asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, there are no immediate plans to change driving licence application procedures. However, as a longer term option the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) is exploring the possibility of establishing electronic links with other government departments. This would considerably reduce the need to supply original identity documents and thus make the application process easier.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. However, does he accept that there is real worry on the part of applicants who are forced to send originals of birth certificates, passports and marriage certificates—and, if one is a Member of this House, a Writ of Summons—through the post? Such documents are extremely valuable to their owners and could be of considerable value to the criminal fraternity. Will the Minister try to ensure that the DVLA returns these documents either by registered post or by recorded delivery or, alternatively, that it again permits copies of these documents to be sent?

My Lords, the decision to cease to accept copies of these documents was not taken by the DVLA but across government and resulted from the increased incidence of fraud. It is alleged that obtaining a driving licence is one of the easiest ways to establish a totally new identity because often a driving licence is accepted as a form of identity card, although that should not happen. Until the incidence of fraud is reduced, the DVLA and certain other government agencies will still require original documents to be submitted. As regards postage, the DVLA does not require individuals to send their documents by registered post. The DVLA has considered whether to return documents by registered post. However, that would of course have a cost implication and the driving licence regime is required to cover its costs. Therefore the return of original documents by registered post or recorded delivery would have a cost implication on the driving licence regime.

My Lords, I suggest to the Minister that the directions on the form are not clear.

I at last have one of these licences and I think they are a good idea but the process of sending documents back and forth is extremely complicated. Will the Minister consider submitting the relevant directions for examination by the Plain English Campaign?

My Lords, having recently filled in one of these forms I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness. However, we are trying our best to improve the ease with which people can fill in the forms and also to make them electronically readable so as to speed up the process we are discussing; sometimes the two processes move in opposite directions. However, we shall give serious consideration to redesigning the forms, particularly when all new driving licences will comprise photocards after 2001.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that when one goes to a post office and asks for an application form for a new driving licence, one is given a piece of paper which states,

"Don't be a REJECT! Many photocard applications are being rejected"?

This obviously implies that the form is indeed complicated and this new driving licence is not at all easy to apply for, as my noble friend stated in her Question. What proportion of photocard applications are being rejected? As most people who apply for a photocard driving licence will have to send in their passports, and given the record of the present Government with regard to passports at the moment—as everyone is aware from reports in the newspapers, this is a complete shambles—will the Government give an assurance that the DVLA will return people's passports with a good deal more expedition than does the Home Office at the moment?

My Lords, as regards the return of documents, despite the occasional problem, the DVLA has quite a good record in terms of returning documents quickly as compared with certain other government agencies that the noble Lord mentioned. However, I am sure that the Passport Agency is also improving its performance, as no doubt my noble friend Lord Williams will confirm. The point I made in my original Answer is that if there were an electronic interface between the Passport Agency and the DVLA, as the Passport Agency undertakes detailed checks on applicants it could transfer that information by electronic means to the DVLA and thereby speed up the whole process. That is an example of electronic joined-up government which we hope to achieve within the next couple of years.

As regards rejection, a small proportion of forms are rejected. However, the DVLA deals with 37 million applications. I cannot give the noble Lord the exact figure for rejections, but even if it is a point of a percentage that is a large figure in total. Therefore it is important to follow the advice of the Post Office and the DVLA, which advise people to ensure that when filling in the form they keep their signature and other information within the relevant boxes on the form as that makes the information computer readable.

My Lords, does the Minister entirely approve of the following situation? I went to the security office downstairs to obtain a photograph of myself; I forwarded it with an application to Swansea; and I had it returned to me on the ground that it was not up to the DVLA standard. Ought we not to consider either raising our standards or lowering those of the DVLA?

My Lords, there is no possible way in which I can suggest raising the noble Earl's standards. Problems are experienced with computer-readable photographs where the photograph is off-centre. The cause may lie with the machine downstairs. That is a matter for the House authorities. However, we regret such incidents and obviously try to minimise them.

My Lords, will the Minister placate my noble friend's concern about sending a Writ of Summons by post? Will he assure her that they are of no great avail because 700 people who are in receipt of Writs of Summons will soon have them invalidated?

My Lords, that is not entirely true. Before the imminent constitutional changes, a Writ of Summons indicates that the bearer has been called to the peerage. There will be other documentation in the future; the title is not altered. As I understand it, the DVLA, having the rest of the information, will normally check whether a different title from that indicated on the earlier documentation is appropriate. That will be done using reference books. In some cases the DVLA will ask for additional material. I am not entirely clear why that should be so in the noble Baroness's case and I will make further enquiries.

My Lords, can the Minister say how often photographs will have to be changed? Will it be the same system, where one gets one's licence, holds it until the age of 70 and thereafter has to have it renewed every three years? If so, how identifiable will one be? Will those who seek to renew their licence after the age of 70—I assume the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, is in that category—have to produce the same documentation every three years, even if they have had a licence for perhaps 40 years?

My Lords, the UK is probably almost the last country to change to a photo-based licence. As at present, the licence will be valid until the age of 70. But the photograph—not the remainder of the documentation—will have to be renewed every 10 years. As far as concerns renewal past the age of 70, as I understand it, once the documentation is established at 70, one will not have to provide the material again at 73 and 76. I will write to the noble Baroness if I am wrong about that.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, one of South Africa's major development challenges is better education for the communities disadvantaged by apartheid and it is a priority for our development partnership. We are working to help improve school and adult education in some of South Africa's poorest provinces. The programme draws on the services of local non-governmental organisations. We plan this financial year to spend around £5 million on support to education in South Africa. We also plan to provide about £150,000 this year through the Joint Funding Scheme for NGOs working in education in South Africa.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. I know that she is aware of the terrible legacy of a whole generation of black African education neglect. It has engendered so much poverty that only major initiatives can make any improvement to this appalling scenario and give some hope to the rising generation. Does the Minister agree that the main areas of concern are in pre-primary, primary and junior high school education? In order that the basic grounding can be set in place, what research have the Government carried out in rural areas to establish local needs? What monitoring is subsequently carried out to ensure that the funds are properly used?

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that apartheid has left a terrible legacy in South Africa. The main areas of our programme cross all sectors of education, including adult education. A considerable amount of work has been done at local level, particularly in some of the poorest provinces of South Africa, with local NGOs and provincial government, as well as with national government, to identify the priority areas in different provinces. I will be happy to write to the noble Baroness to explain some of the detail of that work. As far as concerns monitoring, we always set monitoring in place when we support any project. We are helping the South African Government to develop better performance indicators for the work they are doing in this area.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, following the general election in South Africa, one of the greatest challenges facing President Thabo Mbeki will be not only to reduce the escalating levels of crime but also to reduce the high levels of unemployment? Among black people under the age of 25, almost 50 per cent are unemployed. I welcome the Government's support to NGOs. However, do they have plans to promote vocational and skills training to assist not merely those who have recently completed their education but also more elderly members of the population to prepare themselves for the job market?

My Lords, the noble Lord's mention of the general election offers me an opportunity to congratulate the South African Government on the successful outcome, and to place on public record the fact that the elections were not marred by the kind of violence that has been seen in the past.

The noble Lord raised a specific question regarding crime and high levels of unemployment. The South African Government are well aware that in their social agenda they need to take these issues on board. Our own programme in South Africa includes not merely education but other areas as well; 15 per cent of our aid budget in South Africa is spent on education and training, not merely education. The noble Lord's point regarding vocational skills and training is being taken on board.

My Lords, having just returned from seeing the elections in South Africa last week, perhaps I may join with those who wish to congratulate the President, Thabo Mbeki, and wish him a successful future. Is the noble Baroness aware that among voters in South Africa there is a great deal of optimism for the future of democracy and a great deal of enthusiasm for future developments? Does the noble Baroness agree that in relation to NGOs, who undoubtedly do a tremendous job, spending priorities must lie with the South African Government?

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that there is a great deal of optimism in South Africa regarding the future, although, as I have mentioned, a number of social issues need to be addressed. On the question of NGOs and our partnership in South Africa, a key element referred to in our White Paper on the elimination of world poverty is working in partnership not merely with government but with NGOs, the business sector, trade unions and so on. That is the approach we have taken in South Africa. Our country strategy paper was agreed following consultation with all of those groups. It is important that, in terms of bilateral work, we agree our priorities with the South African Government.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the universities in South Africa need an international partnership? During the period of apartheid British universities were extremely helpful in providing scholarships to those who opposed the then South African regime. President Mbeki is, after all, a graduate of Sussex University. Are the Government giving attention to maintaining that level of partnership? In a situation in which American universities will be extremely active in pursuing partnership, British universities should attempt to maintain a useful intellectual relationship.

My Lords, I am happy to agree with the noble Lord. A number of British universities are working in direct partnership with their South African counterparts in terms of the exchange of knowledge, ideas and expertise, as well as promoting student exchanges. The British Council is also active in the area of scholarships. There is a great of contact and partnership in this area.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords. no final decisions have yet been taken. The Government plan to make an announcement on the e-envoy shortly.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. About 10 million people in Britain now have access to the Internet; and it is estimated that about 5 per cent of world trade will be conducted by e-commerce within five years. What practical policies do the Government propose to protect consumers in this new environment?

My Lords, the Government agree strongly with the argument behind the noble Lord's remarks. We recognise that electronic commerce is increasing, and that it will and ought to increase. We have announced, both in our competitiveness White Paper and in the White Paper, Modernising Government, quite ambitious targets for our response to it. These are enormously important matters, as is recognised in the fact that the appointment referred to in the noble Lord's Question is a prime ministerial appointment. The Prime Minister takes it extremely seriously, as we do.

My Lords, I declare an interest as an officer in an organisation with an interest in electronic commerce. Does the noble Lord agree with the report's conclusion that, while protecting the interests of consumers, it is important to focus on measures that will facilitate electronic commerce, rather than run the risk of delay through over-regulation which may inhibit such commerce'? In particular, can priority be given, first, to ensuring a proper legal basis for contracts and signatures on the Internet and, secondly, to ensuring proper jurisdiction over tax for trade on the Internet?

Yes, my Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord. These issues must be addressed, and are being addressed, in the development of the legislation on e-commerce that was announced in the Queen's Speech. They are extremely complex issues.

My Lords, on the subject of protecting consumer interests, is the noble Lord aware that Lloyds Bank Internet banking service failed to complete over 1,500 transactions over the previous Bank Holiday, and that a spokesman explained that it was because the computer system had failed to recognise that it was a Bank Holiday? Will the noble Lord assure us that, when the e-envoy, as he is popularly called, is appointed, he will do his best to ensure that this kind of thing does not happen again?

My Lords, I did not know of the incident to which the noble Lord refers. I thought that Bank Holidays were set up for the benefit of banks, and that banks would be the first to recognise them. That is not quite how we see the role of the e-envoy. We see it as a marketing and promotional role rather than the regulatory role that is implied by the noble Lord.

My Lords, although the noble Lord is making an excellent job of answering these questions, as he always does, I am sorry that the Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry is not present. The report of the Trade and Industry Select Committee of another place which made the criticism referred to by my noble friend Lord Chadlington is critical of many aspects of the Government's approach to their forthcoming electronic commerce Bill. In regard to electronic signatures, at paragraph 40 of its report the committee points to the omission of consultation regarding the place of electronic signatures in Scots law as a serious omission. What are the Government doing to remedy this urgent matter? If the noble Lord cannot answer now, perhaps he will write to me.

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Sainsbury. who is the Minister responsible for these matters, is on government business in the United States this week. He would have taken this Question had he been available to do so. I apologise for my inadequate presence in his absence.

No!

My Lords, the noble Baroness's point goes wide of the Question. She asks a detailed question about a Treasury Select Committee report on an electronic commerce Bill. The Question relates to an e-envoy. If there is an answer that I can send to the noble Baroness, I shall certainly do so.

My Lords, can the Minister give any indication as to the likely timetable for the e-commerce Bill? For my part, I shall accept his answer, unlike the previous questioner.

No, my Lords. The complex issues to which I referred are still not fully resolved. It would be our intention to start the Bill on its progress during this Session. But it would be very unwise for me to be more precise than that.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one of the major French banks has set up a system whereby people can trade on the Internet with complete security?

My Lords, I learn a lot at this Dispatch Box, things I did not know about Scots law, French banking and Lloyds Bank. I am grateful to my noble friend for the information. I shall ensure that the success of whichever French bank it is in achieving security is brought to the notice of those who seek to achieve security in electronic commerce in this country. It is a most helpful suggestion.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, since the publication of the National Strategy for Carers in February, the Government have acted on a number of issues, including the special grant for carers to have a break from caring and issuing the draft long-term care charter for consultation. We have recently written to the main carers' organisations and other interested bodies explaining how we intend to implement further key policy strands. I am placing a copy of this letter outlining our plans for further action by April 2000 in the Library of the House.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. She will know that it is a year today since the Prime Minister first announced the national strategy for carers. Carers everywhere and their organisations are extremely grateful for the progress that has been made. It is National Carers' Week again, and the Carers National Association has recently published a report, We're in this Together, showing that caring is still a source of huge stress and strain within family relationships.

In view of that, can the Minister tell the House what progress has been made on bringing in legislation to give carers a right to services to help them with their caring duties, as opposed to the right to an assessment, to which they are entitled under the carers Act?

Yes, my Lords. Since it is National Carers' Week, it is appropriate to pay tribute to the outstanding work of my noble friend in the field in terms of focusing attention on the needs and contributions of carers throughout the United Kingdom. I think she will understand that I cannot anticipate the future legislative programme, but we recognised clearly in the carers' strategy the difficulties inherent in the current position We made clear our intention to extend the powers of local authorities to provide services to carers and to introduce legislation when parliamentary time allows. That was again made clear in the letter that was issued this week.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that because of improved health and social care there has been a huge increase across the whole of the age spectrum of people living much longer, despite disabilities of one kind or another? We should bear in mind that most of those people live in the community rather than in hospital. Does she agree that this has placed a great burden upon carers? That being so, does the Minister agree that every local authority should have a strategy in place to identify carers and ways of providing them with proper support and help?

Yes, my Lords. The noble Lord is absolutely right in pointing out that we need to pinpoint those organisations that can give support to carers. One in six households in this country now contains a carer. They contribute an enormous amount and deserve more support, as well as more recognition than they have had in the past. Local authorities have a specific role to play. The recently announced awards scheme will draw the attention of the public and carers to their needs and to how organisations, employers and local authorities can support them. It will be very valuable.

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what information the Government seek to obtain in the next national census on the number of carers, the kind of work they are doing and their needs?

My Lords, the work on the exact details of what the census question will contain is part of the activities outlined in the programme of action that my honourable friend John Hutton described this week. That question will be absolutely crucial; it will be the first time that we have a question on carers in the census and it will give us a better base of information from which to work than in the past.

My Lords, along with the aim of helping carers in their own right, can the Government give us an assurance as to whether they will introduce the second state pension for carers within this Parliament as opposed to having to wait for a new one?

My Lords, again I cannot anticipate the legislative programme. However, in our manifesto we promised that we would look into the matter. Carers will receive flat-rate credits for the new state second pension so that in broad terms they will get £1 a week pension for each qualifying year. Roughly 2.5 million carers, including 2 million child benefit cases, will begin to build up credits from the scheme's inception.

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that one of the fundamental needs of carers is to have regular breaks, especially when they are caring for elderly people suffering from Alzheimer's disease?

My Lords, I agree. That is why one of the first actions taken after the carers' strategy was announced was the introduction of special grants to allow carers to have just such a break from caring.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the research mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, indicates that many families find the social security system complex and off-putting? They find it hard to obtain comprehensive information about available benefits. What plans do the Government have to make the social security system more user-friendly?

My Lords, there is an enormous challenge in making the social security system more user-friendly. I know that my noble friend Lady Hollis and others are rising to it within the department. But there are ways in which we can help carers specifically. One of the interesting ways that is being supported by the Government and the Department of Health is the StartHere project, which provides accessible information on a wide range of subjects that include social security, specifically aimed at carers.

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Cowdrey of Tonbridge set down for today shall be limited to three-and-a-half hours and that in the name of the Viscount Montgomery of Alamein to two-and-a-half hours.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)

rose to call attention to measures to improve sport in the United Kingdom; and to move for Papers.

My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, for introducing this Motion and quite rightly speaking in a truly emotional manner about his experience in sport.

I remind the noble Lord that our friendship on a non-political basis goes back rather a long time—some 46 years. It is a curious coincidence that more or less on this day 45 years ago the noble Lord and I shared a partnership at The Parks for Oxford University against Lancashire when we put on 172 runs for the second wicket. Unfortunately, the noble Lord gave his wicket away when he was 94 and I went on to complete my century. But I pass that by.

I was once able to claim that I was the only former first-class cricketer in your Lordships' House. With the arrival of the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, and, of course, my noble friend Lord Sheppard of Liverpool, I had to come very low down in the batting order. They went on to glorious things; I went on to a less glorious career.

Nevertheless, the Motion is even more important than the noble Lord put forward. There are three points I wish to make. The first is that he referred to team sports. I would refer to participatory sports. That is an important point.

I endorse everything the noble Lord had to say about sportsmanship. There is no doubt that the standard of sporting behaviour in team sports has declined since the noble Lord, my noble friend Lord Sheppard, and I played cricket in our day. That applies also to football and other sports. The problem, of course, is money. That is where the rat has started to get at things. I refer to people who are paid big bonuses, who rely heavily on transfer fees and who obviously find it very difficult to contain themselves when they really have to fight for their money.

The third point, which I will come to later, concerns the political—by which I do not mean party political—and social aspects of sport.

I start with team sports. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, that there must be a mechanism for ensuring that many more people can engage in team sports. I do not believe that sport should simply be a mechanism for people sitting in front of a television set and watching Manchester United or the Derby, or whatever sport it may be, and doing nothing. The whole point is to get people to participate. That is why I used the expression "participatory sport." I believe that anything the Government can do to encourage that would be welcome.

Sadly, local authorities over the years have had to sell playing fields and get rid of facilities. My grandchildren, who go to a comprehensive school in Warwickshire, cannot even get on to a tennis court without paying extra. That cannot be right. I hope that the Government will pay attention to the matter.

The noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, rightly pointed out that sportsmen are role models. There are other role models: there are the Spice Girls, there are stars in the soap operas, and so on. People, like the noble Lord, who have played sport, who are playing sport, and who are seen to be playing sport in a proper way are role models. I do not think that that aspect should be ignored. All those people who are role models, some of whom I am afraid have behaved in a manner of which your Lordships would disapprove, should be made aware that the youth of today are watching them and that they have to behave in a proper manner.

I now come to what I call the political/social element of sport. It has rightly been said that sport is not the history of sport. Sport is history. I cite three examples. In the 1930s, when Australia was going through a very bad depression, the cricketer Bradman was the one person who kept Australia alive in terms of the morale of the country. By making all his runs and being a convincing Australian, he kept the whole country going. It was collapsing in desperate economic times of the 1930s.

Secondly, there is the Irish rugby team, a team representing all parts of Ireland. This means that there is a stand-off half playing for Ireland who actually comes from Northern Ireland. That must be a uniting force from within, due entirely to a sporting environment.

I recall the late Lord Wilson saying, when England were knocked out of the World Cup in Mexico in 1970, that it was entirely due to that event that the Labour Party lost the 1970 general election. That may be right or wrong: the fact that he said it indicates how strong sport is.

We have only to look at Manchester United or Tim Henman to see how national morale is affected by the sporting prowess of the champions. That feeds down, as the noble Lord rightly said, to younger people who get the urge to take up tennis, rugby or whatever. Speaking just for Wales, the fact that the Welsh rugby team beat England at the last moment gave an enormous uplift to the Principality. We cannot neglect that.

Having said all that, I believe that your Lordships will have to recognise, as the noble Lord said, that sport is not just a question of people going out and playing cricket or kicking a football around. It is not just a question of,

"the flannelled fools at the wicket or the muddied oafs at the goals".

It is part of the social fabric of the nation. That is the message I hope your Lordships will be able to convey.

The second message which I hope your Lordships will convey is that facilities at the lower level—for my grandchildren attending their comprehensive school in Warwickshire—should be available just as those facilities were available to the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, to my noble friend Lord Sheppard, and to myself when we were playing cricket together. That is a vital point. I hope that the Government will be prepared to address it.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Cowdrey for the wonderfully inspiring speech with which he introduced the debate today. I have spent a lifetime in sport, both as an Olympian competitor and administrator, and now I am fortunate enough to have a daughter-in-law who is an Olympian herself and holds an Olympic silver medal. There are many facets of sport in this country that I would like to have spoken about today. However, I have picked on perhaps a rather sombre one but one which I take very seriously. I refer to the availability and use of performance enhancing drugs in sport and recreation. I believe that they and their use are a serious cancer in the world of sport.

Like, I suspect, many noble Lords, for most of the time my only contact with that evil is through the pages of the press. But one day, in my capacity as President of the British Bobsleigh Association, I was the first person to be officially informed that our leading competitor for the coming Olympic Games had tested positively for performance enhancing drugs. After that event I asked some questions. What worried me most was the realisation of how widespread was the use of these drugs, how easily they are obtained and how little most users know about their effects when they set off down the road of using drugs. These drugs are not only used at international level but are widely available in gymnasiums and clubs and, dare I say it, I suspect at times in schools right across the kingdom.

Why is that the case? The noble Lords, Lord Cowdrey and Lord Williams, have both mentioned sportsmanship. There is no doubt that the ethic that we grew up with, of true sportsmanship, so brilliantly outlined by my noble friend, is not the same today. But that is not the only reason. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, also referred to money. The financial incentives in sport today are enormous. A top athlete, one of our best, can earn £3 million a year. Top motor-racing drivers and others can earn millions more. But it is not only those who wish to gain international honours for the first time or those with a chance to become world Olympic champions who might be tempted. There are also those, like my colleague in the bobsleigh world, who have reached the top: the tummy is growing a little, they are fading, they have this passionate desire, driven by money and ego, to compete for one more season or one more championship. They are tempted, and often, but not often enough, they are caught.

How do they start? Most teams now have coaches of one kind or another. The coaches., many of them amateurs, do a fantastic job. They range from those who look after little children to those who run our national teams—the Keegans of this world. But they are not all perfect. Sometimes a coach feels that with just a little more—perhaps it is his wife or a child—he or she will make the national team, win the championship and that a wee nibble will get them there.

The downside of taking these drugs is not so well known. However, it is not hard to find out. If one looks at arid listens to the East Germans, for example, who were fed on performance enhancing drugs for many years, they are living examples of the destruction that the drugs have done to their bodies in later life. Some of them are prepared to talk openly about it. I understand that one of the most vulnerable parts of the body is the liver. The drugs cause nasty things to grow on it.

What is being done to prevent doping in sport? Not enough, I suggest. However, having said that, the UK Sports Council has a professional full-time team of testers, although there are those who would knock them and say that they are not adequately equipped. The British Olympic Association, probably alone of all national Olympic organisations, has, after intense pressure from athletes, passed a by-law stating that any athlete testing positively for an illegal drug will never compete in a British Olympic team.

This business of drugs in sport is international. I am informed that the UK is doing more than most countries to combat it. The IOC, since the retirement of the late Lord Killanin, has been guilty of many misdemeanours and its attitude towards drugs until recently has been at best laissez-faire. But the IOC, under a good deal of pressure, called a meeting in Lausanne in February and set up a worldwide doping agency. Furthermore, it pump-primed it with 25 million dollars. This time it is the national governments who are dragging their feet. Perhaps I may ask the Minister to consider giving that a little polish with his toe.

In summary, I would ask the Government to do a number of things. First, I believe that performance-enhancing drugs in sport are a greater evil than tobacco smoking. They should be treated as such and steps should be taken to educate people of the dangers in the way that the Government do with nicotine. I should like to think—I know it is optimistic—that one day a British government will feel that it can outlaw trafficking and trading in these drugs.

I should like to see some increase in tae money available for research into methods of detection for these drugs. Those responsible for policing drugs in sport have hitherto always been technically one step behind the expert practitioners who are determined to cover their traces. It is well known in international sport that if many performance-enhancing drugs are well and carefully used with albeit expensive secondary drugs, the secondary drug can be used successfully to cover the primary drug.

Last but by no means least, I ask the British Government to support the International Olympic Committee's new initiative. Get the governments of the sporting world and the sporting countries to unite strongly and wholeheartedly behind a campaign to drive these drugs out of sport and the sporting world that we love.

My Lords, this House likes to take pride in the balance that it brings to its debates. The debate opened with what I describe as a Cowdrey century: a splendid knock by the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey. We then had the noble Lord, Lord Williams, telling of his century at county cricket; and the noble Lord Glentoran explained that he was a former Olympian. I bring balance. I have never in my life been selected for a first team of any sport except darts. So I probably represent the vast majority of people in this country who play, watch and love sport. I come from a generation which looked at that golden age of Cowdrey and Sheppard. I come from Blackpool so had the benefit of Matthews and Mortensen as well. Because I had such pleasure from playing and watching sport I am keen that my children inherit a similar legacy in terms of the quality of sport they can watch and play.

Our sporting world today is one of contradictions. In many ways it is wealthier than ever before. Resources from television, radio, sponsorship, higher leisure spending and better commercial management have poured money into most of our major sports and provided better coaching, better facilities and wider opportunities. Yet as we have heard, and will hear again, school sport is under threat. Availability of playing fields and other recreational spaces continues to shrink, and sports opportunities, in particular in inner cities and areas of social deprivation, continue to be poor.

The Government cannot have a laissez-faire attitude to sports development. They have to protect the wider national interest for the very reason that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, hinted at. Large commercial interests are at work. Sport has become an adjunct of entertainment, and often it is the bottom line and shareholder value which takes precedence over national interest and social values.

There is a genuine dilemma here. If the noble Lord, Lord MacLaurin, were present he would explain it on behalf of cricket. Individual sports need to raise the commercial money that helps them to fund their operations. They have a right, as does the individual sportsman and woman, to try to maximise earnings in what is often a very short life. My brother is a few years older than me. He was a plumber. He had as his labourer a man called Johnny McIntyre. Johnny McIntyre once scored seven goals for Blackburn Rovers in a football league match. I think that is still a record. And Johnny McIntyre ended up carrying a 21 year-old plumber's tool bag.

We must remember that when considering the riches of sportsmen. Professional sportsmen and women have a short lifespan of earnings and do and should have the opportunity to maximise their earnings in any way they can. But, as has been pointed out, sport and sporting events are a shared national heritage. In replying to the debate today, I hope that the Minister will give a clearer explanation of the Government's attitude about the televising of sporting events. The pressure on exclusivity for sporting events will grow harder and make the decisions more difficult. There will be an increased need for clear guidelines otherwise, for that broader national audience, we shall lose the ability to watch those big events.

I believe that some sports are extremely short-sighted on this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, referred to golf. Professional golf is not short of a bob or two. I cannot see why golf should receive a better deal from the few hundreds of thousands of people watching the Ryder Cup on satellite television than the shared national experience that terrestrial television would provide.

In some ways, I realise that those judgments will have to be left to the individual sports. But the Government have to be in there somewhere as a referee due to the massive commercial pressures now at work because of sport's tremendous underpinning of other investments in cable and satellite television.

Government have to nudge the sporting bodies. I continue to be appalled at the overall social responsibility of our major soccer clubs. They are often located in areas of deprivation and the majority of their supporters are very deprived. Yet the people who run those clubs seem to have little or no social awareness of that wider responsibility. I tend to follow the belief of the great Len Shackleton: he left blank the page in his autobiography about the intelligence of soccer directors.

I associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, said about sporting behaviour. But we do not want just pious words. I have a recording—it shows what an "anorak" I am—of the 1953 Blackpool Cup Final. I did not see any shirt tugging in that cup final. You see it every week these days. Shirt tugging is a blatant foul; and why it is not outlawed I do not know. In the game of the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, we are assured that the Australians have turned sledging into an art form. Reference has been made to snooker. If, when Steve Davis bent down to play a shot, his opponent began to talk about his parentage or where his wife was at that precise moment, I am sure the snooker referee would tell the opponent to stop. Why does not the umpire intervene to stop sledging?

The noble Lord is right about the intimidation of referees. I was watching a game at my local park where I saw exactly the same intimidation of the referee that one can see most Saturdays or Sundays on one's television screens. But there is a danger where professionalism rots a game. Why should a young fellow go on a Saturday or Sunday morning to referee an amateur football game and get himself physically threatened by someone apeing a professional footballer when he could be safely at home in bed or elsewhere? That is where professionalism begins to rot the game. That is why there is a need to underpin the call for a return to the earlier attitudes to sport. Such recollections are not merely imaginings of a golden age.

Finally, perhaps I may put the Minister on notice with regard to the question of playing fields. It is 17 years since I first raised in another place the question of the loss of our playing fields. That has continued under successive administrations. There is still widespread disquiet about the loss of such facilities, not least on the part of the National Playing Fields Association. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some real assurances about that in his reply.

Perhaps I may say briefly and in closing that a Labour Government, in particular, will be judged on how they get sports facilities to the poorest parts of our communities. As well as being a little star struck about support for sport—I know that there are many sports fans on the Government Benches—it is on the question of getting sport to all that they will be judged.

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Cowdrey on initiating this debate and on introducing it with such authority, humour and experience. I hope that he will not blush when I say that he has been one of my heroes for very many years. He has had a remarkable record: playing 117 times for England; captaining the team 23 times; carrying out 11 overseas tours; and scoring 22 Test centuries in a career total of 107. That is really outstanding.

Why can we not produce as many sporting heroes these days as we did when I was a lad? I am sure that there are many reasons, and I hope to deal with some of them. In the arts, I have often proposed that we have to "catch them young" so that our young people from schooldays onwards can become interested in music, theatre, literature and all those pursuits which are so important to a civilised life in a civilised country. I think that sport is exactly the same. I was introduced to sport as a schoolboy and, although I never had any pretension about being more than average, I was always an enthusiast. I played cricket, football and tennis, getting up at the crack of dawn to book a public tennis court. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that even in those days we had to pay to hire a public court.

I later played squash and golf and I have remained a regular spectator and an enthusiastic fan over the years. To this day, I often risk displeasure at home when I want to monopolise the television set to watch sport. I am proud to say that I still remain as sports-crazy today as ever.

I grew up at a time when there were fewer external diversions and when families were much closer. I remember that our garden was often full at weekends, with my father, uncles and cousins all playing football and cricket, which again helped to develop my enthusiasm for sport. I often ask: how can we recapture the spirit of those days? In my view, it is a question of money, leadership, coaching and, yes, catching them young.

The Government have an important role to play. As we have found in the arts, they use a lot of warm words and a lot of cold clichés but never give enough money. I understand that sport will lose in the region of £100 million a year in each of three years as a result of the Government's raid on lottery funding previously earmarked for sport. That short-term fix will lead to long-term harm for the future of sport.

As we know. good sport nationally creates national pride and the confidence that comes from success. Perhaps I may give a small family example. I have been a season ticket holder at Arsenal football club for very many years and I have tried on occasions to take one or other of my three granddaughters to watch the team play at home. They were never terribly interested, but when Arsenal won the double, they insisted that I took them to some of this season's matches. This once again demonstrates that success in sport leads to growing interest, pride and confidence.

We need money for better coaches, preferably from the United Kingdom, but, if they are not available, then from Europe or elsewhere. Great sportsmen today all earn large sums of money and great coaches also need substantial financial incentives. We need to find that money from somewhere. Today's growing interest in football is emphasised by the addition of foreign players and foreign coaches. In the Premiership alone, two of the top three teams have foreign coaches—one a Frenchman, the other an Italian. With better coaches, better facilities, meaningful encouragement from government—plus the return of the money taken from lottery funding—we could move forward much faster.

We have to catch them young, as I continue to repeat. That means we have to fire their enthusiasm while at school. The protection of school playing fields will play an important part. In the Government's sports manifesto, they pledged that they would,

"tackle the decline in school sport by ending the sale of playing fields",

That has not happened. In fact, it seems that their revised policy, announced only in the past two days, is just a rehash of previous policy. The National Playing Fields Association has commented that the new criteria fall far short of the strong action needed to stop the land being sold off or used for building.

The fiasco over playing fields highlights once again the alarming decline in PE and sports activities in our schools, which has become a hallmark of this Government's so-called "sports policy". Protecting existing school playing fields and making better use of them would give a great boost to team sports in schools, and so please my noble friend Lord Cowdrey.

The Government seem to be allowing children to opt out of team sports, which illustrates their ignorance of the many benefits such activities bring. Sport improves health, breaks down barriers, and helps to instil the principle of integrity and fair play. It seems that the Government's view of sport is that it is not important but is a mere "optional extra." They ignore the direct link between sport and good health in later years.

In too many schools, competition—both in education and in sport—seems to be frowned upon. That is not the way to create champions. We know that we have to be good losers. That is right. But we also need to be given the opportunity to learn how to be good winners. It is therefore vital that the Government return the lottery money previously allocated to sport. Then, with more facilities and better leadership, we can boost our national identity and prestige, strengthen communities and contribute to the economy.

We must recognise the real significance of sport and take it more seriously. It has a wide-ranging impact commercially, from big business to the media and entertainment. It has an impact on tourism, the environment, our heritage and our culture.

In conclusion, whether it is for fun, for health or for general interest, everyone should have the opportunity and encouragement to participate in sport. They should have the chance to develop their skills in and their enthusiasm for, all manner of games. When that happens, our country will reap the reward of this major and important part of our lives.

My Lords, it is indeed opportune that the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, with his distinguished sporting background, particularly in cricket, should have introduced today's debate soon after England's departure from the "Super Six" in the Cricket World Cup. Perhaps the English cricket team could have learnt a few lessons from the South African cricket team who, when at 60 for five, and looking defeat fairly and squarely in the face, came back resoundingly to defeat Pakistan. With so much talent in the English cricket team, winning is certainly not just about performance, but also about mindset, as I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, will agree. I have to admit that I sometimes fail the Tebbit test, having spent most of my life in South Africa where sport is almost like a religion and there is a far more clement weather pattern.

I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, on his overview of all the wonderful sporting events that are hosted in Britain. There is a concern about more encouragement for some team games and the need to put more fun and, in his words, passion back into sport as well as to address improved sportsmanship and fair play.

However, I must applaud the efforts of the Sports Minister, Tony Banks, who I believe, with a few reservations to which I shall return, is clearly committed to improving sport in the United Kingdom.

There is no doubt that the National Lottery has also played a major financial role in improving not only sporting facilities but also enhancing the chances for the emergence of more British sports role models.

I wish to focus my remarks on the importance of, and the need to promote, more involvement in sport at school level. I am pleased that the Government have taken decisive action to stem the sale of school playing fields and to encourage schools to make their playing fields available for community as well as school use during out-of-school hours. However, I note from a recent Written Question in the other place that since 25th February Sport England is considering more than 45 planning applications in respect of commercially developing school playing fields in England alone. Can the Minister confirm whether Sport England has a right of veto in these applications before they are referred to the Secretary of State?

While the Secretary of State for Sport, Mr Banks, has regularly given his support and assurance that sport in schools is essential for a broad and balanced education, I am surprised by the Government's recent announcement that they propose downgrading team sport at key stage 4, effectively for children over the age of 14. What is the basis of the Government's assessment that at key stage 4, and I quote from the Minister:

"team sports lack popularity among many children, particularly young women"?

Of course, I agree with the proposal to offer the broadest choice of sport to youngsters and with the proposal to try to encourage children to do at least two hours of sport every week. I understand that on average children have one-and-a-half hours of sport every week. However, I cannot help but feel that we are getting mixed messages from the Government. The Minister, Tony Banks, claimed that the Government are committed to team sports, but the proposed changes to the national curriculum appear effectively to decrease the opportunities for most children over the age 14 to participate in team games.

There appear to be plenty of high-profile national initiatives to boost interest in sport, particularly from Sport England, but not enough initiatives at school level to encourage all children to play more sport, particularly at a competitive level. I entirely agree with Professor David Kirk, Professor of Youth Sport at Loughborough University, who was recently quoted as saying,

"Nothing short of a culture change is needed. We should be saying to the kids, play at your own level, enjoy what you're doing, and encourage them to move on to the next level if they want to".

His intention in his research into new initiatives to maintain interest in sports by teenagers, particularly girls, is that if schools really want to prepare children for an active adulthood, they should make traditional sports more child friendly.

Even though Professor Kirk backs the shift away from the focus on traditional team games in the national curriculum, my support for team and competitive sport stems from my belief that, if we can achieve international success in any sport, team or individual—such as the achievements of Tim Henman and other sporting role models—that would be an invaluable stimulus to much more national participation in those sports of high achievement.

Many schools no longer offer much, if any, extra-curricular sport apart from team practices. A recent survey in March by the National Association of Head Teachers found that school sport had decreased significantly both during and outside school hours over the past two years. Having said that, I was most encouraged by the initiative of Sport England, which has established new sport action zones which can benefit from additional facilities, particularly in the less privileged areas of Britain, and the introduction of 600 schools co-ordinators who will provide secondary schools with the personnel to co-ordinate after-school activities and bolster links with local sports clubs.

In conclusion, while I wholeheartedly support Sport England's plans to create a nation of champions by spending £2 billion over the next 10 years, there needs to be a shift in culture and mindset at the school level. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, we cannot wait for cyclical change; we need to be more reactionary in achieving national sporting success. Let us hope that England pull's the cat out of the bag and wins the Rugby World Cup later this year.

My Lords, it is a privilege to speak in a debate which my noble friend Lord Cowdrey opened with such flair. Indeed, to bat between him and my noble friend Lord Sheppard is beyond my previous cricketing opportunities.

I wish to follow the noble Lord, Lord St. John, and my noble friend Lord Feldman in talking about schools. However, I would temper the noble Lord's enthusiasm for cricket and rugby with the fact that Scotland is the local champion in the United Kingdom and is likely to deal with South Africa in October.

I wish to speak about youth because that is where in the coming years we shall find the opportunities for improvement that my noble friend Lord Cowdrey so rightly wants. I want to comment on matters for which the Government have some responsibility rather than the other important issues of sporting enthusiasm and improving standards of play, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Cowdrey.

By coincidence, in December 1997, my noble friend Lord Cowdrey and I made maiden speeches in a debate on sport in schools. I am disappointed that the Government listened to so little of what was said in the debate and have taken little action. There are many issues of importance. For instance, we heavily criticised the Government's decision to reduce the amount of money available to support through the National Lottery because they wished to put the money to other good causes. Of course, the other good causes were deserving of money, but that money should have come from the taxpayers and not from the lottery. We have made that clear time and time again in this House.

Furthermore, we should like a declared definition from the Government as regards Sports UK—the English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh sports councils—particularly now that we have assemblies and parliaments, about who exactly is responsible for what. Certainly in the world of sport there is a great deal of concern as to where to go for the proper assistance.

In regard to Sport England, it is well known that a high percentage of its income—some 37 per cent—is spent on administration. That is something at which we must look very carefully indeed. I have a general criticism to make of the time that the Government took to appoint a new chairman for Sport England. It took months and months, but happily, at the end of the day, they came to the right decision in appointing Trevor Brooking.

As the noble Lord, Lord St. John said, the delay is symptomatic of the sporting world in this country. Decisions in the sporting world take far too long. There is a myriad of problems in planning, in local government, in the Sports Council and in the Government. Decisions about building a tennis court or rebuilding Wembley stadium take so very long to come to a conclusion.

In the debate we have rightly been concentrating on many aspects of sport, but playing fields are important. Of course, there will never be enough playing fields. Planners tend to forget that it rains in this country far more than it ought to and that one cannot play rugby and football on the same ground day in and day out throughout the winter. We need a substantial increase in the number of playing fields and not a reduction.

When I was shadow minister for sport from 1974 to 1979, I complained to the Department of Education about the sale of sports grounds, but nothing happened. I went again, as Minister for Sport between 1979 and 1981, to the Minister for Education and precious little happened.

We simply have not got to grips with the issue of selling playing fields. The National Playing Fields Association has done its best, as has the CCPR. I hope Ministers who are interested in sport will carefully read the CCPR brief that was sent to many noble Lords, which suggested a whole host of improvements that the Government may take on in the near future.

The Government produced new guidelines in October 1998 and again this week on selling school playing fields, but there are still many applications to sell before the Government. As far as I know, none has been refused. On we go, selling playing fields, and nothing is done to stop it. One of the guidelines issued by the Government this week is that objections by local residents must be taken into account. Frankly, they are not.. The poor local residents and the mothers and fathers of the children who want the playing fields are driven aside and the local authorities get their way, sell the playing fields for development and a great deal of money goes into the kitties.

Donald Trelford, in the Daily Telegraph, has highlighted the issue of the playing field at Sherborne. The large field is to be sold and the public are told that the children will have to go a mile and a half down the road to another playing field. That is no way to treat children. They should be able to play nearer home.

We understand, under a system announced this week, that the final arbitration will be to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. That does not fill me with great enthusiasm. The Government simply must get a grip on the sale of playing fields. I also hope that the Government will come down on 1:he side of mandatory derating of playing fields, especially as derating is falling into disrepute and local councils are taking every opportunity to stop discretionary rebates and making the sports bodies pay the rates in full.

As this is a short debate, one can only generalise, but I believe that some sport in schools is good, a lot of it is mediocre and a whole host of it is thoroughly bad. Part of the trouble is that children are in school for too short a period in the day and for too few days in the year. I do not see how you can add additional strain onto the curriculum, if children go to school at 9.15, leave at 3.30 and spend about an hour at lunch time eating chips. That is no way to get children interested in sport. The curriculum is too crowded and sport is being sidelined.

Sport is an essential part of education. As the saying goes: fit in body; fit in mind. Team games are so important. They bring discipline, respect for others, as the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, has said, for the umpires and for referees, and they develop good character and leadership. That is much lacking in the United Kingdom today. As the noble Lord rightly said, sport must always be fun and enjoyable.

We should encourage outward bound activities like the Duke of Edinburgh's Award, which provide a challenge to children. They must not be foolhardy, but boys and girls should be able to achieve objectives that they previously thought impossible unless they are pushed to the limit. Schools must give them that opportunity. They should take children into the countryside for recreation and to understand its beauty, away from television and computer games.

I am very disappointed at the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority saying that there should be no compulsory games for 14 to 16-year olds. The authority may be brilliant academically, but it does not appear to know much about sport. Naturally, if a diffident child is given a soft option, he will take it. Children should not be given that opportunity. They may be turning away something that later in life they will wish they had become involved with.

It is most important that we improve the link between schools and clubs, when school teachers themselves are not prepared to do the work. We must encourage inter-school matches, which are good for morale and for the team spirit of the school. A school doing well at games raises the whole level of education.

I am glad that the Conservative Party is consulting within sport, looking at the future plan and bringing forward some sound ideas for the future. I believe that the present Government have sat on the fence for too long and have taken far too long to come to any decisions, whether in the Department for Education and Employment, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions or the Home Office. They should co-ordinate themselves in the so-called sports cabinet because they are not doing enough to raise the standards of our children who will be the backbone of our sporting achievements in the next century.

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey of Tonbridge, on introducing this debate and on the manner and passion with which he did so.

He has opened up a wide field. The main point that I want to make is different from those made so far. If we want to improve the quality of sport, we need an unbroken chain of sporting opportunities, if natural talent is to be given its chance to develop. In that unbroken chain I want to speak of the greater part that established clubs could play and the incentives that they could be offered to do so. I do not speak of professional clubs, or first-class clubs, but of local clubs that provide good sport.

However, first, I want to salute the personal contribution that the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey of Tonbridge, has made to our game of cricket, as a great and selfless player, himself a symbol of the integrity about which he spoke. If you have seen the noble Lord run, you would not suppose that he was the greatest of runners between wickets. Having batted with him, I must tell you that he was the best runner between wickets that I remember. I made up my mind that I would trust him totally, and if he called me for a run I would go. That was true of no other player with whom I batted. Since the end of his playing days he has given himself wholeheartedly to strengthen all that is best in the game, not only in the UK, but all over the world.

Improving sport in the United Kingdom is not simply about the high profile matters of winning and losing at an international level, welcome and healthy as some winning would be. Improving the quality of sport at international level involves spreading the opportunities for young people more widely. However, simply spreading opportunities more widely is not enough if we want the quality to grow. It is not enough simply to give youngsters a taste of all sorts of sports. We need them to be able to move on to something more demanding and more competitive if they are to improve.

That is what I mean when I talk about an unbroken chain. Not long ago I went to Wigan to give awards to the winners of a keenly contested "quick cricket" competition between primary schools. There was a tremendous amount of enthusiasm from the boys and girls. But where do they go from there? Participating in something like that needs to be followed up with the possibility of more demanding cricket, perhaps in secondary school; then in village or park cricket; then, crucially, to good club standard—no doubt what goes for cricket will have its parallels in many other sports—and then to the first-class game.

For too long we have assumed that schools would offer all the opportunities that could be expected. But the reality surely is that they have not been providing them for a long time, and in some areas they have never been able to offer decent facilities. I would have said the same 10 years ago; I would have said the same when I worked in the East End of London 40 years ago.

For example, in Liverpool I was asked to offer an afternoon's coaching at our nearest community and comprehensive school—our daughter's school. Although it was a very hot June day, we could only be in the gymnasium. The school had got rid of its groundsman in the interests of economy in the same way, as some noble Lords mentioned, as some schools throughout the country have sold playing fields.

Improving sporting skills does not mean simply the chance to have a brief taste of many sports, but to make real progress in a chosen sport. So the main point I want to make is the crucial role that clubs play—or fail to play—in improving sport. We shall not see a sudden leap from the "quick cricket" that I saw in Wigan and which we sometimes see as a showpiece in the intervals of a big match, to demanding competitive cricket that will develop major skills. If there is no good club cricket in the area from which we come, a key link in the chain that would have given us a real opportunity is missing.

In 1989 I saw a vivid example of the point I am trying to make. I went to South Africa. together with my Roman Catholic friend and colleague, Archbishop Derek Worlock. The state of emergency was still in force. We spent some good time in 10 black townships. I wrote to Ali Bacher before we went. I asked if he would like to take me to see some of the coaching programmes he was running in the townships. He took me out to Tembisa near Johannesburg.

I was impressed with what was being done and congratulated him. I said, "You are trying to do something that we have failed to achieve in England, where we have been very unsuccessful in producing good cricketers from most of our inner cities. I am sure it will take you a good many years of persevering before you produce top-class cricketers". "I don't agree", he said, "I am confident we shall produce some black Test cricketers within two or three years". That was in 1989. It is taking longer than he thought.

To his great credit, Ali Bacher stayed with his vision. He remains determined to press on and achieve that difficult goal. We could do with some of his vision and determination. One of the key problems they face in South Africa is the same as the one of which I speak here, especially when it comes to inner cities; that is, there is no unbroken chain. Because apartheid removed the townships to inconvenient distances from the areas where strong sporting clubs were to be found, it was and is difficult for a promising young black player, after he has had all the youth opportunities, to move on into good club cricket.

There are parts of urban Britain where, as in the townships of South Africa, it would mean a considerable journey to a quite different neighbourhood to find a strong club. There is a challenge to those clubs. Or will they put up their guard at such a suggestion, afraid of the so-called rough element upsetting their well-ordered club? A trust approached me not so long ago to see whether I could point it to where they could make a grant that would help give good sporting opportunities for youngsters. It took me 18 months before I heard of a scheme that I could put to them. I am glad to say that they are currently considering helping to support a plan put forward by a cricket club keen to open itself up to inner-city boys.

What would that mean? It would mean running junior teams at different ages. It would mean offering persevering coaching and encouragement. That demands a great deal from older players, both as volunteers and in giving money to provide the costly equipment cricket requires, and perhaps to employ a coach. Is it really unrealistic to hope that those who have had rich experiences from sport might give themselves to opening up some sporting chances to youngsters? We should salute here the many who already give costly time in this way. Many of those will be teachers and they will realise that it is in the clubs that the easiest and firmest connecting links will go on; that if a youngster plays in the under-11s for a club, all the connections are there for him to go on growing, if the club will allow it. Those people will tell us that it is hugely rewarding when they do.

When it comes to public money, I hope that the lottery and other sources of public money and trusts will look seriously at projects put forward by clubs. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, may have something quite important to say in this debate about charity law and sporting clubs. Of course, the clubs would have to prove their commitment to a continuing programme. I have been disappointed in clubs that could have opened many doors and have not. Can we put a fresh challenge to them, perhaps with the bait that there would be new resources for them?

My Lords, I join noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Cowdrey, first, for initiating this debate and, secondly, for his insightful and, if I may say so, motivational speech in introducing it. I wish to concentrate my attention on one specific but important element; namely, the role of team sports in schools. The weight of my argument is that team sports in schools may be important today, as they were among older generations, but that in the technologically-led world of the 21st century, the qualities they promote among the young will be even more important tomorrow.

Many noble Lords will know of the advice of the management guru, Peter Drucker, who argued that we should not try to predict the future, but rather understand,

"the implications for the future of current events".

I believe that those implications may involve substituting social and human interdependence with technological interdependence and this, in turn, may lead to the loss of many of the social and human values which team sport encourages, cultivates and nurtures. The technology-led revolution in which we are all observers, and in which the young are active participants, impacts on all our lives in three key areas: at work, in the home, and at play. Let me deal with each of those in turn.

Most of those in executive roles in Britain use a computer at work. By the end of last year nearly one out of three homes in Britain boasted PC ownership. Internet access has risen in the UK by 3 million people in the past five months to over 10 rnillion—around 20 per cent of our population. The growth and acceptability of working at home has been made possible by these technologies; 1 million people in the UK last year, and over 4 million predicted by the end of next year. The European Union predicts 10 million teleworkers by the end of next year.

Mobile phones, modern digital switchboards, PCs, e-commerce and e-mail have all changed the way business thinks. As Milton Friedman said,

"To a far greater extent than at any time in the world's history, it is possible for a company to locate anywhere, use resources from anywhere, to produce a product that can be sold anywhere."

But screen-led working removes from our lives some of the most valuable social interaction which makes us conscious of, and sensitive to, the needs of others. We can see in the not-too-distant future a world when people do not need daily travel to work; do not need so many face-to-face meetings; do not have a sense of loyalty to colleagues, to company or to workplace. The individual becomes the sole driver, the only source of pride in achievement, and the only arbiter of the business decision. His or her personal interest overrides the notion of team, the group or even the company interest.

If this home-led distance working was supported by an increasingly stable home environment for family and children, it could be argued that home working and the end of long commuter days may be to the benefit of society. But the opposite is precisely the case. Since 1981 decrees absolute have doubled and the chances of a marriage lasting for a lifetime are now projected by some pundits as one in two—that is, a 50 per cent. chance of ending up in the divorce courts. Families are smaller. We do not eat together or talk together as a family. We do not even watch television together. Multiple televisions in homes is one reason; the PC is the other. Children prefer to use their own computer rather than watch television with their parents and siblings. If the amount of social interaction in the home, is to diminish further, so, too, will the ordinary day-by-day tasks which bring us into contact with other people in our local community.

E-commerce is predicted to represent 5 per cent of world trade in five years. In the US already one in 10 adults make on-line purchases. Twenty-five per cent of all private share purchases in the US in the first 90 days of 1999 were made on-line. A trip to the shops, to the local bank branch or even a visit to the doctor may soon be a rare event for a significant percentage of the British population.

Within a decade or less we could expect a world in which the social fabric to which we have become so accustomed will be replaced by a screen-led world. But this will be the world of the young adult of tomorrow. It will result in different values and in different skills, not necessarily worse, but different. The trillion dollar e-commerce industry will see to that. What is certain, however, is that these changes potentially detract from our day-by-day opportunities to teach our children and grandchildren the benefits of interdependence, one to another, which a full social life brings.

In my home, with four children under 15 years of age, I see every day, on the one hand, the impact of technology on the lives of the young and, on the other hand, the benefits that team sport brings. We cannot stop the former but we can encourage and invest in the latter. I see how team sports teach my children to depend on each other, how they create a sense of loyalty and team spirit. They teach them how to deal with the winning and, equally—indeed, maybe more—importantly, how to deal with the losing; how to recognise that others are better, more gifted and more skilled; how to be disciplined in training and practice; how hard work individually and as a team brings better performance; how to anticipate others' needs and thoughts; and how not to give up when a run of bad luck and losing seems to go on and on.

I suggest that if we take Peter Drucker's advice and try to see the implications for the future of current events, it is not difficult to predict that, for the young, social relationships, social intercourse, as we know it, and the skills associated with regular people interaction will become less and less important in everyday life. If we are not to lose those values, the key values of respect, especially respect for authority, and of sensitivity to the needs of others, then we must put team sports high on the education agenda for the young of our country—not just to keep them fit, or away from increasing drug use—but to ensure that the qualities and values which make us dependable, social human beings are nurtured from generation to generation.

My Lords, perhaps I may join everyone in thanking my noble friend Lord Cowdrey for bringing this debate to the House. I should also like to congratulate him on his speech. I was fascinated by how many Members of this House wanted to be great cricketers. Today I find myself at number 10 on the speakers' list, which is one above my usual position when playing this part. However, as so many speakers have mentioned this, especially my noble friend Lord Feldman who talked in great detail about the distinction of my noble friend Lord Cowdrey on the field, I am bound to say that I was present at the end of his career. He had decided then that his cricketing days were finished and was "caught Willie Rushton, bowled Sir Timothy Rice" for a duck.

Like my noble friend Lord Feldman, when I was a child I did not bother with the beginning of my Latin primer; indeed, I turned to the back and on that white page wrote out the world's team to play the moon. How often one wrote down the words Hutton, Cowdrey, May, Compton, Laker and Truman, allowing perhaps Miller and Bradman also to be allowed in the team and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Liverpool, who spoke a short while ago.

I suggest to my noble friend Lord Cowdrey that the problem now is that if one were to turn to one's Latin primer—and Latin and Greek are not being taught as much these days—and write out a list of a world team, this country would be very pressed to have a member of that team. Apart, perhaps, from Gower, Botham and possibly Gooch, it is 10 years since we have produced a cricketer of world class. I take this seriously; I actually think that it is important to win. I hate the fact that we are not in the "Super Six". I hate the fact that Zimbabwe, New Zealand, South Africa and Australia, whose combined populations are less than that of England, are all in the "Super Six". I would like to see that change. When the Minister replies, although it is very important for him to talk about schools—and I shall come to that later—I hope that he will also talk about our role in the world.

Perhaps I may say something to my noble friend Lord Cowdrey and other speakers who have mentioned good manners in sport. My noble friend kindly mentioned that I have the privilege of being president of the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association. There was an incident in the semi-final, which my noble friend may have noticed, when Stephen Hendry was playing against Ronnie O'Sullivan. He was going for 147. My noble friend will remember the game well. Stephen Hendry had already won the game, but he bent down and touched the pink ball with the corner of his cuff. He stood up and said to the referee, "I touched the ball". However, not one person in the audience had noticed and the television cameras had not picked it up. People may well say, "Well, Jeffrey, it wasn't important because he had already won the game". But they would be wrong: if he had cleared the table he would have made £147,000. Why cannot those standards be found in every other sport? Why do we—dare I say it in this House—take that for granted?

I shall give your Lordships another tiny example of what I mean, and I do not apologise for doing so. I suggest that noble Lords watch the next snooker game and study the former world champion John Higgins. Whenever a ball is replaced—and I shall not spend a long time explaining "replaced"—the other person is allowed to say whether it is in the right place. John Higgins always assumes that the person he is playing will put it back where it was. He does not ever question it. How different that is from those footballers who take another 10 yards on the field. How different that is from those footballers playing in the Sweden match last week who had to receive a yellow card because they would not stand on the correct line. Indeed, how different from the footballer who brought someone down in something which was frankly nothing less than what is now called a "professional foul". I hate that.

I have heard my noble friend Lord Monro comment again and again when we attend rugby matches together about players who throw a rugby ball into the crowd or off Ito the side in order to give themselves a few more seconds to get back. I do not apologise for saying that when I played the game, however badly, that would have been called cheating. Perhaps I may suggest that we are not helped sometimes by our crowds who seem to think that they referee more brilliantly from the back rows of the stand than the referees on the pitch. Indeed, many speakers have said—and how true it is—that referees are getting fed up with it. They can have a better life not turning out on a Saturday afternoon and being maligned by everyone in the crowd. How different that is from American football, where one can take one's family and where one does not expect to hear bad language from the crowd nor witness bad manners on the field. It puzzles me why the standards in American football are so much higher than those which we have grown to take for granted in our own country.

Like my noble friend Lord Cowdrey, with whom I have discussed this subject many times, I accept that the future lies in schools. I am sure the Minister would agree that the future in this regard also lies with teachers, as the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, mentioned. How does one explain the fact that for 10 years in a row the team at Ampleforth beat that of every other school at rugby football? It has also produced the captain of the England team. How does one explain the fact that the cricket team at King's School, Canterbury, won every single cricket match in which it played for 10 years in a row? Those school teams did not comprise 15 and 11 superior people year after year; they had damn good teachers who, I dare say, gave extra hours of their time day in and day out and, I suspect, without extra pay. The other day I was appalled to read in a national newspaper that a headmistress had cancelled an egg and spoon race. The reason she gave was that she did not believe in competition. However, life is competitive and it is not a bad way to learn the manners of that competition on a sports field.

I turn to another matter on which I hope the Minister will be able to help us; namely, that we would like to bring the World Games to London in 2003. I hope that the Government will be represented in Seville in August in order to help us achieve that. That is the stepping stone to bringing the Olympic Games to this country in 2012.

I end as I began by expressing a passion and love for sport. I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, for bringing this debate before us. I have no shame in saying that I want my country to do well. An awfully long time ago the Greeks worked out that throwing the javelin, hurling the discus and running in a marathon were every bit as important as reading Homer. Whereas I admire those who can be described as good losers, I look forward to the day when we as a nation—as was the case when I was a child—take it for granted that we are good winners.

My Lords, I intervene briefly to concentrate on one aspect of the problem raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, and indeed by many other noble Lords; namely, the question of sport in schools and in the education system generally.

The noble Lord, Lord Archer, expressed regret: at batting No. 10. I hope that he will recognise my sensitivity at being No. 11, although of course that is where most people who have seen me bat think is where I should be placed. However, I have batted higher in the order than that. On one occasion in Singapore I played for the British Army against an Australian service eleven. The noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, may be interested to hear that I batted No. 3, first wicket down. However, the first ball I received took my off-stump out of the ground. I returned to the pavilion and was somewhat mollified to find on the score sheet opposite my name the words, "bowled Miller.K". I did not feel quite so badly about the situation after that.

There seems nowadays in some quarters in this country to be some kind of cultural or ideological prejudice against sports in schools, especially if they include team games and competitive sports. When he spoke at a primary school in east London on Monday, Mr. Charles Clarke, the schools Minister, is reported to have said that team sports will no longer be a compulsory part of the national curriculum for 14 to 16 year-old pupils. I much regret that. He then said there was,

"no question of diminishing the importance and value of competitive team games in all our schools".

As the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, said, there seems to be an internal contradiction in those two statements. When the Minister replies I hope that he will be able to assure the House—as there is a certain feeling abroad on this subject—that the Government have no prejudice against team sports and competitive games being part of school curricula.

My own experience at school, and my observations over the many long years since, lead me to believe that organised sports and competitive team games are especially important—indeed, I would go so far as to say they are essential—in the education of young men and women. As noble Lords have said, they teach and instil such important virtues as leadership—there is a distinct shortage of that at the moment—esprit de corps and self-discipline (perhaps one of the most important qualities of all) as well as promoting physical health and well-being. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams. of Elvel, said, this is an integral part of the fabric of our national life.

In this context it is interesting to study an excellent report, which some noble Lords may have seen, entitled Learning to Succeed. It is a report of the Paul Hamlyn Foundation National Commission on Education. As some noble Lords may know, this was set up in 1991 following Sir Claus Moser's presidential address to the British Association for the Advancement of Science in the summer of 1990. In that speech he called for a Royal Commission to carry out an overall review of the education and training scene. The Government declined to do that and the national commission, under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant, carried out a comprehensive, and, I think, excellent survey of what was needed in the United Kingdom to achieve higher standards in education to match those in the rest of the world. However—I say this not as a criticism of the report of the commission but simply as an example of modern trends—it contains no reference whatever to sports or games as an integral part of education and training.

Unhappily I believe this is a problem that will affect state schools especially. In independent schools there is still a certain emphasis on sports and games. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, said, the facilities provided are much inferior to those available in many other countries. Nowadays it is comparatively rare—even in the independent sector—to find a school which insists on everyone in the school taking part in sports and games. It is, of course, arguable whether this is a good or a bad trend. There are those who think that the old spirit of mens sana in corpore sano is outdated and archaic and that it should be forgotten. My own view is quite simple; namely, that a school in which no attention is paid to team and individual sports and games is one which provides an incomplete education. Indeed it is notable—we ought to note this—that even those schools which do place emphasis on sports and games offer more often sports of an individual character such as fencing, archery and target sports rather than those of a team character. It is possible to argue quite convincingly that we lag behind many other countries in recognising the importance of all this.

The rules on the disposal of school playing fields recently published by the Government are an example. As the noble Lord, Lord Feldman, pointed out, the National Playing Fields Association has already said that the rules are much too weak to prevent land being sold off for other purposes. A spokesman for the Department for Education and Employment recently confirmed that not one of the 65 applications received so far for the disposal of playing fields has been refused. I hope, like the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that the Minister can reassure us that the scheme to prevent playing fields being sold off for other purposes will be given more "teeth."

As most of your Lordships will know—and as many have mentioned today—the noble Lord. Lord Cowdrey, has given great service to sport in this country. He has done us a considerable service today by raising this important issue and introducing the debate with such skill and passion. I hope that when the Minister replies he will give the House some encouragement. If, as the noble Lord's Motion suggests, we are to improve sport in the United Kingdom, we cannot afford to let this vital aspect not only of training but of life wither away in our schools.

My Lords, I have not asked my noble friend Lord Cowdrey in which sports he still participates but, having contributed so much to our enjoyment by his long career in cricket, perhaps he may now relax; he is obviously helping others to follow in his footsteps. That was shown in his speech today.

Television is blamed for many of the young's ills and for their absence from sporting activities. But, surely, the excellent coverage of tennis and golf has led to many young people taking up sports in which they might not have considered participating.

One of the problems with sport in schools is that of children being either bussed to and from home or taken home by car immediately after lessons. There is no incentive for such pupils to stay on for activities on the field or in the gym. There is also disturbing evidence that from a very young age children are overweight. As my noble friend Lord Feldman mentioned, over time that surely leads to increasing problems with health when they become adults. That surely could be helped by more sport in their early years, perhaps starting at the age of five.

To be honest, I do not think I enjoyed lacrosse; I did not enjoy netball. But I have persevered with tennis and golf and have tried to keep fit. The Government should provide more facilities with enthusiastic coaches to ensure that we regain the high ground in so many sports at which in the past—as many noble Lords have said—as a country we have excelled. Good facilities and support from parents and instructors should ensure that the young grow to be fitter and healthier and generally better citizens in this now multicultural society.

My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I speak in the same debate as two of my boyhood heroes. I always remember with huge affection my noble friend Lord Glentoran many years ago when, as Robin Dixon. he used to go whizzing down the slopes at full speed with Tony Nash and win gold medals. I used to think what a marvellous job he was doing for our country in such an amateurish way—but in such a professional way for those times. There was a very good programme on television recently which showed how amateurish everything was in those days compared with today. It brought home to me that at that time they were ahead of the game.

My other hero was the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard. I regret to say that at my school, "Slough Grammar", one was either a Cowdrey or a Sheppard fan. I was a Sheppard man through and through. Now I have had a transfer of teams and I find that the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, is my noble friend. I thank him for introducing the debate.

I should declare an interest as a director of the British Show Jumping Association and a judge of that sport. I am a professional commentator on many sports. I have had the enormous pleasure of seeing my child at European championships and of hearing the National Anthem played for her. Nothing gives so much pleasure as having the National Anthem played for oneself or for someone to whom one is close.

The lottery has had the most amazing effect on sport. It is a great testimony to the previous government. Many would cry that there are not many testimonies to the previous government. The lottery definitely is. It is the best thing that ever happened to sport. I hope that it will go on to provide centres of excellence all over the country, with all-weather surfaces so that people can play, inside and out, at all times of the year. One of the problems with new football stadia is that the sun never gets to dry out the ground because of the overhang. Therefore, no one can practise on the football ground; it is necessary to go elsewhere. There is a great lack of proper training facilities around the country. The lottery is providing fantastic grants—grants for directors of coaching; grants for administration; grants for individuals to participate. That leads to better organisation and I hope to better competition.

The Government should address very soon the question of rate relief for sporting grounds. Many sporting facilities are crippled merely by having to pay rates. Voluntary sports clubs should be eligible for charitable status. We should have one Minister to cover all aspects of sport. I am aware that we have a Minister for Sport in the form of Tony Banks. In the horse world, with which I am most involved, if we want to do anything we have to deal with six different ministries—agriculture, the Treasury, the Home Office, transport, education and employment, as well as culture, media and sport. That is five too many. Things should be much more centralised so that when there is a problem in the sporting world we consult one person, who deals with all the other organisations therein.

We should surely encourage international sporting events to take place here. They generate income for local and national economies, create enormous incentives for the people of the country and encourage particular sports to flourish. Is it not a fact that after every Wimbledon we see more people than ever running around the streets with tennis rackets in their hands; and that after the Open, golf courses are flooded out?

We must persuade TV and the media to promote all sports, not only the few they do. The two sports I am particularly interested in, badminton and show jumping, are particularly badly let down by both TV and the media. Last year in badminton we had the world championships; this year we had the European junior championships; and next year we have the European championships themselves—but hardly a word at all about them in the newspapers. In the world of show jumping we have the European championships later this year. We have some of the top riders in the country—hut not a word.

During the alternative Olympics, many disabled people worked so hard to do well for this country—and excelled for this country. But where was the publicity in the newspapers? One would not have even known the alternative Olympics were going on. That is a terrible thing.

As sport becomes more professional, so the whole of our organisation of sport today needs to be more professional. We need discipline. Discipline is a matter of respect: respect for the sport that one plays; respect for one's fellow man; and respect for one's country or for one's team. If one lets down that team or that person, then one loses one's self-respect.

We should remind the media that the Olympics take place every four years and that it takes that long to get organised and fit and prepared for them. One cannot expect everything to happen in the year of the Olympics. Our media seem to be very bad and expect everything to happen in a short space of time, which it certainly does not.

All this takes money. The lottery funds should not be sidelined from what they were supposed to support—and sport was one of the five good causes. Sport England has drawn down only 56.6 per cent of its funding; the Sports Council for Northern Ireland 58 per cent; the Scottish Sports Council 42.5 per cent; and the Sports Council for Wales 57.4 per cent. That means there is presently £6,602,216,053 sitting doing nothing.

The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will straightaway say that the money is there for potential use when the necessary matching funding is found. But with over £6½ billion sitting there, would it be possible to set up a fund whereby the interest on it could be put back into other areas of sport to make sports funding even greater? I see no reason why that should not happen. It would not hurt any of the organisations that already have money; but it would certainly help to pool more money—money that will make all the difference.

I wish this country all that is best in the world, and I hope that we do well in sport in the future. But there is an awful lot to be tackled. At least we are beginning to talk about it and get on with it.

My Lords, an inevitable nostalgia has crept into today's proceedings. My noble friend Lord McNally referred to the 1953 Cup Final with the blessed Stanley Matthews. I was there. It has been a particular pleasure to see Messrs Cowdrey and Sheppard in partnership again. I, like most other noble Lords, cheerfully echo the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, about the spirit of the game. It is easy to dismiss the imponderables of sport as sentimental and unimportant, but they are at the heart. The way in which the noble Lord dealt with that point was ideal.

Perhaps I may take up one aspect mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard. He spoke of the unbroken chain of sport, starting with the village club and the small town sports club, and working all the way through to national sides and national excellence. That is true. We cannot hope for revived glory in terms of national success unless we look to the roots of sport.

I want to refer briefly to the absence of charitable status for sports clubs, which was touched on by the previous speaker. Charitable status is not a minor matter. It would have a galvanic effect on resources for sport at the lowest level—the level of the village anti small town. It would be a more effective way of priming the pump of sports for all, particularly where organised sports are most needed. It would be the most effective way of achieving that objective.

Perhaps I may briefly remind the House of the advantages of charitable status. There is complete tax exemption for any income earned from dividends and bank interest; there is complete tax exemption on any capital gains made, as for instance by the occasional sale of a sports field in order to acquire something better. More importantly, anyone who donates to a charitable sports club receives complete tax exemption in terms of capital gains, income tax and inheritance tax. Many noble Lords will be aware of the importance to charities these days of legacy income. It needs little imagination to see that many a grateful member of a local sports club would leave a legacy on death for the club to buy new equipment, to help in funding a new pavilion or whatever else. Charitable status is, therefore, a vital achievement at which to aim, and one that should be within the realms of possibility.

The drawback is the completely muddled state of charity law. There is in the way of giving charitable status to ordinary sports clubs a case which is 104 years old, Re Nottage— a decision of the House of Lords involving a bequest by will of Mr Nottage to the ocean-going yacht club of those days—of which there were only about 40 members, all of them the millionaires and billionaires of their time. Mr. Nottage left a bequest for silver cups for the winners of the club's annual jaunts. Even in the conditions of the time it was not so surprising that Mr Justice Lopes and others found the notion somewhat preposterous, given that charity law is built upon the notion of exclusive public interest.

That decision has been a roadblock to charitable status for sports clubs ever since. Given that charity law is one of the most vibrant branches of common law—for which we are all grateful—we are left in the hopeless position that no one can ever afford to challenge the decision in Re Nottage. In order to do, the case must be taken to the House of Lords, because only the House of Lords can overrule its own decisions. No one in their right mind would want to bear the burden of changing charity law at a cost that could run into six figures of a considerable quantity.

It is sad that the Rugby Football Union, which agreed to shoulder a challenge to Re Nottage, was frustrated two years ago when the particular small rugby club in north Devon that was chosen as the banner carrier of this legal charge decided that, after all, it might want to turn professional if the game proceeded along a certain course, little knowing that the London Scottish and Richmond are on the point of going bust. But that is another story.

I hope that, in replying, the Minister may comment on whether or not the Government will give serious consideration to implementing the recommendations of the Goodman committee, which reported in the early 1960s. The committee suggested that the Recreational Charities Act 1958, which was supposed to improve the law somewhat in the general field of charity and recreation, should be clarified. There again is a dead monument of statute law. Again, an obscure enactment has not been judicially reviewed, because no charity will under any but the most exceptional circumstances devote donated funds to bringing expensive court cases.

First, I urge the Government to reconsider the Goodman recommendations. Secondly, I refer briefly to the fact that at this very minute the Charity Commission is undertaking a consultation on a review of charity law vis-à-vis sports and the Recreational Charities Act 1958. Given that exclusive public benefit is the touchstone of charitableness, the present argument that the Charity Commission feels obliged to maintain to prevent the small sports club from having charitable status is that it bestows on the members of such clubs too substantial a private benefit: they receive too much enjoyment from it; it is too much about their own way of life, and the rest.

I should like the Government to give consideration to this point: I maintain that if the Charity Commission persists in that view, and if amending the 1958 Act is impossible, it is not beyond the wit of legislators to introduce a short amendment to existing charities legislation to allow amateur sports clubs to which members of the public have open access and which are not involved in sports which by their nature are available to only a small section of the public, the benefits of charitable status—as indeed some are presently allowed under the rating legislation and who benefit from that.

I conclude with this thought. Under present charity law the situation is bizarre. A skating rink can have charitable status; as can a swimming-pool; as can the pursuit of chess. But because by the nature of some sports people have to form teams, it is suggested that the personal benefit is suddenly obnoxious in terms of charitable status. Plainly, if you have teams, you must have clubs—you cannot have teams without clubs.

I would say, as others have said, that it is the very fact of combining together in teams that gives such intense public benefit at a time of fracturing communities, fragmenting society, de-communalisation, isolation and all the things to which others have referred. The existence and thriving of sports clubs in our communities have achieved a social importance today that they have never had before. That is particularly so as school sports are in decline and sports clubs locally are often the only routes to sporting activity, not just for adults but young people and people at school.

I hope very much that, although this has been an extremely sketchy review of a complex subject, the Government will give active consideration to doing that which would have more impact on sports for all than anything else.

My Lords, I join in the congratulations to my noble friend Lord Cowdrey of Tonbridge on his clarion call for the return of integrity in our national sports. It was a call to bring back the successes in which he featured so magnificently in the past. The greatest need for all forms of sport is the availability of playing fields in which to nurture the developing talents of our growing youth. We need green spaces everywhere, not just in the great stadia and county grounds but particularly in schools and local greens. I declare an interest as one of the band of honorary advisers to the National Playing Fields Association, like my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord McNally.

The NPFA has an agreeable understanding with the department, as is clearly demonstrated in Circular 3/99 issued on Monday. This is an ambitious programme and the aims are excellent. But there is an element that says, "All right, if you insist on selling, then there are caveats about the use of the money raised." There is the presumption that sales will continue which is worrying.

I would like to ask the Minister why, when the provision of playing fields is so vital to sport, the NPFA, which is the specialist organisation, has no formal role in protecting them. Secondly, why do we not have statutory protection for recreational space? Does the Minister believe that Section 77 is sufficient?

We ask for a total embargo on currently used playing fields being sold. Tough guidance, as propounded in the circular, is not good enough. Nevertheless, it is a step forward and the Government are to be congratulated so far as the measure goes. It goes a bit further than some of the measures that my party put in earlier. I say that in advance before the Minister says it to my face!

The pressure is constantly upon school governors and local authorities to provide space for the ever growing menace of the car and its all devouring need for parking space and the Government's demand for increased housing, with the accompanying mantra of "infill brown spaces". Hard-pressed people need the authority of law to overcome the commercial interests that abound in that part of local politics. In particular, it is the village green and open spaces close to housing which are so important to nurture the spontaneous kick-about, spaces close to home rather than the formal football pitch which is usually on the boundaries of the town. We need space where there is room for recreation and informal development. A particular and, unhappily, typical example is the current NPFA struggle to preserve Fosters Field in Sherborne, which my noble friend Lord Monro mentioned. It is close to my neck of the woods. The council wants to use it for housing in spite of the fact that Fosters Field is the only green space in the heart of Sherborne and should be used for a children's playground and a public park for the residents. It is the Government in the shape of the DfEE who are to make the decision. The NPFA and the Central Council for Physical Recreation are firmly behind the local campaign to preserve the fields for community recreation. Those bodies need the support of the Minister very badly. I ask the Minister: will he give that support?

That is but a micro-example of the problems that abound throughout the country. It is in such spaces that our future football stars can develop their talents. The Government pledged to protect playing fields, but here we are, two years into the Parliament and the sale of school playing fields continues. No fewer than 668 playing fields have been under threat since 1996, as my noble friend Lord Chalfont said. Since October last year, when all school disposals were reviewed by the Secretary of State, over 100 applications have been made and some 65 have been approved. The department's brief says that there is a virtual halt on the selling off of playing fields. May that virtual halt be fixed in the Government's mind. May it long continue. Given the fields, we need the time in the curriculum and the teachers to turn out and inspire the team and the competitive spirit and sportsmanship which develop from self-discipline which will bring back the sportsmanship we need in this country.

My Lords, it is with some hesitation that I speak in this important debate, so superbly introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey of Tonbridge. I have always been hopelessly unathletic all my life. Nevertheless, I believe I am qualified to take part because, as a teacher, a school head, a parent and, for the past six years, chairman of governors of a large comprehensive inner-city school, I have seen for myself the importance of sport in the overall development of children from early years, through adolescence to adulthood.

I have also noticed how often those who excel in team sports at school go on to top positions in industry, banks and the professions—not to mention becoming right reverend Prelates and noble Lords. I was surprised at one time that so many headmasters, particularly in the Headmasters' Conference of schools, were rugger players. I realise now that it is not simply through school life being a scrum that headmasters develop the ability to operate in a team with a structure of rules, to support colleagues, to take pleasure in the prowess and success of their team mates, to be observant of the needs of others and even to take appropriate risks. The same goes for cricket, as nobly exemplified by the leader of the debate today.

Educationists declare the merits of a well-rounded education. John Colet, who founded St Paul's School, put it well. Key words for him were severity—in modern parlance, rigour—liberality and breadth. Professor Howard Gardener, of Harvard University, has developed the theory of multiple intelligences. He identifies seven. The traditional two are linguistic ability and logico-mathematical ability. But others are spatial and physical ability; games and dancing. Keith Lester, who choreographed the Windmill shows during the war and then became director of the Royal Academy of Dancing, always used to say that ballet was geometry in motion. There are interpersonal skills—another of the seven intelligences. That means how you get on with other people. Surely that includes sportsmanship and fair play. Then there are the intra-personal skills: how good you are at assessing yourself, your own strengths and weaknesses, how to be a winner and how to be a good loser.

These important intelligences are at the heart of good sporting activities. Moreover, boys and girls who are not doing well in academic subjects can gain confidence and determination by practising a sport and doing well at it. A successful woman sculler some years ago, when asked the secret of her success, replied that she kept repeating to herself as she was practising, "Only you can decide what you want to do. You can do it. You must keep at it". Was it not an American baseball coach who pointed out that "potential" means, "You ain't done nothing yet"?

Because I appreciate the importance of sport, especially team games, in the development of our children and teenagers I am saddened to see the place of physical education shrinking, and often withering, within so many schools as the national curriculum becomes more and more pressurised. Many teachers, who, a few years ago, gave freely of their time coaching school teams, accompanying them to matches on Saturdays and supporting and encouraging the players, find that administrative tasks, especially the unbelievable amount of paperwork they are asked to do, have eaten into their time. That is more common in state schools than independent schools where the difference is remarkable.

Moreover, all teachers are now pressured into raising standards in the classroom, often in difficult circumstances, and just do not have the energy or time left to work with sports teams. Apart from the demands of the curriculum itself, changed conditions of service have hit many extra-curricular activities. Staff in state schools who have been involved in school sport have become reluctant to devote their Saturdays to it. A teacher friend of mine tells me that in the early 1980s his comprehensive school in Yorkshire had approximately 20 staff running teams on Saturdays. After the new terms and conditions were introduced the only staff to run teams were the few full-time members of the PE staff.

I could take up more than my allotted time were I to relate the full story of the deterioration in sport in the past few years. We have already heard about school playing fields being sold off by local councils, the failure to maintain cricket pitches and sports fields and the lack of government encouragement. By "encouragement" I mean funding of sporting facilities in schools. No thought has been given to the provision of good quality coaching. Councils are not always co-operative, and are rarely pro-active, in making sure that playing fields, swimming pools and tennis courts within their control are accessible to schools that do not have adequate sports facilities of their own. I hope that I have made clear the value of sport in the overall development of the young as an integral, not add-on, component of basic education.

My Lords, at No. 17 not only do I fail to get into the cricket side; I do not even get into the rugby 15. However, I am delighted to be able to take part in the debate. Like other noble Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, for having initiated the debate. There is no one in your Lordships' House better qualified than the noble Lord to speak about sport. The noble Lord made one of the best speeches that I have ever heard in your Lordships' House. I can go one better than the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I played cricket against the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, 50 years ago in a qualifier match against Tonbridge school, of which the noble Lord was captain. I do not think that either of us made 100 that day, but I had a great triumph: I managed to recruit Colin Cowdrey for my college at Oxford.

I have been involved in sport ever since the age of two when my father put a cricket bat into my hands. Sport has helped me enormously morally, mentally and physically. We all need release from our work from time to time and this can often be found in sport, whatever its form, whether it be batting in the middle, shoving in the scrum or quietly fishing. One can then return to work feeling completely refreshed. I can bear personal witness to the truth of the old dictum (quoted by my noble friend Lord Chalfont) mens sana in corpore sano—a healthy mind in a healthy body.

But the value of sport lies not only in the pleasure and release that it gives; it can also provide invaluable character training, whether in team games or individual sports. The first lesson in sport is to learn how to lose gracefully, and that is also the hardest part. One was taught at school that the first thing one did on losing a rugby match was to give three cheers to the winners. Perhaps it was done through gritted teeth but it was very good for the character. But character training is not concerned solely with learning how to lose. Team games teach us how to work together. "Team spirit" may be a hackneyed phrase but it is a very real element in sport. A member of a team plays with and for the others and this involves trust and friendship. Those privileged to experience this will never forget the bonds that it creates.

For 20 years I was fortunate enough every four years to attend the Commonwealth Games, which exemplify much of what is best in sport. In the games village the competitors mingled happily together, helped by having English as a common language. The Commonwealth Games are rightly called the friendly games. If this is part of the ethos behind sport, what lessons do we learn for the future? As many noble Lords have said, the first is the importance of organised games in school curricula. Private schools understand this, but there is a terrible neglect of games in state schools. I have seen young boys and girls longing to play games but their schools providing little opportunity for it and their parents either not understanding or being unable to afford the equipment. If games have anything like the importance that I have suggested surely there should be more compulsory games periods in all school curricula. It is no good suggesting that parents should do this. How can they organise team games? This is primarily a duty for the schools.

I turn from schools to a wider purview of the sporting scene. One finds that the media and money are the dominant factors today. I had an early introduction to the significance of television for sport. It was 50 years ago that I played for Blackheath against the Harlequins at Twickenham in the first rugby match ever to be televised in this country or the world. We were three all with a minute to go when the Harlequins lay on the ball under their posts and we were given a penalty. I took the kick but lifted my head. The ball hit the crossbar and rebounded into my hands. I dropped for goal but the ball hit an upright, bounced back and the final whistle blew.

Normally, only the players and small crowd would have seen my humiliation, but on television the whole of Britain appeared to be watching it. My leg was pulled unmercifully for weeks afterwards. Such is the power of television. Television has been very beneficial for sport. One must never forget that sport gives immense pleasure to spectators as well as participants and has made it possible for millions more to watch sport at the highest level. That is all the more reason why the best sport should be available to everyone on television. It is very sad that in this sport-loving country so much top level sport is available only on satellite television which 85 per cent of the population cannot afford. I was glad, therefore, to hear the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, say in your Lordships' House the other day that the Government would continue to monitor the need for another review of this question.

One of the greatest challenges in sport today lies in the money provided by television. Even rugby union, the stronghold of amateurism, has become professional at the top level. Of course, the money is valuable in providing better facilities and professional training. However, playing for money involves an even sterner test of character in avoiding retaliation and accepting the decisions of umpires and referees without dissent. Watching modern sport, I can only hope that the players enjoy it as much as we did as amateurs 50 years ago.

I conclude with an illustration which matches the one given by the noble Lord, Lord Archer, about snooker. As every cricketer knows, the only person who really knows whether the ball has just touched his bat is the batsman. Neither the umpire nor the commentators nor the third umpire can be certain, even with the help of the might of television. This is the umpire's nightmare. That is why Colin Cowdrey, as the noble Lord was then known, used to walk for the pavilion the moment he realised that he had touched the ball. That is what sport is all about.

My Lords, it is funny how times have changed in the course of a single lifetime. I was brought up on meat and two veg, with red meat in some form or another on about five days out of every seven; chicken was an occasional Sunday roast; pasta was eaten only in the form of spaghetti bolognaise; there was a sweet to finish off the main meal; and, of course, cheese with everything. Nowadays, the advice is that we should eat five portions of vegetables or fruit, red meat no more than once a week, chicken or turkey for the rest of the time and pasta with everything.

Similarly, at school we had compulsory gym for one double period per week and compulsory games: rounders, netball, hockey, football and rugby for the boys., lacrosse, tennis and cricket. The lucky ones were also able to do athletics and swimming. At weekends, our parents would take us out of doors to play yet more games. Any hint of boredom or a comment such as "There is nothing to do around here" was replied to, "There is walking or biking". In other words, sport formed an important part of my life.

Nowadays, children still have a double period of gym, but games have been reduced to one session per week. It would appear that almost any excuse for missing them is accepted. To cap it all, as other noble Lords have mentioned, the Government are now proposing that from the age of 14, all children can choose to opt out of all team games.

Like other noble Lords, I believe that sport and exercise are good for you and that the use of team games in this context was well supported last weekend in the Sunday Telegraph by a number of famous sportsmen.

FranÇois Pienaar said, "Team sports have taught me so many good things—team spirit, loyalty. It has made me a better person. It brings you together and makes you focus on one of the crucial aspects of life, which is caring for one another in the collective pursuit of wanting to win". Our own Sebastian Coe said, "Team sport teaches young people about winning and losing with dignity", a point again reflected by other noble Lords.

Earlier on, I worked as a tennis coach. I started by playing tennis at school and then went on to play at my club, I have to say at a very humble level and not at the distinguished level attained by many other noble Lords who spoke earlier. It was a great joy for me to play sport at school. I was christened in those days "the baby elephant", the one who had a lot of guts and go but not much skill! But we tried, we persevered and we enjoyed it.

When I came back to the club, I continued as a club member. Some 10 years later, I was asked if I would consider teaching and coaching juniors. For me, this was a new start in the late 1950s. The most wonderful thing about it was to see youngsters with a dawning recognition that they could actually do it. Hand and racket co-ordination, moving on to the ability to keep a rally going and the progression to match play all resulted in the growth of self-confidence. Doubles play. on the other hand, led to an acceptance that they did much better when they worked together to win rather than fall out.

The local tennis club in my village was a hugely important place. It was therefore a great joy for me when this weekend, some 40 years later, I drove past and saw a whole group of youngsters yet again attending the club for coaching sessions which were being freely given by people who followed on and took up from where I left off, because indeed I was an amateur.

Looking at this next generation of youngsters, how are we going to produce them and from whence are they going to come? They start in the schools. For the majority of people, this is where they are first introduced to sport. Michael Lynagh, returning to his quotes, put it very well when, speaking about team games, he said "Team games teach children to play with each other, to mix in while trying to achieve a common set of goals. After all, that is what most of us spend the rest of our lives trying to do, whether at work or at play".

To mix in while trying to achieve a common set of goals should not be a bad motto for all of us who are involved in training, in organisations or in any sphere of human endeavour. I accept that some project work can achieve this to a limited degree. However, I feel that the combination of physical activity and mental application, the need for skill in spatial relationships, which my noble friend mentioned earlier, the learning and implementation of rules and the subordination of self to referee or umpire are all important matters in the growth of the individual.

Today's Question, posed so aptly by my noble friend Lord Cowdrey, allows me to observe that opting out of team games at 14 is, to quote yet another sportsman, Jack Potter of the Australian Cricket Academy, "a cop out". Moreover, it raises serious issues relating to the organisation and funding of sport within our schools.

At the moment, most children come to sport through the school curriculum. The three options of games, dance or gymnastics will be handled comfortably in most schools. However, swimming, athletics and particularly outdoor activities, such as the Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme, will necessitate either considerable investment by schools or regular expenditure on visits to places where these pursuits can be carried out safely and to recognised standards.

I pose to the Minister the following questions. Will the Government provide new money for the building of specialised facilities in state schools? Will the Government provide transport or the cost of transport to existing facilities? Will the parents of those children opting out of team games at 14 be expected to pay for their offspring's new enthusiasms? Finally, will the secondary schools receive additional funding to pay for the extra teaching and supervision that will be needed to cover these other options? If more options are provided, it follows that more teachers will be needed.

One of my noble friends mentioned the question of providing finance to clubs and the unbroken chain, which was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard. I hope that in my comments I have reflected the importance that I attach to that matter. Wearing a very rural hat, I would suggest that in some villages they are the only social meeting places in which children are able to meet. It is a hugely important point.

Finally, as a parent and now a grandparent watching little ones coming through, I would like all parents to have the right to choose team games for their children. I firmly believe that they confer multiple benefits and that the more solitary pursuits can be kept either for outside school hours or later life. Willie John McBride put it very well when he said:

"I am amazed. As a society, we have lost our way, particularly in the area of youth and schools. Team sports are very important to later life. They build a better man or a better woman. Team sports are about loyalty and honesty and other great words which seem to be disappearing from society".

I agree with Saturday's Daily Telegraph, whose headline read:

"BLUNKETT'S DEATH KNELL? Minister's edict would further destroy team ethic".

I hope that our debate this afternoon has reflected our concerns about the demise of school team sports. While others have talked about excellence, I have concentrated my remarks on the broad base of sport from which we gain our expertise. Sport has been and still is an important part of my life. I hope that we have highlighted the benefits that sport can bring to future generations.

My Lords, when it comes to making a summing up speech in a debate of this nature, one is always aware that virtually everything one wanted to say has been said, and usually better said. Therefore, all one can do is to enlarge on the various points that have been made.

The point I should like to make straight away is that all speakers have mentioned school sports. School sports are important, but we always forget that if you go to school you are required to play a certain sport. There are people who do not like that sport. I have heard many horror stories about people being forced to play Rugby Union, which is my sport. Their idea of Rugby Union, which is a game of grace, power, tactics and awareness, is of being hit hard in the chest, hitting cold wet ground and being walked on. My experience of soccer, or football, if I may be more democratic about its title, was of standing around in goal, being rained on and waiting for a crowd of players to come and kick me in the shins. As I became better at rugby I realised how to use a few tactical fouls to keep them at a distance and made them take longer shots. That meant that I became quite a good goalkeeper. Indeed, it prepared me for rugby in later life. But the idea that something might go wrong invariably stops someone trying a sport. We should remember that there is always a down side.

The more positive side of school sports is that they help people. Surely, in a modern society, when we have many sports available to us, sport must become a sampling process. We have a tradition of a great diversity of sporting activities. Surely we should be trying different types of sport and trying to bring in the clubs in a way that will allow people to try different sports. Under the current educational system, there is not time to give the same attention to team sports as was given previously. In schools, there are the standard assessment tests and a greater concentration on exams. There are reports, literacy hours and maths hours. Indeed, when will we have a history half hour, the technology 20 minutes and so on? That will all come and it is all pressure on time. Teachers do not need a second pair of hands in that environment; they need a clone. It is that simple. The man hours are not available. The pupils themselves will become tired. A tired mind stops you playing sport to the same extent as a tired body. So we have to be more realistic about school sports. We have to try to build up links with clubs and try to get them interested. That is one way forward.

It is also the case that clubs tend to be up to date with what is going on. Games teachers who took their coaching qualifications 20 years ago do not have a great reputation for improving their sports. Another point is that if you go outside to participate in sport, the social interaction is outside the confines of the school. You are there because you want to be there. Schools must take on a role which involves trying and sampling. It is not an opt-out; it is actually more difficult. It has to be a case of, "Try a new sport".

We have heard about "quick cricket". Rugby Union and Rugby League play a shortened version of their own sport which allows people to become involved. I am sure that most of the horror stories that I heard about Rugby Union would have been slightly less intense if that smaller person had not had to run into the biggest one on the field and had received the ball in his hands a few times. A little success encourages people. The same is true of all other sports. We need properly qualified teachers and we need to give them opportunities within the system to train and to keep up to date. In that way we will do better. But we shall have to fight very hard with the Department for Education to achieve that.

That brings me on to another point. Is the Minister for Sport a big enough fish to give himself the opportunity to survive in the shark tank of politics? I do not refer to the Minister himself. However, if we are trying to get an emphasis on sport, we need support. The Department for Education has already been mentioned. When it comes to club sports, other bodies are involved: the Home Office, the Department of the Environment and local government. As the noble Lords, Lord Rowallan and Lord Phillips, pointed out, we must look at the financial status of small clubs if we are asking them to take on this role of education and participation and providing a bedrock for excellence in sport. We need to encourage them. If we give them charitable status and rates relief, that will release funds. Most amateur clubs rely on subscriptions, match fees and bar profits. They are run by volunteers. If, whenever we can, we remove the financial burden on them we will be able to give them a boost. Indeed, if various parts of government and the Treasury were a little more generous, they might well make long-term savings. People are interested and want to become involved in sport. They enjoy it and get a lift from it. It is important that we allow that to happen. We can push on.

If we are interested in excellence in sport we must give the correct training and advice to our sportsmen so that they can reach a top level. The new United Kingdom Sports Institute is helping in that direction. However, we are all the time putting greater demands on people. As a Rugby Union player, I would regard myself not as a dinosaur but as a woolly mammoth. I quit at the end of the amateur period. The pressure on modern sportsmen is immense. They push themselves to the edge. They need help with dietary requirements and with career counselling after they finish. Any sportsman's career can be over in seconds. We must also ensure that there are better trained sports physicians. We are starting to take such matters on board.

The psyche of any nation is probably well represented by the way it reacts to sporting events. It seems to me that we should be winning but we are not. Why is that the case? We have not quite grasped the nettle of that fact that we can do something about it. It is starting to come through. But we will never have back the glory days because most of the time we remember only one glorious year. We do not remember the five on either side of it when we did not win anything. We see football as our national game and believe that we have the divine right to win. I would suggest that the results in the World Cup suggest that the Brazilians and the Italians have that divine right, closely followed by the Germans and not us. When it comes to cricket, I did not like England going out any more than anyone else, but at least we can safely say that it is now a world game. As someone who watched cricket throughout the 1980s, is it not vaguely reassuring to know that we are now at least as good as the West Indies?

Unless we take a holistic approach to this issue and remember that sport is important to our entire society—the learning process, the participation process, the fact that it provides heroes and role models, and the fact that it provides something for people to watch as they get older and slower—we will always leave it to fend for itself. There will always be cases of the lucky and the brilliant making it through. But unless we approach the issue in a holistic way, considering all the factors which apply to sport, we shall always come second best. We do not have to do a lot in one area but a little in many areas.

My Lords, when I stepped out of the British Rowing VIII after the Olympic final in 1984, after seven seasons on the international circuit, at 50 kilos—under eight stone—I vowed then and there that I would eat my way through the rest of my life rather than shift grain in Mortlake Brewery. I kept to that, save for one unfortunate episode of steering the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, in the Speaker's Regatta and having to pull him out of the water.

I made another promise to myself. When I ended my term as Minister for Sport in 1990 I never expected to stand at the Dispatch Box in Parliament to answer a debate on sport. I had no intention of doing so from the Opposition Benches. But today I have the privilege of doing so; and there can be no greater honour when the privilege granted to me and this House was to listen to an opening speech of such eloquence and sound common sense by my noble friend Lord Cowdrey. His three main themes were excellence in sport, the importance of ethics in sport, and the critical importance of the benefit of team games. That was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard of Liverpool. Batting in this context in his rightful place at number three, was my noble friend Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare.

The preservation of ethical values in sport is essential, as clearly and often amusingly stated by the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Wolvercote. It is imperative to campaign for the preservation and promotion of the most positive ethical values which sport engenders, and to support with the greatest determination initiatives aimed at education as well as responsibility in club life to that end.

There was not a great deal addressed to the Minister—no doubt he will be pleased on that front—with regard to current government policy on sport. But what was said was eloquently summarised by my noble friend Lord Monro. The points that he and other noble Lords raised can be summarised by pointing to three key aims of government policy on sport. The first, I believe, is to improve the nation's health. In the UK we have a relatively high death rate from heart disease. Sport and exercise helps to reduce that rate and the heavy call on health resources. We should promote the benefits of participation in sport for individuals and the community for that reason.

Sport is important as a policy objective for the Government in order to alleviate social deprivation. Sport can and should be used as a policy tool in areas of high unemployment and deprivation. In particular it can provide a catalyst for channelling the energies of the young into constructive and satisfying activities contributing to their self-esteem and discipline. Both recreational and competitive sport can also contribute to community confidence and cohesion especially in pockets of social deprivation.

There is a third aim, an aim which has been discussed and considered by your Lordships this evening; namely, to help to promote excellence in sport, but excellence in behaviour in sport as much as excellence in results in sport. That excellence should be supported by Government at national and international level. Some help will always be necessary to enable prospective international competitors to meet their rivals on equal terms; for success in sport reflects well on both our standing in the world and upon our trade and morale.

The noble Lords, Lord St. John of Bletso, Lord Chalfont, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, focused, and rightly so, on the vital importance of sport's role in education. I wish to pick up one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and echoed in part by the noble Lord, Lord Sheppard. That is the importance of beginning to develop new initiatives in school sport. I urge the Government to encourage greater involvement of clubs with local schools, local businesses, and the local press: to encourage all those to come together at the local school level so that we do not have to rely exclusively on the PE teacher to assist in the development of sporting opportunities for young children at school.

The clubs have a vested interest in those children because they are their members of the future. I firmly believe that there should be new initiatives to focus on bringing the clubs together with the PE teachers to expand the opportunities for our young men and women. The local press could have columns highlighting success, not necessarily excellence but possibly the participation of an individual for the first time in sport: a good news story providing an opportunity for local businesses to participate and assist in the funding. This nexus, this opportunity to work together, is, I believe, the sort of new initiative that the Government can rightly launch and take forward at a local level.

I was disappointed by the absence of one subject from today's debate. It is important in a debate of this kind to place on record that it is vitally important for any government to focus on opportunities for sport for the disabled. We shall have another debate today on prostheses. When one sees, as I did at the Paralympics, the 100 metres run in under 11 seconds by a sportsman who has a rigid prosthesis from his knee down, one suddenly realises that we should be focusing on the abilities of those sportsmen and women and not their disabilities. I believe that much more can be done by Government to recognise the importance of integration not segregation; and to recognise that many disabled people desperately want to be integrated into able-bodied sport. Governing bodies can help to bring this about by assuming responsibility for everyone participating in their sports.

I believe that the governing bodies can go further. They can actively encourage disabled athletes to take part in the events and competitions which they organise. Wherever possible, able-bodied and disabled athletes should compete under the same set of rules. This point does not apply only to sportsmen and women who are disabled, but to the able-bodied too. I appeal to governing bodies to give sportsmen and women, whether able-bodied or disabled, a greater say in the decision making and administrative structure of their sport. They should not retire as top level sportsmen, and only 20 years later go on to their governing bodies. As active sportsmen they understand the pressures of the modern world. They understand the issues on the danger of drugs, referred to earlier in an excellent speech. Many sportsmen and women can bring that expertise to the benefit of their governing bodies.

On the subject of drugs, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, was right. It is a vitally important issue that Government can do much to tackle. Testing must be independent. Testing must be more effective, rigorous and entirely random. Competitors in all sports must be required, I believe, to make a personal declaration of willingness to undertake tests in or out of competition; and they will. The competitors back that view 100 per cent. They should be given that opportunity. If we do not tackle the problem of drugs in sport, we shall not have competition between sportsmen and women. We shall have competition between chemists' laboratories. Although it is somewhat late in the day as regards the IOC-Lausanne initiative, the IOC needs to do more. It has the money, the opportunity and the status to tackle the problem head on, and to put together an international initiative with the NOCs and governing bodies to ensure that it is tackled vigorously as a number one international problem: to protect our young sportsmen and women from succumbing to the dangers of drug abuse in sport.

Finally, in reflecting on the questions on governing bodies addressed by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I have the great privilege, and have had for a number of years, to be President of the British Biathlon Union. It is interesting that in the BBU we have insufficient funds to do everything that the Government would encourage us to do. The really interesting point, however, is that it is a tragic reflection on the status of the organisation of sport that the real reason why this year the BBU had to cancel all development courses and save £2,000, and had to stop promoting and obtaining a manager for its World Cup team was due to the governing body structure being reformed. The BBU, the new governing body, did not have three years of audited accounts. Yet we have been involved in biathlon for decades. We have been very successful. But, because the regulation says that, in order to apply for a world class performance plan lottery grant, there must be three years of audited accounts, the whole future of those sportsmen—the Michael Dixons of today and tomorrow, is being jeopardised, and sport cannot be run on a stop-go basis. Every sportsman, to produce his best results, has an eight to 10-year gestation period. We have to back the coaches throughout that period. We have to back the support staff who put in so much time on a voluntary basis. We have to commit resources in the long term through the good results years and the bad results years in order to develop in the future. That highlights the problem: to achieve excellence 'we have to back participation, and, unless we develop and nurture the grass roots over many years, we will not get excellence tomorrow.

In conclusion, it has been an honour to come back to sport, albeit that in about two and a half hours I shall return to foreign affairs. It has been a greater honour to listen to the outstanding contributions that have been made by your Lordships during this debate.

My Lords, I start by echoing the last words of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. It is an honour and a privilege to be asked to wind up this debate for the Government, a debate in which so many distinguished sportsmen and women have taken part, and in which we have had so much evident expertise. It is also, for somebody like myself, rather a problem because when my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel recalled the double century partnership which he had put together 45 years ago, I recalled that 45 years ago I was for a brief time the bar billiards champion of the Oxford Union. It is better than snakes and ladders. At least you have to stand up!

When the noble Lord, Lord Addington, was generous about those who do not want to play Rugby Union, I recalled that at school I used to be a wing threequarter and I would wander up and down the side margins of the field in a long white sweater which reached down below my shorts, hoping that the ball never came near me and usually it did not, so I am utterly unqualified in those terms.

But I do have a story to tell about the Government's commitment to improving sport in the United Kingdom, which is after all the subject of this debate. This Government and, to be fair, all governments, recognise the importance of sport and the need to promote the effective delivery of sporting opportunities at all levels. Of course government have a central role to play in sport. They fund the sports councils—Sport England receives approximately £38 million and UK Sport £12.5 million—they allocate lottery money to sport, at least £200 million a year over the next 10 years through the Sport England lottery sports fund, and they provide PE and sport in schools.

Sport is also a mixed economy. Individual sports are represented by individual independent governing bodies. Local authorities and education authorities are the largest single providers of sports facilities and the strength of sports clubs, which have been saluted by the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, and my noble and right reverend friend, Lord Sheppard, among others, reflects the enthusiasm of one and a half million volunteers in sporting activities; and their contribution, although it may not be calculated financially, certainly cannot be underestimated.

I know your Lordships think that Government are a manufacturing industry whose purpose is to manufacture White Papers; and I am afraid that it is true that this Government are proposing to publish a sports strategy paper in the autumn of this year. I will not anticipate what that paper might say, but I will use as my theme the three elements in that paper, which will be sport in schools, lifelong participation and excellence. I acknowledge that when we talk about sport in schools and then go on to talk about lifelong participation, we must consider what my noble friend Lord Sheppard called the unbroken chain. We must recognise that unless there are continuing and effective links between sport in schools and sport in clubs, both for children and young people and for adults, then the seamless robe of sporting opportunity and achievement will simply not be available.

I will talk in those three areas, starting with the area of excellence, and then I will deal with some of the points which were raised in the debate. In case there is any misunderstanding about this, I do not propose to talk about the televising of sporting events. This debate has been about participation in sports, net spectator sports, and I think it is better to keep it that way.

The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, made a very important point when he said that excellence in sport is not simply a matter of results but a matter of behaviour, and that of course was the theme of the remarkable speech of Lord Cowdrey and of many other speeches. I shall come back to excellence in behaviour at the very end of my remarks.

I want to talk first about how we can help with excellence in results. We are determined that our top sportsmen and women should receive world class backing to give them every chance of achieving international success. We are making considerable progress in that area.

One of the problems which has been raised in our participation in international events is the relationship between the United Kingdom as a whole and the four countries which make up the United Kingdom. I certainly agree that there has been an element of confusion as we have been moving towards devolution. I think we have resolved it in the right way. This morning in another place the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport laid an order which will make the UK Sports Council a distributor of lottery funds in its own right; therefore our participation in international events and all of the events which require the United Kingdom to act in a unified way will be under the UK Sports Council.

It is right that in many ways sport should be a devolved matter. The devolved administrations are closer to the grass roots in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They are more able to decide sensibly what is needed for sport in schools and in localities; but when it comes to international competition and the use of lottery funds in particular, which is a reserved matter, it is proper that there should be a single distributor and that will now be the United Kingdom Sports Council.

The noble Lord, Lord Monro, made a point about the sports cabinet, as did the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan. The sports cabinet is chaired by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. It brings together the four sports ministers in the four home countries. It is the political focus for the united effort. It is the sports cabinet who have agreed the arrangements for lottery funding from the UK Sports Council and who will oversee that programme. I think that, on balance, we have got it right. We have devolution where it is needed, and United Kingdom action and funding where that is needed.

I should like to say a few words about some of the elements of the support that we give to our most talented sports people. The noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, made a plea for lottery funding and for a network of centres of excellence around the country. That is exactly what is planned with the United Kingdom Sports Institute, based in Sheffield, with 10 associated network sites. It is the centrepiece of the Government's sports policy and will play a key role in promoting sporting excellence. All of the existing Sport England national sports centres will be incorporated into the network. They will have access to specialist science and medical advice. A network centre in Sheffield will provide national facilities for athletics, swimming, netball, table-tennis and judo. There will be performance directors, coaches, athletes and service providers to develop a menu of services to be delivered directly by the network.

The athlete career and development programme will enhance athletes' personal development and sporting performance through access to individualised services to help them to achieve a more balanced approach to their sporting and non-sporting lives. There is to be a high performance coaching programme. Fifty top coaches have already been nominated to benefit from that. All that is being done in close consultation with the relevant governing bodies of the sports. We hope to achieve the right blend of local provision and central co-ordination.

The noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, was good enough to praise the world class programme. The noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, did not praise that programme, but certainly highlighted the importance of such programmes. The programme was launched by Sport England. World-class start encourages young people to participate in sport. They identify promising young people and ensure that their talent is nurtured. The world class potential programme smooths the path from promising youngster to established sportsperson, while the world class performance programme ensures that our elite sportsmen and women receive the support that they require to improve their rankings and to win more competitions for themselves and their country. Perhaps I may advise the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that the programme includes people with disabilities, and disabled sports. The British Paralympic Association is involved in the activities.

The world class events programme assists sports governing bodies in their efforts to bring major events, such as the 2006 World Cup, to these shores where, as the Select Committee reported, they could boost the economy, increase levels of active participation and stimulate urban renewal. The noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, hoped that we would win our bid to host the World Athletics Championship and that the Minister for Sport would be in Seville later this year to boost our claim. I can assure your Lordships that my honourable friend never lets pass any opportunity to promote British sport in any part of the world. I cannot believe that he will not be personally involved in our bid to host the football World Cup or in any top-quality future Olympic bid. Indeed, the Government have been so involved in hosting the cricket World Cup and will be so involved with the rugby union World Cup in the autumn. In the year 2000, we have the rugby league World Cup and in the jubilee year 2002 Manchester will host the Commonwealth Games. I do not think that there can be much doubt that sporting excellence is of critical importance. I shall return to the issue of behaviour.

I turn now to the issue of sport in schools because I am afraid that there has been a great deal of misunderstanding about what is proposed. I emphasise that although a change has been proposed at key stage 4—that is, for 14 to 16-year olds—physical education generally remains compulsory at all key stages. Games have not been dropped at key stage 4. They remain one of the six options. The others are gymnastic activities, athletic activities, swimming, dance, and outdoor and adventure activities. Every young person must take at least two of the six options.

With regard to team games, perhaps I should say that I prefer the phrase "participatory games", which was used by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel, because it includes games such as singles tennis. As such games are compulsory between the ages of 5 and 14, it is inconceivable to me that those who want to continue with participatory games and have to take two of the six options between the ages of 14 and 16 will not be able to continue to do so. It is also inconceivable to me that schools will not offer games at key stage 4. However, I echo the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in saying that it is important that those who are turned off by team games—I am well known to be one of them—should still have opportunities to undertake physical activity. That is what I believe that the new, more sensible proposal from the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority will do. Perhaps I may advise the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, and the noble Lords, Lord Feldman and Lord Monro, that, contrary to their fears, what is proposed will not "downgrade" team games—I think that that was the word used. For the first time, we have the aspiration that all children should do two hours of PE and sport every week.

I advise the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that we believe that giving young children more choice over what sports they can do serves only to enhance their enjoyment of sport and exercise. People like doing things that they are good at and some people prefer activities such as athletics, swimming or tennis. That is why we accepted the recommendation of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. Perhaps I may tell the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that, I, too, read the piece in the Daily Telegraph, but that I agree rather with Phil de Glanville, the England rugby player, that people should be able to choose whether to play team games or individual sports. Both have to be offered to children—and that is what is happening.

I have left myself very little time to talk about the range of things which will be offered in schools. However, they include sporting ambassadors. I say that in response to the noble Lord, Lord Feldman, who spoke about sporting heroes. Perhaps I may now pay a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, who chaired the initial working group which considered the scheme. We now have 240 sportsmen and women signed up to be ambassadors. The National Coaching Foundation is developing a personal development package for each sporting ambassador. There is coaching for teachers, including coaching weeks. Among others, the noble Lords, Lord Cowdrey and Lord Archer, referred to the importance of sports teachers. We are not aware of any shortage of PE teachers, but we are certainly aware of their need for in-service training so that they can gain national governing body awards.

We also have "Sportsmark", which is a recognition award for secondary schools which provide a balanced and progressive physical education curriculum. Our active primary schools awards will be introduced in the next year.

There are also all the activities supported by the lottery. Some noble Lords seemed to suggest that there has been a reduction in lottery provision for sport. That is simply not the case. The sports strand of lottery provision is increasing over what was originally intended. In addition, the New Opportunities Fund does two things for sport. First, the after-schools activity strand of NOF will help considerably in providing after-school sports. The green spaces strand of NOF will help considerably in providing more playing fields, particularly on brownfield sites.

If turn now to life-long participation. I agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and others about the physical advantages of sports participation. The noble Lord, Lord Chadlington, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred to the social benefits of sports interaction and the role of sport in dealing with social deprivation, which is being considered by the Social Exclusion Unit.

I must comment on playing fields because there has been a great deal of confusion—innocent, I am sure—about playing field provision. The Government are determined to prevent the further unnecessary loss of playing fields. The measures we have adopted will require local authorities, schools and developers to consider the needs of school children and local communities for whom playing fields are a vital resource. The Department for Education and Employment has introduced new legislation to require all state schools to seek consent for the sale of playing fields. We are the first Government to do that.

In December 1998, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions published a direction ensuring that wherever Sport England objects to plans to develop any playing field owned by local authorities, where there is no identified surplus, the Secretary of State for the DETR will review the proposals.

The noble Lord, Lord St. John, asked whether Sport England had a veto on planning applications. It does not have a veto, but it is a statutory consultee. It has a strong presumption against allowing any development which would result in a reduction in playing field accommodation.

It is true that some playing field applications have been accepted. After all, a number of them are for schools which have closed or are closing. Of the 109 applications received, 27 have involved areas smaller than a football pitch. But in making comparisons, we must remember that until this Government came into office in 1997, 40 playing fields were being sold off each month. Since October 1998, we have received an average of 12 applications a month. That is the effect of the policies we adopted and I believe that we are stanching the drain of playing field space, which was a conspicuous feature of planning and financial policies under the previous government.

The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and others referred to drugs in sport. Drug abuse in sport is cheating. The only other thing that can be said about it is that it damages and cheats the person taking the drug as well as the others. The Minister for Sport, Tony Banks, has played an active part in all the proposals for strengthening controls against drug abuse. We have been in advance of the game in every respect. We spend more than £1.35 million a year on 4,500 tests a year; the quality of our out-of-competition blood testing programme is such that the UK Sports Council was the first organisation world-wide to achieve ISO 9002 accreditation for its testing system; and we are active in all the international forums, including Lausanne, to try to deal with the drugs problem.

I say briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that the Charity Commission is consulting on the status of recreational charities and necessary amendments to the Recreational Charities Act 1958. It is preparing a consultation on sport and I shall draw the noble Lord's remarks to it.

Finally, and necessarily briefly, I agree profoundly with those led by the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, who spoke of the need for sportsmanship and a return, as some see it, to a golden age of sportsmanship which some believe has been lost. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, in particular that the captains and the players, rather than the umpires, must be responsible for sportsmanship. I add my voice to those who have called on the national governing bodies of sport to apply the rules of sport firmly and to support the work of thousands of volunteer referees and officials.

This has been an inspiring debate and I have been privileged to take part in it.

My Lords, for myself, this has been an exciting afternoon and I appreciate the many fascinating contributions from our wide range of speakers. I was touched in particular by their enthusiasm for the importance of the subject. I hope that today will further the way to more discussions and debates with the various sporting bodies.

I thank the Minister for his warm and encouraging summing up. I say at once that as an undergraduate at the same time as him, I never missed a debate in the Oxford Union—and how I would have loved to have been the bar billiards champion of the Union! I was unfortunate never to receive a champion's nod from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey; that had to come later in life.

Time is getting on and I am satisfied that we have covered the ground with great interest and extremely well. I shall be brief. I shall be pleased if the main planks of the debate are put before the Secretary of State and the Minister for Sport.

Perhaps, finally, I may speak selfishly to the whole House, through Hansard, because every hour of every day I spend in this House my leg is pulled over the demise of English cricket. When England have a particularly bad day I am held wholly to blame. I know that in the days ahead I shall be attacked by the mischievous, who will say, "Funny, in that debate of yours you didn't spend much time telling us about English cricket, did you?". And so perhaps I may give a broadsheet answer to everyone. I learnt early in life that a lot of people are interested in cricket and an awful lot of people are not so interested in cricket. I have always been mindful of the remarks of an amusing broadcaster, Arthur Marshall, who many noble Lords will remember. He could not abide cricket and was once trapped in a game as the guest with a friend for an hour or two. He was able to escape soon after lunch and as he walked out of the gate he said, "Ah, if I find that they play cricket in Heaven I shall just have to pray that there will be an awful lot of rain as well".

rose to call attention to political developments in Latin America; and to move for Papers.

My Lords, I hope very much that this will not be the noble Viscount's valedictory address; of course, I am in the same boat as he. I propose, if I may, to take the noble Viscount's title in a rather general sense and not stick strictly to political matters as such.

I am not an expert on Latin America, certainly no rival to the noble Viscount who, in his wide-ranging speech, showed clearly that it is in Britain's interest to develop relations with all countries of Central and South America. The noble Viscount has much experience in facilitating trade between Britain and Latin America, but he knows that trade, cultural and scientific links go hand in hand. That is particularly the case, as my noble friend knows full well, when there is a thriving educational exchange programme.

Contacts and friendships developed during a stay for undergraduate or postgraduate study of a year or more are likely to endure. Many of those who take advantage of these scholarships or exchange programmes go on to have influential positions in government, business, academia or the media. And if they have had a good experience in their host country—and mostly they do—they are very likely to seek to build up trade or cultural links because they understand the other country's way of working and wish to continue the links they made.

That works in both directions—Latin American students coming to Britain or Brits studying or working in Latin America. Both cases lead to a better understanding and frequently to increased commercial links. I often wonder whether governments realise how great the long-term benefits are of such investment in human potential. All the staff I have met working for the British Council throughout the world know it; so do many working in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and certainly in DfID. But the investment that we put into our scholarship programmes does not reflect its importance. Can my noble friend give any figures for aid to Latin American countries over recent years which takes this form? We have never quite recovered from the sad decision that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, felt she was forced to take some 25 years ago, when Minister for Education in a Labour government, to increase university fees for most overseas students to their actual cost.

One of the reasons for the comparatively low level of trade between Britain and Latin America compared, for example, with southern Africa or south east Asia is of course linguistic. In all the areas that I mentioned, Britain rather than Spain was the main colonial power and we found it convenient to teach people to speak English, which most of the educated people in our former colonial territories still do. However, British explorers and engineers played a major part in opening up South America in the 18th and 19th century. I think at least some of them—like the noble Viscount—took the trouble to learn Spanish, something which more British people should do today. As the second most widely spoken language in the world it should perhaps supplant French as the first foreign language to be taught in our schools; at least it should always be available as an alternative or as an addition to French. It is so much easier and effective to learn a foreign language when one is young, as I am finding out to my cost with my attempts at Spanish.

As my noble friend may be aware, the Caribbean country I have most recently visited—twice, in fact, in the past two years—is Cuba. I include that country in Latin America. We have much to gain by increasing our scientific and cultural links with that country. We may be critical of its one-party system and suppression of dissent and we should not hide our wish to see political prisoners released and a Cuban style multi-party system come into being. But it should be borne in mind that Cuba is not being paranoid in its belief that the US will use any opportunity it can to overthrow the present political and economic system in Cuba. Most observers feel, however, that the present embargo on US-Cuban trade is actually providing a pretext for tighter control of political and press activity by the government than would be the case if there were a more relaxed US-Cuban relationship. In fact the effect of the present US policy is proving precisely the converse to what was intended. Cuba has survived the end of economic support from the USSR—at a cost—and is on the road to recovery, though per capita income is still painfully low. But, as one member of the IPU delegation of which I was a part put it, "At least the poverty is spread evenly."

The tourist trade and the legalisation of the US dollar, necessary though it was, have made inroads into this social equality. And the US embargo has had some very harmful effects, not least on the health of the Cuban people, as reported in great detail in the 1997 report of the American Association for World Health. But a remarkable Cuban achievement has been that, despite a lack of sufficient food and an increase in water-borne infections because of the breakdown of water and sewerage systems, infant and maternal mortality and expectation of life have all continued to improve and are at a level comparable to some developed countries. That is a marked difference to the situation in Iraq where a somewhat similar food shortage and breakdown in sewerage and water treatment as a result of the Gulf War and the sanctions regime have resulted in widespread child malnutrition and a doubling of infant and child mortality.

These Cuban achievements may serve to underline and give an example of why it will be very fruitful to further develop the scientific and academic links with at least one Latin American country. I gave my noble friend notice that I was going to ask if she had any news about the developments on the proposed trials of the Cuban vaccine for meningitis B, the first to be developed in the world, in which St Mary's Hospital in London is collaborating with the Finlay Institute in Havana. It is a very fitting collaboration since St Mary's was home to another world first in Professor Alexander Fleming who of course discovered penicillin. That is just one example of the interesting lines of research in biotechnology in which Cuba is quite advanced. It would benefit us to collaborate with them in that.

Finally, I should like to touch on another country with great potential but one which is caught up in a cycle of violence that seems at times to be insoluble—Colombia. Britain has a particular interest in Colombia at the moment because of BP's major investment. But my information—and it has also appeared in newspapers— is that this operation has exacerbated the violence in the province where it has been operating. The position, as one might expect, is that neither the guerrillas (the FARC) nor the paramilitary groups are in favour of oil exploration or extraction on their territory without considerable compensation. Installations are liable to be attacked by one or other group, although perhaps more frequently by the guerrillas in the first place because representatives of BP did not adequately plan with the local people what they were going to do and meet their requirements. The army was called in to protect the oil operation, with the result that the closely allied paramilitaries indulged in a reign of terror in the villages supposed to be supporting the guerrillas. As a fence-mending gesture, I understand that BP has now put resources into some local communities. How well this is working and whether the installations are now left alone by the guerrillas and paramilitary groups, it would be interesting to know. Can my noble friend the Minister enlighten us on the current status of the BP operation?

A contrasting approach was apparently taken by another firm, Kelt Colombia, which is a successor to Elf Aquitaine, the French oil company. Before undertaking any operations, that firm approached local communities and went out of its way to ascertain their needs and help to construct water supply systems, introduce electricity, and build schools and clinics. As a result, the guerrillas did not attack its installations and the company did not have to call in the army nor the paramilitary which usually does the army's dirty work.

Noble Lords may be surprised that I have talked about Colombia without mentioning cocaine. Of course it is in the background all the time. The war on drugs, it seems, has not seen any reduction in supplies. As I suggested in an Unstarred Question on Colombia some two years ago, drugs certainly exacerbate the problem in Colombia, but the basic problem is the existence of a large group of peasants with little or poor quality land and a small elite group who own most of the land, and certainly the best land. I wish President Pastrana very good luck in the extremely courageous negotiations he is now conducting with the leaders of FARC. But until the land question is faced and solved I suggest that there will be no lasting peace in Colombia nor in many other parts of Latin America.

My Lords, all friends of the diverse peoples of Latin America will be grateful to my noble kinsman Viscount Montgomery of Alamein for initiating this debate, as they have been grateful in the past when he has brought to their service, and to the service of this House, his knowledge, experience, wisdom and curiosity in relation to Latin America, as well as, and not least, I should say, his great name. If it indeed be the case that this is the last occasion when the noble Viscount will introduce a debate on this subject, I think I can say that they—the peoples of Latin America—like ourselves, will be the poorer.

The most interesting occasion that I can remember in connection with the contributions of the noble Viscount to the work of this House took place during the debate on the Falklands War in 1982 when the noble Viscount made a splendidly brave speech criticising the then government's position. I did not agree with him but, of course, thinking as he did, he was entirely right to speak as forcefully and as effectively as he did. Indeed, he is similarly right to point out that in the time during which he has been interested in Latin America the countries concerned have undergone such a major change. As a matter of fact, he did not claim any responsibility as regards the changes towards democracy but, nevertheless, we noticed the two events in passing.

It is interesting to note that for all the residual anti-Americanism which continues to exist in much of Latin America, those countries have usually adopted a system of democracy echoing that in Washington—a presidential system—rather than a parliamentary system such as might have seemed more inspiring given the change to parliamentary democracy in Spain, the mother country, under the leadership of King Juan Carlos. Indeed, the selection of that presidential system as opposed to a parliamentary system could be one reason for the continuing weakness of some of those democracies about which we have been talking.

It seems to me that another weakness is the continuing love affair which still exists, despite the collapse of communism, with the idea of revolution. We find this love affair surviving in surprising places in pockets of resistance, one might say—if it is not to mix a metaphor—in many of the polities of whi'2h we are talking. Mention has been made of Colombia. It is certainly true that that fascinating and important country is cut in half by the fact that many still subscribe to that outworn idea.

The noble Lord, Lord Rea, spoke about Cuba. But, as far as I could understand from his general approach, I believe that he, too, would agree that the tragedy of modern Cuba is that, for all the charm of its people and of the countryside—and, indeed, the beauty of the cities—the country is still in thrall to an exploded idea. That idea is as extinct, I would say, as the famous line of marine South American volcanoes to which Disraeli—or, perhaps I should say, the late Earl of Beaconsfield—referred with such wit and to such effect on the only other occasion when volcanoes have been mentioned in the Palace of Westminster in another place during the last century. What a tragedy it is that Cuba should still, nearly 10 years after the collapse of communism, be subordinate to such an extinct idea as Marxism/Leninism.

On the other hand, Mexico is undergoing a major and important change. I have not worked this out adequately, but I think that for the first time ever, or for the first time this century, it looks as though there is a good chance that if an opposition candidate 'wins the presidential election in the elections of the year 2000 he may be allowed into Los Pinos, the presidential palace, to take office as opposed to the official candidate of the Institutional Revolutionary Party. However, we must recognise that that Institutional Revolutionary Party, so well named, is still a formidable enterprise. It could even triumph in a fair election, thus giving one more victory to what might perhaps be described as "revolutionary traditionalism." There is another cloud over the future of Mexico; namely, that caused by the thriving United States drug market and those Mexican drug dealers who serve it effectively and for their own benefit, thereby accruing immense prosperity for themselves.

During the course of this year I expect to go to Argentina. I shall be interested to see to what extent the memory of my noble friend Lady Thatcher is looked upon. No doubt her memory will be viewed, with some degree of regret, as representing one of those who were creators of the democracy which they are now enjoying—or at least one of those who destroyed the old military government as a result of the Falklands War.

I shall also visit Chile for the first time since I visited it during the lamentable regime of President Allende. When I was there in 1970, it seemed to me that the country was on the brink of civil war with an ancient democracy, as the noble Viscount described it, being subverted by a popular front government very comparable to what existed in eastern Europe immediately after 1945; in other words, a kind of foretaste of the eastern European communist governments. Of course the coup d'état of 1973 had, as we all know well, a dark side. However, the recollection of that should not blind us to the fact that the change from the Allende regime was a benefit to Chile, the continent and perhaps the world.

I think I have time to make one final point. Latin America is frequently spoken of condescendingly in Europe and North America as a violent place. That is rather a myth. There is no continent with such a large number of individual states which has been so relatively free from war between those states as has been the case in Latin America this century. In addition many of the changes which have occurred in Latin American countries such as Brazil have occurred with remarkable serenity. Race relations are on the whole rather good, even in countries with such large black communities as Brazil and Cuba, and are perhaps better than those which exist in Anglo-Saxon America.

Finally, there are in many of these countries peoples of quite diverse origin and character who live in mutual tolerance and respect. I think for example of the 50 separate peoples who speak different languages in Mexico. They could well offer to give an effective lesson in tolerance and mutual respect to other continents, including indeed Europe itself and not only perhaps the south east portion of it.

My Lords, it is with some fear and trepidation that I make my first speech in a debate in your Lordships' House. I speak in fear and trepidation because for 31 years in another place I increasingly admired the quality and standard of debate in this House. I feel that my beginning to contribute may start the decline of that trend. Certainly I very much welcome the opportunity to speak on this subject. I express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Montgomery, as to my knowledge it is the third time he has instigated a debate on this subject in this House. I know of few people in this country who have contributed more to improving relationships between Britain and Latin America than my noble friend, who has made an enormous effort in that regard both here and in Latin America. Almost everywhere one goes in Latin America one hears gratitude and tributes paid to him for the part that he has played in that process.

It is also particularly difficult in a maiden speech to follow the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton. I know of no other historian in the world with a greater knowledge of and impact on Latin America than the noble Lord. Those of us who are interested in Latin America have benefited greatly from reading his remarkable books on the history of various parts of that region. The reason I particularly rejoice in following the noble Lord is that I believe that in the coming decades the most important region in the world will probably be Latin America.

I remember the first time I visited this Chamber as a schoolboy aged 16. I had been invited by my Member of Parliament to attend a debate in the other place, which was sitting in this Chamber, its own Chamber having been destroyed in the war. I remember that the debate concerned Scottish affairs. On becoming a Member of the House of Commons I dreaded debates on Scottish affairs! The debate I heard then was a good one which contained a fine maiden speech made by a new Labour MP who had recently been returned on a by-election, Willie Ross, who later became a distinguished Secretary of State for Scotland. I remember the speech as he quoted many times from Robbie Burns. The English Members of this House at least will be relieved to hear that I have no intention of quoting from Robbie Burns today, partly because I know of no quotations of Robbie Burns and if I did I could not pronounce them!

I declare an interest in that I am involved in a bank and I was chairman of Kleinwort Benson—now part of Dresdner Kleinwort Benson—and we have offices in virtually every country in Latin America. We have been extremely active in the economic changes that have taken place. Therefore I have travelled there a great deal in recent years. I also travelled there as a Cabinet Minister on about five occasions. The transformation that has taken place in that region is remarkable. One of the things I regret is that in my view neither the business community nor the political community in this country recognise the dimension of the change that has taken place.

Mention has been made of Argentina. Twelve or 14 years ago Argentina was under the control of the generals. It suffered from high inflation, a declining economic performance and considerable corruption. It was making no impact on either the region or the world as a whole. In that short period of time Argentina has eradicated inflation—it has one of the lowest rates of inflation in the world—and has repaid a great volume of its debts. Argentina has stabilised its currency, has transformed its economy and has played a positive role in developments throughout the region. It now has a secure democracy. It is a tribute to what has happened in Argentina that as it approaches the presidential elections at the end of this year there is no doubt that all the political parties in Argentina are in agreement as to what the economic policy should be. The idea that that economic policy would have been acceptable 15 years ago is beyond comprehension.

In foreign policy Argentina has improved its relationships with its neighbours. It is now only on the football pitch that the relationships between Chile and Argentina are impossible. However, in terms of politics and economic policy they have worked closely together. This very week the parliaments in both Chile and Argentina have passed motions agreeing boundary changes, eliminating the last friction on the boundaries of Argentina and Chile. When I first started to travel to Argentina there were 47 border disputes, with the armies of both countries lined up on each side. There was enormous hostility. That has all been eradicated.

Chile is a remarkable country. It has been a leader in Latin America as regards economic policy. It has developed its own economy to a remarkable degree. It is now having a great impact upon the economy throughout the region. Chile has made a great number of capital investments throughout the region. A great number of top Chilean businessmen are helping other countries with their development programmes. But perhaps the most impressive factor of all has been the quality of democracy in Chile. After the virtual civil war that occurred, the military took command. Then the military handed over power to a genuine democracy. First, a Right-of-centre government took office and then a Left-of-centre government took office. The government coalition has just adopted its candidate for the coming presidential elections, someone from the Left of Chilean politics, and there will be totally democratic elections.

The Government must consider carefully the problems connected with former President Pinochet. I recognise the legal implications. I fully understand that a Home Secretary must comply with the legal aspects of this matter and must go through the legal formalities. However, at the end of the day such is the power of the Home Secretary and the Government that when those legal formalities are completed they will have to make a political decision. All I ask is that in making that political decision they listen to advice on the implications to Chilean democracy of whatever decision is made. I refer to the anxiety of those of us who love Chile and who want it to succeed in the future. We are anxious with regard to adverse trends developing in the democratic processes in Chile.

There is an excellent diplomatic corps in the entire region to which I pay tribute. Those of us who deal constantly with the British ambassadors in the various countries of the region admire immensely their tremendous dedication to their tasks. We admire their knowledge and the manner in which they and their staff wish to enhance relationships between Britain and the countries in which they serve. I also pay tribute to the diplomatic corps of the Latin American countries in London. There has been a series of remarkable ambassadors from the major countries of Latin America who work hard to improve relationships between their countries and our country. They do a great job. In considering the potential growth of Latin America and its political importance, I urge the Government to make an enormous effort to improve those relationships.

My noble friend mentioned visits by prime ministers. The present Prime Minister took a delegation to Mexico. While he was there he created a Mexican forum between the two countries, which I very much welcome. I join my noble friend in hoping that the Prime Minister will make similar visits to countries such as Brazil. We are fortunate that at this time—this is unique—in the major countries of Latin America, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, and in some of the smaller countries such as Peru there are presidents of quite outstanding ability. They are working together in collaboration. It is unique to find in one region such high calibre presidents all serving at one time. It is a very good time for the British Government to get close to those presidents and exercise the greatest collaboration they can.

We must recognise that there is considerable competition between the United States and Europe so far as concerns influence in Latin America. I know that the present Commissioner for Trade Negotiations, Sir Leon Brittan, has recently devoted a great deal of his time to going to Latin America and talking to Latin American Governments. So far as concerns Mexico, it is part of NAFTA and within a free trade area of the United States. I do not believe that NAFTA will expand. The president wishes it to expand hut, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, mentioned, there is a presidential system in the United States as well as in Latin America and Congress will probably stop any extension of that free trade area. That will provide a great opportunity for Europe to establish trade agreements with Latin America which will massively increase the flow of trade between the two regions. Latin America will obviously welcome that; parts of Europe will greatly benefit from it; and the whole world will benefit. The matter should be given a great deal of attention.

The noble Lord opposite mentioned education. I could not agree with him more. Again, the reality in terms of Europe and America is that the universities of America are full of students from Latin America on scholarships encouraged by businesses. The decline. in overseas students attending the best universities in his country will have terrible long-term effects. All departments of government should concentrate on what can be done in Latin America—particularly the Department of Trade and Industry and the energy department within the Department of Trade and Industry. Latin America has enormous energy resources yet to be developed.

Above all, the Department for Education and Employment should concentrate on Latin America. If that department can think of ways in which the bright, lively young of Latin America can make their friends and enhance their education in this country, it will have enormous long-term consequences, as happens in the relationships between Latin America and the United States.

The noble Lord also mentioned speaking Spanish. It is absurd that in this country we have French as our second language and German as our third. To the horror of the French, French is a declining language world-wide. The only people concentrating on it are the French; elsewhere it is in decline. German is primarily spoken in Germany. Spain is not only a major country within the European community but Spanish is spoken by virtually the whole of Latin America and a substantial part of North America is now Spanish speaking. I have endeavoured to persuade former Cabinet colleagues of mine at the Department for Education and Employment to make Spanish the second language of this country. The incredible reason that the department gives for not doing so is that, because we have always had French and German as the main languages, we have only French and German teachers; therefore it is a static position. If one wanted to recruit 2,000 people who could teach Spanish in the next few weeks, one would have no difficulty in doing so. We should recognise in this country the importance of the Spanish language. If we did that, the younger generation and the future generations of business leaders in this country would be far more successful in the region.

Finally, I had the privilege as a Minister and as a businessman of seeing a great deal of the Far East, a great deal of North America and a great deal of Latin America. Looking at this century, I believe that the increase in prosperity of countries like ours has been because we imported the raw materials of the world and processed them; thereby we have been able to export and increase our standard of living. I do not believe that there will be the same pattern in the next millennium. I believe that there will be an ever-increasing shortage of raw materials and that it will be the producers and the providers of the raw materials who will have the economic growth. If at the same time those countries with the raw materials learn to process and manufacture them, as they are doing throughout Latin America, they will have the great ingredients of economic growth. Latin America has the raw materials, the people and an enormous potential for expansion world-wide. If we were the first country to recognise that fact in an enthusiastic way, it would be of immense benefit to this country, to Europe and to the whole of that region.

My Lords, the whole House will join me in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Walker, on his authoritative maiden speech. It is appropriate that he has chosen this debate in which to make it. Notwithstanding his accomplished career both as a Cabinet Minister and within the private sector, he brings a knowledge of South American affairs which has been recognised not least by the award of the most prestigious Chilean order of all, the Order of Bernardo O'Higgins. We all look forward to the noble Lord's next contribution to our debates.

The noble Lord, Lord Rea, touched on Colombia. I had the honour of leading an investigatory parliamentary mission with members from both Westminster and the European Parliament to Colombia, including BP's producing region in Casanare. Our only criticism of BP's activities, while in no way flawed, was that they did not do enough to promote its good works. BP operates in difficult circumstances and executes its responsibilities with a greater degree of distinction.

A 40-year internal armed conflict in Colombia has escalated to intolerable levels. It has placed Colombian democracy and the state of law at risk, engendering economic, political and social disorder in a country seeking to settle this war. It is a conflict exacerbated by armed guerrillas, self-financed from the proceeds of systematic mass kidnapping of civilians in urban and rural areas and increased trafficking of illegal drugs.

Incredibly, a fragile but welcome consensus is now emerging wherein all social, economic and political circles of Colombian society, including armed groups, proclaim peace as the country's principal objective. The new Colombian Government recognise that at the heart of a formula for lasting peace is the need to balance social and economic development. Strenuous efforts are being made but it is absolutely clear that this will not be achieved without the full co-operation of the international community. Britain is perceived as being able to play a vital role in supporting the peace process, aiding the Investment Fund for Peace and helping to strengthen the Colombian Government's capacity to promote the protection of human rights for all its citizens.

I wish to say a few words about these vital ingredients. The peace process is a priority for the new Colombian Government and they are fully prepared for a negotiated solution. They have designed an integral peace policy that incorporates three phases. First, a process of negotiations with the armed groups seeking to reach agreements on the social and economic issues that give rise to the conflict, with the objective of disarmament and full resettlement into society. Secondly, the implementation of investments before, during and after the negotiations in an effort to eliminate the very economic and social factors that have led to this war. Thirdly, a political reform directed towards creating true political pluralism.

Following the creation of a more than 40,000 square kilometre tension-free zone in south-western Colombia, negotiations with the FARC guerrillas—under way since 7th January this year—have already set a common agenda and an open-ended framework for adversaries to reach decisions and adopt measures. Agreements are to be verified to maintain high levels of commitment.

The Colombian Government's policy links peace to economic development. Thus investments in depressed areas of the country are important elements to build the foundations for peace. The international community's involvement at this level would be crucial in advancing the peace process.

Despite arguments claiming that drug-trafficking has had a positive effect on the Colombian economy, there is much evidence to the contrary. Studies undertaken by the National Planning Department show that violence and criminality produced a reduction of 2 to 3 per cent in the annual rate of growth of the Colombian economy during the 1990s.

Illicit crop eradication is, at present, the key aspect in the fight against drug trafficking, although renewed by the state security forces with US Government support for spraying and manual eradication. That has met with limited success. It may be that that aspect of the strategy might be re-evaluated if it is not seen to work.

Notwithstanding that, my visits with the anti-narcotic police to the producing areas clarified the difficulty of this type of operation. The interruption of flows of coca-leaf from neighbouring countries, particularly Peru and Bolivia, has forced cartels to integrate the agricultural and industrial phases of cocaine production within Colombia; at present, Colombia has the largest cultivated area of coca leaf crops, with 79,500 hectares.

This expansion creates demographic pressures and the destruction of the social fabric of Colombian society. Illicit crops exert a serious negative impact on the establishment and strengthening of legal economic activities. Even though large economic surpluses are generated, these do not contribute to reducing the isolation of many of these regions.

Although there is an apparent positive impact on the income level of those families involved, these have negatively affected the characteristics of the market system in those areas through a fictitious increase in price levels, deteriorating the real income of rural inhabitants.

The capacity of the state to carry out justice and security is seriously affected, further undermining confidence in the commercial arena.

Fragile and rich bio-diversity, including forest reserve zones and national parks, have suffered tremendous damage, and the full environmental effects have yet to he costed. The Ministry of the Environment estimates that the cultivation of illicit crops has implied the destruction of 850,000 to 1 million hectares of Colombian forests from 1974 to 1998. The indiscriminate use of chemical products aggravates the problem.

The Colombian Government have decided to deepen the implementation of their alternative development programme with a new approach. Strategies to fight drug trafficking are directly related to the achievement of increased levels of economic and social development and to the consolidation of the peace process.

Colombian policy varies according to the origin and purpose of the crop. Commercial crops deemed to be assets of drug traffickers are to be eradicated without compensation. In the case of subsistence crops resulting from poverty and the absence of economically viable alternatives, the government, through the alternative development programme, will offer production substitutes—vital in the areas where 61.4 per cent of the population have unsatisfied basic needs.

The government will rely increasingly, and literally, on carrots rather than sticks to integrate subsistence growers into the economic and social system. Success will, however, depend critically on the capacity of the government and the international community to offer competitive options for the generation of incomes that will encourage the elimination of those crop productions.

The programme will be supported by an investment fund for peace which will encourage society to "put its money where its mouth is" by redirecting capital flows away from such areas as military expenditure. to more productive activities and funding expenses for the peace effort, including the issuance of peace bonds.

Colombia is infamously linked to violent acts of guerrilla and self-defence groups against the civilian population, which sabotage and undermine state activities and disturb public order. A state under constant threat from insurgent armed groups that boast renewed resources, extorted from the civilian population and the proceeds of drug dealing, faces enormous difficulties in guaranteeing the full enforcement of human rights in its territory. Mechanisms must therefore be sought to bring about humanitarian agreements to reduce the suffering of civilians.

Commendably, in addition to undertaking to observe all the provisions of international humanitarian law, the Colombian Government are seeking their full implementation by all players in the armed conflict. Moreover, the government have signed the International Criminal Court statute.

Logistic and financial support for state bodies engaged in investigating and punishing human rights violations is being improved: a special committee to further investigations into human rights vicilations, composed of the Vice-President, Interior Minister, Prosecutor General and Attorney General, has been established.

The government intend to continue their policy of strengthening and updating the Armed Forces by raising efficiency standards, and introducing stricter observance of human rights and international humanitarian law. Reforms of the military criminal justice system in order to combat and punish infringements of human rights and international humanitarian law by state agents and prevent any connections with private armed justice groups are proceeding.

Colombia maintains a policy of openness that keeps international bodies and human rights organisations abreast of developments on such issues. 'The government have therefore requested an extension for a further year of the Colombian Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Last month, that office entered into a technical co-operation agreement with the presidential human rights counsellor with a view to raising the profile and supporting the activities of the UN office.

Altogether, it is an ambitious programme, calling for vision, courage and commitment from the international community and all law-abiding Colombians. No effort must be spared in ensuring that the scourge of illicit drug production is eradicated in Colombia and that long-awaited peace prevails.

It would be inappropriate to conclude without congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, on his support of all matters Latin American, not least by initiating this important debate.

My Lords, I, too, am glad to be able to join in this debate. I thank my noble friend Lord Montgomery for yet again giving us the opportunity to emphasise the significance and importance of our relationship with all the countries of Latin America, and to update ourselves on political developments in the region.

After the many years that he has spent working on the ground in Latin America, my noble friend has put his knowledge and expertise to considerable good use as chairman and president of Canning House, as chairman of the Latin American Trade Advisory Group, and in various capacities in bilateral societies and parliamentary all-party groups. Moreover, he has always tackled the issues with such infectious enthusiasm that he draws others into the arena. I sincerely hope that this will not be the last opportunity that he will have in this House to initiate a debate on this topic.

My noble friend pre-empted me by declaring my interest as president of the Hispanic and Luso Brazilian Council, better known as Canning House. Perhaps I may say a few words about Canning House and its work. It is a membership based, non-political, non-profit-making organisation. It was founded in 1943 to develop understanding between ourselves, Spain, Portugal and the Latin American countries. It acts as a forum for heads of state, Ministers, politicians, diplomats, businessmen, academics, artists and students in order to promote links between the United Kingdom, Europe and Latin America. We also have a splendid library which is open to the public and is used by many generations of students and others who are interested in the region. To achieve our objectives, we organise conferences, seminars, round table discussions, lectures and other cultural and educational events. Perhaps I may use this opportunity to advertise the fact that we are holding our annual seminar for parliamentarians two weeks today, on 23rd June. I hope that many noble Lords will attend that event.

Also, as one of our recent developments, the council realised that it was important to raise its overseas profile. As the Minister may be aware, we have held conferences in Brazil and Mexico, and the latest, this year, in Buenos Aires. The theme has always been the European Union and Latin America, whether a regional organisation or on a bilateral basis. It is important that the United Kingdom takes a strong lead in the European context in this field. Canning House is playing its part. We are also forming an international council. I have just returned from two days in Spain meeting like-minded organisations with a view to working with them, developing the theme of providing a bridge between Europe and Latin America from Spain in the south and from the United Kingdom in northern Europe. We should be proud of ourselves for taking the many initiatives that we have. I am happy that Canning House is often acknowledged not only in this country but also in others as a unique institution which is important in all those areas.

In the context of the debate and some of the remarks made, I point out that in terms of future elections, last year with the elections in Venezuela we were able to host meetings for three of the candidates. We therefore had a pre-election knowledge of President Chavez and his views. This year we hope that, in relation to the Argentine elections, the two front-running candidates, Duhalde and Fernando de la Rua, will come over and speak to members of Canning House and, we hope, to a wider audience.

On a more general note, whenever we talk about Latin American countries we recite the impressive changes that have taken place in recent years in their economies and the statistics about trade and investment opportunities. Reference has already been made to them. But most experts and commentators explaining the reasons for a third of total world investment in emerging markets going to Latin America cite as of prime importance the democratisation of all those countries. Democratisation means not just elected governments and parliaments but freedom of speech, openness and transparency of government, accountability and action on human rights. Any of the activities to which I referred that we undertake in Canning House and other contexts and all the increasing interest in parliamentary contacts through the IPU visits are important. They underline the progress that has been made and the continuance of the democratic process in all those countries.

Of course, as in our own country, there is always room for improvement. Perhaps I may cite two areas where there could be improvement and development. One is the need in some countries to change their out-of-date legal and judicial structures. That is acknowledged by the countries themselves and recent initiatives by the British Council and ourselves in Canning House in that respect have been welcomed.

Another change is the development of regional groups in Latin America. Perhaps the one with which we are most familiar is the southern cone grouping of the Mercosur countries—Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay. Those are essentially trade groupings, but it is interesting on the political side that, with the recent unhappy events in Paraguay, the fact that Paraguay is a member of Mercosur and that the other countries of Mercosur insisted on the democratic process being retained there has been of considerable importance.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and my noble friend Lord Walker, in his excellent maiden speech. They emphasised the importance of educational contact and more teaching of Spanish and Portuguese. Two interesting developments are evidence that there is more contact and more going on in these fields. There is the GAP programme, the pre-university year programme. Last year, in Ecuador alone, one of the smaller of the Latin American countries, there were about 31 or 32 British students doing the GAP year. That is replicated throughout Latin America.

There are also all the university language courses with students doing the overseas year in Latin American countries. I came across the fact that in this country, in terms of Latin American students, we have from Mexico alone 800 students, most doing post-graduate work. So there is an enormous amount of contact and at Canning House we are focusing on it as an area for further development.

I wish to bring into this all-too-short opportunity to speak a reference to the recent talks in London between our Foreign Minister, the Argentine Foreign Minister, Guido di Tella, and four councillors from the Falkland Islands. We all welcome it as a step in the right direction. Sovereignty was not on the agenda, as we all know, but I understand that a number of areas of common interest such as measures to combat illegal fishing, hydrocarbons and mine clearance were discussed. Issues such as access to the islands by Argentine passport holders were also discussed. I urge the Government to continue the initiative and conciliation process. We hope that such contact will continue so that areas of co-operation for mutual benefit will develop and the islanders and the Argentines can learn to live together as neighbours in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

Finally, I wish to ask the noble Baroness two questions. Many people, including the Foreign Office Ministers, welcome parliamentary pressures, so I make no apology for supporting my noble friend Lord Montgomery in his comments about a prime ministerial bilateral visit. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Walker that the arrangements for Mexico were made when President Zedillo was over here on his official visit last year. I emphasise that we welcome very much the important presidential visits that took place last year with Presidents Fujitmori from Peru, Zedillo from Mexico and Menem from Argentina. I equally emphasise as important that when visiting ministers are over here they have the opportunity to meet for however short a time with the Prime Minister or the Foreign Minister. That is important.

Our ambassadors in Latin America do a terrific job. May we put pressure on the Government to confirm that they will keep them all in post?

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, and thank him for introducing this debate. We are all aware of his persistence in bringing the issues of Latin America to your Lordships' attention and we always learn a great deal from him.

I know that the debate calls attention to the political situation, but I would like briefly to address some of the economic issues because the two are inseparable. I begin by saying that prospects are still good for stronger regional growth in the longer term, largely due to the recent reforms that have taken place in the region. Productivity and growth turned positive in the 1990s as opposed to the declines during the 1970s and 1980s. Privatisations, particularly in the telecommunications and transport sectors in the early 1990s, very much helped that trend. Labour market reforms have been slow, due mainly to political sensitivities, but nevertheless even in that area some significant progress is being made. Foreign direct investment is now producing capacity expansion and not just the transfer of asset ownership, as was the case in the early 1990s. When the current downturn in the markets eases, foreign direct investment should rise substantially again.

Another point which is important is that as pension reform takes hold in more countries of the region, over the next five years there are expectations that domestic savings will rise as well. That is crucially important for the region, since domestic savings rates need to rise if the region is to reduce its reliance on external financing for growth.

However, at the same time we must recognise that many Latin American countries face a difficult transition to sustain growth and further social development. Many of them remain highly indebted or heavily dependent on commodity exports and are therefore highly vulnerable to interest rates in terms of trade shocks. Access to international capital has become more difficult in the current environment, and elections in several countries of the region have increased and are increasing nervousness about a slippage in fiscal policy at a time when the economies must still rely heavily on private capital flows to re-finance existing debt.

On balance though, the growth potential of many countries in the region has improved with better public and private management, suggesting, as has recently been mentioned by the World Bank, a growth potential in per capita incomes averaging about 2.2 per cent. over the next 10 years. That is a full percentage point better than was achieved over the past 10 years.

However, there are risks. I need hardly say that what happens outside the region is crucial. For example, when the East Asian crisis hit it had little immediate effect on the region, but with the spread of the crisis to Russia in August 1998 investors started to pull their money out of all the emerging markets. That had a particularly severe effect on Latin America. That was not the fault of Latin America. There have also been natural disasters. El Niño in early 1998 and Hurricane Mitch in November brought unexpected problems. Any forecast of economic growth in the region must be very heavily hedged.

But the unexpected can sometimes be positive. Brazil pulled out of recession in the first quarter of this year as the economy continued to confound expectations about the pace of recovery from the January currency crisis which brought a devaluation and a very sharp rise in interest rates. This means that Latin America's largest economy, which has suffered two successive quarters of declining GDP, has now technically come out of recession. Nobody thought that it would happen so soon. The January devaluation convinced many economists that there would be a severe recession this year and perhaps a much dreaded return to high inflation. But here again over-confidence would be misplaced. Investors are currently worrying about the likelihood of increased interest rates in the United States and the difficult economic situation in Argentina. Domestically, a great deal in Brazil will depend on whether the Government can strictly enforce the proposed fiscal responsibility law to restrain municipal and state government spending.

What happens in Brazil matters enormously to the rest of Latin America, but what happens in Argentina also matters a great deal. New curbs on provincial government spending, a commitment to a new fiscal convertibility law to place limits on deficits and clarification of the issue of currency convertibility will help enormously. Argentina and Brazil are key members of Mercosur, the embryonic customs union linking those two countries with Paraguay and Uruguay. Mercosur has been under a great deal of stress recently because of problems in Brazil and Argentina. While there has been much progress in removing tariffs from intra-group trade, there has been too little progress on non-tariff barriers, even less progress towards a common external tariff, and little sign of any movement towards common macro-economic targets, which will be very important if Mercosur is to be more than just a NAFTA-style free trade area and become a real customs unions like the EU, which was the intention of its founders.

That said, the governments of Brazil and Argentina have invested far too much political capital in the agreement to allow it to collapse. Let us not forget that Chile and Bolivia are associates and Venezuela has ambitions to become a member. There is a great deal of political capital tied up in Mercosur and therefore I do not believe that they will allow it to collapse. It is therefore deeply worrying that the European Union is currently treating Mercosur in such a cavalier fashion. The noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, have made reference to this. It was, after all, the European Union Commission, admittedly under very strong but understandable pressure from Spain, which proposed late last year a comprehensive free trade agreement with Mercosur. The two trade blocs were expected to start formal negotiations on a trade deal at the 28th to 29th June Latin American-EU Summit in Rio de Janeiro which is just upon us. That summit brings together the heads of state of 22 Latin American and 15 European countries.

But at the EU's General Affairs Council last week an eleventh hour effort to overcome internal disagreements on a common EU position to take to the summit was not even attempted. It is true that Kosovo was very high on the agenda at that meeting, but the EU-Mercosur issue was simply swept off the agenda. Some European Union countries such as France. Ireland and, to a certain extent, Italy oppose the idea of a trade agreement because they—in particular France—fear the opening up of Europe's farm markets to Latin American products. But the exclusion of agriculture makes a deal much less attractive to Mercosur countries and could only fall foul of WTO regulations.

A compromise is still being worked out in the EU under which talks may start late in 2000 on relatively easy issues, such as non-tariff barriers and trade in services, while the big issues, such as tariffs in agriculture, will be delayed until the WTO millennium round is well under way, or even until the date that it is completed some time in 2003. This really is not good enough. If the World Trade Organisation round resulted in the EU opening its doors to agricultural products, it would help solve a major problem for the Mercosur countries, but not until 2003. In any case there is no guarantee of that.

In the meantime, the European Union will go empty-handed to Rio, and Mercosur countries may well be tempted in their frustration to turn northwards to NAFTA. As was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Walker, in his remarkable maiden speech, if that happens perhaps they will in any case come up against a brick wall in the form of the United States Congress. What a terrible lost opportunity for Europe. Latin America deserves very much better than this from Europe, and in the interests of Europe and Latin America Europe must deliver.

My Lords, it is at this stage of the debate that I begin to regret putting down my name on the list of speakers. The speeches have been so learned and knowledgeable that I cannot begin to match them. I do not have the knowledge of economics or politics to do so. Nevertheless, I am hugely grateful to the noble Viscount for tabling this debate. I look at the whole South American scene in a different way. In spite of my lack of knowledge of economics—I have a passing acquaintanceship with it which I would not dare to air before the noble Lord, Lord Walker—I married a woman who carries an Argentine as well as a British passport. That gives me a completely different insight into South American affairs.

My wife has a large family of her own that stretches from the Paraguayan border down to Carmen de Patagones, all through the province of Chubut in Patagonia, Bariloche, San Martin de los Andes and also into Chile. Some of them, grandchildren, are English; some are Chilean, but most of them are Argentine. They provide a wonderful network of information as to what people in those countries feel at that level rather than at the high level of economics and guessing what is likely to happen to the Mercosur, America or whatever.

Apart from that, there is no other country that I have visited except Paraguay. I start with a word about that. Reference has been made to democracy. It is absolutely splendid that democracy has, so to speak. come to South America. Some English people do not realise that it is not precisely the same kind of democracy as we have here, not just because it is presidential rather than parliamentary but because of the nature of the people. That is the whole fun of it—or that is how I look at it.

Some years ago, I had the pleasure of entertaining to lunch President Wasmosy of Paraguay and the whole of his Cabinet. They had come over en bloc on a business visit and they wanted to see fish farming, which I could show them. The noble Baroness was there. I remember her telling me, which I did not know, that Wasmosy was the first pluralistically, democratically elected president of Paraguay ever since the conquistadores. It is, therefore, not just fragile; on occasions, it is quite new.

The noble Baroness referred to "a rather messy affair". Indeed it was. The vice-president had just been shot, a calculated act. I know this because an ex-ambassador to the Court of St. James was staying with me two nights ago and I learnt that they have apparently caught the fellow who fired the bullet. Cars were closing in, bodyguards were being avoided, and so on. They do not yet know who was behind it. It was miserable. However, one has to be a little cautious with some of those countries about how long democracy will last. I am sure that it will strengthen with the years, but it is still quite new.

Perhaps I can, so to speak, go southwards to the Argentine, a country in which I worked in a very lowly manner from 1948 until about 1950. I fell in love with the country and the people and I still think that it is a most wonderful place. Then, most unhappily, the war began. My wife and I found ourselves in a ridiculous position. I had a godchild in the Welsh Guards who avoided being burnt on "The Galahad" but who might well have come face to face in war with her nephews. For us, this was an extraordinarily unhappy period. We did not know what was going to happen next. Then the war was over. It is arguable that the main question was never precisely resolved.

The noble Viscount then got together with friends on both sides of the Atlantic, and also with an American friend of great talent who lived in Buenos Aires and England most of his life, and formed—I think I am right on the title—the ABC, the Argentine-British Conferences. These were designed to follow the konigswinter conferences after the German war. Groups of important people from each country—about 16 strong, two chairmen, no communiqué at the end, no press, say what you like—got together about every two years, first of all in the Argentine and later in England. We lived together—I was there twice or three times—either in an hotel or an Oxford College, we had breakfast, lunch and dinner together, and people of importance got to know each other.

I truly believe that it is all very well to have matters settled on a high political basis, but it is important to get a start with people both knowing each other and suddenly realising that what one called a foreigner was, after all, a very nice fellow who you could get on well with; it worked both ways. The people who organised it should be congratulated.

I mention this particularly because I feel that it would be valuable if it were kept going. I believe that the Königswinter conferences went on for a long time. I do not know whether they still go on. Not only did they help the whole political process, which ended very happily with the Prince of Wales going to Buenos Aires and President Menhem coming to this country for a highly successful visit, but they cannot do any harm if they are carried on a little further still.

I must return to the family network in Chile, who are very unhappy indeed. The telephone rang almost straight away to say, "It is no good trying to fly a Union Jack"—I shall not say in which town it was, but it was a big town—"because they have all been burnt". Perpetually, there seemed to be a total lack of understanding, not just in Chile but perhaps on my part as well, of how this matter is progressing.

Some of the newspapers said the other day that the appeals might go on for years. I do not understand the law any more than I understand economics. The law obviously has to be obeyed, but I state quite firmly that as far as I am concerned, and as far as the people in Chile who I know are concerned, the General should be allowed to go home. Otherwise, I fear that we will lose a very good friend. In the Argentine, we have a very good friend now. Chile was always a good friend. That has been lost; trade has been lost; the sale of two destroyers has been lost. Chileans have telephoned me to say that life is going to be very difficult for the Brits in Chile. One knows one or two who work there and who rely on work there.

I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness in her reply will be able to give us some sort of reassurance that this matter is not going to go on and on, until possibly the General becomes ill, or may even die, and this would cause untold trouble.

My time is up. I shall end, before the figure 11 comes up on the clock, by saying a quick word about the environment. The Argentine east coast and the Chilean fisheries are the only fisheries in the world which have not been beaten to death. Please let us ensure that they stay that way.

My Lords, I wish to concentrate on one of the smaller countries in Latin America, namely Uruguay. Before doing so, I join in the tributes to the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery. He said that he had spent 23 years in this House. I know that he has actually spent 40 years promoting better relationships between the United Kingdom and Latin America. He said that this may be his valedictory address. I point out to him that nine of the 13 speakers in tonight's debate are in the same boat as he is, and I hope that it is not a valedictory address for any of us!

With regard to bilateral relations between the United Kingdom and Uruguay, they have a long history which goes back to the origins of Uruguay's independence from Spanish rule at the beginning of the 19th century. A treaty of trade and friendship between the two nations was signed in 1815. I believe I am right in saying that there has since then been a mutually beneficial relationship which has grown stronger over the years.

Today, Uruguay plays an important role in Mercosur, of which we have heard a lot this evening, it being the seat of the secretariat of this agreement, as well as its geographic centre, offering its financial and brokerage expertise to its partners in Mercosur and to third countries wishing to use its developed telecommunications and infrastructure.

I want to talk mainly about bilateral relationships and particularly about trade and investment, scientific and technical co-operation and cultural co-operation. Dealing first with trade and investment, Uruguay has undergone a huge process of industrial restructuring so as to adapt to the new trade environment created by Mercosur. The United Kingdom has played and can continue to play an important part in this process, not just as a provider of capital goods but as a direct investor in industry in Uruguay. British firms such as British Gas and Shell, to mention two examples, have either started new businesses or expanded existing ones in Uruguay as a result of the privatisation of the public utilities, a point that was briefly referred to by noble friend Lord Grenfell. But we have competitors in Uruguay, The Americans, the French and the Germans are also investing ever more in Uruguay.

Uruguay has seen a healthy increase in its GDP, with a 3 per cent average for the past 10 years, and it has also seen a significant reduction in its inflation rate. Uruguay, per capita, is now the second most successful country in Latin America. It is second only to Argentina. British exporters have played their part in creating this success and have benefited from it. However, there is great room for improvement, particularly in the areas of mining, agri-business and tourism. There are tremendous tax advantages to investing in Uruguay. There are no Customs duties or VAT and there is no income tax.

The second issue to which I wish to refer briefly is scientific and technical co-operation. Uruguay is an important exporter of beef, wool, leather and dairy products. There is ample room for co-operation in this field through direct bilateral talks and particularly between our scientific institutions. The Royal Agricultural Society has an ongoing relationship with the State University of Uruguay and I hope that they will be able to share their knowledge on animal health, breeding and genetics. That could be a great area of co-operation for years to come. In addition, Uruguay is also a consultative party to the Antarctic Treaty and has two permanent installations there currently developing scientific and technological programmes in the region. Britain and Uruguay are already co-operating in logistics and fishing under that framework. That relationship is mutually beneficial. The British Antarctic Survey and the relevant Uruguay national authority could co-operate further in the scientific and technological fields.

On a slightly more negative note, perhaps I may refer to cultural co-operation. My noble friend Lord Rea referred to the importance of the British Council. I have to report to the House that the British Council office in Montevideo was closed a number of years ago, which is regrettable. That situation is rather awkwardly referred to by the Uruguayans. They do not understand why it has happened and they certainly think that there is a strong case for reopening the British Council office, particularly when Uruguay has one of the highest percentages of population which speaks English as a second language in Latin America. I hope that my noble friend will be able to say something about the prospect of reopening the British Council office in Uruguay.

In opening my contribution to the debate, I referred to the long history of relations between this country and Uruguay. I have to declare a personal interest because one of my ancestors, John Ponsonby, was a founder of Uruguay. Indeed, he is sometimes referred to as the "midwife" of Uruguay. The truth of the matter is that he shared a girlfriend with the Prince Regent at the time and was sent there by the Foreign Office. What happened is that the Prince Regent got the girl and Uruguay got its independence. I am very pleased about that and I am particularly pleased because the Uruguay authorities honoured my ancestor in a number of ways. I am pleased and proud that they thought fit to do so.

My Lords, I, too, give my thanks to my noble friend for introducing this timely debate. We all know what a valuable contribution he has made to relations between this country and Latin America.

I should like to address my remarks to the country of Chile. This country occupies a very special part in my family's history. Indeed it is precisely because of this history that I have the privilege to be Chile's Honorary Consul in Scotland.

The Royal Navy owes a great deal of its current, although temporarily strained, relationship with Chile's navy to my ancestor, Thomas Cochrane, later the tenth Earl of Dundonald. In 1818 Chile sought its independence from the yoke of Spain, but it could not dislodge Spanish naval power. My ancestor answered the call, went to Chile at the invitation of Bernado O'Higgins and proceeded to kick Spanish and Portuguese sea power out of Chile, Peru and Brazil. He was not alone; there were many other British answering the call to establish the fledgling democracies of this great continent.

It is interesting to note that the British government of the day passed the Foreign Enlistment Act to prevent men like my ancestor from helping these fledgling democracies. Britain liked to interfere in other countries' development as much then as it does now. The only difference is that the tools and tone have changed considerably.

My ancestor's influence in the Chilean navy continues to this day. Every year on Chilean Navy Day the ambassador and the naval attach lay a wreath on his grave in Westminster Abbey. The First Sea Lord of the British Admiralty is normally in attendance.

The Chileans, as a result of early and continued British influence, have a very great regard for both the traditions and our sense of fairness in this country. Chile has as a result been a good and loyal friend to Britain and has had, as a result, a far less troubled political history than some of its neighbours. Chile continues to maintain strong political and economic links with Britain. Many British businesses continue to have a strong presence in the country and in the course of the past 10 years UK plc has invested heavily, reaping considerable returns from the fast growing but stable economy.

I have always had a close relationship with a number of Chilean people. I had a Chilean godfather, the late Victor Santa Cruz, who was ambassador in London in the 1960s. One of my father's closest friends, the late Cran Kendrick, was the Honorary British Consul in Valpariaso for more than 20 years. He used to visit us in the UK regularly. His daughter was a regular visitor to our home throughout my childhood and I have a number of close Chilean friends.

During the Allende presidency I remember well the stories of the armed gangs roaming the streets of the outlying areas of Santiago and businesses and farms being expropriated by the government—in short, government-inspired and supported anarchy. The Allende presidency had lost all control over the country it was supposed to govern. One could more mischievously suggest, and many political historians have already done so, that it was the presidency itself promoting the armed lawlessness. It is no wonder then that a desperate parliament towards the end of that ill-fated presidency invited the military to take control of the country in order to rid the country of a state of near revolution. They had of course underestimated the resolve of one member of that junta, General Pinochet. They had thought that the junta, having cleared the near anarchy from the streets of the capital, would simply hand back power to the parliament. The rest, as they say, is history. Pinochet consolidated his position and became dictator.

I wonder how we would react to a similar threat to this country—we who sit on comfortable red Benches in the oldest democratic parliament in the world. If we were faced with near revolution on the streets of our cities, would we call in the army to sort it out? I do not expect an answer to that question. I just want all of us to understand the political environment that catapulted General Pinochet to become dictator of his own country.

What the junta did is known to all. It is well documented. Few noble Lords present tonight would seek to justify some of the brutal excesses in the early years of that regime. But the junta did rescue the country from the very brink of political and economic disaster. None of us can deny that achievement. Some people will of course argue that the cost was far too high. But who could tell the cost that might have befallen Chile if Allende had remained?

Pinochet was eventually persuaded by all political parties to hand power back to Parliament and have full democracy restored. There were strings attached but, importantly, they were fully understood and accepted. Moreover, the judiciary accepted them. A plebiscite returned a new president. Pinochet, who had polled more than 40 per cent of the popular vote—more than most British Prime Ministers succeed in doing in their lifetime—and handed power over to his successor. This was a story with a happy ending. A compromise certainly: but Chile was once again on her democratic way.

The relationship between the UK and Chile at government, social and economic levels once again flourished; and relations were more than normalised. Then suddenly a wildcard magistrate in Spain thinks he can go for gold. He applies to the UK for extradition of the general. He is a magistrate in the very country that Chile fought to remove in 1818; the very country which fought a bloody civil war of her own; the very country that has only just returned to normalised democracy and might indeed have sunk once again into a dictatorship had not its newly installed king intervened personally. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

We must hope that our morally intoned Home Secretary properly took, and continues to take, into account all issues—this very same Home Secretary who as a young impressionable man travelled to Chile to meet the man who single handedly almost took his country over the brink: President Allende. The right and only decision for this Home Secretary is to send the General back to his country to face whatever music his fellow countrymen wish to play.

My Lords, before this matter is allowed to go uncorrected and unchallenged into Hansard, the noble Earl said that the Home Secretary had gone to Chile in order to meet, he implied, President Allende. The noble Earl would be well advised to think carefully about that. I understand that that has been completely denied. I do not want to get into this issue, but I think that the noble Earl should withdraw what he has just said about the Home Secretary.

My Lords, I withdraw that comment. All I say is that I understand that a photograph was taken of the Home Secretary meeting the president on his visit. If that is not the case, I certainly withdraw the remark.

What right have the Home Secretary and this Government to dictate what should happen to a former head of state in another sovereign country? What right has the Home Secretary to interfere with the settled will of the Chilean people? The attitude of the Government is somewhat disturbing.

The Chilean people have been slighted. Their new democracy seems robust but it is being put under unnecessary pressure. We are holding a former head of state against his will: the very same head of state who less than 10 years ago secured more than 40 per cent of the vote. If the Home Secretary and this Government think that this action is not damaging and destabilising to the democracy of Chile, then they live in a different world. Relations between the two countries have been put under unnecessary strain. The Chileans think of us as great friends. Why have we slighted this very good friend of ours?

The Minister must persuade the Home Secretary. She must say, "Don't demean the settled will of the Chilean people with the judicial argument". The buck stops with this Government and nowhere else. They have the ability, I hope very soon, to restore relations with this wonderful country, a country that has few equals as to its claims to friendship with Britain. They have the ability to pour the metaphorical oil on troubled political waters in Chile.

I challenge this Government to pick up the gauntlet, send Pinochet back to his country, and stop interfering in the fundamental democratic foundations of another sovereign state. It is never too late to have a change of heart. The Chilean people will thank this Government for it from the bottom of their heart.

My Lords, I pay warm tribute to the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, for the assiduity and competence with which he has always raised Latin American matters in this House. In the early days we did not always see eye to eye, in particular on the question of Argentina after 1976 when I had been there as an Amnesty representative to look at what the generals were doing. But now things have been transformed. Perhaps I may say to the noble Viscount that if we have a different electoral system, when the tumbrels begin to roll I shall certainly vote for his retention as one of the 91; and I hope that his colleagues will have the sense to do so.

I also warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Walker, on his maiden speech. I was not surprised to hear him say that he was rising with some trepidation in a field of such distinguished speakers. But he need not have worried. He matched the other contributions to this debate, excellent though they have all been, and I hope that we shall hear many times in the future from the noble Lord, Lord Walker, both on Latin America and on the many other issues on which he spoke with such great distinction in another place.

Noble Lords have said, I think to a man, that there has been a great transformation in the Latin American region from the military systems which operated in so many of the countries when the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, first entered this House, to the almost universally democratic form of government that we see today. The noble Viscount mentioned that even Cuba claims to have a democratic system. I noted that at the OAS meeting that has just taken place, a unanimous resolution was passed saying that Cuba should be admitted to the OAS. I think that we are all getting a little fed up with the American attitude to Cuba which smacks so much of the Cold War in the 1960s. Perhaps it does not have the perfect democracy that we should like to see it enjoying, but we should do everything possible to promote the democratic system in Cuba. It is absurd for the Americans to bear such a grudge against one country which can do them no harm whatever.

Several noble Lords mentioned the EU Mercosur Summit and the dangers of a difficult situation because of what has just happened in Cologne. I agreed with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, said on that. We embarked on a project to have free trade and economic co-operation between our two regions. That was supposed to begin at the summit at the end of this month. Then, because of agricultural concerns, the proposal was watered down. The Germans produced a compromise in which this was not to begin until December 2000. At the last minute the whole phrase was struck out. We now have nothing to go on. As the noble Lord said, there is a danger that the Rio Summit will be a damp squib and that the relations between the European Union and the Mercosur states will suffer a serious setback. I do not know whether anything can be done at this late stage to rescue that; probably not, although the noble Lord believes that we could begin to consider how we can resuscitate these negotiations on the improved trade between our two regions.

Several noble Lords mentioned our relations with Argentina. The noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, said that President Menem's visit to the UK at the end of October 1998 was an outstanding success, which indeed it was, and a significant milestone in the relationships between our two countries which have proved the success of the notion of the sovereignty umbrella under which it was agreed that we would pursue normalisation without prejudice to any remaining differences on the Falklands.

The fact is that Argentina is now our second largest trading partner, and that we have, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said, excellent co-operation on a number of issues other than trade, including UN peacekeeping, the fight against drug trafficking, and so on. We have in Argentina a partner which is a stable democracy, heading for closely fought presidential elections in October between the ruling Peronists and the opposition Alianza coalition. As has been said, whoever wins, there will be no sharp change of direction as the opposition candidate, Fernando de la Rua, has pledged to maintain parity of the peso with the dollar.

Mention was made by the noble Lord, Lord Walker, of the wonderful treaty which has been signed between Argentina and Chile which ends more than a century of border conflicts between the two neighbours, which must be good for regional stability and expansion of bilateral projects such as oil and gas pipelines, linking electricity supplies and mutual investment, in which British firms can participate. Even on the Falklands, as has been said, there is good news, with talks aimed at admitting Argentine visitors to the islands and the establishment of an air route between Port Stanley and the mainland. La Nacion reports that Foreign Minister Guido di Tella is optimistic about the next round which is due to be held next month in New York, and it would be useful if the Minister could tell the House when she winds up what points still have to be resolved at that meeting.

Chile is another success story, which has been mentioned by several of your Lordships, since its return to democracy in 1990 and it is set to continue on the same path with the change of presidency next March when the ruling centre-left coalition candidate, Ricardo Lagos, will almost certainly continue where Eduardo Frei leaves off.

I beg to differ with the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald. I think our relations with Chile are not irreparably damaged by the legal proceedings against the former dictator Pinochet. I think those proceedings are widely welcomed by many people in Chile and certainly they are by the Chilean exile community. Perhaps we speak to different groups of Chileans. When one looks at how the matter is reported in the Chilean press, there is not really a case for the picture of gloom and despondency about our relations which the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald painted a few minutes ago.

Like the Minister. I do not want to go into the case against Pinochet, but I feel I have to mention that it has far wider implications than just our relationship with Chile because it has sent a message to would-be dictators everywhere that, under the new regime of universal jurisdiction for torture, the perpetrators are answerable before courts all over the world, and that heads of state have no immunity. At the EU-Latin America Summit we should invite the states of Latin America to join us in ratifying the statute of the International Criminal Court, which covers an even wider range of offences and specifically provides that heads of state are subject to the court's jurisdiction. Several of the states of Latin America have already signed the convention and I hope that, as a result of the meeting in Rio, we can move forward—Latin Americans and Europeans jointly—towards early ratification.

In the few minutes that are left to me I want to say something about the situation in Colombia which was dealt with very skilfully by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. The US Drug Enforcement Agency says that Colombia tops the world in the sense that 55 references are made to Colombia in its annual report. It is also the state with the highest level of internal armed conflict in the region, with not one but two separate armed opposition groups and also the paramilitaries, which are headed by a Mr Carlos Castatio who is deeply involved in the drugs trade himself.

President Pastrana is committed officially to severing the links between the paramilitaries and the army, but he has not made any discernible progress in that direction. Those people have enormous power in Colombia because of the sums of money in which they deal but, to give you one indication of the scale of the operations, in one bust against the Galeano drug empire last year, 5,000 kilograms of cocaine were destroyed at a single laboratory, one of several belonging to this organisation. The traffickers also own huge amounts of land, including parcels in no less than 40 per cent of the country's municipalities. Clearly it is in our interests that President Pastrana should succeed in eliminating the cocaine mafias, as well as cutting the connection between the army and the paramilitaries.

In conclusion, I ask the noble Baroness what assistance we are going to give to Colombia in this war against the paramilitaries, the guerrillas and the drug mafia who are so closely in league together and who are bidding fair to destroy Colombia as an entity.

My Lords, before I entered another place as a rather nervous young man in my twenties I had the good fortune to learn a great deal about British political life from my noble friend Lord Walker. Possibly unwittingly, he was instrumental in increasing my confidence to a level commensurate with completing a candidate's application form to Conservative Central Office. I have never ceased to respect my noble friend for his beliefs, nor have I been deflected from my admiration for his contribution. It is a personal privilege from this Bench to be able to pay tribute to him on his maiden speech here, which is somewhat embarrassing given what I have just said about his contribution towards my political career and, most importantly, from a personal perspective to thank him very much indeed.

I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate my noble friend Lord Montgomery on securing this important debate on political developments in Latin America. I focus my comments on the outstanding contribution he has made over the years. I am sure that there is not the remotest possibility that my noble friend will not emerge victorious should he decide, as I hope he will, to offer his candidature in the elections for representative hereditary Peers should the relevant government legislation be enacted, because his expertise on Latin America is second to none and the Conservative Party and indeed the House would be significantly the poorer for his absence.

I agree with my noble friend that it is a matter of deep regret that in Latin America there is a perception, fed by infrequent ministerial visits, remarkably few speeches by Foreign Office Ministers and even fewer debates in this House and another place, that the present Government take little interest in Latin America. The Prime Minister's decision to cancel his trip this month to Rio de Janeiro to attend the summit meeting between the EU and South American states, while completely understandable in the circumstances, is in this respect most unfortunate.

I hope that the Minister's response to today's debate will be a first step in dispelling the regrettable impression that relations with Latin America are not among the foremost of this Government's global foreign policy priorities. I hope that she will emphasise the Government's commitment to developing relations and strengthening ties with Latin America into the next century. To do otherwise would indeed he a false economy. The United Kingdom and Latin America together can take a great many sensible and important steps forward in enabling Latin America to become a key emerging market, growing in importance within the global economy. Indeed, I believe that Latin America and the southern cone region in particular, as my noble friend Lord Walker mentioned, present one of the most exciting and dynamic opportunities of the next century. Here I must also declare an interest as Managing Director of the independent Power Corporation. In declaring an interest, I echo the praise given to our ambassadors and their staff in Latin America. It is fairly rare, as a number of your Lordships will know, to attend foreign affairs debates on a regular basis. It is fairly rare to hear such extensive praise heaped on our diplomatic staff, but in my experience, certainly my commercial experience over the past I0 years in Latin America, this praise tonight from all quarters of this House is richly deserved.

There is a broad consensus, and has been throughout the debate, on the need to deal with Latin American issues within the emerging democratic and constitutional framework. In each case, constitutional processes, democracy and the rule of law have not been sidestepped in the region's rapid development, demonstrating, in my view, the increasing political maturity of both the Latin American leadership and the electorate. The peaceful resolution of the border dispute between Ecuador and Peru last month is yet another excellent example of that new-found maturity.

Nevertheless, although the countries of Latin America have made a common commitment to follow the path of representative democracy, in particular in the 1991 Santiago Commitment, strengthened at the 1994 Miami Summit, that path is still a steep one, beset by obstacles and challenges. As my noble friend Lord Radnor reminded us about Latin American democracy, neither democracy nor prosperity can endure unless they are broadly based—indeed, as broadly based as his family.

The policies of free markets and of open investment, which are the keys to sustained growth, will not be fully unlocked while people feel shut out and left behind. Fairness before the law is not an option for some while institutional weaknesses remain.

We should not forget that Latin America has the highest income inequality in the world. Too many still remain cut off from the benefits of the new global economy. The Inter-American Development Bank estimates that in Latin America the top 20 per cent of the population receive one-quarter of the income, while the poorest 30 per cent receive only 8 per cent of the income—a lower proportion than anywhere else in the world. To put it in more contemporary and stark terms, one in every three people in Latin America and the Caribbean live on less than two dollars a day.

So, unless democracy and the market system improve the lot of those people—a fact recognised and addressed with innovative policies by a number of South American politicians, not least the outstanding former president of Bolivia, President Goni Sanchez de Lozada, in his capitalisation initiative—this will remain a threat to stability and political freedom. The disenfranchisement of the urban poor, of rural indigenous people and of the uneducated everywhere threatens to become an increasingly volatile political issue if growth is not seen to be bringing tangible benefits to all levels of society. Poverty brings with it the sinister bedfellows of crime, of drug abuse, of poor education, to which a number of noble lords have referred, and of poor health.

The key to democratic stability must be the establishment of a strong middle class with a vested interest in the political stability of the country. The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, alluded to that. The examples of Chile and its pension funds and, in the much wider and further-afield context, of Taiwan, and more recently of the capitalisation programme in Bolivia, bear testimony to the importance of developing a strong middle class—a middle class which has a vested interest in the stability of the country. For too long, one has had a series of élites with a large, disenfranchised majority. As the élites go abroad and those from America return to run a number of these countries, that transition among the élite at one level has had significant detrimental effects on a disenfranchised urban and rural poor.

It is that establishment of a middle class, through such initiatives as the Chilean pension schemes, that allows the stability that is essential economically to back political stability in those countries. We are seeing such economic developments now. They are praiseworthy and I hope that the Government will support them, not least through debt development swaps and further debt relief work to ensure that in the poorest countries of Latin America significant progress can be made towards enhancing and reinforcing the middle class and the stability that flows from having a strong and enfranchised middle class.

In the last few moments of my contribution, I should like to comment on our relationship with Chile. I am well aware, as the noble Baroness knows, that today is not the occasion to discuss the Government's handling of Senator Pinochet's extradition case, and I do not intend to do so. However, I should like to ask the Minister—this is a question that has rightly been asked by a number of other noble Lords this evening—to what extent she believes that our commercial and political relationship with Chile has been affected by the case, particularly with regard to the Falkland Islanders.

As the Minister will be aware, last December Chile and Argentina issued a joint declaration in which Chile for the first time officially recognised Argentina's claim to the Falkland Islands. That was followed by the cessation of LanChile flights to and from the Falkland Islands at the end of March when its contract with the Falkland Islands Development Corporation expired. Can the Minister explain why, on 20th April this year, in another place, the Foreign Secretary insisted that the continuation of that contract was a commercial matter for discussion between LanChile and the Falkland Islands Development Corporation when, in fact, the Government of Chile had issued a decree prohibiting Chilean carriers from flying to the Falklands with effect from 10th April, particularly given the Government's knowledge of the Chilean Government's decision last December to ask Chilean carriers not to fly to the Falklands Why did not the Government take the opportunity to remind the Chilean Foreign Minister of the commercial and social benefits for remote communities both in the Falklands and in southern Chile, when the flights first stopped at the end of March instead of waiting until four weeks later?

One hundred and fifty years ago, Simon Bolivar said that he wanted Latin America to be measured not by her vast wealth and area, but.

"by her freedom and glory".

That day is not yet here, but Bolivar's vision is nearer than at any time in Latin America's past. If the region continues to make progress at its current rate as we enter a new century, the day will come in Latin America when, across the continent, growth is increased; living standards are improved; a modern and well educated workforce is built up; poverty is decreased; income inequality is narrowed; democracy is consolidated and open markets have become an integral part of Latin American institutions and culture.

Britain and Latin America have a joint interest in political stability, in the promotion of democracy, in the security of our investments, and in further developing a thriving and growing trading partnership. I say to the Minister that Latin America offers a compelling case for closer active British engagement, and I look forward to her response.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, for introducing this debate. In his years in your Lordships' House the noble Viscount has shown an unrivalled commitment to the Latin American region, and he has amply demonstrated his expertise tonight. He called this debate his "valedictory". As with so many other noble Lords, I can only say, "I hope not". We greatly value the noble Viscount's contributions on this important part of the world and we acknowledge the high regard in which he is held by the Latin American community.

I should also like to associate myself with the warm comments made by many noble Lords about the knowledgeable and impressive maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Walker of Worcester. Like other noble Lords, I look forward to his future contributions.

I am particularly glad that the noble Viscount called this debate now; it is very timely. As has been mentioned, in just three weeks, the EU/Latin America and Caribbean Summit will take place in Rio de Janeiro. That will be a landmark event in the development of relations between our two regions. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister is very disappointed at being unable to attend. He is telephoning President Cardoso this evening to express his regret. The deadline for devolution in Northern Ireland is 30th June, as your Lordships are well aware, and the Prime Minister must stand ready to do whatever is necessary to help the parties to reach agreement. He has nominated my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary as his representative at the summit. He will be accompanied by my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean. We are anxious to ensure that the summit, as well as providing an opportunity for the leaders of both regions to get together for bilateral meetings, will lead to substantive action that benefits the people of both regions.

The noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. and the noble Lords, Lord Grenfell and Lord Avebury, referred to the particular expectations of the Mercosur countries at the summit concerning EU/Mercosur and EU/Chile free trade agreements. The Government understand their interests and have been working for an EU compromise which would promote comprehensive trade liberalisation on both sides. We do not have the same problems on agricultural products as some of our European partners, but we recognise that those problems exist and need to be taken into account in the negotiations.

The World Trade Organisation multilateral negotiations are due to begin next year, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned. Any new EU/Mercosur and EU/Chile trade agreements must be compatible with the WTO principles. We have therefore agreed for discussions to begin soon about practical ways in which our two regions can co-operate in the WTO round and for bilateral negotiations about free trade between our regions to begin in 2000. That will be discussed further at the next General Affairs Council on 21st June. I hope that that explanation answers the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.

Mercosur countries should know that our goal is the same as theirs; to press ahead to achieve comprehensive trade liberalisation as quickly as possible. This should include all products, including agricultural ones. Staying with commercial issues, in 1998 UK exports to Latin America totalled £2,962 million. Our exports over the previous decade grew at an annual rate of some 12 per cent, second only to our exports to Eastern Europe. In some countries we are doing particularly well; in Venezuela, for example, where UK exports increased by 20 per cent from 1997 to 1998. As regards investment, the UK is among the top investors in the region. I say that in order to paint a brighter picture than some of the pessimistic ones that have been put on the trade relationships between Britain and Latin America.

In addition, on 26th April, my noble friend Lady Amos informed the House of the measures we have taken to help alleviate the suffering of those affected by Hurricane Mitch, mentioned in the intervention of my noble friend Lord Grenfell. We will continue to play our part alongside others in the process of reconstruction. The UK is also at the forefront of international discussions to increase debt relief for the world's poorest countries.

I wish to pay tribute to the achievements of Latin American countries in the field of political and economic reform. There have been dramatic changes, as the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, and others such as the noble Lords, Lord Walker and Lord Grenfell, made clear tonight. Twenty years ago, more than 60 per cent of the region's populations were ruled by dictatorships and Latin America is now governed by elected civilian politicians. We do not underestimate the problems they face. For example, as pointed out by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, Paraguay has had problems. Its governmental system was severely tested in the spring.

With encouragement from its Mercosur neighbours, Paraguay has maintained control of the democratic process. The settlement of the border dispute between Peru and Ecuador is also very welcome, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, pointed out. My honourable friend, Mr Tony Lloyd, was able to walk across the border during his visit to the region in January this year.

We also welcome the increasing normalisation of relations between Guatemala and Belize, and moves towards greater cross-border co-operation. We continue to encourage both sides to explore the options for a settlement of a long-standing dispute between them and we stand ready to help where we can.

In Colombia, about which the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, spoke with such a depth of knowledge and understanding, to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and my noble friend Lord Rea, also referred, President Pastrana has begun peace talks with the FARC guerrillas, for which an agenda was agreed in May. With our EU partners, we have strongly supported this process in public statements and have reiterated our readiness to help the Colombian Government in any way we can. But as some noble Lords painted out in the debate, there continue to be disturbing cases of human rights abuses in many of the countries of the region. These give us great cause for concern.

Protection of human rights is an integral component of our foreign policy strategy. We take every opportunity to raise our concerns and we support, both directly and through collaboration with interested NGOs, the efforts of these countries to improve the situation. There is a need for stronger measures to bring to justice those responsible for abuses, as various noble Lords pointed out, including the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. If Latin American countries wish to be seen as having come fully of age as mature democracies, their administrations must address these problems.

The UK is fully committed to the international fight against drugs. That topic was also referred to by several noble Lords tonight. We are interested in any measures which will reduce and eventually eliminate the supply of drugs. Latin America is the main source of cocaine consumed world-wide. An action plan on counter drugs strategy was recently approved at a high level meeting between the EU, Latin American and Caribbean governments. We expect that it will be endorsed at the EU/Latin American/Caribbean Summit in Rio at the end of this month.

The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, mentioned Mexico. I am pleased that he did because it is an important country. UK/Mexico relations have strengthened since President Zedillo came to power in 1994. During his visit to the UK in October 1998, he and the Prime Minister signed a UK/Mexico joint action plan. This co-operation is reinforced by regular ministerial contacts and high-level political dialogue.

I am conscious that my time is limited, so I wish to turn to two specific topics touched on by the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, and the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. It is particularly timely to consider our relationship with Argentina as part of this debate. We welcome the continuing improvement in our relations in recent years. The task of rebuilding our relationship has been made easier because the two countries have had special ties of friendship and shared interests stretching back almost two centuries. Indeed, the warmth of that historical friendship served to emphasise the tragic nature of the events in 1982, about which the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, spoke most movingly.

As the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, mentioned, the visits of President Menem to the UK in October 1998 and of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to Argentina and the Falkland Islands in March 1999 contributed to the creation of a new spirit of understanding and reconciliation between the UK and Argentina.

Noble Lords will be aware that a meeting took place in London in May between the UK and Argentine delegations, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, to discuss issues of common interest in the South Atlantic. The talks were held in a friendly, open and constructive atmosphere, building on the new spirit in our relationship. Both delegations agreed that they would continue to work together to find ways of making progress over a range of South Atlantic issues of common interest. They agreed to meet again as soon as possible to discuss such issues further. We hope that the first meeting will be the start of a process of dialogue which may in the longer term improve the management of our differences with Argentina on South Atlantic issues.

Secondly, I can assure the House that this Government place great value on our relations with Chile. I have no hesitation in reassuring the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and other noble Lords about that. The links between Britain and Chile are long-standing and mutually advantageous. I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, that as a good Scot I had heard about his illustrious ancestor many times from any Chilean friend I ever met.

I say to the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, that I shall not go into matters that, in my opinion, are sub judice.

Chile's liberal free market approach to trade, which we share, is an example to others, as are the sound economic policies which Chile has pursued over the past decade. We fully recognise the difficulties that successive Chilean governments have had to overcome to achieve a successful transition to democracy.

We have kept in close touch with the Chilean Government since Senator Pinochet's arrest on 16th October. We are aware of the problems that the arrest has caused in Chile. We have taken pains to assure the Chileans that the detention of the senator is entirely a judicial matter relating to our obligations under international law. There is no question of a political motive for the action.

Therefore, we consider that the political measures that Chile has taken against us, including her decision to prohibit the airline LanChile from flying to the Falklands, to be unjustified. That matter was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I can assure him that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has told the Chilean Foreign Minister that we strongly disagree with the decree. Indeed, we hope that the Government of Chile will withdraw all measures introduced against us as soon as possible and that we can work together to keep our relations on track. We firmly believe that it is in the interests of both countries to reduce the risks of further negative consequences to our long-term relations.

My Lords, what prospect is there of an air service between the Falkland Islands and Argentina, raised by Mr Guido di Tella?

My Lords, I am afraid that I am not up to date on that matter. I too have heard of that possibility, but I do not know the details of any negotiations. I shall certainly write to the noble Lord if I find that there are such details.

I want to speak about the importance of direct contacts at high level between our two regions. Some noble Lords, such as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, appear to suggest that we have not done enough about that. Over the past two years there have been some 50 outward ministerial visits to Latin American and Caribbean countries and a number of royal visits. In the past year alone my honourable friend, Tony Lloyd, has visited 10 countries in the region. As mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, four leading Latin American presidents paid official visits to Britain between December 1997 and October 1998, as have two vice-presidents and numerous ministers from the region. Quite rightly, the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, referred to the importance of such contacts. We plan to continue them and to build on that level of contact.

As mentioned, elections are due in Uruguay, Guatemala, Chile and Argentina before the end of the year. New leaders have already been elected in Panama and El Salvador. We shall be working to ensure that our relations with the new administrations are maintained at the same excellent level.

I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the enormous contribution that Canning House, under the excellent presidency of the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, is currently making to the whole question of relationships between Britain and Latin America. The Foreign Office is happy to be giving £40,000 a year as a grant to Canning House.

My noble friend Lord Rea referred to relations with Cuba and particularly to scientific links. I am glad to say that the co-operation to which he referred between the Finlay Institute and the British scientific institutions is progressing and we hope that it will lead to early results.

I now want to refer to a point raised by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, whose illustrious ancestor—about whose personal life my noble friend knows a lot more than I have in my brief—has been described as the midwife at the birth of Uruguay in 1828. In reply to the specific point that my noble friend raised, although the British Council has no office in Montevideo, a programme for Uruguay is managed by the council directorate in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The programme for Uruguay focuses principally on education, English teaching and the arts.

In passing I want to pay tribute to the British Council and the valuable work that it does, together with the cultural, throughout the region. As to the importance of cultural links and the scholarship programmes referred to by my noble friend Lord Rea and the noble Lord, Lord Walker, we entirely agree with what they said about the importance of such activity. The FCO spends about £3 million to £4 million per annum on Latin America, enabling some 240 scholars to study in the UK. We hope that the programme will continue to expand.

I have to welcome the complimentary references to the diplomatic staff throughout Latin America. As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, they have been particularly warm and heartfelt. I believe that they are well-deserved and that the remarks were very generous. I am sure that the staff at the Foreign Office will gratefully read those compliments in the Official Report. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, will understand that I am not in a position to make the long-term establishment commitments on Latin America for which she asked.

In drawing this debate to a close, I again thank the noble Viscount for giving us this opportunity to discuss the subject. The Government are committed to strengthening their partnership with the countries of Latin America and fostering even closer relations as we move into the next century. We share a common history and common values. We are working together to improve international stability, democracy, good governance and an improved quality of life for all the populations of our two regions. The dialogue that we enjoy is open and friendly and we have a lot to learn from each other. In the coming years we intend to improve our co-operation even further for our mutual benefit.

My Lords, I have about one minute to go before the time for this debate expires. I thank noble Lords for the kind remarks that they made about me. They were somewhat over the top. They are a great encouragement to continue the important work of promoting good relations with Latin America.

I also want to congratulate my noble friend Lord Walker on his splendid maiden speech. We need to hear from him as he has great experience.

I want to echo what other noble Lords have said, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, in support of Foreign Office activities in Latin America. We have splendid diplomatic missions and very good British Council offices. It is encouraging to hear what the noble Baroness said about that.

The debate has shown that this is a large subject. We should have more debates on the individual countries and on the various sectors that we have covered. There is far too much to do in this area and, of course, not enough time in which to do it. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.

rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider allowing the limbless a greater choice in deciding who their prosthetist should be and what type of artificial limb to purchase, by introducing a voucher scheme.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, for giving your Lordships the opportunity to discuss this important matter, which is most important to an individual. I ask the question, and perhaps the Minister will answer it when concluding the debate; how high up the priority list in the Department of Health do prostheses and the limb fitting centres come?

I served for several years on the Yorkshire Regional Health Authority. I would look down the agenda when we were discussing plans for the years ahead. The mentally ill would be mentioned, but there would be no mention of the physically disabled population. I would press for an answer. The answer would come that they were incorporated in the budget with other miscellaneous matters. People with disabilities do not deserve to be submerged and sunk without trace!

The House of Lords has had a busy day today with two long debates before this one. Here we are again at the end of a long agenda. The Government are making many changes in the National Health Service; indeed, now is the time to raise this Cinderella service. There seem to be plans to make local communities more responsible for their health services. As many doctors working in the primary health care field have little knowledge and even less interest in long-term disability, I hope the Government will realise that disabled people who need prostheses need what is correct and comfortable for them. They need choice. I have visited limb fitting centres both in Leeds and London. I found dedicated people working to the best of their ability having to spend half their time trying to raise money. They did not have very up-to-date materials to work with and the work places were far from modern.

I hope that the Minister will be able to tell your Lordships tonight how the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) will work. I have a real fear that it may spend most of its time working on the drugs side. I hope that the Government will have the sense to divide it up so that there is a department of NICE that is concerned with drugs and a department that is concerned with looking after all clinical treatments in the health service, including the limb fitting prosthesis centres.

We who respect and honour our National Health Service want it to be the best in the world. It should be consistent across the country. It should have high standards and it should be the duty of NICE to oversee those standards. It should monitor health authorities. The Limbless Association tells me that health authorities across the country differ considerably. Some will refer patients to where they will get the best prostheses and service, others will not.

I quote from the Express of Saturday 20th March:

"Plea of student left without arms and legs by meningitis".

The article states:

"Helen Smith, who had her arms and legs amputated after contracting meningitis claims that the Cambridgeshire Health Authority is refusing to pay for the artificial limbs she so desperately needs. Doctors were forced to amputate to save her life because all her limbs had a gangrene-type infection caused by blood poisoning. Helen claims independent specialists have assessed her as being suitable for myo-electric artificial hands which would give her a new lease of life and she could get back to work. She said 'I thought I would get the best available limbs on the NHS, but the artificial legs I got were useless'. The NHS has not been able to provide this young lady with what she feels is necessary for her needs".

The best artificial arm I saw at an exhibition was made in Italy. The colour and texture were excellent and even the veins looked realistic. We are in Europe, in the Common Market. If Italian made artificial arms are better than others, we should buy Italian ones. At another health conference I attended I found that the best food trolleys were French made. The corners were rounded so that they could be easily cleaned. Given the increase in infections in hospitals we should buy these French-made trolleys. If we do not do so, what is the point of being in the Common Market?

Local health authorities can become very parochial, with little interest in matters regarding disability. I agree with Empower—a consortium of organisations dealing with disabilities—which states that the Government should establish a disablement services authority to address the widespread and expensive disparity in the quality of disablement services provision.

The Government speak of a joined-up seamless service. I find with disability services—especially with social services—that everything seems to be contracted out, with more and more fragmentation and more and more complicated forms. People with severe disability and their families do not need this increasing bureaucracy. They need the best possible equipment, be it prostheses, wheelchairs or hearing aids, so that they can get on with their lives. I do not think that a voucher scheme for prostheses is logical as there needs to be a good repair service and support from specialists on account of the ongoing changes and needs. But above all, patients need choice.

Some weeks ago we were all shocked by the horrific bomb in Soho. Innocent people had their limbs ripped off. There was a great deal of drama at that time. The Home Secretary and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales visited the scene. That was all very laudable, but who picks up the pieces and tries to put them together again? It is our National Health Service. I hope that good limbs of the best silicon material will be provided for these unfortunate victims if that is the best thing for them.

There is far more to contend with than just artificial limbs. There is the coming to terms with the traumatic injury; there are psychological aspects, which sometimes get neglected; there is the phantom pain that has to be fought. I hope these patients are progressing well.

Again, in some areas rehabilitation services are better than in other health service authorities, a situation that I hope NICE will rectify.

When I was coming to your Lordships' House yesterday, my taxi driver told me about a friend of his who had lost his leg through an accident. He had become depressed and had tried to commit suicide. It had taken him two years to come to terms with his condition. Now he is fine and goes out dancing. I had the pleasure to meet Douglas Bader, He told me that he had to have at least four legs, and one black leg for evening wear. As the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, said, legs do break.

Prostheses do not cover limbs only; they replace ears, nipples, breasts and parts of faces. It is a most important service for those who need it. It needs pushing up the health agenda at both national and local levels. I hope the Minister will help to do this.

My Lords, perhaps I may preface my remarks by commenting on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan. His description of the consultant reminded me of the worst examples of professionals treating someone who comes into their care with a degree of contempt. It occurs in all spheres but we have heard about it far too often in cases of disability. That kind of consultant will say, "I know best, keep quiet", even when he does not know best. A long time ago someone said to me: "Always trust someone who admits that they do not know everything and might be wrong". If we can encourage all professionals—in this field and in others—to admit that they might not know everything, we probably would be doing ourselves a great many favours in future. The minute one sets an absolute in this field and does not open up slightly, one will make mistakes—if not on one occasion then on the next.

As the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, have said, certain groups of the amputee society—the young and those who wish to take part in some sort of athletic activity—have particular problems and needs in this field. I am a sportsman. We have reached a stage of technical skill to enable people to sprint with an artificial leg. I would not have kept up with a champion fitted with artificial limbs—certainly with one artificial limb—even when I was younger and fitter than I am today.

The reason for such progress is that technology has enabled the foot to store energy like a spring. I forget the correct terminology for the substances. Basically energy is stored which enables one to move and flex and to generate power to the rest of the body. Such technology should be made generally available. Initially, at least, it should be made available to younger people when they lose limbs. Thankfully, there are only 5,000 amputees a year, and the figure is likely to go down as surgical techniques and after-care for damaged limbs improve.

We must ensure that this technology is readily available. As has already been pointed out, we are talking about someone's quality of life. If the limb enables someone to take part in day-to-day life on a virtually normal basis—or at least gives the appearance of normality—that is important, at least in the short term. Many disabled people need to feel that they are once again a part of society and not cut off. If we can do that we will be reducing many of the psychological problems of isolation which are being ignored.

It is not good enough merely to accept that a person can make it from one position to another, slowly and painfully. I have taken part in many education debates dealing with the subject of special needs. We have now established that any help given in that field, and in most other fields of disability, should be based on the needs of individuals. They should be allowed to take part on as near normal a basis as possible. We cannot simply class people together when it comes to help.

That means that there must be flexibility in our approach to the type of limb that is provided; there must be provision for each person on the basis of that person's lifestyle, or the lifestyle that he or she can reasonably expect. That definition will feed lawyers for years. They will argue and fight; there will be case law. But we must strive towards that goal.

As to a voucher scheme, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, that I am shocked by his moderation. It may be a first step. But his idea is that it should merely be there within the NHS. The noble Lord may be right. But unless we begin to address the problem as being individually based, we shall not get very far.

To return briefly to sport, under the current system there should be some kind of central referring body for those who are involved in sport. At present. a person living in one area may receive assessment and individual help, but a person living in another area may not. Leeds has been pointed out to me as a good area for referrals for artificial sports limbs, but apparently people living in Sheffield do not receive the same kind of help. The two places are not that far apart. Surely we can make sure that within the NHS, which is after all a national service, people have access to the best. If there is a bureaucratic problem preventing that, this House and the other place change laws and regulations all the time. Indeed, we are often not required to do that ourselves; we merely have to nod at others, and they do it for us. Surely something like that can be done.

Last time, the Paralympics was used as a kind of damp sponge to the bruised pride of a nation not winning enough gold medals in the main Olympics. Surely, if disabled athletes are to be held up as an example and used in this way, disabled athletes—or in this case, one group of disabled athletes—deserve some consideration. They are few in number, but they are specialist cases. If a few rules are not convenient to those cases, I suggest that they should be changed. This is a matter where a little common sense and the discarding of bureaucracy would make all the difference.

My Lords, I must first declare several interests. I have worn an artificial limb for over 55 years. I served on the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord McColl. I am on the council of the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association, and I am the patron of the Association of Prosthetists and Orthotists (BAPO). As I have a prosthesis on a leg that was amputated and an orthosis on the leg that was paralysed as a result of a spinal wound, I was a soft touch for that job.

Many changes have taken place in the 55 years that I have worn an artificial limb. Although I am appalled by some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, I can only speak from my own experience, although I shall refer to those problems later.

My experience has been that there has been a huge improvement in the equipment made available to us and in the attitude of people towards the limbless. For instance, in the Holderness Centre at Charing Cross Hospital, which I attend—I previously attended Roehampton—there is now a sister permanently on duty. That is a great help, particularly for those of us who have problems with our stump. It was not always like that. On one occasion, about 20 years after the war, I had been salmon fishing in Scotland and had fallen into the river, which often happened. When I took the artificial leg back to Roehampton it was not in a very good condition. The doctor who examined me asked me what I had been doing with the limb. I told him that I had been fishing for salmon. He said, "You have no right to do that. You have no right to treat government property like this". I replied in language not suitable for your Lordships' House.

Conditions in medicine have changed. In the Falklands war, people who were wounded and lost limbs were frequently in the hands of doctors in three or four hours. It was different for some of us, I did not see a doctor for three days and then it was a German. He was all right; he took off my leg; he gave me an anaesthetic, thank heaven, I was a bit windy about that.

Things have changed in other ways as well, but not in the number of amputations. I understand that 50,000 amputations take place, roughly as many as 20 or 30 years ago. What has changed is the reason for amputations. Happily we have far fewer military amputations, and I hope that that will remain true in spite of what is happening in the Balkans. But there are many more as a result of diabetes, vascular problems and similar difficulties.

Overall, I have to say that in my experience things are much better. I have a new prosthesis called a "siliposis sheaf" which has completely changed the comfort with which I can wear my artificial limb. It was volunteered to me quite arbitrarily and freely by my prosthetist. The BAPO has an exhibition every year at its conference and I am honoured to be a patron of the society. It is patronised by a large number of prosthetists from all over the country, and by virtually all the limb manufacturers. It is a fine exhibition, a wonderful example of the changes that have been made.

I am encouraged by that. I am very discouraged and distressed by the experiences of the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, and the people he has met. I can only say that it has not been my experience, but I must have been lucky. It is appalling to think that the limbless could be treated like that. For women and children the disfigurement is a worse mental problem than for some of us who are older.

I can only speak from my experience which is that overall the prosthetists are much better, the sisters are there to help, the equipment is much better. Clearly there are faults and I am sad to hear some of the stories which we have heard this evening. But it is only fair to say that there are two sides to the issue. That is not what I have seen and heard. I in no way dispute the experiences of the people noble Lords have met. I can only say that from my experience of BAPO and the Holderness Centre there are many dedicated prosthetists, dedicated sisters and very much better equipment. If one has problems one is treated very well, alternative suggestions are made. So I can only imagine that I have been lucky and some people have been unlucky. That is bad. It is appalling that people who have lost a limb should be treated in the way we have heard today.

It is difficult. The noble Baroness mentioned the problem of arms. Arms have always been difficult, and if better arms are made in Italy than in this country we should use them. When I was at Roehampton towards the end of the war, we used to argue whether it was better to lose an arm than a leg. Funnily enough, the people who lost a leg thought it much better to lose a leg than an arm; the people who had lost an arm thought it much letter to lose an arm than a leg. So on the whole we were a fairly satisfied bunch.

Nevertheless, it is a terrible problem. If treatment like that happens, as it clearly does, in various parts of the country, it should be dealt with firmly by the authorities. It should be referred to higher authorities, and I have no doubt that the Minister will look into it. I hope that it is an exception; I cannot tell whether it is; I can only speak from my own experience. If such things happen, then no trouble or expense should be spared to put them right.

My Lords, like other noble Lords I thank the noble Lord. Lord Rowallan, for introducing this subject tonight. He introduced the matter very movingly and with a considerable degree of anger in his voice, which all of us who heard his speech can well understand in view of the case histories he described. We have heard some other remarkable speeches in a very short debate, notably that of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton. There was also a rather encouraging and inspiring speech by the noble Lord, Lord Hussey, the only contributor to this debate who is himself "a user" of prosthetics.

The noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, argued for the principle of top-up for health equipment where patients are offered a basic service on the NHS but then pay privately to obtain the best quality equipment. But, as my noble friend Lord Addington made pretty clear, without good evidence of the benefits of a voucher scheme we on these Benches are very doubtful about going further along this road. We believe that this is the thin end of a rather thick wedge. Currently, there is a voucher system for wheelchairs which was set up some two years ago. It is being reviewed by the NHS Supplies Authority. Perhaps the Minister can inform the House of the current status of that review and provide a brief preview of its conclusions. It is very important in this context to see what has been the experience in those circumstances.

I note that the Health Minister in the Lords in March 1989, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, expressed reservations about a voucher scheme because of the specialised specification of artificial limbs and the need for expert clinical supervision when fitting them. Our reservations, however, are rather broader than that and are based perhaps on principle rather than purely the difficulties of the mechanics. We believe that this has the potential to strike at the very heart of a universal high quality NHS provision of prosthetics.

The key to high quality modern equipment being available at the right price, whether it be prosthetics, wheelchairs or hearing aids, is volume supply. The purchasing power of the NHS Supplies Authority is some £5 billion in total, which is enormous. Simply by specifying equipment for use in the NHS the authority can negotiate prices at something like one tenth of those for private supply. We have doubts in that context as to whether the NHS Supplies Authority is keeping abreast of modern technology. For example, no digital hearing aids are supplied on the NHS. The cost of a digital hearing aid supplied privately is between £1,000 and £2,000 compared with a hearing aid under the NHS at a cost approaching £90. There would be a considerable saving if one gained volume through purchase by the NHS Supplies Authority.

The noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, spoke eloquently about a number of case histories, in particular the recent case of Helen Smith. That is a very cautionary tale. As he explained and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, described, Helen Smith had septicaemia arising from meningitis and had to have all four limbs amputated. To get the most modern prosthetic limbs with good cosmetic appearance meant that she faced a cost of thousands of pounds per limb. To pay privately for those prosthetics cannot be acceptable.

The present Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said in reply to a Written Question on this subject last September:

"The Government will, as part of its modernisation programme, strive to ensure that all patient care is delivered quickly, consistently and at the highest possible standards".—[Official Report, 3/9/98; col. WA 27.]

The Public Accounts Committee, in its report of November 1997 on the NHS Supplies Authority, expected the authority to maintain and develop a,

"healthy dialogue between all parties involved with a view to maintaining healthy competition and to enable the NHS to benefit to the full from innovative ideas and products",

which is just what we are talking about today.

In that context, I very much welcome the formation by NHS Supplies of the Prosthetic Strategic Supply Group, referred to in the government response of February 1998 to the report and also in the Minister's reply to the Question in September.

The last annual report of the NHS Supplies Authority was very encouraging about the intentions of the strategic supply group. I understand that it has so far met four times. We would be pleased to hear from the Minister what the outcome of its work has been thus far. It was designed to bring the manufacturers, users and clinicians together to discuss precisely what needs the users have and how best they can be provided for. This is a very important point in that context.

Has the group, for instance, discussed the emPOWER Prostheses and Orthoses Users' Charter which specifies a user's four main needs, as referred to very cogently by the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan? These are the need for comfort, capability, cosmesis and caring, together with the need to recognise a user's changing needs.

As the Department of Health is only too well aware, there is a very strong consensus that current arrangements for the provision of disablement services are inadequate. EmPOWER, which has a strong involvement with the Limbless Association, believes that reinstatement as a special health authority of the Disablement Services Authority, which was merged with the NHS in 1991 and which was set up on the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, following his review of artificial limb and appliance services and the establishment of a national service framework for disablement services, is essential if the situation is to improve. Are these matters under consideration by the Department of Health? If so, perhaps the Minister can tell us what the timetable is and whether the Government are really contemplating their introduction?

The noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, made a point about the national institute for clinical excellence. What will be its role? Will it purely be around the question of drugs or will it be about prosthetics and so on? Will it have that wider role?

The essence of this matter, as clearly stated by the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, is the whole question of freedom of choice for users within the NHS system. I may not agree with his final recommendations. However, we all agree on the principle that the clinical needs of the user should take precedence. It should not be necessary for individuals to be forced into private care in order for them to have a suitable prosthesis to meet their needs.

I look forward very much to hearing the Minister's response and also to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord McColl, how he thinks matters have progressed since his original report.

My Lords, I too would like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, for introducing this debate. I should at the outset declare an interest. I too am a member of BLESMA, I am the President of the Limbless Association and I was a member of the working party, along with the noble Lord, Lord Hussey of North Bradley and the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach.

We were looking into the whole of the artificial limb and wheelchair service in 1985. We were delighted when almost all our recommendations were accepted by the Government in 1986. The Minister for Disabled People at that time was extremely helpful—an outstanding Minister; his name is John Major.

One of our recommendations was that there should be a voucher system for the wheelchair service. We were all very much aware of the problems of instituting such a system. Our original idea was that when a disabled person was assessed for a wheelchair, there should be a choice of either accepting the wheelchair which was deemed to be suitable for that type of disability or having a voucher which would equate to the value of the wheelchair on offer plus the cost of maintenance.

The idea of the voucher system was to provide an additional incentive for the providers to give a really good service. This was so because they would also have at the back of their minds the fact that a disabled person could reject the wheelchair on offer and take the voucher, add some of their own money and then go elsewhere for service. The disadvantage of the present voucher system for wheelchairs is that if disabled people take the voucher and purchase their own wheelchairs they have to pay for its maintenance. That is an unattractive proposition for disabled people. If the Government were to introduce a voucher system for artificial limbs, the same problem would obtain.

We have heard complaints, especially from young women who quite naturally want an artificial leg that looks as near as possible to normal. In many cases, that is not supplied. The name Heather Mills will be familiar to most of your Lordships. She was a successful professional model, who some years ago went for a holiday in Yugoslavia before the present troubles. She was enjoying her holiday when war broke out. She thought she had better leave the country quickly but then she decided to stay behind to see whether there was any way in which she could help. She came across many amputees. She was instrumental in getting some spare artificial limbs from the United Kingdom that were no longer required, either because they did not fit the first time or because they were no longer of use. She managed to obtain around 24,000 artificial limbs. She supplied a tremendous service and was a great inspiration. She worked very hard at that and then thought that she had better have a holiday.

She came back to London and within 24 hours was knocked down by a motorcyclist. Her leg was so badly injured that she had to have it amputated. Such is the marvellous character of Heather Mills that she rose above that disaster and said, "Well, now I really will know all about artificial legs". She has been a great tower of strength in her efforts to improve the service. She came to your Lordships' House for tea last summer wearing sandals and all her toenails were painted. She had secured an artificial leg which looked exactly like the real thing, but not alas! in the National Health Service but in the private sector.

The Government seem to have a problem with the private sector and what they regard as cosmesis and cosmetic surgery. The Government have deprived thousands of patients of the opportunity of having their varicose veins, sebaceous cysts and lipomas operated on under the NHS on the basis that they are cosmetic operations. Noble Lords are aware that cosmetic surgery is to improve the appearance of the patient. But many of these lesions, sebaceous cysts and lipomas are not visible. Sebaceous cysts are often on the scalp so taking them out can never be described as cosmetic surgery. They present patients with a problem in that every time they comb their hair they bump into one of these things—sometimes they are multiple—and they can be very painful. Lipomas are fatty tumours which in many cases are not at all obvious, and varicose veins are often concealed by trousers.

The other problem the Government have is their very obvious opposition and even hatred towards the whole idea of private practice. We have the chairman of the Select Committee on Health who was reported in the Health Service Journal as saying:

"I hate the bastards".

He was referring to those who do private practice. The Secretary of State for Health has also recorded his disdain for the whole subject of private practice. The Government are obviously in a slightly awkward position of their own making. Thousands of patients are deprived of operations. Patients have to go into the private sector. The do not necessarily want to go there and many of them cannot afford to. We have a situation where the private sector is despised by the Government. Will the Government review their attitude to the private sector and to cosmesis, artificial limbs and cosmetic surgery in general?

Many of the points that I was going to make have already been made and so I will not repeat them. As my noble friend Lord Rowallan said, for the consortium emPOWER to achieve all its goals it is essential that the user should have freedom of choice. When it comes to discussion about costs, if a really high-class artificial limb is properly fitted first time, subsequent alterations are less likely and the total cost may be less.

I had the privilege of working with my noble friend Lord Holderness who chaired the Disablement Services Authority which was set up in 1986 to implement our recommendations. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hussey of North Bradley, my noble friend Lord Holderness was also severely injured in the war. One of the moving features about these veterans is that you rarely hear them complain about anything to do with their disability. They simply get on with it, without fuss or complaint. That is another compelling reason why every possible effort should be made to provide them, and indeed all amputees, with the very best service we can.

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, for putting down the Question this evening and bringing to our attention a number of important issues that the health service has to tackle over the next few years. Like the noble Lord, I, too, salute the courage of so many people who have lost limbs and who therefore have to look to the NHS for support. It is evident from tonight's debate that all Members of your Lordships' House who have spoken share the Government's concern to provide the highest possible standard of service to people who have the misfortune to lose a limb.

I am well aware that a number of noble Lords have expressed concerns about current services. I wish to come back to some of them in a moment. It is important to put them in context.

The NHS looks after 66.000 existing amputees and deals with about 4,000 new cases every year. Prosthetic services are delivered to patients through 33 disablement services centres in England. The noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, was critical of some of those services, but perhaps I may say to him and other noble Lords at the outset that I believe the standard and volume of service provision of artificial limbs have improved over the past few years. That does not mean to say that there is no further room for improvement, but it is important, as the noble Lord, Lord Hussey, put to us, that we should accept and acknowledge the improvements that have taken place: the change of emphasis simply from limb fitting to providing a wider rehabilitation service; the development of the prosthetic profession, which in itself is improving the quality of service; the development of larger centres which are able to offer a greater continuity of expertise and access to other services; and the lead that this country has taken in a number of research areas. In acknowledging the good work that has taken place, it is right for me to pay tribute to the work which the noble Lord, Lord McColl, has undertaken in the development of those services.

As we have heard, he chaired the working party on the quality management of artificial limb and wheelchair services provided by centrally managed regional artificial limb and appliance centres. In response to his report, the Government established the Disablement Services Authority to manage the transition of these services to the NHS. It is readily apparent that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and his team exerted a great influence on the development of artificial limb services and, as noble Lords have heard tonight, although he was critical of the Government in one or two places, he continues to make a keen and constructive contribution to this important debate.

The key focus of our debate, apart from the general quality of services, is the potential of a voucher scheme. Before addressing the issue of a voucher scheme for artificial limb provision, I think that it would be helpful if I said a little more about the scheme which operates for wheelchair services.

The noble Lord, Lord McColl, provided some useful information about this. I shall respond particularly to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on this matter because I think it is apposite to our debate. In February 1996 the then government announced their intention to introduce a voucher scheme for users of wheelchair services, the first such scheme within the NHS. The concept was to enable disabled people to exercise greater choice in the selection of a wheelchair appropriate to their individual mobility needs. Patients would have the option of accepting the wheelchair which the NHS would normally provide or of having a voucher of equivalent value which they could use towards the purchase of a higher specification wheelchair of their choice.

The scheme was feasible particularly because of the existence of a network of local independent distributors able to offer users a wide range of alternative wheelchairs and to provide them with a reliable after-sales service. The legal provision allowing for the scheme to be introduced was set out in the National Health Service (Wheelchair Charges) Regulations 1996. This applies to wheelchair services only; there is no provision for it to apply to other NHS services.

The voucher scheme received a mixed welcome. Some user groups were concerned that it would only benefit those who could afford to contribute to a better wheelchair and that it would lead to a two-tier service. Implementation of the voucher scheme was further complicated by the simultaneous introduction of electrically powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs. This was a welcome development to which health authorities and service providers gave priority. Because of that, many voucher schemes were slow in getting off the ground and it is only within the past 18 months that we have begun to have any measure of user interest. By the end of March this year, 5,314 patients had used the voucher scheme.

As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, suggested, to give us a clearer picture of how effective these initiatives have been, my honourable friend Mr Paul Boateng commissioned an evaluation of both the powered wheelchair and voucher scheme initiatives. This is being conducted by the Health Economics Consortium of York University and we expect to receive its draft report next month, so I am afraid I cannot anticipate the likely conclusions in that report.

I should, however, say that we recognise that the success or otherwise of this initiative cannot be judged by uptake alone. Different wheelchair services have different populations and both demographic and socio-economic factors might well influence the number of patients who could respond to a voucher scheme. I am hopeful that the York University evaluation will help us better understand such issues. However, until that report is available and we have time to study it we would wish to reserve judgment on how successfully the wheelchair voucher scheme is operating.

That leads me to the question of a voucher scheme for users of artificial limb services. Although the Government would endorse the aim of enabling disabled people to exercise greater choice in their care, I very much agree with the points put in relation to that by noble Lords tonight. Extending the concept of a voucher scheme to other services is not necessarily the only way, or indeed the best way, of proceeding. It is not just the question of the general principle which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to. I am also aware of, and noble Lords have commented on, the media attention concerning the provision of silicone coverings for artificial limbs by a private company in Dorset. I share this House's concern about the particularly poignant stories of the young people who, quite understandably, would like to have silicone coverings which better match the profile of their remaining arm or leg. The noble Lard, Lord Rowallan, put that point very clearly.

As I have said, the NHS already looks after 66,000 existing amputees and deals with about 4,000 new cases every year. We have to ensure, in relation to all these users, that the available resources are devoted to giving them a fair and consistently high standard of service.

As I have mentioned, services are currently available through 33 regional or sub-regional disablement services centres in England. Each has a contract with a manufacturer who employs a team of prosthetists and technicians to design and fit a limb which is appropriate to the clinical and functional needs of each individual patient. The contractors work within the centres and alongside other NHS professionals to ensure that a well co-ordinated service is provided.

Unlike the wheelchair industry, demand for private limbs is relatively low—I believe that fewer than 2 per cent of amputees have limbs provided privately.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Will he confirm that that low demand is possibly because people are not told of the existence of the private service? In fact, people are being positively denied the knowledge that there is such a thing as a silicone-coated limb available from the private service.

My Lords, it is difficult to speculate whether lack of knowledge is responsible for the relatively low take-up in the private sector. All that I can say is that it is important that as much information as possible is available to users of all NHS services. I am sure that all noble Lords would agree with that.

The point that I am trying to get across is that at the moment, if given a voucher, patients would have very limited options for exercising choice. More importantly—this point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham—there are potential disadvantages in separating the limb supply from the clinical prescription, multi-disciplinary care and long-term support given to the patient.

I have every reason to believe that the vast majority of patients receiving artificial limbs within the NHS are satisfied by the quality of care that they receive. However, I was concerned when the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, suggested that 50 per cent of limbs do not fit. We have no evidence of that, but if the noble Lord has any such evidence, we shall of course consider it. I am aware that some patients do not find their limbs comfortable, that achieving a good fit takes repeated visits to their disablement services centre, or that the appearance or functional performance of their limb is not what they would wish. Noble Lords have spoken in similar vein this evening.

That brings me to some of the questions that I have been asked about, in particular, the possibility of introducing a national service framework for disablement services. All that I can say at the moment is that the Government have already announced the first four frameworks. They will deal with mental health, coronary heart disease, older people and diabetes. It is expected that there will be one new framework per year. I cannot say any more on that, but the Government must take a number of factors and priorities into account. The views expressed tonight by noble Lords will be passed into that decision-making process.

In relation to the suggestion about a new disablement services authority, I should report to the House that my honourable friend Mr John Hutton has already given the matter some careful consideration. He has advised the charity consortium, emPOWER, that the establishment of a new disablement services authority does not fit with our model of service development. However, we understand why that has been proposed, and particularly the need for greater consistency in the provision of services for disabled people across the country.

Our preferred direction is very much through improving the quality of services, as we laid out in our White Paper, A First Class Service. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred to the work of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and of the Commission for Health Improvement. It is early days to go into details about the way in which NICE, in particular, will carry out its work. However, I very much take on board the point raised by the noble Baroness about ensuring that it develops a comprehensive approach to services. I believe that it will be a very powerful mechanism for producing authoritative guidance on clinical effectiveness and, together with CHIMP, for investigating poor services and improving quality across the board. That in itself is bound to lead to greater consistency throughout the National Health Service. I also feel confident that if there are sustained problems within the artificial limbs services, the Government would wish to bring the resources of CHIMP and NICE to bear on those issues.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the biggest waste to the National Health Service is the suing of bad practice by patients?

My Lords, I could not agree more. The noble Baroness makes a very powerful point. As a former representative of health authorities and trusts, I am only too well aware of the cost to the NHS and its patients of malpractice suits.

Time is pressing on and I am conscious that I have not answered all the points put to me. However, I wish to comment on the question of getting people involved, because the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, raised that important matter. We are keen to ensure this. It is part of the development of a proper partnership between the NHS and its patients. The regular meetings between emPOWER and my honourable friend Mr. John Hutton is a visible sign of wishing to do that. I am also glad to be able to tell the House that the supplies group mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which is helping the NHS supplies authority to make the tendering process for artificial limb contractor services more effective and bringing together manufacturing and contractors and the staff of artificial limbs services, involves users of the service in those meetings. That is a real opportunity to bring the voice of the users right to the heart of the decision-making process in those areas. I take the point raised by the noble Lord about the potential of NHS supplies and in particular the procurement group. That should help us improve the quality of services.

I am conscious that I have not touched on all the issues noble Lords raised, but I hope that it will be recognised that the Government very much take to heart the need to ensure that the undoubted improvements which have taken place in these services during the past few years continue; and that the mechanisms, particularly the use of CHIMP and NICE, should assist us in ensuring a greater consistency in the future. I do not believe that we should underestimate the achievements of the people working in those services at present, nor the courage of those who use the services.