of the world? Has my noble friend read the extraordinary remarks of Mr. Kenneth Clarke in today's newspapers, whereby he advocates a cross-party campaign to brainwash people into a single currency? Is he further aware that Mr. Kenneth Clarke is already a member of the European Movement, which is supported by big business and the BBC—which has become the Pravda of the airwaves as regards this particular issue—and has been subsidised by the British taxpayer to the extent of £240,000 and by the European Commission to the extent of £150,000? May I have an assurance that taxpayers' money will not be used in this way again and on one side of the argument?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I paid tribute to my noble friend on Monday for his consistency. He is still consistent, and he is still wrong. I have indeed read the remarks of Mr. Kenneth Clarke. I did not notice anything among them that suggested it was desirable to brainwash the British people. The Answer that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, indicates that we have an obligation of information, but that it should be objective and impartial.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, adverting to the suggestion of Mr. Kenneth Clarke, does the noble Lord agree that what is proposed by Mr. Kenneth Clarke—namely, an all-party "yes" campaign to enable the Government to hold a referendum during this Parliament—would be a much more educative programme for the people of this country than any objective study? The "yes" campaign would of itself provoke a "no" campaign; and between the two the people of this country would become better informed. The referendum could be held during this Parliament, and the Government would then have an option to enter EMU at the best time for this country.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, public information—impartial information—and a yes/no campaign are not incompatible. Both are necessary if there is to be proper debate. I have not heard it suggested, nor did I understand Mr. Kenneth Clarke to suggest, that taxpayers' money should be used in anything other than an impartial way. That does not detract from the value of a "yes" campaign or indeed a "no" campaign.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is almost impossible to find on the face of this planet foreign exchange dealers who will tell the truth as to just how ill-conceived they judge this whole EMU project to be? Is the noble Lord further aware that they have shown their true feelings by taking out massive forward contracts in the foreign exchange markets, which will prove very profitable to them and very damaging to the people of Europe provided that EMU takes off and then fails to fly and crashes, as they are sure it will?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me the same question on Monday. My answer is very much the same. I am not privy to any of the internal thoughts of foreign exchange dealers, which they are presumably concealing from their clients as well as from the general public. The idea of taking out forward contracts four or five years in advance in the hope of a crash in the European single currency seems rather exaggerated.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord inform the House as to whether the Government have seriously considered the text of Protocol 5 to the Maastricht Treaty, and in particular paragraph 2 thereof? The paragraph requires that the total debt of a country should not exceed 60 per cent. of its gross domestic product. In view of the fact that state pensions on the Continent have not been funded, and ought to be included in the liabilities, does the noble Lord think that any country other than the United Kingdom would be entitled to belong to the single currency?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this matter, among many others, will be considered again under the UK presidency when the heads of government meet in the first six months of next year to consider in detail the convergence criteria that will apply to the first membership of the single currency.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether, in the event of our joining the single currency, all the British gold reserves would have to be lodged in Bonn?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords they would not.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us whether this matter was discussed at the recent meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government? If it was not, one would hope that, as the matter is of such tremendous importance, another conference of Commonwealth Heads of Government would be called. Will he consider that proposal?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not believe that the issue was on the agenda for the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the Chancellor placed great emphasis on companies and other interested parties preparing for the introduction of the euro, whether we join early or not, and set up a high level committee for that purpose. How is it envisaged that this process will get down to the grass roots and galvanise companies?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the reaction of big business—admittedly at the moment only of big business—has been so favourable to the Chancellor's Statement that the likelihood is that the work of the standing committee and of my noble friend Lord Simon of Highbury in the business preparation at the Treasury will be successful.

1051
Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord of what Mr. Niall FitzGerald of Unilever said in his reaction to the Chancellor's statement:
"What business wants above all is certainty. The Government's clear commitment to the principle of EMU and to Britain joining when the conditions are right has at last given business a firm basis on which to plan ahead".
We agree with that.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that something like 6 per cent. of companies in this country are in fact large businesses and that over 90 per cent. of companies are small and medium size businesses? It would be very helpful to the House to know what the small and medium size businesses are saying to the Government and what support they are giving to this positive approach to EMU.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I acknowledged the importance of small business in my response to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. As the noble Baroness will know, the president of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce has agreed to become a member of the standing committee. I am confident that, when that association and other organisations representing small business have consulted their members, their response will be as positive as it has been from the leaders of large business.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, does my noble friend recollect that, when the referendum on EEC membership was held, the Labour Government of the day made public money available to both sides in the debate? Will the Government consider doing that when the next referendum is held?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Glenamara is quite right in his recollection about the expenditure of public money on both sides, and we recognise that that is highly desirable. At the moment, as I indicated in my first answer, we shall ask the standing committee to look at the question of whether public money should be expended and, if so, in what manner. My noble friend's suggestion will certainly be taken very seriously.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, the House has certain privileges, one of which is the expression of view. I hope that the Leader of the House will understand that those who take a contrary view to that expressed in the many questions that have been raised which are hostile to the concept have shown great tolerance. Will some consideration therefore be given to allowing the alternative view to be expressed and ensuring that Question Time is not monopolised by those of one view?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the decision as to which noble Lords the House hears is a question for the House as a whole. However, I agree with the noble Lord that Eurosceptics, or Europhobes, or
1052
whatever we like to call them, seem to be quite well organised in that respect, as they were during the debates on the Maastricht Treaty.
Lord Richard: My Lords, we have spent 13 minutes on this Question; we have 30 minutes for the whole of Question Time. I hear what my noble friend Lord Shepherd says. Perhaps we should move on.

Lithuania: EU Membership
3.5 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle The Earl of Carlisle asked Her Majesty's Government:
What advances the Republic of Lithuania has made, over the past six months, to meet the membership criteria for early entry into the European Union.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government support the Commission's recommendations on the central European applicants' readiness for EU membership. While Lithuania continues to make good progress towards fulfilling the criteria for membership, there are still a number of areas where further progress is needed before it will be ready for accession negotiations. That said, significant progress is being made, including efforts to prevent money-laundering and to impose more effective financial discipline on enterprises in Lithuania.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I am disappointed. It is not as positive or as encouraging as I had hoped. Does not the Minister agree that Lithuania has now met all the major objective criteria—political, social, economic and legal? Will Her Majesty's Government therefore take the lead at the Luxembourg council in December in pressing for access negotiations with Lithuania to begin in January 1998, a right that this great nation deserves for its record of progress over the last six months?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the answer is no. We accept in broad terms the assessment that has been made by the Commission and we are therefore in favour of commencing negotiations with those identified by the Commission. However, I think that the noble Lord and the whole House should understand that Her Majesty's Government and other member states wish to see an all-inclusive process for all applicants. In parallel with the former negotiations there will need to be an inclusive process—which we have termed the "European Conference"—which will encourage Lithuania and the others who are not in the initial five-plus-one to engage in effective pre-accession strategies which will meet the remaining outstanding problems relating to their applications.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the case that there seems to be an assumption that membership of the European Union by countries such as Lithuania is desirable if they can achieve it? Is that not an assumption which ought not so readily to be made?

1053
Is it not possible that countries such as Lithuania would be unacceptable as members of the European Union ipso facto?
Lord Whitty: No, my Lords. It is the opinion of the Government and our partners in Europe that it is desirable that Lithuania, and indeed all the central and eastern European applicants, should join the European Union. Our all-inclusive process envisages that eventually they should all join. The only question is differentiation in starting dates for the formal negotiations. We are very much in favour of enlargement and have been for some considerable time.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will the Minister tell us whether it is a criterion for acceptability that an applicant should be demonstrably capable of meeting the financial criteria for EMU?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, no, the question of meeting the convergence criteria of the EMU is not a consideration in terms of application for membership of the EU itself.
Lord Walpole: My Lords, is it not true that Lithuania, in common with all the other central European countries who wish to join the European Union, has environmental problems of a very considerable nature?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords. Indeed, the Commission identifies the environmental area as one of the areas in which the Lithuanian Government have not made sufficient progress. If I may quote from the Commission's avis on this matter, they say:
"Very substantial efforts will be needed, including massive investment and strengthening of administrative capacity to enforce [environmental] legislation".
That is one of the areas to which Lithuania needs to pay attention and to catch up with those who are entering into formal negotiations.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain to the House exactly why, from the point of view of the central European countries, it is such a good idea for them to join the European Union when all that most of them seem to want is access to the single market, which is constantly blocked to them, and defence through NATO? If the noble Lord is serious in saying that the Government wish to back the expansion of the European Union, can he say what progress is being made on the revision of the common agricultural policy, which is generally regarded as being absolutely essential for anyone else to be admitted, but under which the majority of countries are recipients and are unlikely to vote for its change?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is certainly the case that substantial changes among the existing European Union countries will be necessary during the process of enlargement. The European Budget, and in particular the common agricultural policy, will play a major role in
1054
that. As the noble Lord will be aware, we, and indeed the previous Government, are anxious that substantial reform of the common agricultural policy should take place in that timescale.
With regard to the benefits of EU expansion to include Lithuania and other countries of eastern and central Europe, it is quite clear that both public opinion and their economic interest lie in eventual membership of the European Union. That will also be to the benefit of existing members of the Union.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, in light of the recent failure of the Amsterdam conference to prepare satisfactorily for the enlargement of the EU, do the Government agree with Commission proposals under Agenda 2000 to hold another IGC? What effects would that have on the likely timetable for future European Union enlargements to enable the smooth admission of eastern European countries, including Lithuania?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Amsterdam Treaty went a considerable way towards preparing for enlargement. A number of institutional questions were left over which the Commission indicated will require another IGC. We do not interpret that as meaning a full IGC process; but institutional questions such as the weighting of votes in Council and the size of the Commission will need to be resolved before any substantial enlargement takes place.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that such an unhappy state of affairs is more a reflection on the European Union than on countries such as Lithuania?
Lord Whitty: No, my Lords; nor do I describe it as an unhappy state of affairs. It was essential in that process that we identified those countries which could more easily join over, possibly in some cases, a long timescale. The fact that Lithuania is not identified as one of those countries at this point does not mean that Lithuania cannot catch up. Indeed, others who are not in the initial batch could catch up and the all-inclusive process of the European conference would aid that, together with pre-accession strategies in Lithuania and elsewhere.

Anti-drugs Co-ordinator: Priorities
3.12 p.m.
Viscount Waverleyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the remit and first year priorities of the newly-appointed drug co-ordinator.
Lord Richard: My Lords, as the Prime Minister announced earlier this month, Peter Hellawell, the new UK anti-drugs co-ordinator, will take up his post early in the new year. He will be supported by a deputy, Mr. Michael Trace, who is at present the director of the Rehabilitation of Addictive Prisoners Trust. Immediate priorities for the co-ordinator will be to develop a visible profile; to review existing action against drug misuse

1055
across the board; and to submit as quickly as possible proposals to Minsters for a new strategy aimed at tackling drug problems through effective enforcement, treatment and education.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, to fight consumption rightly targets the principal criticism of drug producing countries. The Government should be commended for that. That having been said, what degree of success can he envisaged with the limited budget that is to hand? What interdiction is anticipated with foreign anti-narcotic agencies? Finally, what is the Government's position as regards Lord Chief Justice Bingham's call for a public debate on the question of legalising cannabis?
Lord Richard: My Lords, let me answer those three questions in turn. So far as concerns the budget, as a special adviser the co-ordinator will have no direct control over departmental budgets. That is true. But he is supported by a unit which currently operates on a budget of £312,000 a year.
As to the second question, the co-ordinator will liaise closely with a wide range of international agencies via the Government's special adviser from the Foreign Office—Mr. Patrick Nixon, I believe. The third question asked about the Lord Chief Justice's views on the legalisation of cannabis. The co-ordinator has no plans to consider the decriminalisation of cannabis.
Lord Henley: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Leader of the House agree that somewhat mixed messages are coming from the Government? On the one hand, they appoint the so-called drugs czar, the drugs co-ordinator, to deal with problems caused by the misuse of drugs; at the same time the Prime Minister invites to receptions at Number 10 not only those who are role models for young people but those who positively advocate the use of drugs. Does the noble Lord have any comment to make on that?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am tempted just to say no. On an issue which is so serious, I am surprised that that is the best that the Opposition can do. Who goes to Number 10 is essentially a matter for the Prime Minister and I have no desire to comment.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, before this argument becomes one just among the Front Benchers, may I hope that the Government will use their considerable influence to ensure that the facilities for treatment that now exist are given every support rather than allowing the whole miserable problem to be shunted into the penal system?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I very much share the view expressed by the noble Lord.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Leader of the House say whether crime statistics are broken down to show those who commit drug-orientated crime? In view of the very big increase
1056
in numbers of females in prison, can he say whether rehabilitation and taking some young girls out of prison will be one of the priorities?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I do not know the answer to that question. The noble Baroness makes what is, on the face of it, a powerful point. I should like to consider the matter and, if I may, write to her.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I understand that it is the Government's clear policy intention to introduce legislation this Session to make the areas of health, social work, education, the police and the two Scottish Law Officers answerable to a Scottish assembly. Is it compatible with that policy objective to appoint an English chief constable, however eminent, to co-ordinate activities in Scotland on those vital issues which go beyond simple enforcement and, as has been indicated, into matters of education and treatment?
Lord Richard: My Lords, it is important that this drugs issue is not looked upon merely as an English issue, a Welsh issue or a Scottish issue. I am glad to see that the noble Lord agrees with me. I believe that it is important that there should be a co-ordinator for the whole of the United Kingdom. Mr. Hellawell is eminently well qualified to do the job. Obviously, he will liaise very closely with the authorities in Scotland. He would not be doing the job properly if he did not do so. But to say that the post has to be filled by a Scot—the noble Lord did not say exactly that but he was tottering on the brink of doing so—is to disqualify anyone from any other part of the United Kingdom. I do not feel that that is reasonable. Mr. Hellawell is the right man for the job. There was an intensive selection process and he was chosen.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I accept entirely what the noble Lord said in his reply. But is it not one of the awkwardnesses of the arrangements that will have to be made that home affairs are devolved to the Scots parliament, as are police matters, so that there will be a difficulty in administration? Will the noble Lord accept that that cannot lightly be brushed off as necessary to co-ordinate the drugs issue?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am sorry if the noble Baroness thought that I was lightly brushing off the matter. I am not brushing it off at all. Of course, there are devolved matters in Scotland and matters that will be reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament. I merely make the point that it seems to me that in order to have a considered national strategy in relation to drugs which is in operation, one needs a national co-ordinator. I repeat that Mr. Hellawell is eminently well qualified to do the job and indeed emerged from a considerable selection process.
The Earl of Strafford: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Leader of the House agree that a review of the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act should be a top priority, as the .Act has serious shortcomings and is widely disregarded?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am sure that that is one of the matters which the co-ordinator will be bound to consider.
Lord Calverley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that not too long ago in the press Mr. Hellawell advocated the relaxation of certain "lesser" drugs?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am told that that is not so. I know that those rumours appeared in the press, but I am told that it is not so. In any event, as I have said today, it is not part of the Government's policy to decriminalise any drugs which are at present illegal.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene but I observed that the Leader of the House talked of "lightly brushing aside". My noble friend Lord Henley asked a serious question and the Leader of the House said that it was a matter for the Prime Minister whom he asked to 10 Downing Street. Does the Leader of the House agree with me that the Prime Minister is in 10 Downing Street because the British electorate put him there? It is therefore a matter of some interest if the Prime Minister, as representative of all parties and as Prime Minister of this country, asks somebody to Downing Street who has openly advocated the taking of drugs. Does the Leader of the House think that that is setting a good example?
Lord Richard: My Lords, that question was somewhat ponderous, if I may say so to the Leader of the Opposition. If the best the Opposition can do—
Noble Lords: Answer!
Lord Richard: I shall answer in my own way. If the best the Opposition can do is to complain about the guest list at a reception at 10 Downing Street when I have been dealing with the serious appointment of someone to look at the question of drugs throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, I am not surprised that the electorate took the view it did last May.

Magistrates' Courts
3.21 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, magistrates and magistrates' courts are critical to our criminal justice system. There are now over 30,000 lay magistrates, and 90 stipendiary or professional magistrates, divided between the metropolitan stipendiary bench serving Inner London and the provincial bench, that is, the rest of the country. The magistracy deals with about 97 per cent. of criminal offences prosecuted in England and Wales. It also has important family and local licensing jurisdictions. That is why it is vital that they are supported by policies which look to the next century—not back to the 19th century.
Arrangements for the management and funding of magistrates' courts were enacted by Parliament in 1949. The previous government brought forward proposals
1058
designed to clarify and improve the accountability of the magistrates' courts system, through Part IV of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994. A statutory responsibility was put on local magistrates' courts committees (MCCs) for the efficient and effective administration of the courts in their areas. It established the role of a justices' chief executive as chief administrative officer responsible to each MCC. It also provided new powers for the Lord Chancellor, including one to initiate proposals for amalgamating MCC areas and implementing them where, after consultation, he considers that an amalgamation would be likely to lead to an overall increase in the efficiency of the administration of the courts in the area.
I am committed to making these arrangements serve modern needs in support of both lay and professional magistrates alike. The hard work and dedication to justice of the lay magistracy are undoubted. We have no plans for a replacement of the lay magistracy with stipendiary magistrates. My aim is to deploy the resources of the lay and the stipendiary magistracy to best effect.
Our objectives are: to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the magistrates' courts; and to reduce delay in the time taken for cases to be taken through those courts and so honour our manifesto commitment. My announcement today will help achieve those objectives through improved co-ordination and communication between the different agencies working in the criminal justice system, so as to improve the management of the system as a whole; better distribution and use of the public resources the Government commit to the magistrates' courts as an integral part of the processes for delivering justice; and better and more flexible deployment of professional judicial resources.
The provisions of the 1994 Act have yet to be implemented in a way which achieves significant improvement in the organisation and management of the magistrates' courts throughout England and Wales. We need to create a modern structure which provides the right local management within a national framework. We will continue to look afresh across the structures, processes and objectives of the whole criminal justice system. That process is not yet complete and it may produce still more radical options. But there is work that needs to be started now, and much that can be achieved using the powers we already have.
There are today 96 MCCs in England and Wales. They cover very different geographical areas, in many cases unrelated to the areas covered by other agencies involved in the criminal justice system, and serving widely differing numbers of magistrates, staff and court buildings. As Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of the Magistrates' Courts Service states in her annual report for 1996–97, which has today been lodged in the Library of the House:
"In several of our 1996/97 inspection reports, we concluded that small MCC areas were managing their affairs competently within the grant allocated to them. However, without detracting from their achievement, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the existence of so many small organisational units is not in the best interest of a

1059
well-functioning Service nation-wide. In our view, overall improvement will only be achieved through a structure with fewer MCCs which arc comparable in terms of workload and resources".
In the Government's view, there needs to be fewer, and larger, MCC areas, providing a more consistent basis for the administration and management of the courts, and a much greater alignment with the local government areas served by other agencies in the justice system—for example, the Crown Prosecution Service and police authorities—wherever that is appropriate. This requires a substantial programme of amalgamations of MCC areas.
Such an outcome is likely to lead to an overall increase in efficiency, both for the management of the courts themselves and for the wider criminal justice system. A greater coincidence of boundaries between the agencies should lead to administrative benefits, including the implementation of consistent and coherent policies throughout the area; for example, in fast-tracking particular types of case, which depends on effective co-operation between the various criminal justice agencies. I have been struck in government by the extent to which delivery in practice of objectives on which everyone is agreed in principle depends on effective co-operation among a large number of different agencies. Immediately after the general election, my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General asked the Director of Public Prosecutions to work up proposals for dividing the CPS into 42 areas to match existing police authority areas. She did so and those proposals were announced in a Written Answer in another place on 21st May 1997. So 42 CPS areas; 43 police forces; and 96 separate, independent administrative units in the magistrates' courts system. I am not trying to establish administrative symmetry for its own sake. But I have to ask whether 96 separate administrative units in the magistrates' courts are really necessary.
I want to make it plain that this is not about losing local courts. It is about being open-minded about the best way of providing administrative support to them. I am not planning mindlessly to sweep away tradition; I am striving for a justice system at least as good as any in the world. There is much that is good about our current arrangements, not least the involvement of intelligent, committed volunteers as magistrates. What I want to do is to build on the high quality which is already there, to secure the best possible service for the British people. I am committed to local justice. Many decisions, for example about providing court-houses to match need, will properly remain to be taken at local level. But justice delivered locally is not the same as justice organised locally. Local management, in my clear view, requires a national framework.
The voluntary amalgamations which have occurred to date have shown the benefits which can be achieved. They have included: a fresh approach to the organisation of the MCC, with a reduction in the number of sub-committees, and the establishment of clear levels of delegation to officers; better strategic planning in relation to use of magistrates, staff and buildings, with an estate of sufficient size and flexibility to render the task meaningful; better performance monitoring and the
1060
networking of performance initiatives; access to specialist staff which the individual committees could not previously have supported; and the ability to review and standardise staffing policies and bring about other administrative efficiencies through rationalisation of functions previously duplicated by staff within the individual committees.
Our policy is, therefore, to promote a reduction in the number of MCC areas, involving a greater alignment of the MCC areas with those areas served by the CPS and police. This provides a model which is the starting point for our consideration of MCC areas. I shall issue consultation papers proposing amalgamation of MCC areas with a view to being in a position to make an amalgamation order under Section 32 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 where that is justified.
Our first priority is to consider the position of the metropolitan MCCs, where currently there are the largest number of small MCCs and where we believe there is the greatest scope for the largest efficiency gains through pooling their resources. We shall start the necessary consultative process with a view to having new shadow MCCs up and running on 1st April 1998, with a second phase on 1st April 1999. In the shire counties there remain some parts of the country where MCC areas do not currently align with the police and CPS boundaries and, as appropriate, we shall bring forward proposals in relation to these MCCs.
Greater London provides its own problems. This is substantially because of the effects of the abolition of the GLC and successive changes to local government in that area. I have yet to receive and consider the interim review of the Outer London Strategic Management Body. However, the service cannot afford to await until 1999 before any consideration is given to the way forward for outer London. We are looking at the appropriate ways to organise magistrates' courts across the huge area of the metropolitan constabulary. If we are to achieve our national objectives in relation to the service in London as a whole, we shall need to propose changes which tie in with those being introduced by the CPS in the area.
I turn to the appointment and deployment of stipendiary magistrates. We have also been giving careful consideration to a better and more flexible use of the professional judicial resources available in the magistrates' courts. Stipendiary magistrates are, by statute, appointed either to London or to a particular commission area. They do not have a national jurisdiction. We will shortly, therefore, be consulting on the desirability of creating a single, unified stipendiary magistracy that would enhance the efficiency with which stipendiary magistrates could respond to changes in national workload patterns. Associated with this we shall consult upon the question whether the role that stipendiary magistrates now fulfil might be more accurately reflected in a change of judicial title; they are professional judges and the word "magistrate" is most naturally associated in the public mind with the lay magistracy.
We have been persuaded by representations, among others from the Magistrates' Association, that our policy should be to encourage greater separation within the

1061
senior management of the magistrates' courts, in particular between administrative and legal functions. Justices' clerks, and all those advising magistrates in individual cases, need to be able to concentrate upon this important function. Managing a modern magistrates' courts service is an administrative function. It requires dedicated administrators fully engaged on that task. In order to improve the status of those who provide legal advice to the magistrates, we shall be consulting on the proposal that, in future, court clerks should all be professionally qualified either as a barrister or solicitor. If it would help, we are prepared to consider a change of title to recognise their proper role in a modern magistrates' courts system. It is also our policy to ensure that dual appointments, where the same individual is both the justices' chief executive and justices' clerk with substantive legal responsibilities, will become really exceptional. Amalgamations will lead to MCC areas of a sufficient size to be able to support a stand-alone justices' chief executive and the appropriate number of justices clerks for their area.
I now turn to a matter consequential to my Statement thus far. I have today lodged in the Library of the House a copy of the Magistrates Courts Services Inspectorate's report on the review of the proposal to amalgamate Birmingham, Coventry and Solihull MCC. The chief inspector identifies the efficiency gains which could accrue from the rationalisation of the senior management structures in the area. She refers to the potential for new strategic thinking, reduced management overheads, sharing of initiatives, greater staff specialisation and better use of staff generally. She recommends that Ministers should actively pursue a reduction in the number of MCC areas and that a new national strategy be developed to contribute to the better functioning of the criminal justice system as a whole. She does not recommend that Ministers proceed with the particular compulsory amalgamation of these three MCCs at this time. I have broadly accepted her conclusions. I do not propose to proceed with the proposal to amalgamate the three MCCs of Birmingham, Coventry and Solihull, as this proposal is not wholly consistent with the strategy I have outlined.
Associated with these changes we shall be bringing forward other measures to improve the national framework. The department is currently reviewing the grant allocation formula. It is our intention to introduce a new formula for 1999–2000 which will be better able to meet needs while recognising performance, and will distribute the available resources more fairly. We shall be introducing a requirement upon MCCs in relation to the reports and plans they are to produce and the performance standards they are to maintain. Their operations will be supported by new information technology services currently being negotiated with suppliers. These will enable a more effective means of delivering information across the criminal justice system.
I shall shortly be issuing consultation papers proposing the amalgamation of the seven MCCs in the West Midlands area, and also the five MCCs in Merseyside. If these proposals are implemented, it will
1062
result in MCCs in those two areas with common boundaries with the police authorities and new CPS areas. I shall follow this up with further consultation papers as and when appropriate proposing further amalgamations where this might achieve the benefits I have described. I shall be writing to the chairmen of the relevant MCCs inviting them to submit proposals and indicating when, in the absence of their own proposals, we intend to launch our own consultation under Section 32(5) of the Act. I shall also shortly be issuing a consultation paper as I have described on unifying the metropolitan and provincial stipendiary benches.
With this announcement today, the Government are embarking upon a plan of action to improve the operation of the magistrates' courts. We are determined to create a modern structure, which will provide the right local management within a national framework. This will enable the courts to play their part in a properly co-ordinated criminal justice system, better able to deliver our promise to reduce delay throughout the system.
3.39 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for sharing with us in such a comprehensive and detailed way his future intentions towards the organisation of the magistracy. He will not mind my saying that many of the ideas that he has expressed today are ideas that the previous government had already developed or were in an advanced stage of developing. I hope that he will also forgive me for, at this stage, expressing my views on a preliminary basis because I have not had a great deal of time to consider in detail what the noble and learned Lord said.
I am particularly struck by his remarks about the distinction between justice locally delivered and justice locally organised. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that as far as the organisation of justice is concerned there is much to be said for larger areas of management. I cannot say that the reduction from 96 to 42 or 43 is necessarily the right figure, but as an order of magnitude it seems to me the sensible course.
However, it would not be true to say that there is no link between the organisation of justice on the one hand and the delivery of justice locally on the other because MCCs are responsible for providing finance for local benches; for providing training for local JPs; and for administering local courts. There are nearly 500 magistrates' courts. How can we be sure that in 10 years' time there will still be 500 such courts? One can only deliver justice locally if one has the buildings in which to deliver it locally. How can we be sure that those buildings are properly staffed and have a lay magistracy there to deliver justice?
I would like to be reassured by the noble and learned Lord that in exercising their discretion the MCCs will make sure that the principle of locally delivered justice is very high on their agenda; otherwise it will be an inevitable inclination of those who manage the MCCs to centralise the delivery of justice below. Locally

1063
delivered justice is one of the finest principles of our constitution. It must be guaranteed. As the Lord Chancellor organises the new MCCs under Section 32 of the 1997 Act, I hope that he will consider providing the necessary safeguards.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble and learned Lord for his Statement which properly begins by recognising the importance of the lay and stipendiary magistracy. Between them they deal with the vast bulk of criminal cases and are likely to have yet more responsibilities and powers regarding young offenders in the future. Inescapably, the Government's proposals for young offenders will require greater efficiency and more resources. The lay magistracy also has a family jurisdiction under statute which already requires timetabling to avoid delay, a responsibility it takes seriously and tries to meet.
I fully understand the proposal that there should be greater alignment between the police, the CPS, local government and magistrates' courts committee areas. I wonder if a simple mechanism can be introduced to keep those areas aligned because local government areas are prone to change from time to time. In the same context I wonder whether there can be some mechanism for greater liaison between magistrates' courts and county courts in the family jurisdiction and between magistrates' courts and Crown Courts in the criminal jurisdiction. Sitting at a humble level in the Crown Court it is sometimes very frustrating to realise that the same defendant is due to appear in front of different courts on different days charged with similar offences and often with different lawyers representing him or her in different places.
I welcome the clear statement that these proposals are not about losing local courts. In some areas where courts have already closed, accessibility has diminished. A system cannot run efficiently if staff, litigants and witnesses have difficulty reaching court or have to worry about getting there and back home again. Ultimately, justice suffers. At a more mundane level the collection of fines, fees and compensation orders can also suffer if the courts are not accessible.
I welcome the proposal for greater separation of the legal and administrative functions of court staff. Justices' clerks have a pivotal role serving both the bench and the public. It is surely right that they should concentrate on giving advice and support to the justices and that attention should be given to the increasingly important area of case management. Indeed, it is essential that magistrates have quick access to authoritative legal advice. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has recently spoken elsewhere about the likely impact of the European Convention on Human Rights even on the magistrates' courts' jurisdiction. I ask about the Government's thinking on the future recruitment and retention of justices' clerks. A balance should be struck between open advertisement and keeping the expertise of existing clerks through an attractive career structure.
Finally, there is much force in the proposal for a single stipendiary bench with a national rather than a local jurisdiction. I am tempted to remind your
1064
Lordships that there is a good fictional precedent in P.G. Wodehouse where his character, Sir Watkyn Basset felt able to exercise his powers with equal ferocity both in London and at home.
I am intrigued by the idea of a possible new title for stipendiary magistrates. Having spent many long hours in Bow Street and Marlborough Street courts representing shoplifters and drunken drivers, I have heard stipendiary magistrates called a variety of names, none of which would seem suitable. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord should consider offering a prize. Can he confirm that the proposed changes for justices' clerks and stipendiary magistrates will involve primary legislation? It seems to me likely that that is so. I welcome the intention to consult, and the long-term commitment to the magistracy.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful for the general welcome from both noble Lords to these proposals. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that I have an open mind in relation to many of the positive suggestions that he brings forward. I am ready to acknowledge, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, invites me to do, that some of these ideas were indeed developed under our predecessors. We intend to press ahead with vigour with what really has to be done.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, asked me to say that I am committed to the principle of locally delivered justice. I am. The point that I desire to emphasise is that the amalgamation of magistrates' courts committees should not lead to a loss of local accountability or increased remoteness. It is not the court or the benches that amalgamate—that is the distinction that we have to keep in mind—but the administrative and financial structures which support those courts and benches. Membership of an amalgamated committee will still overwhelmingly comprise local magistrates selected by their local colleagues. Decisions about the administrative needs and structures of the MCC will be taken locally. There is no necessary connection between the amalgamation of MCCs and court closures. On the contrary, the increased flexibility in staffing and in caseload terms offered by amalgamation could provide a lifeline for more marginal courts.
The issue of courthouse closures and the reorganisation of the petty sessional divisions is not what we are discussing today. That is a separate issue, but I entirely appreciate that some will think that there are connections. The position in relation to courthouse closures is that the decision on whether or not to close a courthouse is a local issue, subject to statutory rights of appeal. Under Section 56 of the 1997 Act I have responsibility for deciding whether a courthouse should be closed where the paying authority has disputed the MCC's proposal to do so. I have no other responsibilities in relation to magistrates' courthouses because they are not Crown property. I repeat that the closure of a courthouse is not a necessary consequence of amalgamation and that the decision to close a courthouse rests with the MCC although the paying authority can disagree and I then have to decide the appeal.
3.50 p.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, perhaps I may make a plea on behalf of lay justices. It has been said that the administration of justice is greatly dependent on the work of the lay justices. Indeed, wherever I go, I find that lay justices are congratulated on all their work but, speaking as a lay justice for 19 years, I should point out that as a result of the way in which things are now developing, less value is being placed on the time of the lay justices. The Crown Prosecution Service and the clerks often leave the lay justices sitting in the retiring room because their cases are not ready or somebody has not arrived. After all, the lay justices are free whereas every other person in the court is being paid. Unfortunately, instead of valuing the service which is given voluntarily and which is therefore free and without cost, the reverse happens and because lay justices do not represent a cost on the balance sheet, they come last in the court's considerations.
I stress that I am speaking from personal experience. When the changes are made, I hope that some recognition will be given to the amount of work and time now required from our lay justices. When I first started as a lay justice in 1971, the training was perfunctory. It has become more and more stringent and more and more time is now required to be devoted to continuous training. However, no real consideration is paid to what is required of lay justices. After all, 93 per cent. of all cases are dealt with by lay justices.
I take the point that the word "magistrate" could lead to confusion between stipendiary magistrates and lay magistrates. We always used to be called Justices of the Peace or lay justices, so perhaps we could revert to our traditional title rather than being known as "magistrates".
I should like to dwell for a moment on the subject of clerks. When we were trying to introduce training on ethnic minority issues for justices, the clerks' societies were the least keen group. It was only when the Lord Chancellor's Department insisted that justices should have some training in dealing with people from different cultural backgrounds that such training was organised. I hope that that point will be kept in mind because justices' clerks do not tend to be very keen on change. They should not have too much power in the courts. The justices should still have some say in these matters.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, first, I should say that I am much on the public record as regards my support for, and the high value that I attach to, the voluntary services of the lay magistracy. I undertake today to ensure that copies of the speeches that I have made to that effect to public audiences are sent to the noble Baroness.
A month or two ago a story appeared in the press, the source of which I know not, that I was about to abolish the lay magistracy and to replace it with an enormous increase in the stipendiary bench. There was not a shred of truth in it then—nor now. As the noble Baroness rightly says, 97 per cent. of criminal cases begin and end in the magistrates' courts. Not only do we value lay
1066
magistrates for the quality of their work but the financial cost of replacing lay magistrates with stipendiaries would require the appointment of at least one thousand additional stipendiary magistrates and would add at least £60 million to the national cost of summary justice. I do not think that it is too great a leap of the financial imagination to say that that sum (which is avoided) is the value of the services provided free by the lay magistrates.
I agree also with the noble Baroness when she says that it is wrong to lay fault exclusively upon the lay justices when delays occur, as happens in magistrates' courts. I have been at pains to say time and again that co-operation between the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the social welfare services, prosecuting lawyers and defending lawyers, the Probation Service and the courts is required to reduce delays. It is facile simply to lay the responsibility for the delays at the door of any of those agencies.
I have shown my support for the lay magistracy, and the social value that I attach to the civic commitment that is involved in serving on the lay magistracy, to try to encourage many more people to come forward and to offer themselves as magistrates so that the social balance of our magistrates' benches throughout the country is improved. Magistrates' courts should be microcosms of the communities that they serve. In too many parts of the country, the social balance is wrong.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I too thank the noble and learned Lord for his Statement and even more for having given me the opportunity to see him yesterday on this subject when he reassured me to a great extent. I was speaking on behalf of the Isle of Wight, which is unique in being a county of England but also and more importantly an island. With a population of 126,000, it has a larger population than many of the islands of the Commonwealth which recently in Edinburgh, so I am told by a magistrate from the Isle of Wight, were told that they were equal with other members of the Commonwealth. Therefore, our importance needs to be seen in proportion.
Having said all that, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he said and how he said it. Without his making a firm commitment, I got the impression—I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could confirm this—that there will be no rush to change for anybody, including the Isle of Wight, if it is seen that the more efficient way of handling things is to have an independent magistrates' courts committee as at present.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, your Lordships will not be surprised if I say that I have an instinctive sympathy for islands. I am conscious that every part of the country is individual, not least the Isle of Wight precisely because it is an island. I do not see the position of the Isle of Wight as my first priority. I see no need to bring forward a proposal in the first phase, which I have described. However, in fairness to the noble Lord I must tell him that the second phase may be another matter, but that entails my accepting what has come from the noble Lord—that there should be no precipitate

1067
change. Consultations could therefore begin next year. But an amalgamation could not occur until 2000 at the earliest if —I emphasise "if"—I concluded that that was the right way forward for the Isle of Wight.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
4 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Earl of Sandwich set down for today shall be limited to two and a half hours and that in the name of the Earl of Shannon to two hours.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

India
4.1 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich The Earl of Sandwich rose to call attention to India's socio-economic achievements after 50 years of independence, and to the need for the United Kingdom to help her partners to combat poverty throughout the sub-continent; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I rise to call attention to India's socio-economic achievements since independence and to the need for the United Kingdom to help her partners to combat poverty throughout the sub-continent. I extend my thanks to Cross-Bench colleagues who have enabled me to initiate this debate today and to noble Lords on all Benches, many of whom are more qualified than I to speak on the subject.
India is not often the subject of debate in this House, perhaps because there are sensitive issues in the background, but the 50th anniversary of its independence is a proper occasion to put this right. Within this very wide topic I propose to speak chiefly on aid and development. I know that others will strengthen the related arguments for trade and investment.
I shall concentrate on India but try not to exclude her neighbours. India has reappeared in our financial press in the past few years, not as a poor non-aligned country as we once thought it was, but as an emerging market of many millions with a huge stake in the world economy. How far this image can be realised remains to be seen.
We in this country greatly value our friendship and our trade and aid links with India. I believe that India would like to reciprocate and think well of us, despite the unfortunate media coverage which obscured the undoubted benefits of the Queen's recent visit. Further, I suggest that we have an historic commitment to the people of India, and all the countries of the sub-continent, which is in no way altered by the public relations problems of our new Government. The question is: are we making sufficient effort to sustain this unique relationship and to make it a priority?
Some ask why India, for her part, seems to be so unwilling to admit its close relationship with this country. That is often the case with separations. Once independent, one tries to remain on good terms but one does not often talk of the shared past. It is over, and so are apologies. There are new matters to talk about, on the basis of equality. I believe that the recent embarrassments have arisen because, even after half a century, we have not given up our colonial nostalgia and still assume that we should get special treatment—like being invited to mediate over Kashmir. Was the alleged remark of Mr. Gujral in Egypt that Britain is a third-rate power too cruel? I believe, nevertheless, that it serves as a useful reminder that India expects better of us, and of Foreign Office briefings.
Many noble Lords who have visited India will know, as did the early Congress leaders, that there is an astonishing parallel with Ireland, and not just in the colours of the national flag. Both countries inspire a strong mixture of emotions in Britain. Both have been harshly exploited by the British and have endured and resisted the pain, humility and denaturing force of colonialism over centuries. It is impossible to enter a debate on the socio-economic agreement without recording this. Yet, the words "apology" and "forgiveness" seem out of place. What is needed much more is understanding and the gradual rebuilding of confidence. This process takes time.
The Commonwealth and the monarchy are playing an important part, but it is between peoples, not nations or governments, through the mutual advantage of tourism and immigration, educational exchanges, trade, aid and investment, that we will ensure a lasting friendship.
I have a personal affection for India and Pakistan which goes back to 1962 when I first visited them by road, and to 1968, when my wife and I spent a year working in Delhi and Mumbai. We have kept in touch with many friends over the years. Two of my children have Indian godparents. My experience since has been chiefly of voluntary agencies working in the poorest communities. I consider it a great privilege to have contributed in small ways during my time with Christian Aid, Save the Children and CARE International, among others. During those 30 years I learned the simple lesson that, however much you think you can help, an outsider, whether an individual, an aid agency or government, will never have the same knowledge, understanding and expertise as the people themselves. They are all too aware of their problem but are deprived by others of the means to overcome it. The best thing one can do is to help them remove this exploitation, in whatever form, whether it is abuse of human rights, bureaucracy or just the neglect which leads to poverty.
In a nation of 950 million divided between hundreds of minority communities and 14 major language groups, Indian democracy is a remarkable survivor. Without underestimating the suffering that individual states and minorities feel, we as outsiders must be grateful for the relative stability of Indian politics over the past half-century. Long may this situation prevail throughout the sub-continent.
Under successive governments India has done an enormous amount to improve the condition of the masses of people who, as we all know, suffer from a range of deprivations. Given the now obvious disadvantages of centralised government, the past 50 years have seen remarkable achievements. These should be recognised.
South Asia as a whole contains nearly half the world's 1.3 billion poorest people. It has over half the world's 160 million pre-school children who are underweight. India's infant mortality rate has halved since 1960, but it is a sad fact that, although the fertile plains and wealthier regions have surplus food, any numerical successes in combating malnutrition have been offset by population growth. India's fast-growing urban industrial wealth is still dwarfed by the vast extent of its rural poverty.
However, largely because of improvements in distribution and communications, India has conquered mass starvation. This is an amazing achievement. There has also been considerable success in reducing fertility, especially in India where the rate has reduced to about 3 children per family and in Bangladesh where it is only 2.9. All of the expenditure on birth control programmes and the propaganda on all the great hoardings with the red triangle has finally paid off. Nevertheless, there will be 1,000 million Indians before we reach the millennium.
The UNDP's human development index provides some of the best indicators. I give some examples. India and Pakistan at 138 and 139 in the index are only just ahead of the 30 poorest countries in the index. Bangladesh, which has always been their poor relation, is a little behind at 144, while Sri Lanka, despite her internal conflict, is way up at 91.
Indian literacy has risen from 19 per cent. in 1952 to 51 per cent. today. That is low by world standards but considerably ahead of her two neighbours. Her aggregated school enrolment is 56 per cent., which is the average for all developing countries. Kerala would be number 80 if it were measured on the index, with female literacy as high as 81 per cent., while Uttar Pradesh would be down at 123.
The national figures for education are still far too low, especially for female school enrolment in rural areas. It is arguable that India started rural development too late. Despite land reforms, Nehru paid too little attention to rural areas, and Mrs. Gandhi's garibi hatao—"abolish poverty"—campaign merely reinforced central government control and was insensitive to local needs.
India's present rulers are well aware of the mistakes of the past and the need to avoid inevitable wounding comparisons. President Narayanan, in his Independence Day speech, singled out self-sufficiency and the doubling of life expectancy as the two great successes. "But obviously", he said:
"these are not enough for us to be complacent about. Other countries have gone far ahead of us. We have to move faster … We have to put special emphasis on the development of infrastructure and investment".
1070
Illiteracy, he said, was the greatest obstacle to progress, and he called for a new partnership of government and people in a mass campaign against illiteracy.
Those are stirring words. They are intended not just for Indians but for foreign donors and investors who are attempting to assist. The international community is only too keen to emphasise its part in India's success, but it is only now beginning to admit its role in India's failures; for example, the top heavy giant hydro schemes like the Narmada Dam, clearly unwanted in its original form by the local population. It would be absurd to suggest that foreign aid, which is only $2 per head of the population per annum, has made the impact that Marshall Aid did in Europe. It is a tiny proportion of the economy.
Bilateral aid from OECD countries has been falling steadily. Even Japan and Germany are unable to make up what we and the USA now seem unwilling to give. IDA lending to south Asia has also recently fallen. It has been India, against all the obstacles of caste, race and poverty—Indian health workers, Indian teachers and Indian entrepreneurs—which has created the achievement of bringing India some way out of poverty.
It has also been Indian campaigners. The most positive phenomenon in the past two decades has been the involvement of people in their own development—notably the growth of community organisations. That is an increasingly important force for poverty eradication. I give one example. In Tamil Nadu alone there are an estimated 25,000 community organisations. That is more than the total in Kenya and twice the number in the Philippines, and they are the registered ones only.
I congratulate the old ODA, now reborn as the DfID, on its steady support for local as well as international NGOs, because it is undoubtedly through them that aid can reach the poorest people. The latest annual report gives prominence to ODA's work in Bangladesh in supporting organisations such as BRAC and Proshika as local NGOs while CARE Bangladesh was the channel for capacity-building aid to the smaller NGOs.
The larger NGOs are sometimes criticised as unelected bureaucracies. Aid through them may mean less formal accountability, but if they are efficient the cost generally outweighs losses. There is a much higher standard of monitoring and assessment than, say, 10 years ago.
I should like to ask the Minister to confirm that he intends to increase support for local NGOs in India as his predecessor did and, if possible, to comment upon the cost effectiveness of such aid which, in my view, is more appropriate and closer to the direct aid which the British taxpayer is prepared to pay than the subsidising of tied aid to large-scale power projects. Will he say whether some of the soon-to-be-abolished aid/trade provision money will be used for that kind of aid and investment in people, perhaps through the British Council or Commonwealth agencies?
May I ask the Minister, on behalf of Save the Children, why the education of young children is so low on the priority list? Now that the Andhra Pradesh primary education programme is ending after 10 years

1071
will he say what has been achieved there and, in particular, what has happened to the enrolment level and retention of girls?
I started deliberately with the "people" end because their well-being is the primary objective of international development. That is what we all want, not just this Government. We all want to see basic human rights in our foreign policy. It is just that some are more cynical than others about achieving them. We need to try. The latest Christian Aid campaign for fair trade through the supermarkets is a pioneering way of achieving those rights through the consumer. Today's announcement that the Government are helping Save the Children to rehabilitate child labourers in Pakistan is another reminder that what we buy cheaply here may be at the expense of human dignity elsewhere.
I do not underestimate the infrastructural programmes if they are targeted properly and the people are consulted. Mr. Wolfensohn's latest speech in Hong Kong makes it clear that the World Bank is taking on the responsibility as well as the rhetoric of community involvement and what he calls the difficult, riskier projects. I am certain that some aid money alongside inward investment is necessary to build capacity, open up markets and provoke competition.
Inward investment has increased over the past few years owing to the long overdue deregulation and liberalisation. Foreign investment made a huge leap from $151 million in 1992 to $1,750 million in 1995. No one doubts that India has tremendous potential, not least in her trade with Britain, if certain criteria are met. Many constraints are recognised by the ODI, such as structural weaknesses, inefficiency of small markets, skills shortages and weak technological capabilities. If India, Pakistan and Bangladesh cannot overcome those they will continue to depend heavily on central government interventions and foreign aid. At the same time, if aid can be injected at the right level, poorer communities will benefit and the vast consumer market which is already developing is bound to expand more dramatically.
I welcome every opportunity for developing countries such as India to appear more frequently in our media and aid agency publications and in debates in your Lordships' House and government statements. I hope that they increasingly will in the months to come. I beg to move for Papers.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl for bringing this Motion to our attention and allowing us to discuss it. He has shown his extensive knowledge and interest in development aid not just for south Asia but for the whole of the third world. He brings to the subject not just a great deal of knowledge but a great deal of empathy. We are all grateful to him. The subject is vast. Even with the extra time available to us, it will he difficult to cover.
I wish to refer to the remarks the noble Earl made about the recent visit of Her Majesty on the occasion of the golden jubilee of the independence of India and
1072
Pakistan. He was right to say that it had the hallmarks of a family quarrel. What is of more interest to me is that the family connection between India and Britain has come full circle because of the presence in Britain of a large community from south Asia. It is no longer just an old colonial relationship, it has come back to the diaspora. To some extent, as with a family, the UK may not want to criticise a former colony, but in this respect it becomes difficult not to take a critical view of certain developments because, in a sense, we are no longer sufficiently distant or identical. There remains great concern.
As regards Kashmir, an issue which I do not believe we should debate tonight, there are genuine differences within the British/south Asian community. It would be foolish to pretend that those differences do not exist. The fact that neither Pakistan nor India wants us to discuss the issue is neither here nor there.
A point which I hope my noble friend Lord Whitty will answer concerns recent press reports about our High Commissioner in Delhi. I trust that my noble friend will tell me that Her Majesty's Government have full confidence in the excellent work of Sir David Gore-Booth. I was recently in India and had occasion to see his excellent work. I hope that my noble friend will reaffirm that view.
India's major socio-economic achievement is its vibrant parliamentary democracy. One forgets that when India became independent in 1947 it was not fashionable to believe that a developing country should have a parliamentary democracy. Indeed, many people believed that an authoritarian government was desirable and that democracies were for only moderately rich countries, perhaps only European countries. But India is one of the older democracies in the world; older than some European countries, such as Spain.
One must admire the courage and vision of the founding fathers who in 1947 took a gamble on universal adult franchise. Indeed, France achieved that only in 1945: until then women were not given the vote. Those who took that decision did so knowing the extent of illiteracy and India's myriad problems. It was a bold gamble and it paid off.
Today India is a vibrant democracy. One sees the proliferation of regional parties, caste parties, parties of untouchables and so forth. That should not cause alarm because it means that more people have a stake in the system, asserting through political action the rights that they wish to claim. However, because the economic system has not grown at a rate that permits India to afford a rapid elimination of poverty, people have taken the political route as a way of claiming scarce resources for themselves.
That is a healthy process. During the past 50 years, one of the favourite arguments of those who advocate PR as an electoral system is the gap between the proportion of seats and the proportion of votes which parties claim. In India during the 1950s there was one-party dominance and great disproportionality between votes and seats. However, there is now greater proportionality because many small parties which have strong regional affiliations are able to express the voice

1073
of their community at parliamentary level. Although it leads to fragile coalition government that is no bad thing because one wants governments which are not strong but which are capable of doing good. Those two aspects are not the same: in India strong governments have often done bad things.
One should also note another Indian achievement, in particular since we have recently hosted the meeting of the Commonwealth heads of government. The modern Commonwealth was born as the result of the efforts of Nehru and the then Labour Government to refashion it from the old Empire. After independence and after becoming a republic, India decided to continue to be a member of the Commonwealth. That led to the refashioning and redefinition of the Commonwealth. If it has become a large and flexible organisation spanning all the continents, some of the credit must go to India and the people who led it in the early days.
As the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, pointed out, while there have been tremendous political achievements there has been less than adequate progress in the social dimensions. He mentioned all the salient statistics and therefore I do not need to do so. However, in terms of literacy, health, the education of women and so forth, India presents a paradox. Yes, a great deal has been done, but a great deal more remains to be done. Compared with other developing countries, India is somewhat behind.
There is a related and more serious problem. Although the people who pioneered India's economic policy in the 1950s were sincere, intelligent and patriotic, they genuinely thought—indeed, it was then fashionable to do so—that rapid development would be achieved through a central, democratic planning mechanism with a large and growing role played by the state. After 50 years' experience, one must say that that rapid growth has not been delivered. The reasons are many and complex and we need not go into them.
However, although somewhat later than the countries of east and south-east Asia, India has decided to open up its economy and go down the path of liberal economic reform. It is trying to attract foreign investment as a way of enhancing development. Since 1991, when the policy was adopted, there has been an acceleration of development. The economy grew by approximately 7 per cent. in 1994–95. The growth has been slightly slower this year, but I believe that the logjam has been broken.
The difficulty is that because India, unlike many other countries, has a strong democratic process and a number of vested interests have been created from the old economic system, there is a great resistance. In India one cannot have liberal economic reform, as in many other countries; it must come through consensus. Consensus is difficult to achieve when there are gainers and losers. The losers are usually more powerful than the gainers because they have gained from the old system.
India is currently going through a great open democratic debate about the speed with which liberal economic reforms should be implemented. However, at
1074
the same time there are claims of justice and fairness which must also be examined if the reform is not to increase inequality, which is bad enough. We are witnessing reform which is perhaps not proceeding rapidly, but it is irreversible. I do not believe that India will return to its old habits, but it may not satisfy the impatience of many people who would like it to do what they want rather than what it wants.
As regards the excellent record of Indo-British partnership, whenever I speak to people who are interested in investing money in India I tell them that they must be patient. I tell them that they are going to a sophisticated country which will not roll over. Yes, it needs money but it is not so desperate as to do anything people want. In that respect, India is unlike China. During the past 20 years, China has attracted a large amount of foreign investment, but it can set up special export zones where there are no trade union and environment laws, and so forth. One cannot do that in India because it is governed by the rule of law. Whatever criticism one can make, those laws will not easily be set aside merely for the sake of rapid economic development.
The cheering thing about India is that it has started a consensual, liberalising economic process in which, throughout, there will be a consideration of fairness. While it will not go as fast as we should like—India will be a fleet-footed elephant at best and certainly not a tiger—it will yet show us that that combination of liberal and economic reform and fairness can be achieved.
The second half of the noble Earl's Motion refers to what the United Kingdom can do. As I said in relation to the recent visit, I believe that there should be less politics and more business. Much as we should like to advise India on how to run its own affairs, either domestic or foreign, we should keep our own counsel and as much as possible try to further business relations. The position of aid and development and NGOs was well described by the noble Earl and I have nothing to add. All his points were well taken.
I am sure that my noble friend Lord Paul will say more about business; he knows more about it than I do. But we need to develop business relationships where trust exists on both sides. If there is trust on both sides between Indian and British businessmen, we can perhaps overcome India's fears in relation to foreign capital, perhaps more in the context of British capital than any other capital. We can demonstrate our sensitivity and care for India's interests and assure India that when we take our capital to India it is in the mutual interest of both India and Britain.
Yes, there are 950 million people. I do not worry about it. When I was born, India's population was one-third of what it is now. India has tripled its population and more than tripled its food production. Therefore, the Malthusian threat worries me less than anything else. What we have to look forward to is that combination of equity and freedom and economic betterment.
4.32 p.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Earl for giving some of us this opportunity to speak about India because it is a subject very close to our hearts. We have a fifth Indian Member joining this House today. I have a warm feeling that there are now five of us on these Benches, although we still do not have a Cross-Bencher. If I use the term "we" rather indiscriminately, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me because I sometimes confuse myself as to whether I am speaking as an Indian or a British person. But that is an expression of my deep affection for both countries.
I was in India during the Queen's visit. I hasten to add that I was not part of her entourage, but, as it happened, I was there at the same time. I was treated with enormous warmth by both the Indians and the British. In fact, at the PM's lunch, the Indians kept trying to pull me into the receiving line where all the Indians were and David Gore-Booth, our High Commissioner in Delhi, kept pulling me back into the British line. I do believe that only those who have experienced that kind of situation will know how it makes one feel. I am still unable to find words to express the tremendous feeling of being wanted by both of my countries, if I may so express it.
I should like to say a few words about Her Majesty's visit because there have been so many different stories and newspaper reports about it. There is no doubt at all that the newspaper reports in Delhi were not very welcoming. I want to be very subtle but I am not sure that I shall find that possible. The Foreign Secretary in Pakistan used the word which I call the "K" word—your Lordships will know that I mean Kashmir—and words like "internationalisation" and "mediation". That was bound, by definition, to displease the Indians. By the time the party arrived in Delhi, so had reports of the Foreign Secretary's words. It was a very successful and worthwhile visit to Pakistan, but some of the terms used were not at all welcomed in India.
It had nothing to do with Her Majesty. That is something we should realise. It was purely the political situation. The Indians do not appreciate such expressions—and they did not do so. But that was no reflection on Her Majesty personally. As far as I saw, the people were delighted to have her in Delhi and all the functions that I attended were very happy and wonderful occasions.
The photographs of Her Majesty in Amritsar, which was supposedly going to be such a difficult visit, were the happiest of all those taken of her. It is extremely important to remember that the Queen was not in any way treated with disrespect or any less affection than she would have been otherwise. But there was some feeling that perhaps some diplomacy might have been used in Pakistan so that visits to both countries would have proved equally successful.
My friend Hugo Young attended a CHOGM in Delhi many years ago. He described the behaviour of some of the British as "post-Imperial condescension". I have never forgotten that term and I commend it to your Lordships. Indians are very, very sensitive about post-Imperial condescension. I am not trying to make a
1076
political point but I am sorry to say that that is how they felt in relation to the Foreign Secretary's approach. I met many people; friends, relations and other people working in different places. They all said that they did not expect that of the Labour Party.
As we know in this House, Indians hold the Labour Party in enormous high affection, much to my chagrin. It was during a period of Labour government that India gained independence. The last thing that the Indians said they expected was for a Labour Foreign Secretary to display condescension. Enough said about that.
At the same time, I heard how very much John Major's contributions to improving relations between India and the United Kingdom had been valued. If noble Lords think back, they will remember that during the period of office of my noble friend Lady Thatcher there was a very up-and-down relationship with India. It was really after John Major became Prime Minister that matters started to improve enormously. That was alongside India opening up. I must say that that was part of it. But, without exception, everyone said how much they liked John Major; how unpatronising, natural and normal he was. In fact, I would say he was very much himself, as he is here.
As my noble friend Lord Desai has mentioned—
A noble Lord: The noble Lord!
Baroness Flather: I am sorry, I should have said the noble Lord, Lord Desai. I think of him as a friend and therefore, I forgot. He has already mentioned that India is going through a new phase. The government are now made up of a number of coalition parties. It is difficult for a new system of coalition immediately to function smoothly. It is very much a question of people saying, "What are you going to give me for the support that I give you." When I was in the United States about four or five years ago I had the impression that the same phenomenon was occurring. It is as if the congressman supports the President on the basis of what is in it for him. This phenomenon of, "What is in it for my region?" or, "What is in it for my state?" is common. One has to perform a balancing act of giving a little but trying to get the central part of the government moving too. One has the impression that perhaps the governance in the centre has not yet started to work as decisively and as firmly as it should.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, I see the future of India involving, to a great extent, not just the financial and business sector, but also the micro projects. Like the noble Earl, I am a great believer in micro projects. I have worked with NGOs on the ground. I do not have much faith as regards the central government being able to change the lives of people in India. Sadly, after 50 years, I am worried about how little progress has been made in education, particularly the education of girls. I am worried about the situation of women there. However, it is important to stress that there are more women in high positions in public life, in business and in every sphere in India than in this country or indeed in any other western country.

1077
Therefore we should not concentrate on one aspect of the matter. India is a country of extremes. In India one sees extremes and everything in between.
However, I worry about the 70 per cent. of women who have nothing. It is a source of great pain to me that not enough is being done about that. I put my faith in the micro projects, which are growing in number in India and which are carried out by Indians with great success. I hope that the British NGOs and Her Majesty's Government will do everything possible to support those micro projects as that is where real change is taking place as regards the lives of slum children, those women who are beaten and some men who may suffer less pain than the women but who are in difficulty nevertheless. That is definitely one of the best uses to which money can be put as a little goes a long way with these projects and there is not much opportunity for some of it to stick to other people's hands.
I turn to family planning. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, was not so worried about population growth. However, there are other aspects of family planning than just the growth of population. I do not think of the population only in terms of numbers. I believe in the theory expounded by my noble friend Lady Chalker of children through choice. I do not care if people have 10 children provided they have those children through choice. I do not want people to have 10 children when they have not chosen to do so. Family planning is not yet accessible to everyone. That is another matter that we need constantly to address. Sometimes our NGOs in this country are too politically correct; they do not see what is really needed at ground level. They can also fall into the trap of being "do gooders". This is not a question of being a "do gooder" but of being pragmatic. We need to improve people's lives without patronising them. We need to involve local people in that process as much as possible.
Recently, I have given much thought to the Jalianwala Bagh incident in Amritsar. Every school book in this country mentions the Black Hole of Calcutta, but which one ever mentions the Jalianwala Bagh? We are sensitive about it. Despite what General Dyer's son said to the Duke of Edinburgh, we are sensitive about that incident. A great many men, women and children were shot indiscriminately in a confined space. If that had occurred in this country, would British people have forgotten it? I think not. We cannot forget it either. It is about time that a more balanced view was taken of Indian history and of the role of the British in India. It is not a matter of trains running on time; there are other aspects. We used to have famines every so many years. The last famine occurred in 1943 when millions of people died in Bengal because all the grain was diverted to the forces. About 3 million people died. Since then there has not been a famine in India. That is a great achievement.
The fact that India is still a democracy is a great achievement. India is equivalent to the whole of continental Europe; it is not a small island. In comparison to India, the United Kingdom is like someone's back garden; it is perfect, beautiful and tended. Noble Lords should reflect on that comparison
1078
when they think about India and about all the problems that beset India. How would noble Lords cope with such a vast country of so many separate nation states with different languages and different cultures? Would noble Lords be able to cope with that? Here we have difficulty in coping with some of the differences that arise within such a small kingdom. Everyone has a different vision of India. Noble Lords should not fall into the trap of thinking that they know India.
4.47 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the noble Earl for introducing this debate and for doing so in such a stimulating and thoughtful way. Before I make my contribution, I need to make two apologies. The first is that whereas I have a good deal of experience in Latin America and the Caribbean I have no first-hand experience of life and politics in the Indian sub-continent. I am extremely grateful to the Library services for their help which has enabled me to participate in this debate at short notice. I am acutely aware that I cannot rival the expertise and special insights of those who have preceded me in this debate. I appreciated in particular the beginning and the end of the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, which I found interesting and humane as she explained vividly the feelings of people in India. My second apology is that I have an existing engagement this evening which may oblige me to leave this debate before its conclusion.
I turn to India's socio-economic achievements after 50 years of independence. I have been fascinated by the variety of opinions expressed by a wide range of different writers, both English and Indian, in the UK press during July and August. The economic reforms of the past three or four years have produced a high rate of growth at the present time and far greater opportunities for inward investment. In terms of the size of its economy, India could be the world's third largest economy by the year 2020. A more fundamental achievement—and one to which others have referred—is the eradication of famine; something which the British Government in India never achieved. Over the past 50 years a substantial middle class has emerged, both reflecting and contributing to a widening of educational opportunity and business enterprise. Some commentators have highlighted their expectation, and their confidence, that this growing economic self-confidence is resulting in a better directed foreign policy which includes a new approach to India's relations with her immediate neighbours, including Pakistan, and greater interest in South East Asia as a whole.
Finally, we must all acknowledge the crowning glory of India's achievement over the past 50 years; namely, the maintenance of the world's largest parliamentary democracy and an admirable level of freedom of the press and of speech at both national and state level.
However, a number of articles, in particular those written by Indian correspondents, draw attention to some of the attendant difficulties. They point to a level of corruption, to an increase in social disorder and

1079
crime, including against women, and to a revival of mutual communal suspicion between different ethnic, religious and linguistic groups.
There is a suggestion that professionally educated Indians are leaving India to find more congenial work elsewhere. However, the overwhelming problem is the level of poverty within a large and growing population which may outstrip the population of China within the next few years.
Yesterday we debated the Statement on the outcome of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference in Edinburgh. The point I would have made had I intervened in the debate is that this country must now address its fellow members of the Commonwealth as equals. For that reason, I think it quite inappropriate for the United Kingdom and its people to criticise India's political performance or propriety, still less to advise leaders in the Indian sub-continent as to how they should tackle that kind of problem.
But the crude evidence of the effect of poverty in India and the rest of the sub-continent is so overwhelming that as a matter of common humanity it puts an obligation upon the British and the British Government to see what can be done to assist those living in the Indian sub-continent to solve the problems which poverty brings in its wake.
This is a huge subject and I wish to mention only four aspects; namely, lack of access to sanitation, the malnutrition of children, child labour and the role of women—and I can say only a few words on them. In New Delhi today less than 40 per cent. of houses are connected to sewers; and in India as a whole only 25 per cent. to 49 per cent. of people have access to any form of sanitation. The variation in the figures depends on what one means by the word "sanitation". I shall not go into a long discussion on that technical matter. Interestingly, this situation which is so dangerous to the health of the population, in particular because of the growing concentration of India's people in cities, has persisted despite the increase in the number of people with access to clean water in India and the sub-continent.
In India, Bangladesh and Pakistan respectively, 81 per cent., 97 per cent., and 74 per cent. of the population have access to safe water compared with 29 per cent., 48 per cent., and 47 per cent. of the population who have access to decent sanitation. In such conditions disease flourishes. The most common of those diseases is simple diarrhoea. Not only is diarrhoea with its accompanying dehydration a killer for small children, but ignorance among their mothers often prevents them from providing the essential liquids which can prevent death and assist in a cure.
A third of under five year-olds affected by diarrhoea in India are still not treated with the simple oral rehydration therapy which I sought to encourage mothers to employ when I helped in a health clinic in Peru some 30 years ago. It is worth noting that a study in Karachi indicates that the poorest people are spending the most in seeking medical attention—a diversion of funds from more worthy objectives which should be avoidable.
1080
Equally, it seems clear from the documentation that a large amount of the malnutrition which affects the children of the poor in India, as in other places, is due to ignorance about how a young child's diet should progress over the first two years. We are strongly committed to the idea that by educating women in the simple rules of sanitation and nutrition some of the ills of even the most acute poverty could be avoided, the health of children greatly improved, and their ability to benefit from education greatly increased. Of course the health of women, in particular younger women before and during their childbearing years, should be a priority which could contribute to a reduction in the growth of the population.
Finally, there is the disgrace of child labour which still persists in India despite a legislative framework which should have prevented it and to which attention has been drawn in a recently published document by Christian Aid. Its report carefully assesses the operation of child labour in the sports goods industry which is said to employ some 25,000 to 30,000 children in India out of a total workforce of 300,000, many of whom are working in their own homes. It is an important industry for India exporting some 62 million dollars per year, for which the United Kingdom is the largest market. Again, poverty and ignorance are the motors which drive women and children to work long hours in poor conditions for minimum wages for the profit of factory owners and the British consumer.
So what should the United Kingdom and its people do in response to this humanitarian challenge? First—I know that it has been said often—we most sincerely believe that the Government should ensure that the United Kingdom contributes its due share, 0.7 per cent. of GDP, to aid. Secondly, that aid must be targeted. We must move away from using aid money to enable UK firms to sell helicopters to India and move towards ensuring that it reaches the poorest people and is concentrated on better sanitation, better delivery of basic health care to the poorest, and better education for women. Thirdly, we must make sure that the aid programmes which we finance run with the grain of what local people can themselves achieve with relatively small amounts of financial assistance. Often the non-governmental organisations are better adapted to the need for co-operative endeavour with local people for the improvement of their living conditions, and perhaps the government sector could learn some useful lessons in that respect.
Fourthly, we may need to consider the question of debt forgiveness if the levels of debt are still hampering progress within the Indian sub-continent. Fifthly, I believe that British people have a role to play. As consumers, importers and retailers, we can ensure that goods made with child labour, whether from the Indian sub-continent or elsewhere, are not sold in this country, just as we now try to avoid selling or buying products made from wood from unmanaged forests. It is exactly the same kind of campaign.
I hope that the Government agree with the urgency of the problems of poverty in the Indian sub-continent, and their effect upon women and children. I hope that they agree that for historical, practical and humanitarian

1081
reasons we can and should help to tackle those problems. Perhaps it is worth saying here that while I speak in largely humanitarian terms, it is simply good sense to help the poorest people to move out of poverty. Poverty is dangerous in every way that one can imagine, both to those who suffer it and those who live alongside it.
I should like to close with the words that appear on the front page of UNICEF's annual report on progress towards achievement of the targets set by the 1990 World Summit for Children. The words are directed to us all, and not just to the developing world. It says:
"The day will come when the progress of nations will be judged not by their military or economic strength, nor by the splendour of their capital cities and public buildings, but by the well-being of their peoples; by their levels of health, nutrition and education; by their opportunities to earn a fair reward for their labours; by their ability to participate in the decisions that affect their lives; by the respect that is shown for their civil and political liberties; by the provision that is made for those who are vulnerable and disadvantaged; and by the protection that is afforded to the growing minds and bodies of their children".
India, like every other country, does better in some respects in relation to that list of desirables than it does in others. We need to help each other to move towards that world.
5 p.m.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, on introducing the Motion, I hope that he will forgive me if I indulge in nostalgia—not, I assure your Lordships, colonial nostalgia, but because I spent some five years in the Indian Army which were the most formative years of my life. It is often forgotten, and it may be worth reminding ourselves on this occasion, that during the last war the Indian Army had 1.5 million men under arms, every single one a volunteer. It received the highest number of awards for gallantry of any army in that world conflict.
It may be true that in those days there were some in India, particularly the politicians, who viewed the British with a degree of suspicion and unpopularity. That was certainly not true in the armed forces. On my first day in action in Burma, I thought that we were being attacked, looked out and saw that it was raining. I discovered that I was, in fact, dry. I looked again, and found four pairs of feet—four young soldiers had been holding a groundsheet over me for most of the night. One does not forget that kind of thing. Our affection for the Indian people was immense; and I believe that their affection as regards us was also very high.
Secondly, I owed my parliamentary seat in Croydon North East wholly to my declining command of Urdu. I had not expected to win the seat in 1964. When a cheer went up from our astonished supporters, my bride burst into tears. My loyal supporters thought that it was an expression of emotion at her husband's success. Only I heard what she said. It was: "You fool, you've ruined our marriage". I was there for 30 years and was very proud to represent that constituency. The Asian community always gave me my majority in Croydon. So perhaps the House will forgive my nostalgia.
1082
I agree with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, about not knowing India. Incidentally, she always used to describe me as an honorary Indian; I represented Indian interests on the Cross-Benches, until others arrived. Mark Twain, on being asked whether he could describe India, said that he was so overwhelmed by its tremendous complexity that he threw down his pen in frustration.
India is a country of 3 million square kilometres and 950 million inhabitants, 75 per cent. of whom were born after Indian independence—so most of the people do not remember those days. It is the home of 1,600 languages—Urdu is a kind of Esperanto—and different dialects. It has some of the most ancient religions: Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Christianity and Judaism. I was interested in the fact that Her Majesty, in visiting Kolar, went to see the ancient synagogue in Kochi. One must not forget Islam. There are more Moslems in India than there are in Pakistan.
Three weeks ago I paid what I suspect may be my last visit to India—though secretly I hope that it will not be. I went with a patron of the Tibet Society to visit the Dalai Lama in Dharamsala. I also took the opportunity to visit my Indian "son" in Gurgaon. Many of the jawans in C Squadron of the 19th Lancers lived in that part of the Punjab. When I first visited Gurgaon, it was a small agricultural village. I went back there some four years ago. As I got into my car to drive back to New Delhi, a small boy got in and refused to budge. I said to Sukh Lal, who had been in my squadron, "Get him out". But he sat there tightly. Eventually, I said, "Who is he, anyway?". He said, "Sir, he is my grandson—but he is now your son; I have given him to you. Take him back to England and look after him". I had to tell him that I was one of the world's great experts in immigration, and I did not think that would be possible, but that I would pay for his education and look after him. I went back to see him. Gurgaon today is a big industrial town. It is a classic example of what has happened to the Indian economy since the British left in 1947. In those days, needles had to be imported into India. Today, India leads in all the areas of industrial production, not least in the new technologies of space, nuclear science, medicine, computers and bio-chemistry. Indeed, a great deal of computer work is done at present in the city of Bangalore.
Despite a massive increase in population, thanks to the "green" revolution, India is now largely self-sufficient in food. As the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said, that is an amazing achievement.
As mentioned by all speakers, surely the greatest achievement of all is that India has remained a democracy when so many other countries have fallen by the wayside over the past 50 years. India has held aloft the flag of democracy. In 1994, I went as a Commonwealth observer to South Africa. I remember meeting President Mandela, who said to me, "If I become president, I shall immediately seek to rejoin the British Commonwealth". I had to say to him: "I am afraid, Mr. Mandela, you will not be doing that". "What do you mean?" he asked. I said, "It is no longer the British Commonwealth, it is 'the' Commonwealth".

1083
The modern Commonwealth started after 1947, when India, then a republic, joined. The event that I perhaps remember most from my time in Speaker's House was receiving a visit from the last Soviet ambassador, who came to see me on his retirement. He said, "Mr. Speaker, I understand you are chairman of the Commonwealth Speakers and Presiding Officers this year. Tell us more about the Commonwealth". I said, "What do you want to know about it, your Excellency?". He said, "I think this will be a very interesting lesson for us to study". I remember saying to him, "Well, your Excellency, this is a very small country. I am not certain we can tell you very much more about it. If you really want to know how to run a very large country with different religions, races and states, you had better go to see the Indian High Commissioner. I can easily arrange that". And I did. It is a remarkable tribute to the Commonwealth that eventually the old Soviet Empire ended up as the CIS—the Commonwealth of Independent States. It is a direct reflection of that conversation in Speaker's House.
Despite what has been said in the press about the Queen's visit—I was interested to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, had to say about it—Dr. Singhvi, the Indian High Commissioner in London, told me a couple of days ago what a great success it had been. Incidentally, I do not know whether noble Lords are aware of the fact, but I understand that he is about to leave London after seven years. He is probably one of the best and most highly regarded High Commissioners that we have had here for many years. He is not only an eminent scholar and leading constitutional expert, a poet and an author, but he is leader of the multi-faith ideals with which I have been associated with him. His time here in London has been termed "the golden phase" in Britain's relations with India. That has been largely due to the leadership that he has given in representing his country.
We politicians frequently talk about getting the balance right. We talk about the balance of trade, the balance of payments and all those sorts of things. There is another balance which I hope I may be allowed to mention in this debate, that is, the balance between spiritual values and material progress. Whenever that has gone wrong, disaster has always followed.
Despite India's material progress in the past 50 years, it has remained a deeply spiritual country. During my visit three weeks ago I went again to Rajghat, the place where Mahatma Gandhi was cremated. I looked again at the words inscribed on the walls of the little room in which the visitors' book is placed for signature. They come from a book written by Mahatma Gandhi in 1925 called Young India:
"Politics without principles; wealth without work; pleasure without conscience; knowledge without character; commerce without humanity; worship without sacrifice".
Those words will never be forgotten in India because they remain in that sacred place; I should like to suggest to your Lordships that they also be adopted here in the United Kingdom.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Paul: My Lords, at the outset, let me thank the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for introducing this Motion. Having had occasion to talk to him prior to this debate, I know that his knowledge and concern for India are great.
Allow me also to declare an interest. It is not the conventional kind of interest which custom requires, but an interest of emotion. As your Lordships are probably aware, I was born in pre-independence India. I remain deeply attached to the land of my birth and proud of its progress. Your Lordships will forgive me if sentiment shapes some of my observations today.
This Motion has a special significance in these times. After five decades of self-government, the entire south Asian sub-continent is now going through a profound transition. In India, in Pakistan, in Bangladesh and in Sri Lanka the exuberances of youthful expectations are giving way to the reconsiderations of middle age as these countries grow in nationhood.
India, the largest of these states in population and territory, is in the midst of a seminal collective self-examination, the kind of internal questing that its spiritual culture commends to individuals.
Since 1947 much has been attained. Who will not be moved by the commitment of the Indian masses to democracy, a commitment sustained under pressures which have swept away political liberties in the neighbourhood? Self-sufficiency in food production is a dream come true; and so are social and economic gains too numerous to mention. But the people of India realise that they have far to go before they redeem the pledge of Mahatma Gandhi to wipe the sorrow from every Indian eye.
And so, today, the needs and pace of development have provoked a challenging national debate about the merits of the four principles which have guided most Indian state policies for most of the past 50 years. Democracy, secularism, a planned economy and non-alignment in foreign affairs are being questioned and their validity discussed. Indians, as an intellectually lively and culturally diverse people, have many views and many proposals of revision. What is most encouraging is that this vitality is generally expressed without the prolonged violence that convulses many other nations.
From this vortex of discussion and reflection could emerge new features and new approaches. Democracy may well be refreshed as more government powers are devolved to regional and sub-state levels.
The introduction of the panchayati raj, empowering forms of local government, will create a fresh wellspring of democracy—three million newly elected legislators and councillors. The desire for economic reforms is widespread and enthusiastic, but enactment has much further to go. An economy cannot be vitalised only from the top or only by the few. Vast entrepreneurial energies remain to be unleashed and mobilising their release still needs attention. Nonetheless, the signals point in the right direction.

1085
As India embarks on the second half-century of its independence, its links with the United Kingdom symbolise a relationship of magnanimity. Rarely in history have rulers and ruled so rapidly dispelled the prejudices of the past. There are natural differences which, also quite naturally, emerge occasionally. We have seen this manifest itself during the recent Royal visit. Yet, as the Prime Minister of India mentioned to me in Edinburgh last week, these are tempests in a teapot and no damage to Indo-British relations has been done. We must accept the judgment of Prime Minister Gujral—a mature and balanced statesman—as the last word on this. These kinds of issues will always crop up. But the people of India and Britain are far too mature to worry about this. Whenever a Test match is played in this country, I have a battle, arguing with and settling disputes between my children and grandchildren as to who will win. If I tell them that India will win, I might find myself in trouble with one of the Members of your Lordships' House who is not here today!
The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, mentioned the relationship with the previous government. When the previous Labour Government was in power, a wonderful relationship existed. When my noble friend Lord Callaghan was Prime Minister he was greatly loved in India. I have no doubt that the new Government's relationship with India will be very good.
As we look ahead, there are many ways to strengthen the associations which India and the United Kingdom have so freely and voluntarily constructed. The British experience in social programmes, something we have long been engaged in, can be of immense value to any developing nation. We can make some significant contribution to improvements in Indian education, health, rural well-being and sanitation. In fact, this is where our focus should be.
All the foreign investment and technological improvement on earth will mean little to an impoverished citizen of the poorer nations if he or she has no clean drinking water and no immunisation from disease. In this context, Britain has much to offer and share with many Commonwealth countries—as, indeed, we have much to gain from international cross-fertilization.
Let me add a word on an issue of particular importance in current commercial transactions with the sub-continent and elsewhere. Let us export all we can of value and values, but we must not encourage abroad malpractices we deprecate at home. We must avoid contributing to the debasement of business ethics and standards. The OECD has now publicly expressed its concern about such matters. The Foreign Secretary, too, has commendably endorsed an ethical approach in his mission statement.
The post-colonial passage is a difficult one. India has, however, demonstrated that freedom achieved can be freedom enhanced. In the contemporary world, that is a rare accomplishment which we in Britain should specially welcome. The fates of Britain and India, historically closely intertwined, are joined today by a mutual confidence in democracy and liberty. May that long remain so.
1086
Let me conclude with a philosophical thought. In our century, few nations have contributed more great souls to the spiritual environment than India. The roll call is splendid: Vivekananda, Tagore, Aurobindo, Vinoba Bhave, Krishnamurthy, Mother Teresa and many more, especially Mahatma Gandhi. This is an ultimate strength for India.
As India moves into the modern age of high-tech and globalisation, and as we participate in her efforts to do so, I hope both she and we will understand the importance of nourishing that attribute. In the past, many individuals from this country helped India preserve her heritage—even to discover herself. That sharing of spirit must never be lost. More than a hundred years ago, an English educator in India reminded us, in very moving words, that:
"Pity and need make all flesh kin.
There is no caste in blood which runneth of one hue, nor in tears which trickle salt with all".
The Motion before this House evokes the spirit of universality which Sir Edwin Arnold embraced in his epic poem "The Light of Asia". I hope it will continue to illumine our relationship with India in the future.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Sandwich for giving us this opportunity to discuss socio-economic development in the sub-continent. I am not sure whether my noble friend intended the debate to be principally about India, which it seems to have been, or to include in equal measure Pakistan. For my part, I shall speak on India for the simple reason that, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, it is a large subject. I do so even though my prior ties tended to be more with Pakistan, a country for which I have an abiding affection.
One theme of the debate is the importance of a partnership approach to development. It is that on which I intend to speak by reference to what seems to me to be an outstandingly successful example of Anglo-Indian partnership. I refer to the work of the British Council in India. I must therefore at this stage declare an interest, in that I have the honour currently to be the deputy chairman of that excellent institution. It is an institution which seems to be far better known and certainly much better appreciated abroad, which is where we work, than at home. That is a pity.
The council has been operating in India for almost as long as that country's 50 years of independence. The great bulk of its work is of a developmental nature and, both directly and indirectly, much of its content is educational. It is my strongly-held belief—not a particularly controversial view—that the route to real and lasting progress in development, and in particular the relief of poverty, is through education and, to some extent, institutional change. That seems to be a much more fruitful approach than the great mega-projects such as large dams, which used to be all the fashion.
India is much the biggest operation of the British Council. And, interestingly—a fact I did not know till I was preparing for this speech—the great bulk of the council's staff in India are local people. There are 412

1087
professionally qualified local staff operating in India, compared with only a dozen or so UK expatriates. Over the years there has been increasing emphasis on forging local partnerships in that way because it increases local commitment and ownership of the council's programmes. I also make the point that the work is not just with the poor; it is also about working with those making strategic decisions and in identifying and supporting what may loosely be called the "young leaders" of the future.
One example of the many activities managed by the council has been the big DFID-funded Andhra Pradesh Primary Education Project, which was touched on by my noble friend Lord Sandwich. That raised learning achievement through teacher training and new textbooks for both boys and girls. New language books accelerate the acquisition of literacy; they also raise retention levels of the most deprived groups such as the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. Teacher training contributes to raising the numeracy and scientific skills of both boys and girls. I am sure the noble Baroness, who is not now in her place, will be pleased to hear that we pay attention to girls too.
It is a cost-effective project. It is building more than 4,500 classrooms and providing more access to education for poor children. Experimental approaches to building schools using locally available materials and technologies both reduce unit costs and energy consumption. But they also raise the demand for labour, thus creating employment.
Project schools have increased enrolment, particularly of girls. When combined with the increase in learning that has taken place, the net result has been more poor children in school learning more. The evidence suggests that that will be to their private benefit as well as contributing to raising the growth potential of the economy.
Direct assistance to the poorest also involves meeting the needs of marginalised groups; for example, refugees, street children and migrant labourers who require a new type of education provision that is both flexible and low cost. For example, this year we worked with local partners to contribute to a number of regional seminars leading to follow-up programmes. One example was the, "Children as Partners in Education and Health" seminar in Calcutta, which included participation by street children alongside health carers and educationists from both government departments and NGOs.
Another major project—the Orissa Health and Family Welfare Project—is having a huge impact in the state of Orissa. That state has the highest infant mortality in India and one of the lowest figures for life expectancy. The project has helped the Government of India by increasing the availability, use, quality and effectiveness of health and family welfare services in 10 districts with a population of 20 million. It has found and tested new and more cost-effective methods of healthcare and delivery and substantially increased community participation in the planning and operation of health services. More recently, there has been an agreement, supported at ministerial level, for a new state unit to manage health affairs.
1088
At the other end of the education spectrum, the council manages at least 30 live academic and research links between Britain and India at any one time and is directly responsible for advising and placing 600 of the 3,000 Indians who come to the UK to study each year. Again, over 17,000 Indian civil servants, health professionals, educationists and others who deliver poverty alleviation programmes have been to the UK since 1971 for professional training. Graduates include the current President of India and the Comptroller and Auditor General. That seems to be a fairly good combination.
Human rights and open and accountable government are another important facet of the work of the council. While taking no political stance in the debate, the council has strengthened the capacity of institutions in civil society—often NGOs—which work towards the achievement of these aims while also targeting decision-makers to ensure that these issues are on their agenda. The council is also managing the Indo-British Legal Forum, led by the Chief Justice of India and the Lord Chancellor, which is due to be held in Delhi in December of this year. An exchange of ideas, including human rights issues, between the Indian and British legal systems will take place and the development of a more informed and independent judiciary will be encouraged.
I mention also our science, engineering and technology links; for example, the regional engineering project which is on the nature of vocational qualifications in engineering. This is very relevant to the Indian private sector which, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Desai, is now on the march and which is looking to the UK, and to the council in particular, for ideas and information on NVQs.
Finally, the council has considerable impact on the dissemination of development information through its eight British libraries in centres throughout India. These libraries have a total of 100,000 members, many of whom work with the poor. The libraries are a vital network and all the centres are connected through information technology. The council is currently working with the DFID on designing a project which will develop these centres into a clearing bank for development information to be used from next year onwards by the World Bank, the UN agencies, other bilaterals and local NGOs.
Last November I had the pleasure of visiting Pakistan, where I opened the new library at Islamabad with the Minister of Education. Then I went on to Lahore and inspected a library there. What struck me most was that they were indeed information technology based. There were still some books but lots of computer screens. It was brought home to me that a modern library is very much about IT and information resources. It is not about entertainment.
My theme throughout has been the importance of local partnerships. It is important to recognise and to emphasise the importance to the council of its other partnership—its domestic partnership—with the Department for International Development, which I have mentioned two or three times and which of course

1089
funds much of the council's work both in India and Pakistan and indeed throughout the third world. We value that support. That seems to be a suitable note on which to conclude my remarks.
5.34 p.m.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, it is my lot to be the last to speak before the Government and Opposition Front Bench speakers. Like anyone standing where I am at this point in the debate, I have heard much of what I might have said and what in fact I was going to say. However, there are a number of points that I might emphasise and perhaps a couple of new ones that I might make.
I count myself as an Indian. If the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, were here, I would tell her that, at least among the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, and myself, there are two extremely good Indians on the Cross-Benches. I was born in India and went to a most marvellous school there, the Military College of India, which I visited the other day. It still maintains the very highest standards. It filled me with such pride to go back. Two thousand of us old cadets, from Pakistan and Bangladesh and from the Indians who work in this country, Australia, Canada, the Gulf and America went back. Apart from myself, they all seemed to be most successful fellows. Within India, they all hold high ranks in the military; they are top civil servants; and they are top businessmen. They are remarkably good citizens. They are also very good friends.
After attending the school, I had the honour, like my father, and like the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, of serving in the Indian Army during the war. I have so much respect for the Indian soldier, sailor and airman. They come from great warrior tribes in India and the Kingdom of Nepal. We lived together, we worked together, we trained together and we fought the enemy together. When we went on leave we visited their villages and got to know their families. I do not have an Indian son. I was never lucky enough to be given one. But, certainly, we have had most happy relations with the people who worked for our family. I promised my father that however broke I was I would always pay the pensions of those who worked for him and my family. I have only just finished paying the last one because the widow has died.
I feel comfortable in India. It does not take me long to become a good Indian. I often say to Indians here in our country who do so much for us today in the way of commerce, culture and the way we are going to live in the future, "I have lived in India longer than you have lived in England. When I live in India I try to be a good Indian, but I do not forget that I am British. When you live in Britain, I want you to be a good Indian but at the same time a good Briton as well".
As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, with the coming together of our circle and of the communities living here and living in India we cannot help but be friends and work together. Friends can disagree. Friends do not always have to agree. But, as the noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Paul, said, when we come to business,
1090
we have to learn to trust each other. For my part, as a businessman, I make certain that we work in that way in India and we gradually build up that trust. Businessmen should realise that one does not go there for a quick buck. One goes there with patience. One is then gradually accepted and mutual trust and friendship develops.
I am most impressed in India by the management. This great and large democracy has not just stood still. It has advanced. It is succeeding all the time in various ways. The British businessman would be sensible to recognise the further liberalisation of the business world in India. He should go to see whether it suits him and make friends. I believe that it is the businessman who will push India forward to success.
India today is probably the largest industrial nation in Asia. I do not see the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, in the Chamber, but I would say to her that what also impressed me about India was the female management. There are very highly educated and competent women in India who, whether they are married or single, are all running good, family businesses. That is very noticeable.
The main reason why I have supported India all my life and will continue to do so, is that if things go wrong in other parts of South East Asia and if our Chinese friends—I can say that because very often I work in a factory in my group in China—cut loose and do not do the things that we want in the years to come, the great country of India will be the bulwark between east and west. For that reason our nation should work sensibly with it on foreign affairs and where matters of mutual defence are concerned.
India is beginning to get over a particular problem. I would like to see her play a more prominent role in world affairs. India is so great and large. It has such culture and very wise people. Because it is growing internally and because of the problems that it has on some of its borders, the Indian political scene remains inward-looking. However, it is beginning to look abroad. I believe that it is the businessman who will take the Indian into the rest of Asia. I hope that I shall live to see the day when India is the prominent nation, if that is allowed in our grouping today. I hope that it will be a leader in the world and particularly in Asian affairs. I believe that that time will come.
In my view our little debate has been very instructive. We have heard a great deal of very good sense spoken. We have all learned a bit more about India. I end by saying that I believe that we should all go to India. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, will go there as quickly as she can. I hope that she will realise that the situation regarding children working in India is rather different from what it is here. If there is no education around the village or the city one is living in, it is no bad thing to get a job. We have to watch that the children are treated decently and properly when they work. I drew my first wage packet in India. Like the children of many noble Lords, my own children have worked during every holiday since about the age of 13 years. A little bit of work for one's children does not do any harm at all.

1091
It has been an interesting and good debate. I very much look to the Government to re-establish the excellent relations that the previous Labour Government had with India. I hope that they will forge a new friendship and partnership, as the noble Lord said, with India. I hope that the Government will set about it without condescension, without preaching or teaching, but with both hands held out for mutual trust and fellowship. I assure the Minister on the Front Bench that I shall be watching.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, perhaps I may seek the indulgence of the House. I have never formerly been mistaken for my noble and energetic friend Lord Moynihan. But working as a member of our foreign affairs team I have the very good fortune to respond to this debate as a spokesman for foreign affairs, not least because of my special interest in the subject.
Previous recent debates in your Lordships' House have been concerned mainly with terrorism. Therefore, I welcome the positive choice of title by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for the debate which has provoked a very interesting and stimulating discussion today. It has attracted, too, so many distinguished speakers. I also compliment the noble Earl for giving us such a thought-provoking and wide-ranging introduction to what is an immense subject covering a gigantic country.
I must declare a deep and personal interest in India which I hope will endure for many years to come. I have great affection for the country, like so many other noble Lords who have spoken today. I spent my honeymoon there and I have been visiting India regularly now for over 30 years. I have very many dear friends there. It is a colourful nation, geographically vast and enormously rich in culture and history. It strives for, and has found, unity in its vibrant diversity.
The India that we know today is a remarkable achievement, as we have heard from nearly all noble Lords who have spoken today. Over the past five decades it has resisted the siren temptations of caste and religion and has remained united in a secular democracy. Indeed, in 1947, sceptics doubted whether the huge country that became the independent India—famously dubbed "a geographical expression"—which encompassed five religions, 18 major languages and 93 minor ones, could survive as a single nation. The early days did not appear to bode well for a nation born out of the violence and bloodshed of partition. But despite that India has remained intact and democratic. It has avoided the twin traps of autocracy and one-party rule which so many of her neighbours have stumbled into. India has proved that a multi-party democracy is equipped to reconcile the aspirations and the social and religious differences of a diverse and indeed divided society.
India's record of democracy, of free and fair elections, a free press and independent judiciary, is a record of which Indians are justifiably proud and it is one which the world admires. It is true that India's democracy has not prevented poverty, illiteracy or the blemishes of corruption. Nevertheless, it is a triumph for India and for the architects of her independence.
1092
There is little that has not been touched on by someone today even in the moving and fascinating speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, and the noble Viscount, Lord Slim. But the potential of India to become the prosperous, democratic and progressive nation her leaders dreamed of in 1947 has not yet been fully realised. India has been blinkered in her progress and led astray down the blind alleys of protectionism, interventionism, narrow industrialisation and nationalisation which have been followed for so long and which have had disastrous consequences for India's economy.
India's enduring socialist rhetoric, which breathed its last gasp in the foreign exchange crisis of 1991, left behind a legacy of financial, intellectual, political and economic bankruptcy. At the beginning of this final decade of the century, India found herself an uncompetitive industrial island in a sea of poverty, paying the price for years of a socialist experiment which neglected and underfunded the basic infrastructure such as literacy, education and health. My noble friend Lady Flather told us of her very worthwhile micro projects in this regard.
The collapse of left-wing ideology elsewhere in the world ensured that the national consensus on socialism crumbled and was replaced by a consensus to liberalise and make market-friendly reforms. So India began the process of rapidly improving her "could-do-better" economic report card with widespread liberalisation. The sweeping away of Byzantine shackles of bureaucracy, including the tariff and licensing barriers of the "licence raj", has transformed the economy by starting to free the Indian market, bringing a wave of economic activity, inward investment and resultant prosperity in its wake. I am sure that the Minister will agree that government influence and intervention did not create prosperity for India, but that investment will.
We know that economic reform is not easy or without pain:
"There is no easy walk-over to freedom anywhere, and many of us will have to pass through the valley of the shadow again and again before we reach the mountain tops of our desire".
That was said by Nehru in 1939. Economic reform is not always politically popular. It takes courage, persistence, focus and determination. Much has still to be done, but the effort will be amply repaid and with interest. Open markets create wealth and raise living standards. They promote greater choice and lower prices through competition. They provide opportunities for growth, investment and employment. That is the hard work that is necessary for India to give reality to her dreams of 50 years ago. I am sure that the Minister will agree.
Before our eyes, post-colonial, Congress-controlled and centralised India is being reinvented and replaced by competitive, decentralised, liberalised India. There are still major challenges to be faced in this new order: dealing with the rise of nationalist politics, fragmented along caste and religious lines is one such challenge.
The continued troubled relationships with neighbours Bangladesh and Pakistan is another. I should like to pay tribute to the statesmanship of Prime Minister I.K. Gujral and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif who have acted

1093
recently to renew the stalled dialogue on Kashmir and who have set up a joint working party to address the issue. On behalf of the Opposition, I wish them success in that vital undertaking for peace.
I do not shrink from stating the obvious: Britain and India have a unique relationship, as was expressed so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. As we near the millennium, our economic relationships are excellent. Over this decade, contact between our countries has matured into a flourishing partnership, fostered in the spirit of mutual interests and co-operation. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Paul, with his great experience, we are linked together in so many ways, through our intertwined histories spanning centuries, both in times of conflict and of peace, through our intermingled cultures and our deep commercial links. We also share a common language, which facilitates both business and cultural exchanges between our countries.
I should like to pay tribute to the work of the British Council, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. I totally agreed with all that he said. The British Council's operation in India is its largest in the world. We have a long-established tradition of academic exchanges, such as the Foreign Office Chevening Scholarships, which have enabled young Indian lawyers, bankers, journalists and managers to study in Britain. In 1994–95 some 550 students from India received support through British government scholarship schemes.
Moreover, the huge entrepreneurial and cultural contribution made by the 1 million strong Indian community living in Britain to our multi-ethnic, multi-religious society is invaluable and creates an unbreakable and dynamic bond between our two countries. Trade runs deep in the instincts of both our peoples. Our trading links span 400 years. We already conduct a vast amount of trade and investment opportunities together and the volume is increasing steadily. Today's figures make inspired balance sheet reading. Our exports to India in 1995 were worth more than £1.6 billion, an 80 per cent. increase since 1992.
I invite the Minister to pay tribute to the outstanding work of John Major in this respect. It was his foresight and vision, together with that of his Indian counterpart, Prime Minister Narasimha Rao, which led to the formation of the Indo-British Partnership in 1993. I am sure that the Minister will join me in applauding the success of that partnership. Since its foundation, British investment has grown by more than 50 per cent. with over 600 new Indo-British joint ventures established, many of which involve small and medium-sized businesses new to the Indian market. The huge Towards 2000 exhibition which was recently held in Delhi (at the time of the Queen's visit) was the latest step towards reaching the previous government's target.
I turn now to the second part of the Motion, which was carefully covered in great detail by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. Five decades on, poverty and India are no stranger to each other. Nehru's dream of ending poverty, ignorance and disease has not been realised. India is still one of the poorest nations on earth. Its 960 million people comprise
1094
one-sixth of the world's population and about one-third of those live in absolute poverty, existing on less than 1 US dollar a day; 130 million have no access to basic healthcare; 220 million have no safe drinking water; 70 per cent. of the country lacks basic sanitation and half of the country is still illiterate.
I pay tribute to the strong voluntary spirit in the United Kingdom and to the vital work of the voluntary organisations in India, such as Oxfam and Save the Children. I pay tribute also to the smaller charities, such as IMPACT, which does incredibly good work, and the travelling eye hospitals that I visited recently. I pay tribute also to all other charities working in this area.
I am pleased that the Government have already accepted many of the targets set by their predecessor; for example, the commitment to work with our overseas partners to halve the number of people living in absolute poverty by 2015. I hope that they will continue to lead on other of our initiatives with our partners; for example, on our work to produce a resolution on the plight of street children at the UN General Assembly in 1992, which was followed up at the UN Commission on Human Rights in March 1993. I hope that the Government will continue our efforts to ensure that children's rights are at the forefront of the international agenda and that they will encourage all countries to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
I am sure that the Minister will continue to support our joint assistance partnerships with the World Bank, the United Nations specialised agencies and the European Union and that the Government will continue to lend support to the activities of organisations such as the Commonwealth Development Corporation, which spent more than £56 million on new investments in India in 1995.
I ask the Government to continue to persuade our partners in Europe and Asia that India should be included in future Asian-European summits as of right. I should like to have an assurance that under the present Government the UK is committed to continuing a modern partnership with India which is based on mutual respect that has learned from the lessons of the past and can put them to good use in the future.
India is already one of Asia's greatest regional powers. She has the capacity to be one of the world's economic powers if she continues with the current programme of economic reform. The increased authority that will come with greater prosperity will bring India new challenges and responsibilities. But as a nation of producers and consumers, by exploiting her immense human talent with help from her international friends India can graft the foundations of economic success into her rich heritage. I predict that it will not be 50 years before India reaches, not this time a tryst with destiny, but a tryst with posterity. As a global economic power, India will have a seat at the top tables in the international organisations and institutions of the 21st century. India will be a leading member of the Commonwealth, a full participant in the World Trade Organisation, ASEAN and the United Nations. This is an exhilarating prospect, and I do not believe that India

1095
will shirk the challenge of stepping out of the old into the new. An age of socialism has ended and the future—Asia's century—beckons India now.
I hope that the Minister will be able to take away with him the points so well made by so many noble Lords from all parts of the House today.
6.1 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords are grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for providing this opportunity to debate the relationship of Britain with India and developments in that country. Not for the first time in this House I feel slightly daunted by the great experience of many noble Lords who have spoken—and some who have not spoken—and who have deep personal experience of India and emotional attachments to the success of that country. I speak of those who were born there, who have lived there, who have worked there and—with respect to the noble Baroness—those who have honeymooned there.
It is timely that in the wake of the Commonwealth Conference, to which organisation India's leaders have contributed so much, and the 50th anniversary of India's and Pakistan's independence, we should be holding this debate. I am glad to have the opportunity to underline the commitment of the Government to co-operate with India and other countries of the sub-continent in the task of eliminating poverty in that part of the world.
The Motion of the noble Earl draws particular attention to the socio-economic achievements of India over the past 50 years. In many respects India has achieved remarkable success over that period. Despite its three-fold increase in population, average real incomes have more than doubled and the proportion of people who are living in desperate poverty has fallen to under a third. Life expectancy has almost doubled. At independence only one in three children was enrolled in primary school whereas the figure is now over 80 per cent. Since independence India has rid itself of famine and mass starvation and is now self-sufficient in food. At the same time, it has developed a broad-based industrial structure and a high level of technological skills. As my noble friends, Lord Paul and Lord Desai, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, and others have said, despite the odds all of this has been achieved within a framework of a very robust democratic system in the face of potentially dangerous ethnic and cultural difficulties across the country.
However, today we have also heard about the extent of the social, environmental and economic challenges that remain. In India hundreds of millions of people still lack minimum levels of nutrition and shelter. India's progress in reducing poverty has perhaps not been quite as fast as that of other developing countries. Nevertheless, the Indian economy has begun to grow more strongly in recent years, averaging about 6 to 7 per cent. in the past three years. Despite the slowdown, the estimate for this year is 6 per cent. The exchange rate is stable; foreign exchange reserves are healthy; and foreign investment is increasing. The rate of inflation is at a historically low level.
1096
Recent successive governments of India have made considerable efforts to modernise and liberalise the economy. However, further reforms are still required. My noble friend Lord Paul and others say that unfortunately far less progress has been made in improving the physical infrastructure, particularly the social infrastructure, of the Indian economy. Without such improvements growth is likely to slow again in the medium term and to be of little benefit to the people of India who are still very, very poor. In our view and that of most Indian authorities, to obtain the resources needed to attack that poverty will require a substantial re-allocation of both public expenditure and private effort with a shift away from the numerous poorly targeted subsidy programmes still existing in some parts which often benefit the better off in India and which, in some cases, are prone to corruption.
All of this must be done within a democratic framework. One needs to create an India that is not like China or the tiger economies of south east Asia. My noble friend Lord Desai referred to it as a fleet-footed elephant. A fleet-footed elephant is a much nicer being than a tiger and takes the people with it. That is the great benefit of the democratic activity within India. But for the poor to benefit from the economic growth they need reasonable health and basic literacy. I refer in particular to the position of women in India. As the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, and other speakers emphasised, India still faces a serious problem in this respect, particularly among poor women. In many states only one-quarter of women are literate. To be illiterate worsens employment prospects and weakens the status of such women in society as a whole.
I agree with the noble Earl that Britain has a historic obligation to India. As the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, indicated, the relationship with India has not always been positive. There are some serious scars in our history. The record of the colonial, and sometimes post-colonial, power has not always been good. However, there is another side to the story. I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Callaghan, who is no longer in his seat, for reminding me that in the famine in 1947 ships on the high seas on their way from Australia to Britain were diverted to India to deliver grain to prevent a famine at that most difficult time for all of us. As a consequence, there was bread rationing in the United Kingdom. The record is not all negative, but there are some bad examples.
Nevertheless, in the past 50 years Britain has played a major role in India's achievements. India has been the largest recipient of British development assistance and investment from the Commonwealth Development Corporation. In 1996–97 our bilateral country programme for India was £87 million. In that year, including CDC investments, our total assistance stood at over £150 million. All of that was in addition to the very substantial British contribution to multilateral aid to India, especially through the European Union, the World Bank, the UN system and other multilateral support. Those figures exclude the public's contribution through non-governmental organisations and the private sector.

1097
Reference has been made to the recent state visit by the Queen and the Secretary of State to India. We believe that in reality the state visit was a very substantial success, notwithstanding the unfortunate coverage in the Indian and British media. Tens of thousands of people turned out to see the Queen in Amritsar, Madras and Cochin. She received an extremely warm welcome. The visit as a whole gave a real boost to Britain's interests. The Queen opened the largest ever Indo-British trade exhibition in New Delhi. The next day 10,000 business people visited it.
My noble friend Lord Desai, referring to the unfortunate press coverage, touched on the position of the High Commissioner in Delhi who had to deal with some of it. I can only repeat our total confidence in the High Commissioner and deny any implication that he was responsible for the bad press. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said in the other place yesterday, and as I have said, the High Commissioner has conducted himself with great dignity, sometimes in very difficult circumstances.
My noble friend Lord Desai referred to the visit as a family quarrel. That probably pitches it a bit high. It was more like a warm family occasion, much enjoyed by all, but with a few fraught edges, as happens. Unfortunately, those fraught aspects were greatly exaggerated by the rather excitable international press which was in attendance. The term "tempest in a teacup" may be a better epithet for the visit. The Prime Minister and the Indian Prime Minister at Edinburgh last week agreed that it had been a great success. The Prime Minister told Mr. Gujral that the Queen had greatly enjoyed it. Mr. Gujral replied that the Indians were honoured that she had visited them. It was a great example of the mutual affection which exists between our countries.
Britain has supported a wide range of innovative projects to help the development of India. The main areas for DfID have been health, education, water and sanitation, urban development, rural development and the reform of the energy and power industry. During the state visit, the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh were able to visit some of those projects.
It is also important to recognise that British development assistance has changed in recent years. The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, referred to micro projects. There has been a shift away from big industrial projects in electricity generation, coal mines and railways to smaller projects involving the private sector in India and in Britain. Our assistance programme has concentrated increasingly on supporting policy changes and management reform in key sectors of the economy and on financing projects which directly tackle poverty and environmental problems and involve local people.
The creation of the department in May marks another milestone in our development assistance effort. DfID is now working with the Indian Government to ensure that our development assistance programme is focused more tightly on the elimination of poverty. Our aim is that all activities should make a real contribution towards improving the lives of the several hundred million people in India whose living standards are, by any standards, unacceptably low.
1098
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, my noble friend Lord Paul, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and others referred to the central importance of education, and, in particular, to the projects in Andhra Pradesh. At least a quarter of children in Andhra Pradesh receive no schooling. The latest gross enrolment figures for the first five years indicate that 73 per cent. of the age cohort has enrolled. Seventy nine per cent. of boys in this age group are enrolled; only 68 per cent. of girls. The position is especially bad for the scheduled castes. In some districts, less than 6 per cent. of scheduled caste girls are in schools.
To help address those problems, DfID and its predecessor departments over the past decade have been supporting primary education in Andhra Pradesh. The Andhra Pradesh primary education project has supported a major programme of training teachers, providing educational materials and constructing classrooms. There has been a significant improvement in enrolment and attendance, in teacher performance and in pupils' motivation to learn. That project has recently come to an end but in order to ensure that the gains made through it are consolidated and replicated DfID has committed a further £88 million for primary education in Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal through the Government of India's district primary education programme. We remain strongly committed to supporting primary education in India and ensuring that the experience we have gained through our relationship in Andhra Pradesh is used to good effect in other parts of the country.
Another aspect of our educational commitment was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. It is the role of the British Council. It has played a major part in improving educational links and resources in India and the developmental effects that they provide while at the same time sustaining British/India relations. I pay tribute to the British Council for the role it plays in that respect.
Others speakers referred to India's health requirements. Since 1990 Britain has committed over £100 million to health projects in India. DfID is helping to introduce a new method of providing TB care. We have made the largest ever grant for vaccination to the Government of India's polio eradication programme: £47 million over three years.
Family planning was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Flather. The innovations that Britain supports include the building of partnerships between Indian state governments and other Indian NGOs and British NGOs to give people greater access to family planning. India's population is still growing at about 20 million a year which stretches national resources. Those efforts are aimed at giving couples choice of contraception and helping them to improve their own and their children's lives as well as potentially relieving pressure on future economic resources.
There are also the health hazards caused by inadequacies in water and sanitation. That was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. DfID is helping the Indian Government to develop long term strategies for urban and rural water

1099
supply and sanitation as well as supporting a variety of projects; for example, the £16 million Maharashtra rural water supply project where DfID is financing four piped-water supply schemes to 210 villages and one small town. The provision of healthy water and sanitation will greatly improve not just the quality of life but the economy and society.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Thomas and Lady Rawlings, referred also to child rights and child labour. Although basic primary education in India has increased and improved greatly, millions of children—perhaps as many as 45 million—still spend their childhood working. The great majority of those children will never attend schools. They will be poor, illiterate and extremely vulnerable. There is a complex approach to eliminating child labour in India. There are numerous initiatives of government and non-government agencies. Children are working in hazardous industries such as firework manufacturing, but children in those industries are in a minority compared to the huge numbers working in agriculture. Girls suffer particular problems in the under-age sex industry. Britain is providing support to the ILO's programme to combat trafficking in children and their exploitation in prostitution. We also fund NGO activities through Christian Aid and Oxfam.
There has been considerable publicity over the weekend about the UNICEF report on child labour with some slightly misleading reporting. The report recognises that there needs to be priority in tackling the problem of child labour. Those priorities should concentrate on the exploitation of children in highly exploitative and dangerous work. This very morning my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development was attending a conference on child labour in Oslo. In a speech she reflected the concern felt in Britain about child labour. She said:
"There is huge public interest in the UK for world wide support to the governments, communities, workers and families who are tackling problems of child labour in their own countries. UK consumers are increasingly not prepared to buy goods produced by exploiting children, but we are also learning that boycotts or overnight exclusions of children from certain industries can hurt those most whom we are trying to help".
The Secretary of State gave the example of football stitching which she described as a highly exploitative industry in Pakistan, although it was not the most intolerable work. It is one that has rightly drawn international attention. She was delighted to announce that DfID under the Government of Pakistan memorandum of understanding intends to fund Save the Children to implement a social protection programme for the children involved in that trade which should ensure that when, at the end of next year, children stop working in the football stitching industry they are not forced into more hazardous and equally exploitative work. That is a model of partnership between government, business and NGOs.
I have dwelt substantially on the role of government, but NGOs and the private sector have their role to play. Many Indian NGOs are making a great contribution as is a wide range of British NGOs which have been generously supported by the British public. Among those operating on a large scale in India are Oxfam, Christian Aid, Action Aid, Save the Children and CARE
1100
International. Although non-governmental organisations have smaller resources at their disposal than government programmes, they are often much more able to work effectively on small scale projects with local communities, and, as my noble friend Lord Paul said, with local government and the new democracies at that level in India. The White Paper to be produced by the Department for International Development will review the support for NGOs with a view to strengthening it.
There is also a vital role to be played by the private sector. The private sector in India itself has brought about much of the transformation of the economy, as my noble friend Lord Desai and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, as well as other noble Lords said, but so has the international private sector which has provided a huge increase in inward investment in India. Not least I should mention the Indian entrepreneurs based partly in India and partly in Britain. There has been a major contribution by the Indian community in Britain to the development of India over recent years.
In all development issues we are committed to ensuring that the elimination of global poverty is a determining factor in our international policy. I have dwelt substantially on India in this debate, as have most noble Lords. Obviously, we also have parallel policies in relation to Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal. We are committed within that region of the world not only to bilateral arrangements but also to the work of the EU, the UN and many multilateral institutions of which we are members in making a more effective contribution to the elimination of poverty.
In a country so vast as India, partnership with central government is not enough. That is why DfID is also working to develop close partnerships with several of India's state governments. We are keen to focus our efforts in those states where our help is most needed and where it can be most effectively used. In the global fight against poverty, no partnerships will be more important than the partnerships we make with the countries of south Asia. Substantial reductions in global poverty depend crucially on reducing poverty in that area. Our long history of friendship with India and the other countries of the region, our shared commitment to democratic values and the close links at all levels between our institutions and peoples, which have been much touched on in this debate, give us great opportunities to build and strengthen our partnerships. The Government are strongly committed to seizing those opportunities and to making the most of them in the vital work of eliminating global poverty.
I am very happy to concur with some of the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings. We intend to move into the 21st century in a modern partnership with India based on mutual respect and longstanding friendships between so many in this country and so many in India.
6.23 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I feel that I am in a holy place. There have been many soothing words this afternoon, not least from the Minister who has just sat down. It has been an encouraging and enjoyable debate.

1101
I want to detain the House for only a minute or two. At the risk of being regarded as racist, I particularly congratulate today our Indian colleagues who have brought to this debate a quality which perhaps we ought to hear more often. I should like to thank those noble Lords in particular.
I noted that the Minister made no attempt to defend the assault on Indian socialism by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, who carried out that job very ably. I am relieved that we do not need to go into those past experiences. There have been awful experiences within India and between ourselves and India. The whole thing has been gradually laid to rest by what noble Lords have said. I thank especially the noble Lord, Lord Paul, for his remarks about the relations between our communities and the words of the Prime Minister over the Queen's visit. We are all reassured by that.
I should like to thank the Minister for his detailed responses, which I look forward to reading tomorrow, particularly as regards the NGOs. We all look forward to the White Paper. This will be a tremendous job, but we shall take it carefully. Taking things carefully is another theme that has been mentioned this afternoon. We must not expect all the results to come at once. My enthusiasm at the beginning of the debate has been properly tempered, not least by the two soldiers on either side of me with their tremendous stories, reminding me of the importance of nostalgia at certain times.
We should spare a thought for the mahout—this poor coalition government—which has to deal with the fleet footed elephant. We have not said a lot about that. The noble Lord, Lord Paul, and others reminded us that a coalition means getting closer to the people. It means more participation and more representation, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said. It is exciting. Women are also coming forward.
On a final and sombre note, the United Nations gave me a figure which staggers me. Some estimates indicate that in their entire education Indian girls stay in school for only two years on average; I do not say that that is a national average. We have to help India—we do not have the answers; India has them—to overcome the very challenging targets. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Nuclear Waste
6.26 p.m.
The Earl of Shannon The Earl of Shannon rose to call attention to the problem of safe, permanent disposal of high level nuclear waste; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, although my Motion for debate refers to the permanent disposal of high level nuclear waste, perhaps it would be constructive if we were to spend a few minutes considering how such waste arises and what the implications might be for the future.
Our industrial society requires vast and increasing amounts of energy. We have been and are supplying them by burning fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and gas. That produces undesirable side effects, such as acid rain, heavy metals and greenhouse gases, in the atmosphere. All wastes and side effects of such a nature are highly undesirable and, to make confusion worse confounded, President Clinton, and even our own Prime Minister, have announced that their countries will make major reductions in their future emissions of those gases, in our case by some 20 per cent. Of course, neither of them can have any idea of how they will bring that about, except through punitive taxation resulting in fines, politely called levies, on the use of fossil fuels.
One may consider the romantically attractive alternatives of renewable forms of energy, such as solar energy, wind and water. But, apart from major hydroelectric schemes, the present state of technology does not, by any stretch of the imagination, envisage that such renewables would produce anything other than a welcome but very minor proportion of the vast amount of megawatts which our society requires.
That leaves us with the only possible alternative in the large scene; namely, nuclear power. Of all those undesirable emissions, it is clear and clean but does have the very serious problem that it produces particularly nasty high-level radioactive wastes with an almost indefinitely long life. Reactors have been producing such wastes for some decades now. To leave them stored and not permanently immobilised is not a legacy that we should leave to our descendants.
Those high level wastes consist of spent fuel rods and the waste nitric acid which has been used during the reprocessing to recover the reusable plutonium and uranium. These wastes account for only 1 per cent. by volume of all radioactive wastes, but they contain well over 90 per cent. of the radioactivity.
The public perception of nuclear power has always been tinged with suspicion, mainly because it, in common with the universe in which we live, started with a big bang and such suspicion was reinforced by the unfortunate disaster at Chernobyl. This disaster was the result of irresponsible operatives playing with an old Soviet RBMK-1000 reactor. Unwisely and completely irregularly, they withdrew all the control rods from the reactor and then switched off the main pumps to see what would happen and whether the automatic power would quickly switch on. That was the equivalent of tying down the safety valve on a boiler and seeing how long it would be before a man with a bucket of water would arrive to put out the furnace before the boiler exploded.
Such irresponsibility is inconceivable now and could have taken place only in the circumstances of the old Soviet Union. We must also bear in mind that there are some 400 reactors working around the world which have been generating vast quantities of energy over many years in complete safety and becoming even safer by design; for instance, in modern reactors the control rods move at 20 times the speed of those at Chernobyl and would have started controlling the reactor within one second. Unfortunately, all these reactors, however safe, are producing high level wastes.
Some time ago, the only solution was the encapsulation of these wastes in borosilicate glass as a temporary measure until time or circumstance, or even some kind fairy godmother, would come forward with a permanent solution. In effect, we were merely shelving the problem for future generations, but already the shelf is becoming rather full.
Vitrification with borosilicate glass, while admirable as a temporary measure based on the technology of its day, has a lot of basic flaws. The molten glass takes the waste into solution. However, the casting of large blocks of glass, even if it is very slowly cooled to anneal the blocks, will inevitably produce many micro-cracks in the body of the glass which greatly increase the surface area available for leaching the waste into groundwater if the glass is buried. This pollution of groundwater is by far the greatest danger to be avoided in the disposal of this kind of waste. Furthermore, glass is thermally unstable, in that it will break down in temperatures above 100° Celsius in wet conditions. As the wastes decay, they naturally become hot and so glass-encapsulated wastes must be kept in a dry and force-cooled environment, giving rise to a very expensive storage commitment. Spent fuel rods are also placed in cooling ponds as an alternative measure, giving rise to radioactive water and silt.
That is a very brief outline of how the problem is being dealt with today—all temporary measures and all adding to the dangerous legacy which we are building up for future generations.
Massive research has been done on this problem in many countries covering glasses, bitumenising, ceramics and silicate slags, but the only two which have found industrial application so far seem to be the boron silicate glass mainly in France and here, and alumophosphate glass in the Russian Federation.
However, due to the chance discovery some years ago in Australia of a natural rock which had for many millions of years been effectively absorbing the radioactivity of uranium deposits, the way was led to successful work there in the synthesising of the rock and producing a product which in every way reflects, and even in some respects can be an improvement on, the natural rock. Surely, with this, the way is now open to the permanent safe disposal of high level waste without waiting for cooling off periods or separation of the comparatively shorter-lived nuclides of some 600 years' life from the longer-lived radionuclides, which should be isolated for some 100,000 years before their activity drops to near the natural radioactivity of uranium deposits. Again, much intensive research work has been done in many countries, including ours, on the feasibility of producing and testing titanate ceramic synthetic rock.
Titanium and Zircon in the crystal lattices of a synthetic rock are the most stable elements known for the entrapment of radioactive atoms and appear to continue to do this ad infinitum. Synthetic rock is entirely homogeneous and bonds chemically with the dangerous wastes, making the possibility of release by leaching around 1,000 times less than glass and it is almost impossible by human intervention to release the wastes with malicious or terrorist intent.
Synthetic rock has far greater strength than glass, as well as two-and-a-half times better thermal conductivity and can withstand temperatures of up to 300°Celsius without damage. Even if buried and subject to earthquake damage, synthetic rock remains, even in pieces, the same as the original homogeneous whole.
Wastes incorporated in synthetic rock, while they become hot through the decay of waste, may be stored above ground, but, knowing the proved performance of the natural rock over millions of years, probably the best disposal would be permanent deposit in deep bore holes, preferably in massive granite formations and in arid locations away from populated areas. Many such areas exist in Africa.
That would be a belt and braces solution to the possibility of even the slightest contamination of groundwater, which, as I have said, is the greatest danger surrounding the disposal of such wastes. In future, all high level waste, either chopped-up spent fuel rods or waste nitric acid from reprocessing, can be immobilised immediately at site and the same method can also be used for clearing all the waste presently stored in the old-fashioned and now ageing glass.
In economic terms, the cost of the original immobilisation in synthetic rock is comparable with that of temporary encapsulation in glass. The earlier possible difficulties with the hydraulic uniaxial hot-pressing system have been superseded by the later cold crucible system of melting, making the encapsulation much easier. But the subsequent, most expensive forced cooling and storage of glass for anything up to 50 years is completely obviated. That is really where the saving comes from.
In recent years, we have tested and learned more about that synthetic rock than we ever knew about borosilicate glass when we started using it; and we are still using it. Yet it appears that better solutions are coming forward with those titanate ceramics.
I have a letter here dated yesterday from Professor N. Babaev, who is head of the Technical Board of the Ministry of the Russian Federation for Atomic Power. He reports from a meeting of all the leading Russian organisations and the last paragraph of his letter states:
The two day session brought us to the conclusion that interim results of the pre-feasibility study indicate that synthetic rock is superior from an ecological and economic viewpoint".
Are we to be left behind by the Russian Federation and also probably by the Japanese? Or are we to be the first in Europe to show a responsible attitude towards not leaving an awesome legacy to our future generations?
Of course I realise that bureaucratic protocol will require the formation of committees and awaiting their reports while they duplicate the work and investigations which have already been undertaken. But, please, I ask that we urgently take this matter seriously so that we do not go on indefinitely stocking up that shelf with further loads of temporary, ageing, potentially leaking glass encapsulations.
I have no direct interest to declare beyond the intense interest which I think we all should have. Furthermore, the United States Government look likely, next February, to have to face a 100 billion dollar lawsuit in

1105
relation to their laxity in providing storage for nuclear waste fuel rods. I do not suppose that Her Majesty's Government look forward to receiving similar complaints in the future. In fact, your fairy godmother has arrived and she is called titanate ceramic, the synthetic rock. Please do not ignore her until it is too late. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I must apologise for not adding my name to the list of speakers in the proper way. The mistake was entirely my own. However, I understand that the noble Earl and other noble Lords have been good enough to permit me to make a very short intervention in what is known as the "gap". I shall be brief.
We must all admire the noble Earl's wide-ranging knowledge and persistence in this matter. I am all the more grateful to him for allowing me to intervene because there remain wide differences between us in relation to the ends that we seek. Nevertheless, I must place on record my total opposition to nuclear weapons, which stems from 1945 when I happened to be in Asia when a nuclear weapon was first dropped.
As the noble Earl indicated to us, what happened later at Chernobyl confirmed the view that there was an extremely close relationship between the different forms of nuclear energy. One appeared to be almost as dangerous as the other. I have only one point of disagreement with the noble Earl in that regard. He suggested that Chernobyl was a single exceptional case. It certainly was as regards degree, but other accidents, although less serious, have occurred at reactors all over the world and our own country is no exception to that.
In short, the nuclear reactor and its product is inherently dangerous. Nevertheless, it seems that there is a chance that we may be able to obtain a full disposal of nuclear waste. If the noble Earl is right about that, it seems to me that it would be entirely wrong to oppose it as such because the discovery of such a method could have many important by-products; for example, if I understand the noble Earl correctly, it could lead to the removal of the threat posed by the Soviet submarines in the Baltic, should they undergo the process which the noble Earl suggests. If that is the case, it would be wrong to oppose the removal of the danger presently existing.
It is true that that inability to secure permanent and safe disposal has led to the present decline in enthusiasm for nuclear energy. But if the noble Earl is right, that would remove not all, by any means, the reasons but would remove the main reason for the present lack of enthusiasm for nuclear energy. But any method found which could remove the danger posed by nuclear submarines in the Baltic must be supported. Therefore, to that extent, I support the noble Earl and I must congratulate him on his persistence, even though we may continue to disagree quite profoundly on the ends.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, we must all be grateful to the noble Earl for having raised this
1106
subject because it is an extremely serious and important one. However, in my gratitude to him I do not go along with much of his reasoning and I do not have much belief in the solution which he has proposed. I gave up believing in fairy godmothers quite a few years ago, certainly in the form of synthetic rock.
I believe that the future for energy the world over—in a world which is dedicated to a sustainable future—has to be with renewables. It cannot be with anything else. The more money that we can devote to renewables, and the more local we can make their production, the better. I do not accept the total dismissal by the noble Earl of that view of the future of the power industry.
I am due to go to Ceylon—I hope—just after Christmas. I have a long list of all the things that I need to do to avoid contracting malaria. I have a list of the drugs that I have to take before I leave, while I am there and for a month after I return. The list concludes by stating that the most important precaution is to ensure that one is not bitten by mosquitoes. I believe that the most important measure is not to produce nuclear waste. Unfortunately, we have quite a lot of it already and we have to deal with that. However, the sooner we give up producing any more, the better.
Although the British nuclear industry is proud of its safety record, no agreed safe solution exists for the long-term management of radioactive waste which remains highly toxic for hundreds of years and more. I do not believe that nuclear power is either necessary or desirable for electricity generation. Investment in renewable sources and—this is most important—in energy conservation is much more desirable as these are more cost effective and more environmentally sustainable methods of meeting energy demand. Nuclear power stations, including Sizewell B, should be phased out, as they reach the end of their safe operating lives. There should be no subsidy for the privatised part of the industry.
As the huge stockpile of plutonium continues to grow, the UK still imports nuclear waste from abroad for disposal here. The nuclear industry is unable to solve its own waste problems. Earlier this year, Norman Baker, MP, one of my colleagues in another place, spoke of discharges of plutonium, tritium and up to a dozen types of radioactive waste still being made into the Thames above the intakes for London's drinking water supply. This situation cannot continue. The nuclear industry should carry a greater share of third party insurance. Currently the industry's liability is limited to £140 million, with the Government paying any claims that are met above that figure. There should be a higher operator limit within the framework provided by the Paris and Brussels convention on civil nuclear liability.
My colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches in both Houses opposed the opening of the thermal oxide reprocessing plant (THORP) on both environmental and economic grounds. As storage rather than reprocessing remains the least environmentally unacceptable option for dealing with nuclear waste, the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel should be phased out, except when necessary for safety reasons. Imports of nuclear waste for reprocessing in the UK should be banned from 2002, the earliest possible dates in BNFL contracts.

1107
The safe handling and storage of radioactive waste has created high real costs in years of costly research. However, I maintain that no long-term safe option has yet been identified. Radioactive materials should continue to be stored in sites that can be monitored and where, if unforeseen problems arise, the waste can be recovered and treated in a different manner. Research programmes should be maintained to identify how such waste should be dealt with in the future. The focus of nuclear industry operations should be shifted from construction to decommissioning tasks where skilled workers and state-of-the-art technical innovation will be in demand for many years to come.
This is an important subject, but I maintain that the basic solution lies not with fairy godmothers but in making certain that we do not get stung by the mosquitoes and that we do not produce the waste which is so dangerous to us all and to our descendants.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the noble Earl for initiating the debate this evening on this important subject. I do not feel in any way able to challenge his great knowledge and expertise on either new types of glass or synthetic rock. I hope that the Minister will tell us the Government's view on those proposals. Even if new glass is developed to encapsulate the waste, and even if synthetic rock is developed in which subsequently to encapsulate the glass, we shall still be faced with the political problem of where one deposits that, even if it becomes a much safer option.
Whatever the arguments about nuclear power there can be no argument about safety being the paramount consideration in the disposal of waste. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that to stop producing it will not solve the problem because, as the noble Earl has already said this evening, the shelves are filling up. The rejection of the application for the deep store near Sellafield by Mr. Gummer, the then Secretary of State, was, I believe, a welcome decision as considerable doubts had already been expressed about the suitability of the rock formations at the site in question. As that site was near Sellafield and, as I understand it, 60 per cent. of the UK waste comes from Sellafield, I hope that there was no issue of convenience in the choice of the site. I certainly hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that convenience of disposal should always be a secondary consideration. That is not to say that deep entombment is not a possible way forward in the right place. That, however, raises yet another issue. Should the waste be sealed irretrievably or should retrieval be a possibility against the day that a satisfactory method of treatment is discovered? Do the Government have a view on that?
Some reports suggest that the failure of the Sellafield plans may have put back the search for a dump by some 30 years. What proposals do the Government have to deal with the increasing amount of waste? The synthetic rock may well be the answer. I ask about that as that solution has not yet been addressed here. No doubt the Government will want to give the public an assurance that British Nuclear Fuels and Nirex retain their confidence in dealing with this issue, because public
1108
confidence and safety are of vital importance. I hope that the Minister will forgive me for launching a series of questions at her. Has she any more information about the proposal for a type of nuclear reactor alleged to be capable of burning atomic waste, which I believe is known as the Rubbia proposal? A Written Answer in another place stated,
"The Euratom Scientific and Technical Committee … has reported to the European Commission on the proposals, and the report will be published shortly. The conclusions, with which my Department concurs, are that it is unrealistic, on the grounds of both cost and technical risk … but that there are several aspects which may merit further work".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/6/97; col. WA466.]
I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us what those aspects are and what work is being done.
Further, what will our attitude be towards the reprocessing contracts with other countries, to which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, referred, and the return of plutonium and uranium in particular to Japan and Germany? As I understand it—the noble Baroness will tell me if I am wrong—in return for taking back more high level waste as a new fuel called MOX, Britain would be disposing of those countries' bulkier but less active waste. Do we have a view about those contracts? Do we see merit in them? I know that the Government have already stopped all nuclear dumping at sea. Nevertheless, the waste which exists has to be safely disposed of. There has already been reference to Russian submarines. There may be redundant submarines of our own which will pose a problem. What should be done with those? How will they be dealt with? How will the costs be met?
Perhaps we can also learn from the Government today the current responsibilities of the Department of Trade and Industry for Dounreay and whether those will be changed with devolution. In referring to Dounreay, I am advised that a waste shaft was damaged in an explosion there some 30 years ago. Are those problems being resolved? What is being done to make that safe?
Lastly, are the Government in a position to tell us what progress has been made in regard to the European Union action plan adopted in 1992 for the period 1993–99? What input is the United Kingdom making to that programme? I apologise to the Minister for asking so many questions. I appreciate that few of those questions are easy to answer. However, perhaps I may close my remarks by quoting from a paper by Sir John Surrey of the University of Sussex, who says:
"The emergence of a broad social consensus on the issue of the long-term handling of radioactive wastes … is essential as long as the UK continues to reprocess spent fuel. Were reprocessing to be abandoned, it would be necessary to devise publicly acceptable policies for the long-term storage and ultimate disposal of spent fuel and to write-off the new Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant at Sellafield—which cost £1.85 billion to build, or could well be £2.6 billion if associated waste management facilities are included—and forego its lucrative export earnings. Stopping reprocessing would also in the longer term prevent the UK stockpile of plutonium, which has no civilian use in the absence of fast reactors, from getting even bigger".
Again, I apologise for the number of questions. However, the noble Earl has raised this important issue tonight. I look forward to hearing from the Government on these points.
7.3 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, like other speakers I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, for introducing this short but fascinating debate on an extremely important topic. I wish to add my congratulations to him for the manner in which he introduced the subject. It was a combination of erudition and accessibility and although not all noble Lords who spoke agreed with him, we are all grateful for, and took great interest in, what he said.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, I think that I shall be able to help him on most of the issues he raised. However, if I cannot cover any specific matter tonight, I undertake to write to him.
The Motion introduced by the noble Earl refers to the disposal of high level waste. Radioactive waste is usually regarded as falling into four broad categories. I shall say something about the other categories because intermediate level waste was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, and others.
High level waste is distinguished from intermediate level waste by its heat generating capacity. This means that high level waste has to be stored to allow the heat to dissipate before disposal can become a possibility. The cooling process takes about 50 years.
There is relatively little high level waste in storage. There is currently about 700 cubic metres in store. On the basis of current commitments, this volume will grow to about 2,300 cubic metres by the middle of the next century.
The previous government indicated in their 1995 White Paper on radioactive waste management that they favoured disposing of high level waste in a deep repository. Consultants were appointed to consider the long-term disposal of high level waste. They were asked to produce a strategy which will identify research requirements on the volume, composition and form of high level waste which this country will need to dispose of. They will also review other countries' proposals for disposing of high level waste. The consultants are due to report in 1999.
At present high level waste is stored, as has been said, in liquid and vitrified form. As, I am sure, were other noble Lords, I was very interested to hear the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, describe proposals for the use of an alternative to vitrification based on oxides of the metal titanium. We have heard that there is some dispute about whether fairy godmothers exist in this field. My department is aware of earlier research work on this material which was first developed, on a laboratory scale, in about 1980. But I understand from what the noble Earl said that there have been further developments of the technology which demonstrate the potential for this material to be produced on a commercial scale. I am sure that the nuclear industry and the regulators would want at least to consider those developments. If the noble Earl cares to give me any further material I shall make sure that it is thoroughly evaluated within the department. However, I point out that the evaluation would need to consider scientific and
1110
technical issues, in particular—I return to the question I was asked—the safety case for using an alternative medium, because safety in this area has to be paramount. The noble Earl recognised that there is also an economic dimension to the issue and that evaluation would need to consider the financial consequences of making a change at this stage. The Government will take a view on all the issues related to the disposal of high level waste once they receive the consultants' recommendations.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, referred to the quantities of intermediate level waste currently in store—on the shelf, as the noble Lord put it. There are currently about 70,000 cubic metres of intermediate level waste in store and, again on the basis of current commitments, this is expected to grow to about 200,000 cubic metres by the middle of the next century. The material is treated and stored in specially constructed facilities which are strictly regulated by the Health and Safety Executive. Most of the material is stored at the sites where it arises. These are mostly nuclear power stations.
Intermediate level waste does not need heat generation to be taken into account in its storage or its disposal. The previous government also signalled their preference for deep disposal of intermediate level waste in the 1995 White Paper. As the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, said, the then Secretary of State for the Environment, in March this year, dismissed an appeal by UK Nirex Ltd. to construct a rock characterisation facility at Sellafield. This essentially would have been a deep underground laboratory to test the suitability of the site for the construction of a repository for intermediate level waste.
Opponents of the repository had mounted a strong campaign to prevent the construction even of the laboratory. Arguments were presented to the public inquiry that Nirex's methods in selecting Sellafield as the site of the laboratory were flawed and that in any case the development was premature given the state of knowledge of what would happen to radionuclides over the extraordinary timescales which have to be considered if the material is to be placed in a deep repository. There were also arguments that the development would damage the local environment.
These arguments were, broadly speaking, accepted by the inquiry inspector and by the previous Secretary of State. Clearly, this was a serious setback for Nirex. It is inevitable, as a result, that the implications of that decision need to be considered. That work is continuing and I am sure that the House will understand that I am not in a position to make an announcement about the next steps this evening. It is of paramount importance that we get this right. Therefore I think that it would be wrong to try to rush into any particular position without having all the evidence.
There are some who want swift and clear decisions in this area. However, it is apparent, even from this short debate, that there are strongly held views on both sides of the argument. There are those who believe that the state of our knowledge is sufficient for us to conclude now that deep disposal is the right approach both for

1111
high level and intermediate level waste. They believe that the multiple barriers—both natural and engineered—that would be achieved in a repository would be sufficient to ensure that harmful quantities of radionuclides would be prevented indefinitely from returning either to the surface of the land or to the marine environment. But there are others who believe that further research is needed before we can be sure that our successors would not need to intervene to prevent damage to their health or their environment.
The issue of sustainability, to which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, referred, is at the core of this argument. The Government are strongly committed to the principles of sustainable development. One of the most important principles in safeguarding that sustainability is the axiom given to us in the 1978 Brundtland Report, and I quote:
"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".
We can all agree, I hope, that we have a responsibility to avoid imposing unnecessary burdens on future generations. Some would argue that this requires our generation not to leave future generations to have to find a solution to the problems of disposing of radioactive waste. But that argument cannot be sustained unless we can be absolutely sure that future generations will not be adversely affected by the decisions we take in our lifetimes.
As well as being satisfied about the need for deep disposal, the Government also need to consider the financial implications of the disposal options. The cost of constructing a repository would be very great indeed. We expect these costs to be in the range of £1.5 billion to £2 billion. Clearly, an investment of this magnitude needs to be very carefully assessed. One of the factors which needs to be taken into account in considering when it would be appropriate to pursue the disposal option is the life of the existing stores.
I should stress that we are confident that the present regimes for the storage of high and intermediate level waste are safe and that the existing regulatory controls are satisfactory. It is therefore, in the Government's judgment, reasonable to take time to give full and proper consideration to the issues relating to the disposal of high and intermediate level radioactive waste.
My noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney referred to the problems that nuclear energy and nuclear weapons create in the world. He congratulated the noble Earl on his persistence in this area. The House will also congratulate my noble friend for his persistence. He never loses an opportunity to put forward a clear and passionately held view. I merely reaffirm that, as stated in the Government's manifesto, we will press for multilateral negotiations towards mutually balanced and verifiable reductions in nuclear weapons. Our goal has to be the global elimination of those weapons. We will include British nuclear weapons in such multilateral negotiations once we are satisfied that we have verified progress towards global elimination.
Perhaps I may deal with the specific issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, in relation to the possibility of a new type of reactor. The DTI has the
1112
concept under review. The department is at present sceptical about the ability of the new reactor to generate nuclear power more cheaply than existing reactors and to treat wastes already existing.
To turn to the issue of the shaft at Dounreay, the Atomic Energy Authority, in consultation with the Scottish Office and the DTI, is currently considering the options. An announcement will be made in due course. The requirements of the regulators will have to be satisfied in this area.
I now turn to the broader issue that the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, introduced in his opening remarks; namely, the potential role of nuclear power in contributing to our efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. Climate change is perhaps the most serious environmental threat facing the world today. It could have devastating effects on society, the global economy, human health and the natural environment. It is a global problem and needs a global solution. The Kyoto conference in December is an opportunity to show that we and other developed countries are serious about tackling this threat.
The Government are committed to ensuring that firm action is taken at home and abroad to combat climate change. We are in the forefront of efforts to secure a good deal at Kyoto—to reach agreement on challenging targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by developed countries. We are leading from the front in our support of the EU's proposal that developed countries should reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 15 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010 and through our domestic goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. by 2010. It is not right for the noble Earl to say—I hope he did so loosely—that the Government have no idea at all as to how those emissions can be reduced. There are a number of areas that we have to approach. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, gave some examples of ways in which progress can be made.
The Government are determined to develop and consult on a programme to deliver our climate change targets after Kyoto. We want all sectors to play their part in a balanced programme. We are likely to be looking in particular for improvements in domestic, industrial and commercial energy efficiency, measures to tackle the growth of emissions from the transport sector, and a large increase in the amount of electricity generated from renewable resources and combined heat and power schemes. We do not share the noble Earl's pessimism about the possibilities in that field. There is great scope.
Our climate change targets are challenging. But we believe they represent what is necessary and achievable in the fight against climate change. Whatever the final shape of the programme, major changes in the way we generate and use energy will be needed. Increased efficiency in nuclear generation has helped this country to stay on course for meeting its existing climate change target. Provided that high standards of safety and environmental protection can be maintained, we believe that that should continue to be so. We do not, however, see a case for government intervention in favour of the construction of new nuclear power stations. There are

1113
many other measures that we can, and will, use to deliver significant reductions in this country's greenhouse gas emissions. Many of them will bring other benefits—a more sustainable and efficient transport system; a more diverse energy supply; and commercial benefits to firms who use energy more efficiently or profit from business opportunities for more energy efficient technologies.
The Government are committed to the highest standards in all areas affected by radioactive waste. Those standards must be based on the best scientific advice available. We must ensure that the standards apply both to those who work directly in the nuclear industry and also to the public at large. It is also essential that we continue to make every effort to ensure that the environment is protected. That will mean being constantly vigilant to ensure that we have the right regulatory regimes in place and that these are being complied with.
The management and disposal of radioactive waste is a serious and long-term issue, as illustrated by the contributions made in the House tonight. We believe, however, that it is right that we should take time to consider the issues carefully so that the decisions the Government take are right, not only now but for future generations.
7.19 p.m.
The Earl of Shannon: My Lords, I thank all those who so kindly contributed to the debate, and I especially thank the noble Baroness the Minister for her kind remarks. I am afraid that we slightly disagree on some matters which are not part of the main topic of the debate; namely, the safe disposal of high level nuclear waste.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and I, do not quite agree on one matter. I believe that there should be more nuclear power, while he thinks that there should never have been any at all. But we have it and we should not be like 18th century agricultural peasants who looked at the steam engine and said, "We won't have anything to do with that; there's no future in it; let's go away, it might go bang"; or like the legislators at the beginning of this century who looked with horror at the horseless carriage driven by an infernal internal combustion engine and said, "Nothing will ever happen with that, but, as it's here, let's have someone walking in front of it with a red flag".
We must weigh the successes of nuclear power with any failures. I know that failures are highlighted. We are like peasants in the Middle Ages who thought that anything they could not understand was either magic or the work of the devil. We should take a more balanced view of what nuclear power has done for the world and what it could do in the future.
Apparently the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and I disagree again. Although on one thing I am afraid we do agree: serving in the latter half of the 1940s in the Royal West African Frontier Force in a place known in those days as the white man's grave, one took very good care not to be bitten by mosquitoes.
1114
We must have nuclear energy, otherwise our industrialised society will not exist in its present state.
The idea of conservation is a magnificent one, but will it produce what we want? Similarly, the Minister referred to the renewables. I find it difficult to believe that those will produce sufficient energy for our needs.
I felt that the subject should be considered by your Lordships on the grounds that we need a permanent solution to disposing of the waste which we have already produced and the other nuclear rubbish lying around, much of it in the old Soviet Union. The idea of using something which has naturally been immobilising radioactive materials for millions of years is something that we should catch on to quickly.
I think that there was a slight misunderstanding between the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, and myself. The idea is not to put this material around the glass, but to use it instead of the glass.
The debate was originally designed to deal with the disposal of high level waste, but it branched out into many other fields. The noble Lord raised a number of political aspects. He made an important point relating to retrievability. I did not dwell very strongly on that subject, being more concerned about the immobilisation of waste.
It has been suggested that a deep borehole in massive granite could be a permanent disposal site. Of course, one would put down small monitoring holes alongside the borehole to find out if there was any water down there and if it was likely to be contaminated. With a deep borehole going straight down, with canisters of synthetic rock encasing the waste, packed presumably with clay, and the hole capped with a large amount of concrete, it should be possible to get the canisters up again if necessary. This synthetic rock has been bottling up radiation for millions of years and it should certainly cope with the small matter of 100,000 years. If you had to hitch it up again, with a straight borehole and soft clay, you could put down a grab and get the canisters out. That is just a suggestion. I think the waste could be retrievable, although I do not think it would be at all necessary.
I—and I suppose other noble Lords—have received a note from the Select Committee on Science and Technology. I do not think any of us knew that that committee was about to have a discussion on the management of nuclear waste. For that reason, none of the members of that committee participated in this debate. Apparently they will read what was said and take it into their consideration. We are most grateful to them for that.
I hope that due consideration will be given to what I think will be the answer to the problem of the disposal of high level waste and its immobilisation, which is so important. If it is immobilised, it can be moved around with greater safety.
I thank all those who participated in the debate. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Forestry Sales
7.26 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitleyasked Her Majesty's Government when they will announce a long-term policy on forestry sales, and what measures will be taken, first, to ensure that forestry is not sold for inappropriate development within areas of outstanding natural beauty and, second, to ensure secure public access following sale.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, although I am spokesman on conservation and the countryside for my party, I do not claim to have a detailed knowledge of matters to do with forestry, unlike other noble Lords who, I am delighted to know, are to speak in this debate. However, my attention was drawn some time ago to what seemed to me to be an appalling development—in both senses of the word—in the Folkestone area. The more I studied what had happened, the more it was clear to me that a system which was meant to protect both areas of outstanding natural beauty and public access had failed to protect either.
When I asked the Council for the Protection of Rural England, which had opposed the development, what had gone wrong, the answer prompted the form in which this Question is asked. I shall briefly raise the question of the development at Lyminge in Kent, of which I have given the Government notice, and then briefly turn my attention to the formal matters laid down in the Question.
West Wood in Lyminge is an ancient woodland dating back 2,000 or more years and covers an area of about 460 acres. It was bought by the Forestry Commission in the early 1920s and replanted, mainly with conifers, for the production of timber for the mining industry. Being owned by the Forestry Commission, the rights of way and bridleways were maintained and there is a freedom-to-roam policy over the entire site.
In 1994 the wood was the subject of a planning application by Rank Hotels & Leisure, who wanted to develop an Oasis holiday village there. This village would accommodate up to 4,000 people at any one time, provide a golf course, a 12-acre lake and a domed water world, with shops, restaurants, bars, indoor squash courts, etc.
West Wood is set high on the North Downs in an area of outstanding natural beauty and is a site of nature conservation interest. Because of this, the Secretary of State for the Environment called in the application as being a departure from the local plan. In April 1995 a public inquiry debated the merits of the development, with Rank, Shepway District Council and Kent County Council all claiming the importance of the site and that there was no alternative site, while the Countryside Commission, the CPRE, Kent Trust for Nature and the Save Lyminge Forest Action Group all argued against any development in the AONB. The inquiry lasted nine weeks, with the inspector's report finding in favour of Rank. A judicial review was sought and in October 1996 the judge again found in favour of Rank. The action group appealed to the High Court earlier this year but
1116
again the judges found in favour of Rank. Save taking their case to the European Court, this exhausted the means at their disposal for objection.
The area is used extensively by the public on foot and in addition may have some important bridle paths through it. The development proposed will ring-fence the whole site with two-metre high fencing excluding all except paying guests. The substitute bridle/pedestrian pathway around the exterior is sandwiched between a busy B-road and that fence, rather like a trip around a prison camp. The proposed village is not small. It has 350 villas, 400 forest lodges and intends to provide a dome big enough to contain full-sized trees. The guest numbers will be between 3,500 and 4,300 at any given time.
The matter cleared all planning barriers and it is not the planning system about which I potentially—though I may well do so—protest. It is clear that everything was done properly. It is also clear that what is happening is horrendous in a place of outstanding national beauty and in ancient forest land. It is not the only example of its kind. In Cranbourne Chase and the West Wiltshire Downs AONB exactly the same thing happened. That account of what happened in one place is an appalling breach of all that we are trying to do when we try to save the countryside and areas of outstanding national beauty.
That brings me to the heart of the Question. In that example we see Forest Enterprise disregarding the views of the Countryside Commission in order to sell off forestry land of an historic nature for private and inappropriate development and indeed planning to revive a lapsed option after the Government announced a moratorium on the sale of forest land. That cannot be right. Therefore I am entitled to ask, and your Lordships to know, what the Government intend to do to ensure that such scandals will not be repeated in the future so that we can protect our countryside and those kinds of site in the future.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, forestry is badly treated in this House. On the last occasion when I moved a debate on forestry it had a two-and-a-half hour time limit and 24 speakers declared an interest in speaking on that occasion. They were awarded three minutes each. Tonight again we are meeting on a one-and-a-half hour debate on forestry matters at a somewhat late hour, so it does not permit us to examine all the questions that are raised when forestry is the subject before us.
I shall not speak at great length but felt that, as Chairman of the All-Party Forestry Group in Parliament, I ought to intervene. I shall not speak at great length because it is a time-limited debate and following me is one of the most distinguished foresters in this country and one of the most progressive landowners—I refer to the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch.
The noble Duke has shown a continuing interest not only in good forestry management as an example to others who are in that business, but also at one stage he joined the Ramblers Association as an indication of his

1117
interest in making at least his estates available to people who want to walk in the countryside and enjoy the beauty of the Buccleuch estates. Therefore, I feel that I should not speak long in this time-limited debate so that the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, can follow me.
I want to say a word or two about the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, on the question of access. It is a matter which gives us all some anxiety. The Forestry Commission was once well known for its ability to plant large areas of cypress, spruce and conifers, notably in Scotland. But recently it has been concerned not only about the production of timber, but also about opening up the countryside so that the public can enjoy all the pleasures of the peace and quiet of the woodlands. Last year some 50 million day visitors visited the forestry estate, and that is a great thing.
The question of access was not taken on board when the Forestry Commission was instructed by the government of the day to dispose of large areas of woodland. It is only recently that it has become more aware of the importance of tying into the disposal programmes access agreements. It is a difficult area because of the variety of uses of the countryside for sport and other interests. It is important that the social obligation for access agreements should be observed, but there must be a balance. I have always felt that private landlords, the private sector and those who will acquire the lands that are being disposed of must accept the social obligation of access, but at the same time the commission must be reasonable in its judgment of good land use.
Originally disposals of Forestry Commission land started in 1981 as a kind of tidying up process. There were lots of small pieces of land here and there that had been acquired over the years and it was important to manage those woodlands successfully. There was therefore a rationalisation of Forestry Commission ownership. But it has gone way beyond that now; it is no longer a tidying up process and the last government initiated substantial disposals. The great pursuit of privatisation was part of the general philosophy of the government of the day. I would not have minded privatisation to some extent, but forestry cannot be managed in that kind of ideological way.
The Forestry Commission disposed of large areas and I hope that the Minister who is to reply to the debate tonight will assure us that the moratorium on further disposals will be observed by the new Government and that any further disposals of Forestry Commission land will have built into them, where it is reasonable, access agreements so that people can enjoy the pleasures of their own estates.
I hope I may be permitted to suggest that the new Government should be looking at new policies in relation to forestry. It is not only access agreements and disposals that are involved in new policies, but, in pursuit of privatisation, the previous Government deliberately cut back substantially on Forestry Commission activities. When I was chairman of the commission we planted between 20,000 and 30,000 hectares a year in Forestry
1118
Commission land. Last year 580 hectares were planted. There was a deliberate starving of the commission of funds and a restriction of public forestry.
In the old days we had a very good relationship in forestry. Forestry was a prime example of good partnership. The private sector and the Forestry Commission worked together in training, research and so on. But in the last years of the previous Government the continued emphasis on privatisation meant that the private sector was encouraged with grants—I have no objection to that—to plant trees and the Forestry Commission was totally neglected.
I make a plea to the new Government to try to restore the kind of partnership we used to enjoy in forestry policy. It is part of the philosophy of New Labour that partnership in industry and in other areas should be pursued. It would be to the advantage of this country if we were to restore the kind of partnership that existed some 20 years ago.
One point I would make, if I may transgress a general forestry matter in this rather narrow debate, concerns the question of devolution. I notice that in the new devolution proposals forestry will be a devolved subject. That means that Scottish forestry will have an office, a policy and an administration; English forestry will have a policy and a separate administration; and Welsh forestry will have the same. That is an absolute nonsense. One of the few things I did when I was chairman was to remove forestry from No. 25 Saville Row, WI, which was my office, to Edinburgh. Forestry was run from Edinburgh—national forestry. To break up that activity into separate national units will not be an encouragement to good planning, good forestry and sensible policies. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board if she does not reply to it tonight.
My plea is for the restoration of partnership in forestry. It was a happy relationship. I am sure that the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, will confirm, in his long experience, that this partnership was a useful and happy one. That is about all I want to say in this limited debate. I look forward to hearing the contributions of my other forestry friends.
7.45 p.m.
The Duke of Buccleuch: My Lords, perhaps I may start by saying how glad I am that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, should have raised this subject, which is one very close to my heart. It seems that we have several things in common. Both he and I are founder patrons of the Small Farmers' Association, which is now called the Family Farmers' Association. I do not know whether he has plans to have a Small Foresters' Association, but I am glad that he should have raised this subject.
It is always a pleasure to hear the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, because no one can compete with him in knowledge, wisdom and sound common sense on the subject of forestry together with his enormous wealth of experience. What he says is well worth hearing, listening to and, I hope, acting upon.
Before I go any further I feel I must declare an interest. Perhaps I could be described as a backwoodsman in every sense of the word. My family—and my family company, of which I am chairman—has

1119
been very much involved in forestry for about 14 generations, and access has always featured prominently in that operation. So I speak with an axe to grind as a backwoodsman.
We all talk glibly these days about multi-purpose forestry. I personally prefer the expression "multi-benefit forestry" because it provides such a huge variety of benefits. Access is one important ingredient in the multi-benefits. That is becoming more and more widely recognised. For a short spell of two years, which ended last year, I had the honour of being president of the Royal Scottish Forestry Society. Following an initiative by my predecessor, we carried out a scheme called Visit a Forest Week, wherein we got a great many owners of woodlands to open their woods to the public and make them feel welcome. That we did for two years. A lot of woodland owners joined the scheme. Unfortunately, however, the take-up by the general public was disappointing. So the scheme, I am afraid, faded out.
Nevertheless, forests are becoming increasingly attractive to huge numbers of people as an alternative to seaside resorts, which become more and more overcrowded. The figures for the number of day visits are quite impressive. Perhaps the Minister will correct my figures if they are inaccurate—they may be three years out of date—but I think they were provided originally by the Forestry Commission. They showed that there are around 250 million day visits in a year into woods and forests. I was always surprised that the Forestry Commission claimed only some 50 million day visits, which is only 20 per cent. of those day visits, yet it has 40 per cent. of all woodlands. It means that someone is being very generous in their hospitality to visitors.
The Forestry Commission has some magnificent honeypot locations to which people swarm. My praise is unstinting for the way in which it manages those operations. It provides the excellent infrastructure which people want and can enjoy. It deserves full praise for that.
There is a fear that the selling off of woodland will result in reduced access. That has been one of the main arguments against selling Forestry Commission woods in many localities where people feel that tourism and the rest may suffer. But that argument needs to be looked at rather closely. So many of the woodlands the Forestry Commission has been selling are the kind of unthinned sitka spruce in which no self-respecting rambler would be found dead. Therefore, those are not really problem areas.
All kinds of curious reasons are given against selling Forestry Commission woodlands. I heard another one in my own locality. It is that if you sell the woods beastly commercial people will come along and lorries will trundle along all the local roads, making a mess of the bridges and everything else and spoiling all the villages. It is perfectly true that lorries would go trundling through. But at the same time it does not matter whether the woods are owned by commercial firms, the man in the moon or the Forestry Commission. You are still
1120
going to have the lorries harvesting the timber and trundling through the villages. So that was really a non-starter.
The possibility of sales worries a great many people in the countryside. My own personal experience as regards access is that my own family company offers over 400 square miles of countryside, from beautiful hilltops to rushing rivers. Some of it is covered with trees and some is open country. We provide everything in the way of leafleted trails, car parks and signs. There is provision for horse riders and separate provision for cyclists and the rest. These facilities are grossly under-used. This area is within a one-and-a-half hour drive for two-thirds of the population of Scotland. So, when people say that landowners and estate owners are very negative and mean in their attitude to access, I believe that one should look at the enormous opportunities which exist for people to get into the countryside, but which are not taken advantage of, which is very sad.
Access is important, but we should never be distracted from the primary role of forestry and the forestry industry. That is to produce more and more of a replenishable raw material in a way which is environmentally sensitive; which takes account of landscaping, is good from the point of view of conservation and recreation and harmonises with farming. It should also be carried out in an economically viable way.
Timber is a vital raw material. Imports today, which account for nearly 90 per cent. of our needs, cost us between £6 billion and £7 billion a year. That is equal to £1 million every 80 minutes. I find that pretty horrifying. That is despite the fact that we have heaven-sent soil and climatic conditions which enable us to produce the sort of timber which is required by our industries in about two-thirds of the time it takes our suppliers to provide it. In Scandinavia and Russia it sometimes takes twice as long to provide the same timber.
In this country every one of us uses two trees every year. If the whole of the developing world started to use anything like as much timber as we do there would not be a single tree left standing anywhere in the world. I say that only because we must concentrate our minds on the primary purpose of our industry and not be distracted by over-emphasis on access. Important as that is, it is a bit like going to a football match in Rome and finding ourselves mesmerised by the spectators and the fans instead of watching the players.
I find the sale of Forestry Commission woodlands regrettable, unless of course there are commercially sound reasons for selling certain land, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, said earlier. But I believe that the staff of the Forestry Commission and the commissioners have the expertise and knowledge. They are a dedicated body of people who know what they are doing. They can decide which woodlands they should sell from their own point of view. They should be allowed to get on with that. But where bigger sales take place, as happened recently, and which I have always regretted,

1121
I believe that they should be carried out only if the proceeds are reinvested in planting more trees and more forests.
There is the question of access. I would have thought it possible to write special access conditions into the sale particulars whenever an individual wood is sold because every wood will have different requirements. If tailor-made conditions are written in that should be a safeguard as regards some of the worries mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont.
There is one more point which I must mention, and it is in the form of a question. If we have much more access to forests, what about insurance? When someone trips over a log and sues, who pays? Who pays the insurance premiums? That could be quite a major problem. It is something that requires looking at if people are going to be encouraged to be generous in opening up their woods or their countryside. The question of cost and insurance needs to be looked at.
Perhaps I may end with words that were written 103 years ago by the borough surveyor of Sanquhar. He was a fairly radical sort of fellow in his outlook. He said:
"What besides increases the attractions of the district to the visitor"—
he was saying how marvellous Upper Nithsdale was—
"is the almost absolute and unrestrained freedom to be enjoyed. Notices of 'Trespassers will the prosecuted', 'Keep to the road', and others of a like nature, by which a selfish and exclusive landlordism would seek to deprive the general public of enjoyments which are the heritage of humanity, are nowhere to be seen. In this respect the Duke of Buccleuch, and, following his example, the other landed proprietors of the district, have allowed to all the liberty to roam wheresoever they list".
That was 103 years ago, and it is becoming a talking point today. But, of course, a lot has changed since then. For instance, the invention of the motor car enables vast numbers of people to find their way into the countryside. Likewise, the explosion of interest in country matters is something which has to be taken into account. We know of places in the Lake District and elsewhere where people can destroy what they come to see. I believe that any idea of having a free-for-all should be approached with very great caution. In my own part of the country, where we have access available to one and all, that problem has not arisen as yet. It may one day, but I do not know. At the moment there is no need for restrictions and limitations.
I urge those who are in charge of our affairs, whether in forestry or the countryside generally, to approach this subject with caution as well as sympathy.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I would like to offer my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for asking this Question on this important and interesting matter. I believe that it has been fascinating for all noble Lords who have been in the Chamber tonight to listen to the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, and hear what he has had to say about his experience of forestry. I also recognise the great experience and knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. He will perhaps forgive me if, standing where I do, I say to him that the record of the
1122
previous government is perhaps not as bad as he paints it. Perhaps he will also forgive me if I put on record tonight the fact that the previous government, in their rural White Paper in 1995, committed themselves to promoting and preserving the rural way of life. The importance of forestry was recognised in that White Paper. The need to increase woodland was recognised, given the very low percentage coverage in the United Kingdom compared with the rest of Europe. The White Paper also referred to the opportunities offered for recreation and leisure and for the conservation of wildlife. Programmes foreshadowed in the White Paper aimed at reducing the dependence on imported timber, to which the noble Duke referred.
On the question of access, the White Paper recorded that under the previous administration, unless there was very good reason, the Forestry Commission allowed public access. Private owners, influenced partly by the woodland improvement grant, were also encouraged to allow access, but it was access by way of co-operation and partnership rather than by compulsion. We on these Benches continue to support that, because we would have great doubts about compulsion.
It is worth recording the fact that grants to woodland owners have increased from some £16 million per annum to approximately £40 million per annum in the past six years; and that some 70 million trees are being planted per year, with one-third of a million hectares—that is, over three-quarters of a million acres—of new woodland being planted since 1979. I suggest, therefore, that the record of the previous administration was not wholly bad, as was perhaps suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor.
I turn to the specific case raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. I should be interested to learn—I am sure that other noble Lords will also be interested in this—the Government's answer to the noble Lord's question about what went wrong in that instance. I believe, however, that that is a planning issue. The noble Lord said that he was satisfied that the planning procedures had been complied with properly in all respects. Having heard the facts as set out by the noble Lord, I see this as an example of how careful we have to be with our planning policies to ensure that not only woodland, but the rest of the countryside and the green belt, are properly protected by our planning policies. I am not familiar with the circumstances of that particular application other than as I have heard them given in the Chamber tonight, but if, as the noble Lord told us, it is possible for an application quite properly to be passed in respect of a site such as that described, perhaps we need to look again at those planning policies to ensure that they are all they ought to be.
The present discussion about whether building should be allowed in green belt areas is another matter which needs careful consideration. There have been references in previous debates, including the debate in your Lordships's House some weeks ago about the use of land in the countryside, to the development of housing on brownfield sites. Tonight is not the time to debate that at length, but the example which we have heard described—others could arise—makes it abundantly clear that the first presumption ought to be against the development of the countryside and sites such as described tonight.
8.3 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I join others in expressing our delight at the opportunity that has been given to us to debate this important topic. Forestry is an increasingly important land use throughout the United Kingdom, given that our woods provide habitats for wildlife, jobs for rural communities and opportunities for recreation and quiet enjoyment that I, for one, find unequalled and unique in terms of the quality of the experience. I am therefore delighted to be able to underline the Government's firm commitment to promoting forestry which is both sustainable and multi-purpose, thus contributing to the economic, environmental and recreational well-being of the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, expressed concern about sales of Forestry Commission land. In dealing with that question, perhaps I should begin by saying clearly that the commitment to which he referred was legally binding in terms of the Forestry Commission and West Wood. I shall return to that point later.
As soon as the Government were elected, we imposed a moratorium on the sale of Forestry Commission land, as promised in our manifesto. As I said a few moments ago, the commission was legally or morally committed to some sales which had been agreed before the election was called. Those sales, which represent only about half of 1 per cent. of the commission's estate, are being completed. They are sales which at the time of the election the commission was negotiating with public or charitable bodies under its sponsorship arrangements, and other legally binding sales. Since 1st May, the Forestry Commission has entered no new negotiations to sell any of its forestry land.
In considering our longer-term policy, there are several factors to take into account. It would not be sensible to stop the commission selling any land in the future. The noble Duke gave an example, as did my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe, of cases where it would be inappropriate to have a rigid opposition to all sales. Some local communities have expressed a desire to buy their local woods from the commission so that they can manage them for the benefit of their own community. Where those woods are small, or distant from the commission's main forests in the area, a change of ownership may well be in everyone's best interests. Some charities, such as the Woodland Trust, can often obtain funds specifically to manage small woods which are of particular value for recreation or conservation, so the public and the woods benefit if the woods are bought by such bodies.
Like any large landowner, the commission needs to be able to buy and sell land if it is to manage its holdings effectively and achieve its objectives. There is always scope for rationalising landholdings, particularly where the existing boundary of the commission's land creates problems in designing the forest edges to suit the landscape. In such cases, an exchange of land with a neighbouring landowner can often suit everyone. In other words, just as we shall avoid the pitfall of ruling out all purchases, so shall we refrain from ruling out all sales, regardless of size or justification.
1124
Noble Lords will know that a significant proportion of the commission's income currently comes from the sale of large areas of forest each year. The budgets that we have inherited assume that that will continue to be the case. As I have said, we have imposed a moratorium on sales while we consider the commission's comprehensive spending review. Before reaching our conclusions, we shall be looking carefully at other sources of income which could replace the income from sales of land. We do not wish to rush to a hasty conclusion, so I cannot give the exact date on which we shall announce our long-term policy on sales and, indeed, purchases of Forestry Commission land. However, I can assure those who have expressed concern here tonight and elsewhere that the moratorium will stay in place until we reach our conclusions and make an announcement.
The question about what will happen when the commission sells land in future needs to be answered with a clear and specific assurance. We shall ensure that public access is preserved wherever possible. The Forestry Commission encourages quiet and peaceful recreation in all its forests, so perhaps I should turn now to the numbers of visitors to Forestry Commission land. Surveys indicate that 300 million people visit our forests each year, but that figure includes people who visit regularly on a daily basis when, for example, taking their dog for a walk. Such people may visit only a small and local area. The Forestry Commission estimates that there are about 50 million day visits to its woods. In general, the visitors are day visitors as opposed to local people taking their dogs for a walk.
I referred to the possibility of imposing access constraints. It is extremely important to ensure that wherever possible they are followed through. Obviously, there are cases where, for example, property is held by the Forestry Commission and there is a leasehold constraint. That is an example of where it is not possible. We wish to preserve all of these opportunities for informal recreation. If the land was open to the public in the past we expect it to remain so in future.
A question was raised about insurance for those using this land. I make a general rule of thumb statement, not one that can be applied rigidly to any individual case. I make that disclaimer. I am advised that in general visitors can make a claim against a landowner only if he has been deliberately negligent or has deliberately created a dangerous situation. The presence of tree roots and rabbit holes does not appear to fall into that category. I repeat that that is a general observation and not one to which the Government can be held in individual cases.
One of the important matters raised in the debate is the need to encourage the Forestry Commission to plant more. This was stressed by my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe. We shall be considering how best to increase the woodland areas of Britain. To ask the Forestry Commission to plant on more land is one option that will be considered. It will be done within the framework of a partnership approach, which is the hallmark of the approach of the Government to such issues.

1125
My noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe also referred to devolution. The functions of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales in relation to forestry will be transferred to the Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly respectively. The commission will however continue to be the government department with responsibility for forestry throughout Britain. The commission will report separately to the Scottish parliament and the Welsh assembly but will still be a national responsibility. I hope that that provides some comfort and confidence to my noble friend.
Overall, woodland is becoming more widely available for general public access and recreation. For example, the work of my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe, whose chairmanship of the All-Party Committee on Forestry is widely respected, can be used to draw attention to the important area of recreation and amenity for people throughout the whole country.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, expressed concern about developments in areas of outstanding natural beauty. AONBs are designated by the Countryside Commission and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Environment. The designation confers formal recognition that the natural beauty of an area is of great importance and worthy of protection. I take the example of the commission's concern about West Wood. It is important to recognise that AONBs must be seen in the context of the very full and careful consideration given to this proposal before planning permission was granted in April this year. It was right that the proposal should have been subject to the full rigours of the planning system. The Forestry Commission is now fully committed to the sale of the wood.
The Countryside Commission's review of areas of outstanding natural beauty is concerned with funding and management arrangements. At the moment it is not considering planning issues. We believe that well established planning policies for the protection of areas of outstanding natural beauty and development within them should be based on the fact that development is not prohibited within such designated areas but that it is only when development is proven to be of national interest and there is a lack of alternative sites that a major development can be justified. The former
1126
Secretary of State for the Environment accepted that the West Wood scheme constituted a major commercial development in the AONB but agreed with the inspector that there was a proven national interest for the development. This is a matter of history and is the former position.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, can the Minister explain what national interest there can possibly be in the development by Rank of a holiday village in an area of outstanding natural beauty? "National" does not appear to enter into it.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the situation with regard to AONBs is that the more rural areas of the country are parts of the national economy and must be taken into account. I hope that I have provided the noble Lord with a satisfactory answer as to the factual position. If the noble Lord remains dissatisfied I am sure he will write to me and we can take the matter further.
Dealing with more general forestry issues, I assure the House that the Government are committed to a continued increase in the areas of woodland in Britain. Woods and forests provide many benefits to all the people of Britain. However, as the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, said, in his very knowledgeable and important contribution to the debate, each year they produce 7 million tonnes of timber which is in great demand by industry. Over £1.3 billion has been invested in the processing industry over the past 10 years. Well planned woods and forests greatly enhance our landscape. They are very important in increasing biodiversity in Britain, are essential habitats for rare wildlife, provide extensive opportunities for leisure, relaxation and, perhaps more importantly, if we are to protect public access in the future, promote knowledge of the valuable economic resource provided by woods and forests and the importance of maintaining public access and the interests of those who earn their living in forestry. We are committed to supporting forestry and helping it to expand, while also setting standards for the sustainable management of existing woods and forests in Britain.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes past eight o'clock.