My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a message from Her Majesty the Queen signed by her own hand. The message is as follows:

"I have received your address praying that the Greater London Authority Election Rules 2000, laid before the House on 8th February, be annulled.

"I will comply with your request".

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders recognises the invaluable role played by human rights defenders around the world. It requires that states live up to their responsibility to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms.

We want the declaration to make a real difference. The Government will therefore join other delegations at the forthcoming Commission on Human Rights in pressing for a UN special rapporteur to take forward practical steps to implement the declaration.

My Lords, I thank the Minister—and not merely formally—for that encouragement. While I am on a winning streak, will my noble friend confirm that those who act as the eyes and ears of the international community in defending human rights, often at great risk to themselves, deserve all the protection we can afford? Does she agree with the old adage that what is everyone's business is no one's business? Can the noble Baroness persuade the commission to appoint a special rapporteur with sufficient resources to assure potential victims and perpetrators alike that someone cares?

My Lords, I am happy to agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble and learned Lord, who has worked zealously for so long in this field. Her Majesty's Government will do everything they can not only to promote the role of the special rapporteur but also to seek to ensure that that officer receives appropriate funding to carry out with vigour and efficacy the duties imposed upon him.

My Lords, will the Government quote the long list of most distinguished people, from Gandhi through the present Pope to Mr Akin Birdal? They have suffered either death or serious injury in the course of defending human rights.

Will the Government also try to ensure maximum protection for lawyers, solicitors and barristers defending human rights activists, who are frequently being tried?

My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord that we shall do everything in our power to promote human rights and those who so vigorously seek to protect them. I join with the noble Lord in applauding all those who historically have defended, and still today defend, those rights with such energy, often at very great risk to themselves.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the most disturbing experiences for those defending human rights is the degree to which they can be subjected to torture—torture which can have lifelong psychological and physical consequences? What are the Government doing in that respect?

My Lords, we are sensible of this terrible burden. I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed by my noble friend. We want to ensure that those who defend human rights should not themselves be victims of abuse. We have taken, therefore, a number of steps, including a successful world-wide lobbying campaign to urge governments to ratify the UN Convention against Torture. The FCO is giving £42,000 in funding for the creation of a database for the world organisation against torture, allowing it to track progress on individual torture cases. We are also working closely with Save the Children Fund to sponsor research into the torture of children. We have contributed over £400,000 to multilateral activities against torture. It is an extremely important area and we are doing all we can to make sure that we put energy and commitment as well as money into this endeavour.

My Lords, accepting that the Government do everything they can in this area, is not the problem being able to arrest those suspected of crimes against human rights? Can the Minister help us as to the state of play on that aspect of the international scene?

My Lords, noble Lords will know that this subject has exercised our interest over a considerable period of time. The Government are doing all they can not only to support the identification of those responsible but also to bring about a good process to ensure that those who have committed such offences are brought to trial. In that regard our energies will not wane. I endorse the importance of the issue which the noble Lord highlights.

My Lords, can the Minister confirm whether the Government, together with the United States, intend to co-sponsor a resolution at this year's Commission on Human Rights, censuring China's human rights record? Over the past two years, while they have failed to do so, the Chinese Government have arrested dozens of members of the China Democratic Party, imposed strict controls on the use of the Internet, and clamped down on the religious sect Falun Gong.

My Lords, I am unable to tell the noble Lord our precise position in relation to that issue. We have been very robust indeed in the dialogue we have had with China on this issue. We have engaged with it on a creative process of bringing human rights issues very much to the fore. The noble Lord may be aware that in February the Chinese met with us. The all-party group on Tibet will go to China in the summer.

We have had a number of projects with the Chinese making sure that they fully understand that human rights are issues in which we have an acute interest, and we should like to engage them in bringing about productive change.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Government have no such plans. The Assembly has very many powers to control and influence matters of great importance to the people of Wales. We believe that this gives the Assembly genuine scope to make a real difference in Wales. The new First Secretary has said that he shares this view.

My Lords, first, I wish the noble Baroness and all noble Lords a very joyful St David's Day.

Hear, hear!

My Lords, what are the Government going to do about the fact that the National Assembly is lagging behind this Parliament in its consideration of the contents of Bills as they affect Wales? Will the Minister refer the matter to the joint ministerial committee set up to deal with devolution problems so that we may have the benefit of the Assembly's views before rather than after we in this Parliament have begun proceedings on Bills as they affect Wales?

My Lords, I join the noble Lord in wishing all noble Lords a happy St David's Day. His suggestion of a JMC meeting will be given great consideration. It may not be the most appropriate way to begin to raise the important issue he has raised. The most appropriate way may be to seek to have a meeting including non-Assembly or non-Government Members to examine the process followed with regard to the legislative procedure relating to Wales. Perhaps that could be best achieved initially by himself and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, with their experience of the legislative process, meeting the Secretary of State.

Secondly, the Assembly did not have the benefit which it will have this year; that is, to begin consideration of next year's legislative programme early. It was not in a position to examine current legislation until the autumn. However, I am sure we all want to ensure that the process is the most effective possible.

My Lords, will my noble friend agree that as the Assembly is only a few months old it should be properly helped by all of us to achieve perfection in a reasonable time?

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. My experience of those involved in Welsh public life, in particular Welsh politicians, is that they always strive to achieve perfection as quickly as possible.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that experience has taught us that the less interference there is from London in the affairs of Cardiff as regards the Welsh Assembly and its leadership, the better—and that goes for the Government and everyone else? Does she also agree that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, might benefit and have a more joyous St David's Day if he reminded himself of the outstanding contribution of his noble friend Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach in a debate in the Welsh Assembly a fortnight ago? He suggested that the Welsh Assembly was doing extremely well—and coming from the former chairman of the think-tank of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, that ought to be compulsory reading for all Conservative supporters in Wales.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, was right in much of what he said. My recollection is that I complimented both the noble Lords, Lord Griffiths and Lord Roberts, on their contributions to the debate to which he referred. Perhaps I may gently suggest that at the beginning of that debate one of his noble friends sought to pass judgment on decisions and matters that are better left to the Assembly.

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I am delighted to see that, like so many other noble Lords, she is florally celebrating the day of our patron saint? Does she recall that yesterday the Secretary of State for Wales, at a luncheon in his honour, said that the test for a devolved assembly was whether it brought benefit to the people it was meant to serve? Is there any evidence that that is happening in Wales?

Yes, my Lords, I believe that there is. The Assembly has, for example, issued a draft document for consultation, Better Wales, and the budget agreed by all parties for next year includes additional spending on health and education. Policy is being developed by the Assembly on matters such as the serious issues arising from the Waterhouse report, with consideration of its recommendations, including that relating to a children's commissioner for Wales.

My Lords, will the Minister recognise that the turn-out for the elections to the Welsh Assembly was abysmally low and that, now, to assert political control there is the equivalent of walking on eggs? Does she not agree that so many of these difficulties are due to the alien voting system that was introduced? Is it not time that we returned to a first-past-the-post system, which would result in overall political control, because that body could do much and be so beneficial to the future life of Wales?

My Lords, in achieving devolution in Wales, as in Scotland and, of course, Northern Ireland, which we hope will return as quickly as possible, the Government have sought to ensure that matters are devolved to all three countries in a context which will encourage a consensus approach towards the development of policy. I share my noble friend's concern about the low turn-out. I can assure him that I was there on the doorstep, doing my best to ensure that the turn-out was as high as possible.

My Lords, can the Minister explain why the Welsh have only an Assembly while the Scots have a Parliament?

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is, I know, fully aware that the histories of Scotland and Wales are different. Their legislative histories are different, with separate Scottish legislation as opposed to the relationship between Welsh legislation and that of Westminster. Perhaps I may hope that the noble Baroness is signalling that the Conservative Party now not only fully supports devolution but wishes to enhance it in Wales.

My Lords, I wonder whether on St David's Day the noble Baroness will announce to the people of Wales that on every St David's Day from now on we shall have a national holiday.

My Lords, I shall have to check whether a national holiday for Wales is a matter that has been devolved to the Assembly. I shall write to the noble Lord. However, I am quite sure that people will feel that it is a holiday on Saturday when, we all hope, Wales will be successful.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the information available on prosecutions does not distinguish between off-licensed and on-licensed premises. However, the total number of defendants prosecuted in magistrates' courts in England and Wales was 251 in 1996, 214 in 1997 and 310 in 1998. I am placing in the Library of the House a table which summarises the information available for this period about offenders cautioned, defendants prosecuted and offenders convicted for under-age sales.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. However, can he say when there will be a change to the loophole in the law which makes it extremely difficult to prosecute supermarkets and licensed premises? I remind him that in June 1998, following the death of a teenager who bought intoxicating drinks from an off-licence, the Home Office promised urgent action. Why are we still waiting? And, in relation to the statistics that he mentioned earlier, can he arrange that in future those are separated so that we can see the numbers of convictions, prosecutions and cautions involving supermarkets and off-licences?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. He is quite right: we said that we would look at that loophole. I believe that your Lordships will want to support the Private Member's Bill advanced by Paul Truswell in another place which addresses the loophole issue. It means that all staff in licensed premises could face prosecution if it is found that the person purchasing or attempting to purchase is under age. As for the statistics, I believe that it would be most useful if they were separated between on-licensed and off-licensed premises. We are looking carefully at that matter. I shall certainly put additional pressure on our officials to take a closer interest in the matter.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is very difficult to tell someone's age simply by looking at them? Does he also agree that the problem of under-age sales extends beyond alcohol and applies also to lottery tickets and tobacco? In other countries, which I shall not name as I seem to quote so regularly the antipodean place I come from, it is possible to obtain a card which proves that one is aged 18 or over. Such cards are most valuable and are used routinely in pubs and bars. Here, I understand, the cards are available on a voluntary basis but are expensive for people to obtain. Will the Government consider making these voluntary identity proofs of age available at a more reasonable cost for youngsters over the age of 18?

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness for her question. I believe that it must be the case that antipodean Baronesses retain their youthfulness much longer than most others, but that would be idle flattery! I believe that the noble Baroness makes an important point about cards being a useful guide to people's ages. The Department for Education and Employment is considering a proposal in relation to a youth card. I believe that that is important in this respect and in relation to the wider question of age-related sales, which the noble Baroness addresses. We are looking at ways of introducing and extending such a system on a voluntary basis. I believe that to be a most valuable initiative.

My Lords, the noble Lord has informed your Lordships of the number of prosecutions. What is the number of convictions?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that question. We managed to anticipate that one! Sadly, we do not always get it right in the Home Office. In 1996 there were 119 convictions; in 1997, 125; and in 1998—the first full year of the Labour Government—157.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Chancellor and the Governor meet regularly and discuss a wide range of issues. The best contribution that the Government can make to exchange rate stability, consistent with their objective of a stable and competitive pound over the medium term, is to maintain sound public finances and low inflation.

My Lords, has the Minister told me that the Chancellor has discussed the exchange rate with the Governor or with the Monetary Policy Committee? Perhaps he can tell me the answer to that when he returns to the Dispatch Box. No doubt the noble Lord has read the latest set of minutes of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England. Is he aware of how seriously that committee was considering the exchange rate at that time? Can he help me by telling me exactly what the Monetary Policy Committee could do to depress the exchange rate, which yesterday was described by Eddie George, the Governor, as "unsustainably strong"? At the risk of tempting the Minister, perhaps he can tell me whether he agrees with the Governor of the Bank of England about that.

My Lords, it is not our practice to reveal the content of private discussions between the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chancellor or, indeed, between any other Ministers and those outside. As to the issue of the Monetary Policy Committee discussions, yes, of course, the noble Lord is right. He has read the minutes, as I have, and clearly it is a serious issue. However, as he said, the Governor concluded that intervention would be no use. He went on to say that the sheer size of the currency markets, where more than 1 trillion dollars' worth of trading takes place each day, makes it difficult for one central bank to change any one exchange rate for very long. As to the Government's view of exchange rates, we do not publish a running commentary on them.

My Lords, in view of the fact that the Chancellor is still responsible for economic policy, even though operational responsibility has passed to the Monetary Policy Committee, does my noble friend agree that whether or not the Governor publishes a minute of his meeting with the Chancellor, it would be a most absurd state of affairs if my right honourable friend the Chancellor did not discuss the exchange rate inter alia? It is one of the fictions of British government that you have to pretend that all Ministers are idiots by saying, "There is no way I will tell you what we have been talking about or what was said". That does not matter because we are not idiots in your Lordships' House and are perfectly well aware of what they must have been talking about. The pity of it is that we do not have a new tradition which enables Ministers to say, "Yes, we did talk about those sorts of things because that is what we do".

My Lords, the proper reply is that I can neither confirm nor deny that the Chancellor discussed exchange rates with the Governor. Clearly Ministers are not idiots, any more than your Lordships are idiots. They would expect those matters to be discussed and would not expect me to reveal the detail of which matters are discussed.

My Lords, given that nowadays neither economists nor central bankers have much of a clue what determines exchange rates and, indeed, are reaching the conclusion that the inflation rate is far more influenced by the new technology than by jiggling around in the short term with interest rates, which may aggravate the situation and have a counter-effect, is it not time that the Monetary Policy Committee experiment was thoroughly reviewed and the committee given a new and much narrower mandate before it wanders off into areas over which it has no control and no idea of what the result of its actions will be?

My Lords, if we read the minutes of the Monetary Policy Committee of 9th and 10th February, we see that the discussion on the exchange rate was carried out before the committee turned to its immediate policy decision. In other words, it was an opening run round the course, just as we have in your Lordships' House from time to time on these matters.

What is conspicuous about the minutes of that discussion is the degree of disagreement which is evident from different committee members. They differed in their preferred assumptions. Views differed as regards the possibilities. It is right for the committee to discuss those matters but it is evident that there is no consensus among members of the Monetary Policy Committee or anybody else.

My Lords, can my noble friend recall the time, particularly in 1968, when we used to think that the weak pound was a very bad thing and we longed for a strong pound? Is it not a fact that many factors determine the strength of the currency? First, are people not attracted to this country because we have a strong and stable economy? Is it not also the case that we have had a stable pound against the dollar over a very long period of time? Instead of moaning about the strength of the pound, would it not be better for business and commerce to get on with the job of becoming more productive and exporting a lot more?

My Lords, I am relieved to find that I can agree with my noble friend. He expresses government policy very closely indeed. Of course, we do not underestimate the difficulties, particularly for manufacturing industry, of a strong pound. But it is true that a strong and stable economy is likely to encourage a strong pound. The Monetary Policy Committee discussed that in its consideration of a risk premium. I do not believe that we should reach the conclusion that a strong pound is a painless result of the success of our economic policies.

My Lords, I assume that the official Opposition agree with the Shadow Chancellor that there should be an independent Bank of England and Monetary Policy Committee. Indeed, I see the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, is nodding in agreement. In those circumstances, they will no doubt agree that the Government should not interfere with a so-called independent Bank. We know that the Chancellor and the Governor have discussions and no doubt they discuss the exchange rate. It would be rather surprising if they did not. But there are those—perhaps on the Opposition Benches—who want to see the pound weaker in line with the euro. They perhaps think that is a good thing. Or do they? I do not know. But this question is directed at my noble friend and not the Opposition. Would it not be helpful if we knew whether the Chancellor agreed on the question of the exchange rate and, in so far as interest rate changes affect it, whether they agree with what the Governor said yesterday; namely, that the present interest rates should not be changed for a while in order to ensure that the exchange rate is helped?

My Lords, I thought that I had already said in an earlier Answer that we do not provide a running commentary on short-term changes in exchange rates. If my noble friend is thinking in the longer term, we have acknowledged the difficulties which a strong pound imposes on, in particular, our manufacturing industries. But we believe that we should stick to our long-term policies of price stability and high levels of growth and employment.

My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to the powers of the courts to deal with offenders and defaulters, and to the treatment of such persons, with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.

rose to call attention to the case for policies towards asylum seekers that are both effective and humane; and to move for Papers.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, reminded me of the agreeable correspondence we used to have when he was a Minister. I share his happy recollections of the letters we used to exchange and I listened with interest and a high degree of agreement to everything he said this afternoon.

I suppose that none of your Lordships will argue that our policies towards asylum seekers should be less than effective and humane. The Government will say that although what they are doing at the moment is neither, they have set in motion legislative and other changes which are needed to put that right. When the Immigration and Asylum Act comes into effect and we have the IND's casework computer properly in operation, they will say that they will deliver the firmer, faster, fairer decision-making that was promised in the White Paper. In the mean while, are the Government acting as effectively and humanely as they can in the circumstances we face of the sharp rise in the number of asylum seekers, or are they making policy on the hoof to deal with each new problem, as happened in the case of the gypsies from eastern Europe and, most recently, with regard to the Afghans who arrived here by chance on the hijacked plane? The noble Lord, Lord Elton, mentioned them and I shall spend a little while discussing their case as an example of what is wrong with the system at the moment.

I take it that it is common ground also that Afghanistan is one of the most unpleasant dictatorships in the world. The ruling Taliban have committed a large number of extrajudicial killings, including the massacre of 5,000 people who were mostly ethnic Hazara civilians, after the takeover of Mazar-i-Sharif. The human rights situation for women remains extremely poor. Violence against women is a problem throughout the country. Women and girls are subjected to rape, kidnapping and forced marriage, and Taliban restrictions against women and girls are widespread, institutionally sanctioned and systematic.

There are 2.6 million registered refugees from Afghanistan living outside the country, according to UNHCR, and in 1998—the last year for which we have figures available—1,600 decisions were made on asylum applications submitted by Afghans here and all but 65 of them were given either refugee status or exceptional leave to remain.

Bearing that in mind, what should we have done when the hijacked Afghan plane arrived at Stansted? The plane landed on 7th February; the crisis ended peacefully on 10th February, and the following day the Home Secretary said that he would determine personally any applications made for asylum by those on board. He then went on to say that, subject to all legal requirements, he would wish to see removed from this country all those on the plane as soon as reasonably practicable. It would seem inconceivable, he said, that persons on the flight could have intended to claim political asylum unless, of course, they had been complicit in the hijacking.

Mr Straw is wrong to have decided what he would like to do to those people en masse when he was in the position of having to decide, in his judicial capacity as Secretary of State, whether each of the individual applicants had a good case under the UN Convention on Refugees. He was wrong to say that he would decide all the cases personally when he could not possibly have the time to read all the papers of 74 applicants and apply his mind properly to the question of whether or not they fitted the criteria of the convention. He was wrong to imply that if the passengers had no intention of seeking asylum when they took of from Kabul, their applications were flawed in some way. The circumstances of their arrival in the United Kingdom have no bearing, legally, on the determination of their cases.

At the same time, Mr Straw made arrangements which were designed to ensure that as many as possible of the passengers were induced to return by fair means or foul. What the IND normally does when it has an influx of people it considers should be detained is to grant temporary admission to an equivalent number of people detained in some other place. Presumably that is what happened in the end when the Afghans were transferred to Tinsley House from the Fire Service College at Moreton-in-the-Marsh. Presumably the purpose of having them in the Fire Service College was to prevent them having access to proper advice while the Immigration Service brought psychological pressure to bear on them to make sure that they wanted to go back to Afghanistan.

On the Sunday morning, 13th February, it was reported that only 17 of the 142 hostages wanted to return. By the time the plane left Brize Norton at 1 a.m. the following day, that number had increased to 72. On the Sunday, those traumatised people were held incommunicado in Gloucestershire. I made attempts to try to contact them via the Chief Immigration Officer at Stansted; but that only resulted in a call to me over my Sunday lunch from Ms Barbara Roche who assured me that the International Organization for Migration (IOM) would be there to look after the arrangements for those who requested voluntary repatriation. However, it was not the duty of the IOM to satisfy itself that the decisions had been well informed and made without coercion.

From the inquiries that I have been able to make of those who deal with Afghan refugees, it is not customary to detain them on arrival, except in very rare cases where nationality is at issue; for example, if an immigration officer has reason to suspect that the claimant is really Pakistani, he may refuse to grant temporary asylum (TA) while the person's origin is checked. But there was no objective reason in this case for the detention and those who wished to apply for asylum should have been given TA immediately.

What actually happened was described in a statement by Mr David Fazel, the only Afghan speaker who was called on to interpret at the Fire Service College. He arrived there on Saturday evening in time for a briefing that was given by Mr Bill Fleming of the IND, who explained that instructions had been given by the Home Secretary to make sure that the Afghans understood that they were not welcome here in Britain. They were to be told that whoever returned on the plane would be sure of a warm reception from the Taliban. However, if they did want to apply for asylum, they would not be staying in the comfort of the Hilton Hotel or even in the Fire Service College; they would be held under lock and key as prisoners in a detention centre for periods that might be upwards of a year; and at the end of that time they would almost certainly be sent back whether or not they liked it.

Mr Fleming said that the Home Secretary had told him that he would be a happy man if 50 of these people returned; if 75 went back, he would be very happy; and if 100 could be persuaded to do so, he would be over the moon. Perhaps he, Mr Fleming, might even be knighted, and all the staff involved in the exercise would receive generous bonuses, he said.

My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will very kindly give way. In this House, we are used to hearing from the noble Lord with authenticated remarks. He is never reckless in his censure of others. In view of the very serious allegations that he has just made, would the noble Lord care to inform the House of the name of his informant?

Yes, my Lords; it is Mr David Fazel, the interpreter. He has appeared on Channel 4 and his remarks have been reported, not in the mainstream press but in some of the Muslim magazines.

When the hijack victims arrived at about 10 o'clock that night, there was a very heavy police presence with Group 4 security. No one smiled or showed any friendliness towards the people. They were given the statement to which I referred, as required by Mr Fleming, as they were transferred from the coaches to the dining area. As soon as anyone said that they wanted to go home, they were transferred to another part of the building and were allowed to go to bed early. The remainder were made to listen to the same lecture repeatedly until 2 a.m. The groups included women and children as young as a few months old. No one was told that he had a right to any legal assistance or advice, or that he had basic humanitarian rights in Britain. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that, when someone arrives in this way, it is imperative that he should be given a full statement in his own language of the rights that he possesses.

The next morning the IOM officials arrived and the passengers who said that they wanted to return were interviewed, one at a time. The IOM was not concerned with the manner in which the decisions had been reached, but merely whether passengers would simply declare that they were going home voluntarily. Of the 20 people for whom he interpreted with the IOM, Mr Fazel says that five said they had been pressured into going by the threat of indefinite detention, followed by compulsory return. The IOM officials said that they had no right to interfere with the tactics used by the IND, although they did explain to the passengers that they had the right to change their minds at any point up to the plane's departure.

It was reported on February 16th that the Home Office had said that the applications on these cases would be made within 14 days. That deadline has passed, and the decisions have not yet been made. In the mean while, the Home Secretary has been trying frantically to get some other country—the United States, Russia and Pakistan have been mentioned—to accept the Afghans, regardless of whether or not they want to go there. He does not want to eat his own words about sending them packing, but he recognises that they cannot legally be sent back to Afghanistan. If he does refuse them, it will be glaringly inconsistent with the practice of the IND in recent years, as well as with our international obligations.

The Home Secretary does not have to adjust our asylum policy to the demands of the gutter tabloids and the would-be Jörg Haiders on the extreme Right of the Tory Party. The Prime Minister said at the birthday party of the Labour Party on Sunday that the Labour Party had been a civilising force in the 20th century; and so it was. It always stood for the fair treatment of people arriving here and asking for asylum. It did not say, as Jack Straw seems to believe, that a person's application could somehow be contaminated by the manner of his arrival, still less that women and children—32 of them—should be locked up for something that was totally outside their control.

I hope that this episode will teach us something about the nature of the asylum process in Britain and that we shall never again have to endure the spectacle of people who have arrived from a foreign dictatorship being locked up and treated in this manner.

My Lords, I should like to begin by expressing my thanks for the friendly guidance and assistance so willingly provided to me by officials and Members of your Lordships' House as I have struggled to understand its procedures—and, I might add, its geography. It has made what I feared would be a daunting process into an enjoyable one. I am most appreciative.

It is with some diffidence that I presume to engage in a debate as early as the week following my Introduction. However, it did seem to me to be justified because I have some experience of the issues involved, if only because I came to this country in 1965 as a stateless political refugee having been deprived of my passport and citizenship by the then South African government.

While not exactly welcomed, I, unlike most refugees seeking political asylum, had the advantage of language, education, friends and of being white. As a lawyer, I was able to get a job in the life assurance industry and ultimately combined this career with work in the National Health Service and in the voluntary sector, where for many years I have been a trustee of Oxfam, which I now chair.

Based on my initial experience of waiting in immigration department queues, it is perhaps easier for me than for those who have the privilege of British citizenship by birthright to understand the bewilderment of asylum seekers who, often having survived torture, atrocity and persecution in their own country, are then faced with the unavoidable processes of establishing their right to political asylum in this country.

Naturally, I do not suggest that these processes are unnecessary. But to most asylum-seeking refugees unfamiliar with the language, confused by the process and faced with the uncertainty of exile and what is going to happen next, the process is a frightening ordeal during which they need advice, patience and understanding from the immigration officials. Unfortunately, however, these immigration officials are desperately seeking to make inroads into a massive backlog, and are being criticised for their failure to do so. The one thing they do not have is time to be patient and, indeed, often even the time to look as carefully and in depth as they would wish at every case for asylum. Almost inevitably under such pressures they often make incorrect decisions leading to appeals, which in turn inflate the backlog.

So it is hardly surprising that there is a great deal of anger and frustration on all sides. All sides—the Government, the refugees, their representatives and the immigration officials—share a common interest that decisions on refugee status are made speedily and fairly. Yet until the backlog is eliminated, this will not happen. Recognising this, the Government have introduced two-way streaming whereby resources are allocated to processing all new applications speedily while, at the same time, other resources are applied to backlog cases.

While this approach is clearly to be commended, it requires significant additional resources in the short term to succeed. Although some additional resources have been provided, they seem far from sufficient as the statistics do not show that the pipeline is decreasing. By itself, throwing resources at problems does not necessarily solve them. There must be the right level and quality of resources, careful planning and intensive training, all of which take time. But as I found in tackling waiting lists in the NHS, and in the financial services industry, backlogs are impossible to eliminate unless sufficient funding is provided.

There is, of course, one other solution to the backlog problem. In raising it, I recognise that it will not be popular with certain sectors in the media and elsewhere. That solution would be, on a one-off basis, to lower the criteria for backlog applicants only in a way similar to the approach already adopted by government in relation to asylum seekers who had applied before July 1993.

While this would inevitably lead to a number of so-called "economic migrants" being allowed to remain, government might decide it is a price worth paying. In this regard it must be questioned whether allowing a number of economic migrants to remain in the UK would necessarily be a bad thing, for it must be remembered that economic migrants as well as political refugees normally have the potential and will to contribute to our society. Once they are able to take up employment they will no longer be a drain on the Government, while eliminating the backlog will enable a fair and speedy system of decision-making to be built up which would help to defuse the racist agitation which elements in the media and elsewhere arc fanning.

There has been support for this approach from an unexpected source. No less an authority than Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chairman, was quoted in the Financial Times last week as saying that if economic growth is to be sustained at its present pace in the USA, immigration policies would have to be relaxed, and that to restrain inflation would require either more imports or more immigration. He added that he was satisfied that immigrants wanted to work, thereby rejecting the myth that their aim was to sponge on welfare benefits, a myth so often peddled in the USA and in this country.

I move from solutions to implementation of the Immigration and Asylum Act. I wish to add to the points about the plight of unaccompanied children which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. Because government wished to treat these children in exactly the same way as other deprived children, they were excluded from the new Home Office support scheme and they are governed by the provisions of the Children Act.

Many of these children have not been given full assessment of their needs under the Act and some have even been placed in adult single accommodation, in some cases hundreds of miles from the authority which has responsibility for them. A recent example is that of a child placed by a London authority in Leeds, without even reference to the Leeds social services, leaving the child very vulnerable. New guidelines issued this month to local authorities are to be welcomed but appropriate action needs to be taken to ensure that the guidelines are followed.

It also appears that the Home Office does not have procedural guidelines for its staff to follow when handling the asylum applications of unaccompanied children. There is a consensus that children should be treated first and foremost as children and I would suggest this requires special guidelines for their special needs to be prepared by the Home Office, probably in co-operation with the Department of Health, refugee community groups and voluntary organisations.

I end on a personal note. When I arrived in this country in 1965 as yet another anonymous refugee, the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, came to Heathrow airport and persuaded the immigration authorities to allow me entry. I have not met or talked with the noble Lord since then. I am sure that he has quite forgotten the incident as he must have helped many other similarly anonymous refugees. Acts of kindness such as this to refugees seeking asylum have the potential to transform the lives of refugees in the same way as it has transformed my life. After 35 years in this country, now a British citizen and very proud of that, I welcome the opportunity to thank the noble Lord again.

My Lords, like others, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for the opportunity to debate this important subject today. I know that the whole House will want to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, on his moving, challenging, honest and yet characteristically modest maiden speech. I have known the noble Lord for many years as he was my long-suffering chair during my time as director of Oxfam. His arrival in this House is overdue. He brings to our proceedings deep experience from his time as a courageous human rights lawyer in South Africa in the grimmest years, his important role in the legal team defending Nelson Mandela and others in the Rivonia trial, through his outstanding business career in the United Kingdom, and his committed and effective chairing of Oxfam, not to mention his wider work with an impressive range of voluntary organisations with a cutting edge. Throughout his life the noble Lord has been a man determined to see justice and human rights turned into practical realities. It is therefore altogether appropriate that he has chosen to make his maiden speech in this debate. He will without doubt play a significant part in the work of our second Chamber.

In January, the Council of Europe, where I serve as a member of the British parliamentary delegation, adopted a well researched and argued report on asylum. It made a number of specific recommendations to member governments. The report noted that at its 50th anniversary the Council and its member governments had last year reaffirmed their commitment to the generous vision and values that inspired its creation, not least the right to freedom from persecution. It nevertheless expressed deep concern that those principles are in danger of being undermined by a climate of hostility towards refugees and asylum seekers in Europe. It noted that member governments themselves had been introducing restrictions with a view to reducing the number of refugees and asylum seekers in their countries. It underlined that the increasing determination of the European Union to harmonise the asylum and immigration policies of its members inevitably has significant consequences in terms of additional burdens for European countries which are not members of the European Union. It therefore called for a European-wide convention on the protection of refugees and asylum seekers to be drawn up by member and non-member countries of the European Union alike. I hope that the Government will treat this proposal seriously. If any issue demands maximum international co-operation, not only in Europe but across the world, it is the issue of migration and refugees.

The report also called for the right of asylum to be incorporated into the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It is really not convincing to argue against this that there is no need as it is already enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So are other rights covered by the European convention. The continued omission of this particular right unavoidably lends credence to the anxieties about ambivalence in commitment to its fulfilment. Surely if the European convention exists to underline the validity of universal rights in our own continent, the right to asylum should be there for all to see. I know that some noble Lords have argued that this might lead to delay in appeals procedures. But this is the kernel of the matter; are we or are we not concerned with justice and with the rights of the persecuted who seek asylum? If we are, appeals are a necessary part of the administration of justice.

Humane asylum policy will not be built on aspirations alone. It is in the detail of its administration and implementation that the humanity will be found. I should perhaps here declare an interest as national president of the YMCA which works increasingly in this sphere. With all its practical experience, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux advocates—the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has drawn attention to this—the introduction of a series of statements of rights with the appropriate statement to be handed out at port of entry or sent whenever immigration status is being varied. Rights to stay or to work would be explicitly covered. Would this not only help applicants but also greatly improve efficiency and administration thereby saving a lot of time and money? How do the Government see this proposal?

Does my noble friend not agree that great care must always be taken about fast-track procedures? Is it not the case that much of the backlog has been caused by appeals against inadequate handling in the fast track? Does he not also agree that it is difficult to reconcile the obligation to consider all applications fully and fairly on their individual merits with so-called "white lists" of countries and the presumption that applications from such countries will be without substance? Can my noble friend enlighten the House on the real role of the so-called "reception" centre at Oakington in this respect? I hope that it is not related to presumptions of the white list variety.

The issue of dispersal—already far advanced in the case of certain London boroughs—raises many issues. Let me mention just three. Are we certain that the religious, dietary and cultural needs of the dispersed can always be met at their destination? Are adequate specialist legal services always available? If not, why should funds not be provided to enable people to travel to where they can gain access to such services? Is it not extraordinary that people who want to support themselves can be prevented from expediting this by being unable to afford to travel to Croydon to chase their work permits, especially when, to have any chance in the daily Croydon queue, they may have to find accommodation overnight?

The charities and voluntary organisations trying to meet the human needs in this complicated story are frequently appalled that applicants and their families can be expected to survive on less than the absolute basic minimum income regarded as essential for our own citizens. They raise with me the issue of our responsibilities under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in this respect. Frankly, they see vouchers as the introduction of a tiresome, bureaucratic nonsense which has no place in a humane system. Repeatedly, I am told that vouchers are costly to administer; that they are inflexible, with no provisions for change; and that they provide no opportunity to shop where it is economic as distinct from where the vouchers are acceptable. Above all, vouchers are seen as humiliating and stigmatising for those compelled to use them. Charities will have to pick up the pieces and, for example, help with clothing when only food can be purchased. I, for one, hope that the Government will be brave enough to think again. In the mean time, we must surely recognise that the costs of meeting the humanitarian needs are a national responsibility and that local authorities and charities should be fully reimbursed.

No one denies that there is abuse or, worse, that there is cruel, cynical trafficking in people. Such trafficking should never be tolerated and must be dealt with severely. But the issue is whether or not we are sincere about the rights of the persecuted to asylum. If we are, deterrence and preoccupation with abuse must never be allowed to obscure our commitment to be a beacon of hope for those at dreadful risk. If we mean what we like to say about Britain being an example of freedom and justice, these are not principles divisible by national frontiers. There will be costs—but by convincingly shouldering those costs we shall strengthen the foundations of our own society.

My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, on his fine maiden speech, in which he described his own experience of asylum seeking. I understand from a recent interview with Mr F.W.de Klerk that there are approximately 300,000 people from South Africa now living in London. I am sure that they are making a significant contribution to life here. I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for initiating this debate on a subject of great importance, sensitivity and complexity. His speech reflected those qualities.

The noble Lord seeks to argue the case for policies which are both effective and humane. This, of course, precisely illustrates the challenge. As we know, statistics can support almost any argument. The people of Britain, perhaps wrongly, suspect that Britain has become, in the words of the noble Lord, "a worryingly attractive destination" for those simply wishing to better themselves, and parts of the media feed that anxiety.

On the other hand, with conflict in places such as Kosovo, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and the Horn of Africa, sadly there are a great number of genuine asylum seekers shuffling around the world. Statistics would also indicate that they are not reaching Britain in disproportionate numbers. Nevertheless, with the backlog of asylum applications and with the fracas at Dover still fresh in public minds, it is necessary to continue to seek effective policies and practices in order that this country can live up to its long tradition of welcoming those fleeing oppression. It would be dreadful if asylum seekers became a political football in the forthcoming local elections, or if they became a scapegoat for an increase in local council taxes, for there are good stories to tell.

The noble Lord, Lord Judd—I agreed with practically every word of his speech—referred to the work of the YMCA. Last week, I visited several YMCA hostels in south London. In each case, a good proportion of the guests comprised young men seeking asylum from places such as Kosovo. They know themselves to be lucky to be alive after fleeing from the war zone shortly before the ethnic cleansing of young men began. Most of them have not been idle while they have been here. Brushing up their language skills has been a first priority, and then getting access to educational courses. Indeed, I met one young man who was already involved in medical studies. He seemed also to be the unofficial leader of a network of do-it-yourself support for other young Kosovans throughout south London. I see the same support networks operating out of ethnic cafes in Streatham, where I live, where refugees from Somalia congregate and share streetwise information. Such information and support can be life-giving to those newly arrived in a strange country. It can, for them, indicate whether or not asylum policies are humane.

I can understand why the Government wish to spread the load of care of asylum seekers around the country, but it is impossible to create precisely this network of self-help support without a critical mass of people from a similar background. I am afraid that there is evidence that what some of us feared about the dispersal policy for asylum seekers is already happening. Rather than being isolated in the Midlands or in the north, people are quietly moving to where their fellow countrymen and countrywomen can be found, even if it means a loss of housing and voucher support. The consortium of London local authorities currently handling arrangements for dispersal to other parts of the country has found that up to 15 per cent of people simply disappear rather than be dispersed.

But on this day, when the Government have issued a new challenge to so-called "failing" schools, I should like to focus on the asylum-seeking children who are now appearing in significant numbers in London schools, a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, briefly referred in his speech. Not surprisingly, those children are being admitted to schools having vacancies. More often than not, that means that such schools are set in areas of social deprivation and are already over-challenged to meet the needs of their existing pupils.

Let me tell the stories of some children at a single London school. One child had walked north with his family from religious persecution in Iran. They walked for eight months, arrived in Siberia, and then somehow found their way to Britain. He is in that school. There is an 11 year-old boy from Somalia who is so traumatised that he has no memory at all of what happened to him before the age of 10. He is in that school.

There are also several children whose parents simply put them on any vehicle to get them out of the war zone. A barrister and surgeon in Somalia were so worried that their young daughter would be raped by the warring armies that they put her on a ship in the harbour, wherever it was going. It was going to Britain; and she is at that school. There is also a 13 year-old Afghan boy who carried his sick father across the mountains into Turkey. He is at that school. There is a 15 year-old boy still having nightmares because of the tortures he underwent in Somalia. He is at that same school. There are two children whose father was dragged out of their shop in Mogadishu and shot in front of their eyes. Then, fleeing with their mother, the mother was crushed to death under the wheels of a lorry. Somehow, they are at that school. This is an ordinary secondary school in London—and yet it has a multitude of such children.

Children like these, coming from war zones, are often traumatised by what they have witnessed. It is not unusual for a child simply to sit in a corner and sob for days on end. When life has been cheap and death near, the rules and regulations of a British school can seem trivial by comparison. When they do overcome their trauma, because they have never known what it is to play, teenagers can revert to behaviour more appropriate to a six year-old. This means that behavioural problems can be a challenge to an already over-stretched school.

The main factor determining whether or not such children are going to survive and prosper in the British education system is language skill. Without a grasp of English, immigrant children are marginalised and fall ever further behind in their studies. The provision of specialised teachers of English as a second language is absolutely vital. Yet, at that very school, where the children to whom I have referred are being cared for, the very same teachers who keep them sane and give them day in, day out support were given their notice last month—all of them. Why? I am no expert on the machinations of educational reform or government joined-up thinking, but it seems that until April 1999 Section 11 money came from the Home Office to fund teachers of English as a second language at schools where immigrant children are to be found. Last April, EMAG (Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant) replaced the Section 11 money and fell within a DfEE grant called the "Standards Fund". The EMAG money is to be used not only for teaching English as a second language (ESL), but to raise the standards of achievement for children from ethnic minority groups who are under-achieving. So far, so good, for our asylum-seeking children certainly fall within the group.

However, there is a snag. For the full EMAG funding to be available, the local authority must match the central government grant. It will not surprise your Lordships to learn that the very boroughs needing the grants find it difficult to find the matching money. There is another change. The ESL teachers previously employed by the local educational authority are now to be employed by the schools in which they were set.

Let us put all this joined-up thinking together. The borough in which our school is set is giving notice to 18 EMAG teachers; the school is giving notice to three.

Of course, it might be that all of them will be re-employed by their school, but as the funding available has been reduced because of the lack of that matching funding, this would seem to be unlikely.

I do not know the economic or educational reasons for making all of these changes. They must have made sense to someone. I do know that it is difficult to talk here about humane policies for asylum seekers when battered, bewildered, traumatised children risk having the most basic of support—the provision of EMAG teachers—gravely weakened.

Whatever else comes out of this debate, I hope that someone in some government department will revisit this issue. Rightly, as we have heard, asylum-seeking children are rarely turned away from British ports of entry. Having admitted them, surely we have a duty to house and educate them in the most humane way possible. A largish hole is developing in that net of support. It needs mending.

My Lords, I add my gratitude to my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to debate what must be one of the most difficult dilemmas facing this country today. I believe that we are one of the most generous and compassionate of peoples and that we can be very proud of our past history in receiving those who have fled their homes fearing for their lives.

At the time of the persecution of many Asians by Idi Amin, thousands of people arrived here just before Christmas. They were sent to centres around the country. I marvelled at the many offers that flooded in as people felt unable to enjoy their own celebrations without sharing it with those whose lives were in turmoil as a result of the evil tactics of a dreadful regime. I also remember hearing at first hand the heartrending stories of mothers who, at a moment's notice, had to gather together all they could and flee. They deserved our love and compassion. I believe that we gave it.

Let me say also that I believe we gained considerably from the people who came here at that time. Indeed, it was with great joy that we were able to welcome into your Lordships' House the third noble Lord to have become a British citizen as a result of idi Amin's rule. We can hold our heads high in the world in our response to those who are in real trouble with repressive regimes.

However, there is an equally important issue concerning our own people who also have great need. I remember having this demonstrated to me while canvassing in Newham during an election. I climbed an outside staircase to a flat that was obviously run down and seriously in need of repair. An elderly lady came to the door. I could see that she was having difficulty in moving. She told me a haunting story. As a result of her physical disability, she had been on the list for transfer to more accessible accommodation for some considerable time. She pointed to some purpose built flats on the opposite side of the road, one of which it had been suggested she could occupy. She had been looking forward to this, as it was extremely awkward for her to negotiate the stairs up to her flat. I am sure your Lordships can imagine her horror when she saw people moving into her promised accommodation. She inquired and was told that asylum seekers had been moved into the building as it seemed the only way to cope with the situation. She felt utterly let down. It appeared that those who had just arrived were regarded as more important than people like her who had paid their taxes but were now of no use.

The situation has changed over the years and action is now essential. Otherwise it will spiral out of control. The number of applications has increased dramatically from 32,500 in 1997 to 71,160 in 1999. The number of decisions has fallen under this Government from 36,000 to 32,000 with a consequential more than doubling of the number of people—51,795 to 103,000—waiting for a decision. This is unacceptable. May I be so bold as to suggest that it would be helpful if the Minister got to grips with the figures rather than casting them on one side as fanciful and fictional? It does seem that today we are seen as a soft touch—and I do use that word—around the world so that, in addition to real refugees, we are experiencing a massive influx of economic migrants who try to get around the regulations by devious means such as entering the country in the backs of lorries. This is quite unacceptable. A strong message must continue to go out to the effect that this is unacceptable. Illegal immigrants are causing those who are in genuine need to wait longer for their applications to be heard, if they are ever reached.

I wish I could suggest one, but of course there is no easy solution. One major problem is the time factor. I was horrified to read that the average time for reaching a decision is 13 months. During that time applicants have settled into the community and naturally will go through every known process to stay. It seems to me that the greatest attention should be given to the arrival of applicants and if they have arrived via a third country, they should be returned immediately.

I was most interested to hear my right honourable friend in another place, Michael Howard, say over the weekend that the refugees from Kosovo should be encouraged to return to their homeland. We have troops there to keep law and order, so their fears of persecution should diminish. I warm to the idea and feel that such initiatives must be fed into the urgent debate that is necessary to avoid chaos. If applicants are living here for years, getting married and having children, it is almost impossible to come to a logical, clearly thought out decision. I feel also that, at the end of the process, to ask a judge to assess whether a person would be under threat if returned is asking almost the impossible. After all, how can anyone in this country, with scant knowledge of the applicant's country, know what the outcome would be for that particular person?

We have an escalating problem with huge numbers of people making legal applications and, in addition, many going to ground once here. Also, as I have said, some come in undetected. So it is impossible to assess the complete picture. The question of identity cards should be examined again. That would be helpful and is imperative if we are to make inroads into overcoming a very grave problem.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who is the very model of a modern moderator and, like the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has been a respected authority on home affairs for many years. It is a pity that there are not more Conservatives like them in another place who can debate and criticise constructively instead of playing to the tabloid gallery, as so many do.

My Lords, does the noble Earl realise what damage he is doing me within my party?

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord can look after himself.

The growing number of asylum seekers is a legitimate cause for concern, but if we are looking for humane solutions, we should also look overseas at its root causes rather than find scapegoats among the bona fide refugees. It is time we looked again at the refugee problem in the wider context of international development and not just in relation to our own judicial process. I hope that we may find time for that later.

We also have to be patient while the IND catches up with the backlog of cases, which I am confident it will. We have got to have better decision-making and higher quality legal advice so as to identify the genuine victims of oppression who have a right to asylum here. In this House we have to continue to exercise proper scrutiny of asylum legislation and ensure that the treatment of those being examined and detained follows the standards that we would apply to our own citizens. My concern today is that we are not keeping up those standards.

Parts of the Immigration and Asylum Act affecting detained asylum seekers, in spite of our detailed discussion, are still unresolved and some may never see the light of day. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, and others will remember that at various stages of the Bill I expressed a concern about the need for full written reasons for detention in the case of detainees awaiting bail hearings. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General and others appeared to sympathise with this in their replies, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, later confirmed in a letter dated 18th December that written reasons in the case of more vulnerable detainees,

"should show what exceptional circumstances justified detention".

To my mind, the least one can do for someone detained against his will, after food and water, is to give him reasons for his detention—in writing. It is a basic human right no one should be denied. Yet we still have no confirmation that the Government have published their stated intention to replace the so-called "checklist", which is all the detainee currently receives, with a new form which provides for individualised written reasons. We saw the form in draft, and I know that the Government have since consulted with interested parties, which is always welcome. But perhaps the Minister can now say when the final form is going to be available. Can he confirm that any history of torture will be featured prominently on the form? As we argued in Committee, if full written reasons are eventually going to be available for a routine bail hearing within seven days, why not combine these and the bail summary in one document? That would save everyone time.

On the question of routine bail hearings, the Minister recently responded somewhat apologetically to my Question for Written Answer, confirming that they have been delayed and that detainees will just have to wait another year. The reasons he gave are administrative and technical, such as the need for prior regulation of advisers. But what are the Government really waiting for? There is no shortage of legal advisers, thanks to the presence of several expert organisations. If they plead that they have a lot on their mind at the moment, so have the detainees. Does it take 18 months to implement a decision about something as fundamental as personal liberty? Surely it would be reasonable to apply the presumption of liberty, and the right to bail set out in Section 46, to existing bail hearings before the routine ones are introduced. I am advised that under Section 53 the Secretary of State is already empowered to do this.

Similar concerns have been expressed to the chief adjudicator in a letter dated 11th February from Bail for Immigration Detainees and the Bail Circle. Bail for Immigration Detainees was started in June 1998 specifically to help immigration detainees to make bail applications. In its first year, it made applications for 128 of them. The Bail Circle was set up a year earlier by the Churches Commission for Racial Justice and is the only organisation dedicated to providing sureties for detained asylum seekers. I should like to pay tribute to the individuals behind these two organisations for the commitment, free time and financial support which they provide to detainees who are very often completely destitute and without any friends or contacts in the UK.

One of their particular concerns, which many of us share, is that the bail summary, which is a fuller statement than the checklist and is presented to the court, is not usually disclosed until the day of the hearing. The director of the Immigration Service Enforcement Directorate has admitted that the present arrangements are "far from perfect". Apparently, ports and enforcement offices fax last-minute messages or give oral briefings to presenting officers to save the staff spending time preparing summaries. Legal representatives therefore arrive in court with imprecise knowledge of the reasons for detention and sometimes new matters are even raised in court which were previously undisclosed by the Immigration Service. To tilt the scales even further against the detainee, if bail is refused the adjudicator may decline to give reasons for refusing it.

Another concern of Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID) is that there is no proper complaints procedure if something goes wrong before the hearing and immigration staff fail to follow the Government's guidelines. There is also concern about the size of bail and the sureties requested by adjudicators. According to BID, some 85 per cent of its clients have been detained since arrival in the UK and they often have no one to call on as sureties, let alone people who can lay their hands on substantial sums of money for bail—four-figure sums. The Bail Circle has only 142 active people on its register, while anything up to 1,000 people are detained at any one time and up to 10,000 may be turned round in one year. I know that my noble friend Lord Hylton has put down a Question for Written Answer on that subject.

The amount of bail set in some cases would seem to contravene the UNHCR guidelines, updated in 1999, which state:

"The amount set must not be so high as to be prohibitive".

My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that yesterday I wanted to stand as surety for an Afghan family? When I sent in my building society passbook, which has £5,500 in it, the adjudicator said that he was not willing to accept a piece of paper; he wanted the cash; and he wanted £11,000 for one family.

My Lords, that is precisely the kind of example that is causing concern. The UNHCR guidelines also emphasise that detention itself cannot become a form of deterrent. The guidelines state:

"The increasing use of detention as a restriction on freedom of movement of asylum seekers on the grounds of illegal entry is a matter of major concern … It requires the exercise of great caution in its use to ensure that it does not serve to undermine the fundamental principles upon which the regime of international protection is based".

I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance that the UNHCR guidelines on detention are being carefully followed, especially as we are about to witness the expanded use of that system of detention. We are now in the month when the new detention centre opens at Oakington, which will increase the detention capacity by a further 400 places.

The noble Lord, Lord Joffe, gave a maiden speech which was worthy of the great Bishop Bell, the Bishop of Chichester. The noble Lord mentioned children. In the light of previous statements that children are detained only in exceptional circumstances, will the Minister kindly repeat, specifically with regard to Oakington, the assurance (which was made many times by government during the passage of the Act) that no children will be detained except for very brief periods? Those were enumerated by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General as being, for example, overnight, and only in exceptional circumstances where no alternative exists, such as the care of the local authority or of parents or relations.

Finally, the Minister may remember that in Committee on 28th July last year I moved an amendment requesting regular inspection of detention centres where children are detained. The noble and learned Lord replied that he would draw the attention of the Chief Inspector of Prisons to this matter,

"and suggest the involvement of social services inspectors, if necessary".—[Official Report, 28/7/99; col. 1649.]

I should be grateful to hear from the Minister in due course what arrangements are now being made for inspection.

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. I admire his sincerity and his experience but, alas, I frequently disagree with him. I must do so on this occasion.

I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Elton. He has raised a very important matter, one, I fear, of conflict between our desire and the Government's duty to do all we can to raise the standard of living of our own people and the traditional desire, dating back to the 18th century, to grant asylum to foreigners from all over the world who have suffered, or might suffer, cruelty in their own countries.

There is a conflict, and it is only right to point out the human background. In 1950, the population of the United Kingdom was just 50 million. Admittedly, within it England was the most fully populated and in many ways had the more serious social problems in education, housing, and so on. Over the past 50 years, the population has risen to over 60 million. It is right to point out that the increase of 10 million has been caused to the extent of 3 million by people granted asylum or who have been granted the right to come here as immigrants. That is a very large increase.

Naturally, we are all human beings and we all feel sorry for people who are being oppressed abroad—and, goodness knows, that oppression is increasing all the time. But a government's first duty is to our own people. If they find that the numbers coming in, for various reasons, are so considerable and of such a kind that the social progress of our own people is held up, the government have a duty to reconsider the policy, or at any rate to apply it as strictly as possible.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, on his maiden speech—although I did not always agree with it. One admires the noble Lord as an example of what can be done for people who come here from abroad in their youth and who are trained here. Not all, alas, manage to cope as successfully as the noble Lord has done. He mentioned that once a person coming into the country is able to obtain employment, there is no longer a drain on the government. But I ask him to bear in mind that unemployment in this country is still pretty high and does not appear to be getting any lower. So we really do have to consider the number coming in and the effect that that has.

I have before me the figure for those granted asylum in the five years from 1994 and 1998. It was 33,840. That was a reasonable figure of 6,600 a year. But, in addition, large numbers were granted leave to come to this country as immigrants. Over those five years they totalled 300,830, including asylum seekers. I doubt whether we can go on in the way that we have done, so justifiably and in fulfilment of a liability. This was a legal tradition of this country until 1951. It then became an international obligation under the Geneva Convention. It is for consideration whether we should now consult other countries, especially Germany, which has absorbed even more immigrants, as to whether the Geneva Convention should be modified.

Perhaps I may say in passing that the Government are to be warmly congratulated on the attitude they took in dealing with the invasion of an aircraft full of people from Afghanistan. The Government were fully justified in their approach. Alas, we know from the cases decided that many asylum seekers are economic migrants. One feels sorry for them, but we have our unemployed. Many who come in to this country do not speak our language, have no money and will merely add to the unemployment and other social problems.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, in a most interesting speech and one that must be admired, stood up for the London education authorities and the efforts made to train children from abroad who do not speak English and to help them to learn the language. We know that our schools have education problems. Although it was a commendable effort to teach those foreign children, one wonders what effect it had on the education of our native children in those schools. We really must consider that aspect.

One could go on at considerable length in discussing this matter in some detail. I hope that I have said enough to justify any effort that the Government make—they have adduced some evidence that that is their desire to limit the numbers, ensure that there is less evasion and protect the standard of living, social progress and financial position of our own people.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for initiating this debate on a subject which receives more and more attention by the day and for his trenchant speech in introducing it. This debate takes place only a week after a Question was asked in this House on a related matter by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. It gives me pleasure to point out that before his arrival here the noble Lord represented a Portsmouth constituency in another place. I am grateful for his contribution this afternoon and for that of my noble friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, whose expertise in this area is considerably more than mine. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, whom I had the pleasure to meet last night, for his maiden speech with its strong personal note and application which was both edifying and moving.

I want to concentrate on the question of the detention of a small minority of the total number of asylum seekers, however that figure is calculated. That is a matter in dispute and is of significance for the reasons which follow. My principal point of contact is the detention centre at Haslar which is run by the Prison Service. Haslar is an area at the southern tip of the Gosport peninsula which takes its name from two Anglo-Saxon words: haesel, meaning hazel, and ora, meaning bank. It was a bank of hazel strewn on the marshy grounds around the Haslar creek to make it passable and habitable in olden times.

Two buildings were erected at Haslar in the mid-18th century: the Royal Naval Hospital, whose sad history figured in the debate in this House on Defence Medical Services three weeks ago, which was initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the hospital's barracks nearby. The Haslar barracks eventually became a centre for young offenders, and since 1989 it has been used as a detention centre. It has 160 inmates from around 30 countries who fled religious and political persecution, sometimes after beatings and torture. To all intents and purposes they live in prison conditions. The men have more freedom than prisoners; they sleep in dormitories and a number of recreational facilities are made available to them. But they live very confined lives and are cut off from any real contact with their families. Some arrive with or develop psychiatric problems which are difficult to deal with and cannot be explained on the basis of cultural differences.

I saw some of this only last Thursday on a visit in order to baptise and confirm a French-speaking Berber from Algeria. In that connection, I was able to call upon the services of the Anglican Diocese of Quebec for a bilingual order of service. It was the first confirmation that I had ever conducted where the candidate prompted the Bishop rather than vice versa. I visited Haslar only a few days after a visit to Kingston prison in Portsmouth. The two institutions seem similar. However, Kingston is for lifers, not asylum seekers. The way that the men live at Haslar is hardly humane. They need more freedom and that is being pressed for generally by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. Nor is such a strategy particularly effective. The view is sometimes expressed that it acts as a deterrent, which is not exactly borne out by the statistics. In any case, I regard that as a misconceived line of argument. In economic terms, the picture is even clearer. It costs very much more to accommodate inmates in a place like Haslar than the assistance given by the Home Office to each asylum seeker who is accommodated by local councils.

In making these observations in no way do I criticise the staff at Haslar who carry out their responsibilities effectively and sensitively. I question the fundamental nature and context of those responsibilities which I believe society has slipped into asking them to fulfil without adequate forethought. I pay tribute to the chaplains to these institutions, of which there are several, including Haslar's local vicar who works with inmates and staff alike, regardless of their religious convictions. I refer back to some of the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. The chaplain to Haslar has pressed for adequate chaplaincy in faiths other than Christianity. I also pay tribute to the visitors' networks, usually organised by local churches, which are often the only ones to provide a lasting link between these centres and local communities.

I believe that overall there are too many groups involved in the business of organising detention. That is a dynamic which is usually a recipe for diffusing responsibility rather than facing up to it and sharing it. Some detention centres are run by the Prison Service, others are not. Different disciplines operate in different places. I am aware that the 1999 Act seeks to make sense of such variations and the much-needed organisation and speeding up of bail applications which has figured in a number of speeches this afternoon. But I believe that a different model from that of the Prison Service needs to prevail, tempting though that may appear to some if only for its familiarity. I look forward to a response on this matter from the Minister either this afternoon or later in written form because it causes a great deal of concern.

In conclusion, I should like to make a general point about the relationship between ethnicity, nationhood, culture and religion. We cannot change our ethnicity. We can change our nationhood only by moving or changing boundaries either by duress or a collective decision. We may opt in and out of some aspects of our inherited culture according to circumstances. We see more obvious signs of that in Britain today. Our long tradition and history which have shaped our collective lives include the Viking invasion with its particular cultural enterprise in the early middle ages. As far as concerns religion, that is, or should be, a matter of choice.

Those factors undergo different kinds of shifts and movements all the time. The seemingly intractable nature of the issue of asylum seekers is evidence of precisely that and brings home to us all that we live a much more fragile and insecure existence than appears to be the case. There are those in our own world who seek to dictate to others on all four of those factors. We are told that about one in every 100 people on the planet has been forced to flee his country because of violence and persecution. Asylum seeking is not an easy or straightforward matter and, like anything else, is open to abuse by either party, as it were. Above all, it needs analysis which puts under the spotlight the economic and foreign policies of countries such as our own. Perhaps more fundamentally, it needs to be pressed vigorously at the international level in the context of human rights.

My Lords, in international law, asylum is the protection granted by a state to a foreign citizen against his or her state. That person has no legal right to demand it and the host state has no legal obligation to grant it. On the other hand, a refugee is a person who is forced to flee from his or her country of origin to escape persecution because of religion, nationality, social grouping or political belief. He or she has no national protection or status and in many instances has been uprooted and is homeless. Hence, most of the large-scale population movements of this century have been of refugees, starting with the 1.25 million who fled Russia during the revolution to the 12 million in Europe at the end of the Second World War, and proceeding in tides of desperate humanity fleeing Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam and, more recently, over 2 million from Rwanda and 4.5 million from Yugoslavia.

It is possible that when the situation causing the refugee problem has been put right large numbers of those uprooted will go back to their country of origin. The receiving countries work very hard to ensure such an outcome. The direction of this endeavour is reflected in the ways in which refugees are treated. Often those fleeing are the most able citizens. It is important to their country that those able citizens return to help to rebuild their country.

It also seems that increasingly the distinction between asylum seeker and refugee is being blurred. That may be a reflection of the volume of applications for asylum which, in the past year, rose to a peak of over 7,300 in September. Last year, the September to November numbers for asylum seekers were 42 per cent higher than in previous years. The ever-increasing, gargantuan number of asylum seekers passed over 71,000 last year, as other noble Lords have already said.

The Government's inability to manage the processing has resulted in the numbers awaiting decisions passing over 104,000 in January this year. How will the Government solve that chaos? Will they give amnesty to huge, unprocessed numbers to solve the backlog problem as they have done in the past to potentially 30,000 asylum seekers?

In November last year, the 6,400 who applied for asylum came from over 40 different countries. Those asylum seekers obviously are not daunted by the Labour Party's manifesto which states,

"Every country must have control over immigration and Britain is no exception";

or perhaps they are misunderstanding the Government's rhetoric on being tough on bogus asylum seekers. In short, whichever way one reads the statistics on asylum seekers, this Government's management of the situation needs rethinking.

In all walks of life and in many varying circumstances, one hears well-intentioned, hard-working, caring and compassionate people being adjured to, "Take care of yourself or you will be no help to anybody if you collapse from exhaustion". Perhaps it is time that the Government took steps to ensure that bona fide asylum seekers are not let down by this country because our system is simply not working.

According to the Daily Mail, it costs £400 to process each application—that amounts to more than £25 million for the past year's intake, and more than £40 million to tackle the whole of the waiting list. On top of that, it costs £1,300 a week for each resident in a detention centre.

Perhaps most applicants should be contained in government centres until they are processed as the vast majority are not recognised as refugees and granted asylum. It would deter bogus applicants and enable fairer, faster and firmer processing. The Immigration Service union has estimated that the cost of the asylum process is close to £2 billion a year at present. That is a huge burden on this country, especially when more funding is required for the NHS, schools, and law and order.

The Government are not even expected fully to fund the cost of asylum seekers this year. It is estimated that around £90 million may have to be funded by local authorities. However, there are other hidden costs paid out by various bodies throughout the country. I believe that it costs somewhere in the region of £3 million for the NHS to supply translators in London. That situation must surely be repeated now in all the NHS trusts throughout the country with the dispersing of asylum seekers nationwide. There is the burden on our schools which we have already heard about from other noble Lords, on housing resources and on the forces of law and order.

Perhaps the most appalling problem that has been brought to my attention is the lack of traceability in the system. The system for asylum seekers assigns them to locations, sets up payment through the social security system direct to the landlord for their rent, and allows them a small cash sum every week. The local LEA takes responsibility for teaching any children involved and the local medical service puts them on its books. If they do a midnight flit, no one seems to miss them and grateful landlords continue to receive regular payments. It is amazing that this system of traceability also obtains if asylum seekers are refused leave to enter and are deported or if they return home of their own free will.

It seems clear to me that the system is wrong and that the backlog is merely an added complication. Everybody involved, with the exception of the few landlords guffawing all the way to the bank, pays a heavy cost; none more so than those poor applicants who turn up here by fair means and have to wait and wait, fret and exist on a pittance for years.

Surely the Government can be bold here. How much more effective would our money be were it to be used in the areas from which asylum seekers come to help the adjoining states to receive them. They would be in the same geographical area. They would be among members of their own race, religion, ethnic group and culture already there. If their presence attracted as little as the cost of processing their applications in this country, they would be much better off in most cases.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is he aware that the system that we currently operate was introduced by his own government when in office? Has the noble Lord estimated how much it would cost the Government if we were to detain all asylum seekers and applicants, given that, according to the figures the noble Lord used, currently there are 100,000 cases outstanding?

My Lords, I accept the point that the noble Lord makes and that the initial cost would probably be a lot higher, but eventually it would reduce dramatically because we would not have 104,000 unprocessed asylum seekers being paid for by the taxpayers. It would surely reduce the very large number of asylum seekers coming into this country.

Can the Minister say what records are being kept to monitor the movement of asylum seekers and those who fail to be granted asylum? Can he say whether the Government are actively removing from this country all bogus asylum seekers?

My Lords, like other speakers, I welcome the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in opening up this important and topical subject for debate today. Current attention in the media tends to concentrate on two aspects of asylum policy: first, that Britain is regarded world-wide as a "soft touch", if the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will forgive me for using those words, and that our problems with asylum seekers are worse than those of other countries; secondly, that our main aim must therefore be to keep people out since letting them in adds to pressures on our social services with no compensating benefits.

I hope that this debate will have helped to put both these impressions into perspective. It is probably true that our long-established minority communities, our reputation as a haven for refugees, our generous benefits system, our appeals procedures, and the virtual absence of any after-entry controls, make Britain an attractive destination, although I am bound to say that some of the points made by noble Lords this afternoon, including those made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, make me wonder quite what is Britain's attractiveness for asylum seekers.

But let us put this into perspective. We need to compare our figures with the very much higher figures for Germany, even though I understand that we exceeded German numbers in December for the first time, and also the higher per capita numbers for the Netherlands and France. We also need to remember that 80 per cent of all refugees remain in the developing world. Other noble Lords may be as surprised as I was to learn that Iran has the largest refugee population in the world with more refugees than all 15 European Union countries put together.

Of course we should continue to take steps to keep out those whose claims for asylum are unfounded, and to prosecute those criminals who are duping and fleecing hundreds of illegal immigrants through clandestine networks. According to the International Organisation for Migration, those networks are probably responsible for attempts to smuggle up to 1 million people in a multinational business worth 8 billion dollars. Visa regimes, and the screening of passengers before embarkation, must no doubt continue to play a part in immigration control. But it is important that our national reputation for generosity to refugees and genuine asylum seekers, without which many of our forebears in this House—like, indeed, the maiden speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Joffe—would never have ended up as British citizens, is not eroded by necessary attempts to keep out the bogus and illegal.

Britain has a long and honourable tradition of providing asylum to people seeking refuge from persecution. As a leading member of the international community and upholder of its values, with a growing reputation for a multiracial, diverse and entrepreneurial society, it is vital that we maintain that tradition.

We should also bear in mind the fact that ageing populations in the European Union (and especially in Germany and Italy) mean that, despite the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, increasing numbers of workers from outside the European Union will be needed in the future. The United Nations Population Division has estimated that the European Union may need as many as 159 million immigrants by the year 2025 to balance our ageing populations. It is quite probable that many of those who are currently seeking asylum in this country could contribute their skills to economic growth and social stability. Should we not be looking for mechanisms to enable them to enter this country by legitimate means rather than via the asylum route?

Most importantly, we need to put this problem into the context of our wider European and foreign policies: our human rights obligations, including those under the 1951 Geneva Convention; and our international developmental policies towards those countries, of which Mozambique is a terrifying current example, which are staggering under the burdens of man-made and natural disasters. I hope that the Minister can assure the House that the Department for International Development takes into account the source of our main refugee flows—Somalia, the former Republic of Yugoslavia and Sri Lanka—in prioritising our aid policies. Reducing migration pressures must, after all, play a major part in eradicating poverty.

Finally, I hope that the Minister can assure the House that we are making the best use of European political co-operation and our diplomatic representation abroad, both bilaterally and multilaterally, in addressing these problems. It is clearly important that visa regimes should be efficiently and promptly administered. But visas do not only stop those not entitled to come here; they can also discourage the flow of genuine visitors and legitimate businessmen, with the consequent negative impact on trade and investment prospects.

Having myself had experience of some diplomatic posts in which the visa section comprised well over half our home-based staff, I know how important it is not to let migration control dominate our bilateral relations. That is perhaps especially true of our relations with European Union accession countries, which are probably the greatest current source of abusive asylum claims among non-visa nationals but which will be our full partners in the European Union within two or three years .Are we doing enough to explain to and co-ordinate our immigration policies with those governments from where the main flood of asylum seekers comes? I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us something about the prospects for greater European co-operation and harmonisation in this field, following the decisions of the Tampere European Council last October, and for developing a global approach with our European partners for effective and humane immigration and asylum policies.

My Lords, Latin is not often quoted in this House. However, two Latin words come to my mind: sum timida (I am as timid as a timid woman). Following learned speeches and the memorable maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, I may wonder why I speak. However, I am a kind of religious acolyte of the noble Lord, Lord Elton: where he leads I am bound to follow.

The subject of the debate is one of the most difficult of the issues discussed in this House. The moral, legal and administrative issues are hopelessly intertwined. On the moral side, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is well qualified to give a lead. I attend every week the prayer group inspired by him; and, naturally, I therefore join the queue of people supporting the noble Lord's Motion.

I shall not deal with the problem about who should be let in. Other learned people have spoken on that. Starting from the standpoint of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I ask: is there a Christian approach to the question? In the Gospels we are told that Christ told us, "I was a stranger and you took me in". It would be hard to follow that literally in our home or in the state. Nevertheless, I am sure we are all happier in our conscience if we believe that in this ever more prosperous country—I am glad to think that it is now more prosperous than it has ever been—we have a large share of the attempt to help those who are persecuted abroad.

What is persecution? When I was at Eton—100 years ago, or thereabouts—I was told by a friend near the end of my time there that I was the most unpopular boy in the school. It may or may not have been true. I thought that he was. But I was not persecuted. I was captain of the house football team which won the school cup; and I was near the top of the sixth form. I doubt whether I would have gained admission to Winchester or Harrow as an asylum seeker.

A contemporary of mine was teased unmercifully, partly because he was very bad at cricket. We were a cricket-mad house. My housemaster was a famous cricketer. The late Gubby Allen was cricket captain, after whom the stand is now named at Lords. Plum Warner, another cricket captain, like Gubby Allen, and captain of England later, used to visit us the whole time because his son was in the house. My poor friend was very short-sighted and no good at cricket, so he was teased unmercifully. So he might well have said that he was persecuted. He went on to become Lord Chancellor and more distinguished than any of us. Undoubtedly, the limited persecution we afforded him may or may not have benefited him, but he was the object of persecution at school and made good in a big way later. As regards persecution, someone has to decide. I do not question the machinery, but the process takes a long time. I know the keenness of the Minister, the Government and everyone else to speed up the process.

I am not concerned to decide who is persecuted—I leave that to other better informed people—but I should like to know what happens to the people while they are waiting for a decision to be made. As one would expect, we are given advice from the Bishops, from the Minister and from many other people, but the Minister will tell us how the process can be speeded up.

In the meantime, people are waiting one or two years and what is done about them? My Church, the Roman Catholic Church, has expressed its anxiety under various headings and I have given the Minister notice of them. The first is poverty. What about the poverty of the people waiting throughout the interminable period while they are being examined? I am informed that their standard of living is only 70 per cent of what is regarded to be the minimum in this country. Is that Christian?

The second is the voucher system. It is not clear who invented it and we claim that the Conservatives did. Whoever invented the system, it has few friends among those who care for the unfortunate asylum seekers. A number of experts will speak on the voucher system and all that goes with it.

The third heading is dispersal. Will the people scattered throughout the country be well looked after? The Minister may tell us that they will be, but it seems doubtful. Will they receive legal advice if they are scattered all over the place? Those and many other problems are associated with asylum seekers. Will resources be made available to the areas which take many of the people?

I have given the Minister notice of those questions and I felt it right to raise them. They are in the minds of so many people. I know that the Minister is a serious and compassionate man and that he will give careful answers. He may run out of time and be unable to deal with my questions in detail, but I know he will deal with the debate in a thorough fashion.

My Lords, I, too, express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Elton for bringing forward the Motion. I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, on an outstandingly and deeply experienced maiden speech. It is more than the usual form of words to say that we hope to hear from him often in the future.

I particularly welcome the wording of my noble friend's Motion; the inclusion of the words "effective and humane". They are essential to a consideration of the subject. We have a long and proud tradition of accepting people from other countries who are in trouble and distress. Not only can we be proud of that on humanitarian grounds, but it has benefited us economically and socially. When I was Home Secretary many years ago, I had the privilege—I will say "privilege"—of having to cope with the Ugandan Asians. They have certainly proved the economic benefit which people from abroad can bring to this country. Even now,20-odd years later, I receive letters and Christmas cards from Ugandan Asians in various parts of the country telling me of the economic success they are enjoying and the economic benefit they are bringing to those among whom they live.

However, modern conditions have made the acceptance of this duty and privilege much more difficult to bear. I am glad that among our contributors today is the noble Lord, Lord Wright, who, with his Foreign Office experience and knowledge, greatly stressed the need for action within the foreign policy field. We must get out there and try to deal with some of the problems which give rise to the flood of people coming to this country. No magic will take it away, but it ought to be an important part of our policy to bring to bear all the pressure, help and persuasion we can to those in other countries whose actions—or lack of them—affect the pressure of the onward flow to this country.

Today, I want to stress the fundamental importance of the quick decision. We must get rid of the huge backlog. It is not a subject we can bandy about with party political credits or debits. Governments of both parties have tried and failed. When I was Home Secretary 25 years ago, I did not believe that all the mistakes had been made by my predecessors or now by my successors. It is a hideously difficult problem. However, we must get rid of the backlog because a long waiting list encourages a longer one. People can see that once they arrive here they have a chance of refuge for a few years before being sent away. That must be an incentive if you are in a hopeless condition in an unfriendly country.

We must think about the problem anew. Perhaps I am about to say something which can be criticised on moral as well as practical grounds, but I believe that we need to draw a line under the existing queue and start again with a new queue when the new operation begins on 1st April. We should say that from that date a quick decision will be made on everyone—within two or three months at the most—because, if we continue to add to the existing queue, we shall increase the belief that people can come and stay. That is not only depressing to those who come and provides bad opportunities to the least conscientious of them, it is also a depressing factor for our own population.

I do not mean that having drawn a line under the queue they should be forgotten about. I am saying in broad and un-thought-out terms that one team of people should work on the old queue and another should work on the new one. Then at least from April onwards everyone coming here will be decided about quickly and not added to the bottom of an over-long queue. I realise that one can find moral and practical difficulties in the suggestion, but they need to be overcome. I have thought about the problem a good deal over the years and I see no hope in adding people to the queue and then trying to reduce it.

Furthermore, I am convinced that more resources are needed. We shall not get quick decisions until we have allocated more resources. More resources in the short run are the only way of saving money in the longer run. Before and after my ministerial career I have been a businessman and that suggestion comes easier to me than to Ministers and politicians and even easier than it comes to the Treasury. I have believed for a long time that the amount of money we waste by taking short-term rather than long-term financial views is beyond calculation.

I believe that all of us, on all sides of the House, should be prepared to bring pressure to bear on the Government and to support them in providing a large temporary influx of resources in terms of people, and therefore money, to tackle the problem of those waiting. I am sure that until quick decision-making is in place we shall not get rid of the worst problems of the present situation.

That brings me to the present policy of the Government, which I approve in principle, of dispersing those who are waiting for a decision. Yes, I agree with that policy, but I believe that dispersal should take place only after a decision has been made. I do not believe that dispersing asylum seekers prior to a decision will be helpful. I believe that it will spread discontent and exacerbate the difficulties of dealing with the queue. People will have to travel to an interview when it is time for them to be seen. I believe that dispersal before a decision is made is very dangerous. Once a decision has been made, then dispersal should of course take place. If people are allowed to stay, their dispersal should be guided as far as possible to areas where others from their own country have already settled. That means—again, I return to resources—that the local authorities of the areas to which the asylum seekers are going must be given adequate financial help.

I know that local authorities have always complained to governments that they do not receive adequate financial help. I believe that that is probably true. One should consider the feelings of the local population. They will not tolerate resources allocated to local authorities for their benefit—that is, for their homes and for schools for their children—being diverted to newcomers. Therefore, when dispersal takes place, the local authorities must be given adequate resources to meet the extra expenditure which the Government imposes upon them.

This debate could continue for a long time in a number of areas. I want to make one small point which has been brought to my attention by the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture. I came into contact with that organisation many years ago. It does the most magnificent work for the people whom it helps. It is somewhat concerned about the possible effect of strengthening the number of local representatives who try to stop people from coming to this country. While it understands the need for that, it also sees a great danger: if in the areas from which they are trying to escape it is known that people are being interviewed, that draws the attention of the authorities in those countries to the very people who are most at risk of persecution. The organisation is not saying that that has occurred but, in strengthening the local questioning of people, it asks the Government to take particular care to do so in a way that does not draw those people to the attention of the authorities from whom they are trying to escape.

I hope that we shall find that this is a matter on which all parties can unite, above all in providing adequate resources to tackle the problem. I end as I began: only when we carry out a big attack through adequate resources in the short run shall we have any hope of solving the problem in the long run.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for calling this timely debate and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Joffe on his eloquent speech. Following on from what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Carr, it will be extremely useful to have an expert on queues to keep pushing on this issue.

Listening to the debate this afternoon, I was struck by the thought that much of the problem is one of perception. I once lived by a housing estate in south London off the Old Kent Road. It was one of the largest housing estates in Europe. When I consider this matter, I try to understand how someone living in that area would perceive the problem: someone who is insecure about housing and employment and who may never have been beyond these shores. Of course, to someone such as that, strangers who speak a tongue which they do not understand, who have a culture which they do not know and who have a different religion, could be seen as threatening.

However, again, as my noble friend Lord Joffe said, we could see those incomers as a wonderful resource for the future, perhaps meeting our future employment needs. Therefore, the issue is quite largely one of perception. I believe that it is very much a job for the Government to do all that they can to persuade people and to give reassurance. For example, I believe that people should be more aware of the appalling experiences that genuine asylum seekers have undergone in their own countries. I am sure that many more people would be prepared to do without a little of what they have—for example, to pay an extra few pounds on their council tax—if they felt more sympathy for those entering the country.

In many different ways, I believe that it is necessary to tackle this problem by engaging the resident population. Earlier, we spoke of the need for English tuition in schools and the desperate shortage particularly of one-on-one tuition for young people who cannot speak any English. Surely there is a way to harness the local population in that type of work. It would save money and would provide a way of integrating local people and newcomers. I know that the Government recently published an integration document. I am sure that they have taken this matter seriously. However, I believe that the matter needs to be very strongly pushed.

Why is it particularly important to adopt humane policies towards unaccompanied children and young people who seek asylum? Last year I talked to an 18 year-old woman from West Africa. She was living in the Centrepoint hostel in Soho for young homeless people. We had talked for some while. I asked her what her home country was like. That led to her describing to me what had become of her sister. Walking in the street, her sister had been stopped by a gang of soldiers. A game of chance followed. Either she would lose her hand (a "handy"), her arm (an "army") or she would lose her life. The sister was murdered. As she told me this story, the young woman wept.

A young Somali man of about 18 years of age—an upright young man who had been sleeping on the streets of King's Cross for two months—told me that his parents had been killed. He should not have been on the streets; he should have been met at the port of entry. I did not manage to find out from him why he fell through the system, but it was quite clear from his state of exhaustion that he had been on the streets for two months. His parents had been killed. As for his brothers, he had no idea where they were but he feared the worst for them. He had been so long without sleep and was under such stress that he found it hard to concentrate. Intelligent as he clearly was, his mind would begin to wander after a minute or so.

Normally, the hostel's maximum length of stay is three weeks. There is a curfew and residents are obliged to leave the hostel between 9 a.m. and 3.30 p.m. during the day. Residents are not allowed to spend more than half an hour in their rooms before lights out. The two public areas are noisy and cramped. Yet, asylum seekers are staying there for three months or more. There is a severe lack of available accommodation into which young homeless people may be moved, and that most especially affects young asylum seekers.

I believe that we should treat humanely all young people who seek asylum from persecution. We need to treat all unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and young people with care because they are a long way from home and are very vulnerable.

For the protection of the young seeking refuge, it is most important to have effective asylum policies. It is extremely difficult for a child or young person to cope away from his family and in an alien country. I have seen young men from Africa and the Balkans degenerate as they attempt to grow up without parents. Parents sometimes send their children to the United Kingdom because they know of the economic opportunities here. I know that it is a difficult matter but I believe that they should be discouraged from doing so.

The first priority must be to give those children and young people the support that they need when they are here. But the second priority must be to go to their home countries, as my noble friend Lord Wright and the noble Lord, Lord Carr, have said. We must be proactive and inform parents of the difficulties that their children will face, growing up without parents in England. They may end up in children's homes. Sadly, we know how inadequate those homes can be. Oxfam and Save the Children are already making efforts in that direction but I am sure that they need more support than they are receiving at present.

The Refugee Council urges that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and young people should have fast-track assessments. Given what has been said already this afternoon, that may seem rather too much to ask. But, if it is safe for a child to return home, it is best that that is done at an early stage. That is less disruptive for the child. After some time—and again, this has already been mentioned—it becomes extremely difficult to tear the child away from the new environment into which he has settled. Will the Minister tell the House whether there will be a fast- track assessment for unaccompanied children and young people? Does he agree that family reunion here and in the home country are both extremely important goals?

So policies towards asylum seekers need to be effective for the sake of asylum seekers. They also need to be effective to protect the under-privileged of our own society and to prevent ethnic hatred. At lunch today, I was speaking to my secretary, who has a house in Kent. She is concerned about whether her local authority must meet the costs in connection with asylum seekers. She wanted to know whether she, in Kent, would have to take responsibility for asylum seekers arriving in this country rather than the burden being shared with the rest of the taxpayers in Britain. Already, I sensed a feeling of resentment and memories of a friend whose jewellery was stolen by some immigrants. That spiral of resentment, fear and hatred may be extremely quick to establish itself.

I hope that the Government will take every possible measure to reassure those living in the inner cities that they are not threatened by the incomers . They should do everything they can to unite and knit together our society. I should hate to see us in a situation similar to that which exists in the United States. That country may have a more open-door policy which may work economically but very often the social fabric of society there seems to have collapsed.

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for introducing this debate today. He and I share many common interests and, therefore, I am delighted to contribute on the subject which he has chosen on this particular occasion.

I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, on his maiden speech. He brings great credit to this House in citing his own personal example on this very important subject. We are grateful to him. I hope that we shall hear from him on many other occasions.

The core of the argument today,as identified by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and advanced by many noble Lords, is that policy towards asylum seekers should be effective and humane. That is the test of our civilised values, and nothing should detract us from those basic principles.

Immigration and asylum matters are fairly emotive. Despite the nature and effects of the immigration and asylum legislation, the circumstances surrounding it remain contentious. The purpose of the Immigration Act is not in dispute: it is to admit those who are eligible and to exclude or, subject to the appropriate humanitarian principles, to remove those who are not.

I have said before—but I repeat—that in any administrative system, questions arise about priorities. The administration of asylum procedures is no exception. In this instance, the need to exclude the ineligible—in this case, mainly the economic migrants—means that checks must be made to determine who is and who is not eligible.

The Government should have realised that the greater the emphasis on excluding the ineligible, the more intensive those checks must be. We seem to forget that the more intensive the checks, the more complicated they are to administer and thus there is more delay for those who are eligible. But if the objective of excluding those who are ineligible is taken to extremes in matters which are not susceptible to documentary proof, the risk of excluding those who are genuine becomes very serious indeed.

The matter is not helped by hostile press coverage in the past few weeks. It reminded me of similar coverage when the Conservative government, led by Ted Heath, Robert Carr, David Lane, Iain Macleod and others, agreed to admit 28,000 Ugandan Asians to this country. I pay tribute to, and am delighted to see, the noble Lord, Lord Carr. He mentioned that particular incident. That was a brave political decision by a party which enshrined humanitarian principles in its core values. That was leadership at its best. As the noble Lord, Lord Carr, quite rightly pointed out, the East African Asians have repaid that trust by contributing economically to the prosperity of their new homeland. Therein may lie the answer to many of the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick.

Asylum matters require sensitive handling and the debate should be focused on our moral and legal obligations towards the innocent victims of human rights violations. That does not mean an open-door policy. Nobody advocates that; but as Amnesty International says, we should be less preoccupied as to which government have been most effective in adopting robust policies to deter people seeking refuge here. The Government have a duty to lead. We are waiting for that particular leadership.

We can all start brandishing figures about the number of asylum seekers entering this country. We heard some of those figures today. I shall resist that temptation, but we cannot escape the fact that in recent days we have seen large-scale abuses of human rights in Europe. It is still a fact that in terms of asylum applications per 1,000 inhabitants, the United Kingdom ranks ninth in Europe. Even more important is the fact that in 1999, over half—54 per cent—of asylum decisions resulted in positive outcomes.

I am concerned that in recent days articles have been published specifically whipping up antagonism against unaccompanied asylum-seeker children. Representatives of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, which the noble Lord, Lord Carr, mentioned, tells me that none of the children with whom they are working came here of their own volition. All were brought or sent. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark quite rightly described how they came to be in this country.

Children and adolescents faced with traumatic events and situations cannot work through the stages of development in the normal manner. They become overwhelmed by their experiences of torture and atrocity in their own country and by their experiences here. Children who are overwhelmed cannot develop until the consequences have been worked through. The situation is exacerbated by the discontinuity of exile, depriving children of the community, carer and cultural backdrop against which they can develop and make the transition from childhood to adulthood. The uncertainty over whether they will be allowed to stay here may in itself result in arrested development.

The Medical Foundation has long sought to encourage the use of powers under the Children Act to provide extra support to asylum-seeking children up to the age of 21. Yet, in the Daily Mail on 23rd February, members of the Immigration Service union suggested that because of cases involving age dispute, a new category of asylum-seeking children over 15 should be created. That is symptomatic of an approach which loses all sight of those whom the system exists to protect and which penalises the person in need of protection for the perceived sins of others.

Recent debates in the House of Commons, notably on 2nd February, have done little or nothing to counter such hostility and in many cases have sought to fan it. That increases social tension, social exclusion, and the isolation and marginalisation of asylum seekers. It also increases harassment, including violent attacks. The House of Lords resolutely refused to go down this route in the debates on the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, and trusts that the Minister would condemn any hostility which results in violence to those who came here to escape the same.

We need fair and effective procedures. Following the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, a number of voluntary organisations got together to produce the report entitled Providing Protection. That report emphasised the need to focus attention and resources on making sustainable initial decisions the cornerstone of an asylum policy that would be both effective and humane. It made clear the need to "front load" the system.

The principle of "front loading" has yet to be taken on board. One example cited by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is the new detention centre in Oakington in Cambridge, due to open in late March. Cases are to be selected for Oakington on the basis that they are manifestly unfounded, but there will be no substantive asylum interview until the person is already detained in that centre.

How can a case be identified as manifestly ill founded before it has been investigated? The question arises in the context of Oakington as to what will be known about the applicants save their nationality and method of entry. Among clients referred to the Medical Foundation this month are nationals from Turkey, Sri Lanka, Iraq, Russia, Northern Cyprus, Bulgaria, Togo, Ethiopia, Iran, Afghanistan, Cameroon, Burundi, Eritrea and Algeria. Torture crosses many national boundaries. A cursory look at the country from which a person came cannot tell us what torture or atrocity he or she has suffered.

In the White Paper entitled Fairer, Faster, Firmer, the Government stated that evidence of a history of torture should weigh strongly in favour of temporary admission or temporary release while a claim is being considered, yet there is no evidence of that being applied in the case of detention. That has never been checked. We need to find out whether such factors are taken into account before detention is authorised.

Similarly, the Government stated that the detention of families and children is particularly regrettable but that it is sometimes necessary to effect the removal of those who have no authority to remain in the UK. Nobody disputes that. However, is it not right that such detention should be effected as close to removal as possible?

I ask that we do not get excited about the numbers game; that is not the issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Carr, rightly pointed out, the issue is for us to deal as efficiently and humanely as possible with the numbers of people on the waiting list. I believe that a time will come when those in genuine fear of persecution and those who have been tortured will rightly be allowed to stay in this country. They will make a positive contribution here, as have many other people in the history of this country. I hope that will be the case in this instance.

My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for securing the debate and for the measured way in which he launched it. Asylum and, indeed, all immigration, is a subject which can be full of emotion in both directions. My noble friend got us off to an excellent start. I am sure, too, that all noble Lords appreciated the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Joffe. He joins us with a fine reputation. Having heard his moving maiden speech, we shall all look forward to his future contributions.

The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked that we do not get stuck in the numbers game. As an accountant, I am afraid I often get stuck in the numbers game, as many noble Lords will appreciate. It is necessary to look at the numbers in order to understand the position. The starting point for the debate, and many of the contributions, has been the number of asylum seekers and the number of decisions made.

This has not been a political debate and I do not wish to make it so. However, in the past the Minister suggested that in 1997 the Government inherited a deteriorating situation. That was not the case. In the last year of the Conservative government, there were 28,000 applications, 39,000 decisions and a declining backlog of under 50,000. That compares with double the backlog, fewer decisions and many more applications in 1999.

Applications increased in the United Kingdom by more than in comparable countries over the period since 1997. In some respects, that reflects the terrible situation in certain other countries which cause people to be driven out. However, it also reflects the impression given by the new Government, who opposed all the tough measures of their predecessors. Leaving that on one side, as a result of the Act passed last year after long debates in which many noble Lords took part, we are in the middle of a complicated transitional period.

Several points have arisen with regard to the short- term position. In 1999 the Government started a backlog clearing exercise, somewhat along the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, and referred to by my noble friend Lord Carr. In that year I understand that 12,500 cases were decided under that exercise. At that rate of decision-making, the backlog of 100,000 would have taken eight years to clear, but matters have speeded up since then. Of those 12,500 "backlog exercise decisions" 90 per cent were admitted, a far higher percentage than for "normal decisions". I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us the latest figures under the backlog clearing exercise.

There is also the wider question of how many applications are now being processed in total. The latest figures suggest approximately 4,000 per month. However, we are promised that that figure will soon reach 8,000 per month. That is a large increase, although the backlog is still likely to increase this year.

Perhaps I may give your Lordships a measure of the scale of the issue. Next year, if decisions run at the promised rate of 8,000 per month, which is twice the present rate, and applications remain at the December level of 7,000, we shall clear the backlog at the rate of around 1,000 per month. That would also take eight years. It is a matter of fact that 8,000 decisions is an optimistic figure; on the other hand, 7,000 applications a month may prove to be a pessimistic figure and I hope we may do better than that. The figures indicate that it is essential that, whatever else happens, the rate of dealing with applications—including the one-stop appeal introduced under the 1999 Act—should be seriously speeded up.

I should like the Minister to tell us also what the target now is for getting rid of the backlog. The Permanent Secretary to the Home Office told the Public Accounts Committee in October that the whole backlog would be cleared by October 2000. In a Written Answer in another place yesterday it was said that it was hoped to reduce the backlog of asylum decisions to "frictional levels" by April 2001.1 am not sure what "frictional levels" are. It may be a misprint for "fractional" though that does not make sense either. I hope it means levels below which there is no friction, though that is not what it says. The Minister seemed to be saying that they hoped to reach their target by April 2001. That is not what the Permanent Secretary said and I shall be grateful for the Minister's views on the matter.

There is then the vexed question of what happens to those whose asylum applications are refused. My noble friend Lord Elton drew attention to this at the beginning of our debate and the problems of removal, so I do not need to spell it out. But I hope the Minister will give us a clear idea of how many people disappear from view, either by taking themselves overseas or into the population. All the other figures are known so the difference should be those who disappear from view.I accept, as a result of exchanges we had the other day, that it is not the full 13,000, which is the difference between those refused and those applying (because of appeals and so forth); but how many is it?

We made provision in one of the clauses of the 1999 Act to permit removal action to be started before an appeal had finally failed. Can we assume that removal action will now be automatically started on the day refusal is decided or an appeal fails?

There have been many references this afternoon to the new support system. We were originally told that it would start on 1st April. It will, but only for relatively few people within the system. I am not surprised at that. It is difficult to get it off the ground and it was always an extremely ambitious target, as we pointed out at the time. However, we need to be clear what the position is, as do the local authorities who have to manage much of it, and there are only 30 days left before it begins.

Five categories are involved in the new system. Those who claimed asylum at a port before 1st April will receive social security benefits until a decision is taken to refuse them. If they appeal they go into the second category and join those who claimed asylum in country before 1st April. They will continue on the present local authority interim arrangements, being given either cash or vouchers, depending on what the local authority thinks best, paid for in theory by the Home Office. I say "in theory" because local authorities complain that the Home Office is not sufficiently reimbursing them. Those who apply after 1st April who are families will be on the new Home Office voucher and accommodation scheme. The right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary said in earlier debates that it would be worth the same as social security. But for a couple with two children it will apparently be worth £ 110 a week and not the £ 150 which a normal family of the same size would receive through social security.

Those without children who apply after 1st April will also be on the new Home Office voucher and accommodation system, but it will be worth less. Finally, there are the unaccompanied young people aged under 18.They were mentioned by several noble Lords and they have been left out of the new dispersal arrangements. I am told that there are 850 in Kent alone at the moment and that the numbers are rising.

As has been said, their position needs urgent consideration. Families are now being fast-tracked. We all appreciate the humanitarian reasons for that, but the unaccompanied minors are a more deserving case for fast decision-making.

Another concern that has arisen is health. There is serious concern that there is a shortage of TB vaccine and TB screening facilities. The rates of TB in Hillingdon and London are rising. Health workers are at risk and the schools programme in this respect has had to be suspended. That is extremely worrying.

All those matters are in the course of change as the new Act comes into force. It makes it difficult to see where we are. We are looking at moving pictures picked out of a film rather than at stationary pictures.

I recognise the problems the Government face in dealing with the situation. Underlying it all are the problems which give rise to refugees. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees lists 21 million refugees worldwide who are of concern to them. Some of them, and their ancestors, have been on their books for 50 years, notably the Palestinian refugees. Of course we need to put both thought and resources into trying to reduce the causes of migration movement. But in all parts of the House we want our country's behaviour towards asylum seekers to be both "effective and humane". Sadly, the debate tended to demonstrate that we do not live up to either aspiration at the moment.

My Lords, this has been a very good and in large measure well-informed debate. It does great credit to your Lordships' House.

There have been many contributions—some 20 speakers in all. I particularly enjoyed the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, in his maiden speech. It was persuasive, perceptive, understanding, born of considerable personal experience and made with great dignity. I also greatly enjoyed the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond. Again it was persuasive and contained some important insights, not least those which focused on the work which needs to be done in many of the countries. The work that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office does in that regard will greatly help us in tackling some of the problems that visit our shores.

I also greatly enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carr. It was well tempered and well measured, again born of valuable inside experience. He made telling points, particularly in relation to waiting lists, queues and the way in which we need to put together our resources and focus them where they are best used. His experience of dealing with the Ugandan crisis stands us in good stead today. It shows a very humane approach, in my view.

There is a tendency for debate on asylum policies to focus on immediate problems or pressures; that is inevitable. Today's debate has provided us with the valuable opportunity to stand back and consider the broader principles on which effective and humane asylum policies should be based. We owe a great debt to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for providing us with the opportunity of focusing on "effective and humane" policies. He has the twin pillars of the argument in place in the subject in front of us.

I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia,was right to say that, in this policy field above all others, we need to demonstrate and show leadership. That is exactly what the Government intend to do; have intended to do; and have been trying to achieve since we took office. Many speakers made most important points. I have a stack of questions here that I shall try to address, either during the course of my commentary or towards the end of my remarks. However, if I do not cover all the points raised, I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate why. Without overburdening the correspondence section of my office, I shall try to respond more precisely to those questions that need a very precise response.

As many noble Lords observed, the policies that we operate as a government and the decisions that we take in individual cases may, quite literally, be the difference between life and death. Equally, there can be no doubt that a substantial number of asylum applicants do not qualify for asylum. In some cases, they cynically exploit the asylum process to evade normal immigration control. Our policies must recognise and deal effectively with those twin tensions. We must ensure that we are able to protect genuine refugees while deterring and dealing firmly with those who do not qualify for asylum. Those who seek to abuse the system do great damage to the interests of the genuine refugee.That point was tellingly made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. We must face that problem and deal with it.

It was for those reasons that, shortly after coming into office, we undertook a fundamental review of immigration and asylum policies—a plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, in some of his comments. The results of that review were set out carefully in a White Paper, Fairer, Faster and Firmer—A Modern Approach to Immigration and Asylum, which was published in July 1998. We thought that comprehensive and radical reform was needed to tackle the deep-rooted problems that we inherited.Piecemeal change over the years produced a complex and, in our view, slow system. As a result of some ill- considered legislation, the arrangements for supporting destitute asylum seekers were—I have used this word before—a shambles. It was clear to us that fundamental reform was needed to deliver a system that is both effective and humane.

Fundamental to the strategy set out in the White Paper was the Government's determination to fulfil our obligations under the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees. As has been said many times this afternoon, we have a proud tradition of giving shelter to those fleeing persecution. We are determined to uphold that tradition. Having accepted refugees, we must do more to help them integrate effectively into our community. For that reason, we are developing clearer strategies to assist such integration—a lesson that I believe we learned from governments in the past, not least the Conservative administration of the early 1970s. We issued a consultation paper on refugee integration last year to which responses were received in mid-December. We are now studying them to see how best to proceed.

We should not overlook or forget a pointmade—and, indeed, emphasised by his mere presence here—by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, regarding the enormous contribution that refugees have made to the economic, political and cultural life of our country over many years. They enrich our society and we in turn have a duty to help those accepted as refugees to adapt quickly to a new way of life.

One of the most effective ways of helping the genuine refugee and dealing effectively with those who do not qualify is, in our view, by speeding up the process. The Government do not underestimate the enormous challenge that this presents. Last year a record number ofpeople—71,000—claimed asylum in the United Kingdom. We were not alone in facing increased pressures.The war in Kosovo and upheavals in other countries like Afghanistan, Somalia and Sri Lanka have increased the asylum pressures on many of our European partners. The latest figures for 1999 show that Finland saw an increase of 123 per cent, Ireland an increase of 67 per cent, Belgium an increase of 63 per cent, Austria an increase of 46 per cent and France an increase of 38 per cent.Last year, our figures increased by 55 per cent. Only in Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden was the trend in the opposite direction. Over recent years, Germany has recruited additional asylum decision-makers and streamlined its legislation. Those are key elements of our own strategy.

In the White Paper we set targets of two months for initial decisions and four months to deal with appeals by April 2001. Sadly, plans were made under the previous gover0nment to reduce staff numbers in IND by 1,200 posts overall, in anticipation of efficiencies from a computerised casework system. As a result of those plans, staff numbers fell and valuable caseworking expertise was lost. The noble Lord, Lord Carr, made the point that we need to invest to save. That is exactly what our strategy is designed to do. We began a substantial recruitment programme last year to increase staff numbers. We are also investing an additional £120 million over the next three years to speed up the system; indeed, I believe that such a plea was made by many speakers, most notably the noble Lord, Lord Joffe.

I can tell noble Lords that 250 additional asylum decision-makers have already been recruited and more are planned. As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said, asylum decision output has already increased as a consequence. In January of this year about 4,000 asylum decisions were made. We are aiming to make 8,000 a month by late spring. At current intake levels, decision-making output will then exceed the number of applications and the backlog will begin to fall.

There is of course a great deal of work needed to deliver our targets for speeding up the system. But we are determined to deliver them. In the case of families with children, we have already introduced faster procedures for new applications from November of last year. As a result, most of those decisions were taken within two months.

Our reform of the casework process is complemented by a reform of the legal framework. The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 represents the most radical reform of the system for decades. As the House will recall, it completed its passage through Parliament last November. Some of the Act's provisions have already been implemented, but the major changes are still to come.

I believe there is common agreement that the current asylum support arrangements are, at best, chaotic. They were the product of some ill-considered legislation and administrative arrangements. They have imposed an unplanned and intolerable burden on local authorities, especially those in London and the South East. Indeed, one could fairly say that Kent has perhaps borne the worst of the burden. Such arrangements have left many asylum seekers in hardship, having to seek assistance for which the statutory basis was unclear. Port applicants were entitled to normal social security benefits until a first decision was taken. All in-country applicants, and all port applicants after a first decision, were left with no support until the courts intervened.

The new scheme will create a coherent, national system of support. It will mean that all destitute asylum seekers will be able to obtain support if they are in genuine need. But the availability of cash payments is, in our view, an incentive to those who seek to abuse the system: they are, effectively, economic migrants. That is why, under the new scheme, support will be provided mainly in kind, with the minimal use of cash payments. Accommodation will be provided on a "no-choice" basis in cluster areas across the country. It will be to a reasonable standard and regard will be paid to the cultural and other needs of the asylum seeker and the availability of support from existing communities and voluntary groups.

The new arrangements are not harsh or unfair. Those in genuine need will be provided with a decent level of support. There will be a cash element but accommodation and other essential living needs will be provided directly. That is not unreasonable; nor is it unreasonable to ease the burden on London and the South East by dispersing asylum seekers to other parts of the country. A number of noble Lords drew attention to the problems faced by local authorities. We are very mindful of such problems and of keeping them very carefully under review. We believe that it should not matter to the genuine refugee precisely where or how support is provided. It is more important that it is provided and that it should be to a good standard.

The Act will deliver other important changes to make the asylum system fairer, faster and firmer. It provides for a single comprehensive right of appeal to enable all the circumstances of a case to be considered at one go and so reduce the scope for exploiting the multiple avenues of appeal that currently exist. We are aiming to introduce those provisions in October of this year, when the Human Rights Act will also come into force and provide additional protection. I thought that my noble friend Lord Judd made a good case for a sound appeal system. That is what we believe we are putting in place. It will regulate immigration advisers to eradicate the unscrupulous who exploit and cheat vulnerable applicants.

An Immigration Services commissioner will be appointed and will have responsibility for administering the regulatory scheme. Only those who are registered with that commissioner, who are authorised to practise by a designated professional body or who are otherwise exempt, will be permitted to provide immigration advice or services. It will be a criminal offence to provide such advice or services in breach of the scheme. Our aim is to have the regulatory body established and ready to receive applications by 2nd October of this year, with a view to the full scheme being operational from April 2001.

The Act will also strengthen our powers to deal firmly with those who abuse the asylum system to evade immigration control. There are stronger powers for the Immigration Service to target the growing number of traffickers and facilitators who profit from the traffic in clandestine and illegal immigration. The number of clandestine entrants detected is now running at something like 2,000 a month. We cannot allow that to continue. The new civil penalty—I know that this is opposed by some Members of your Lordships' House—for bringing clandestines to this country will encourage drivers and operators to improve security and conduct proper checks of their vehicles to prevent illegal entry.

A number of noble Lords, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Joffe, Lord Judd and Lord Avebury, have raised concerns about the detention of asylum seekers. Clearly it would be wrong routinely to detain those who seek asylum, and we do not wish to do so. However, in cases where a person has claimed asylum, it would be wrong to bar the use of detention where this was otherwise appropriate. In any one year we detain somewhere in the region of 900. That suggests that we are trying to strike a balance.

We have given commitments to increase the number of failed asylum seekers who are removed. That issue was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and other noble Lords, including in particular the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick.

My Lords, I believe the noble Lord must have made a slip of the tongue when he said that in any one year we detain about 900 asylum seekers. Will he confirm that at the moment there are over 950 asylum seekers in detention and, as they are not there for the whole of the year, the actual figure for the 12 months must be many times that amount?

My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's question. I shall seek further guidance on the figures and advise him in due course.

We wish to reduce our reliance on Prison Service accommodation. A number of pleas have been made for us to do that. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth expressed that well. I know that other noble Lords are concerned about the use of the prison estate for those who seek asylum. These commitments mean, however, that there is a need to increase the size of the detention estate generally. A new reception centre is to be opened at Oakington. Others are likely to follow. We are committed to speeding up the consideration of asylum applications. The purpose of setting up reception centres such as Oakington is entirely benign and is designed to increase our ability to deal quickly with straightforward asylum claims, many of which will prove to be unfounded. Applicants will remain at Oakington for about seven days while their claim is decided. If the claim is rejected and there is an appeal, we shall have to decide whether to grant temporary admission with reporting restrictions or whether the applicant should be moved to a traditional detention centre.

I mentioned earlier that other European countries had experienced substantial increases in asylum seekers. The traffic in clandestine entrants is almost entirely via other European countries. We must therefore see our asylum policies within a European context. We were wisely encouraged by the noble Lord, Lord Wright, to do exactly that. Our aim is primarily to harmonise asylum procedures within the EU and within the remit of the Amsterdam Treaty. The Amsterdam Treaty commits the EU to adopting minimum standards in the following areas: criteria and mechanisms for determining which member state is responsible for considering an application for asylum; the reception of asylum seekers; the qualification of nationals of third countries as refugees; procedures for granting or withdrawing refugee status; and the granting of both temporary and subsidiary protection.

There is a need to address all our international obligations, not just those arising from the 1951 convention. Subsidiary protection covers those individuals not meeting the requirements of the 1951 convention who remain in need of international protection. Temporary protection refers specifically to the protection granted to individuals at times of a mass influx of humanitarian evacuation—for example, from Kosovo or Bosnia. This is what member states have signed up to for the next few years. It is likely to lead to greater, beneficial harmonisation but much depends on what standards can be agreed.

The Dublin Convention is a treaty to which all the EU member states are parties. It governs arrangements for determining which member state should be responsible for examining asylum claims made within the EU by non-EU nationals. The basic principle behind Dublin is that the member state responsible for the presence of an asylum seeker in the EU should be responsible for examining the claim, wherever it is made. The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 will strengthen our ability to return asylum seekers to other member states under the Dublin Convention.

A number of noble Lords have mentioned the recent hijacking at Stansted and the subsequent asylum claims. As a signatory to the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the status of refugees, the United Kingdom has an obligation to consider all applications for asylum made at the ports or within the UK, regardless of matters such as the method of entry into the UK or the nationality or ethnic background of the asylum applicant.

Nevertheless the hijacking of an aircraft is a criminal offence and no one should consider that any benefit is to be obtained by hijacking. Those responsible are being held in police custody and will be subject to due legal process. Four members of the cockpit crew have been assisting the police with their inquiries and remain in the UK. They have not claimed asylum and are expected to leave shortly with the aircraft when flight clearance is received.

The remaining flight crew and 58 passengers have returned to Afghanistan. Seventy-nine passengers have either claimed asylum in Britain or are dependants of applicants. These claims will be judged in strict accordance with the law. The applicants are being held at Tinsley House, Gatwick, a purpose built immigration detention centre. They have access to support and free legal advice. I advise the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that that support and free legal advice have been available to them from the outset. We are satisfied that everyone who wants representation is receiving it. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is shortly to make an announcement about the future of all the other applicants for asylum status.

I am mindful of the time. Many questions have been raised which I have not been able to cover. I shall gladly write to noble Lords on those points. I hope that I have been able to reassure the House that government asylum policies are effective and humane. We have a comprehensive strategy in place for which the foundations have already been carefully laid, but there is still much to do. We need to speed up the asylum process. We need to implement major legislative reforms. But it is essential that we do so in order to create a system which is genuinely fairer, faster and firmer and one which I think is both effective and humane, in all of our interests not least those of the genuine asylum seekers.

My Lords, it remains for me to thank, first of all, the large number of organisations outside this Chamber which have made my contribution and those of others possible. They are far too many to mention or indeed to weave a lot of what they have said into words. Their work is deeply valuable and deeply appreciated.

Secondly, I thank your Lordships for a most remarkable series of contributions which leave me with the clear impression that the intention of the Government is that we should have policies towards asylum seekers that are both effective and humane, but that that intention will not be achieved until the enormous queue has been reduced and a swift turnaround of fraudulent applicants discourages further fraudulent applicants from abroad. This will enable us to be more humane with greater resources for those who remain here.

I must not make a speech at this stage. However, in withdrawing the Motion that stands in my name, I wish to say how daunted and yet how encouraged I have been to see the Bishops' Bench full until the very last minute. I wish that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, had chosen some other evening to draw attention to my precative activities upstairs! The presence of the Bishops reminds me also that no country is an island any more. We may look like an island but in this world we are very much part of a world community. I return to my closing remarks and say that, if we ignore the conditions which produce the refugee pressures upon our shores, we are not only making a rod for our own backs but we are also in breach of our Christian duty. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity that the Motion on the Order Paper gives us to discuss and to look at the remarkable achievements of the hospice movement over the years since it was founded.

I was provoked to seek this debate by two occurrences in my own life in recent times—one, alas, when a few weeks ago my brother died in a hospice in Berkhampstead. He, like others, had gone to hospital and had been diagnosed as having cancer of the lung. It was in its later stages, incapable of operation and unlikely to respond to any known treatment. In that situation, the hospital could do very little more for him and he wanted, in any case, to spend the remaining weeks of his life with his wife and his children.

But when someone with such an illness is at home, being nursed with loving care by his family, there is the terrible problem of a rapid deterioration in the health of that person. He finds difficulty in eating and in drinking; he has pain; he cannot sleep at night; and he becomes more and more immobile. That creates a need for professional nursing and professional care. It is normally at that stage that the local doctor or the district nurse recommends not that the patient should go back to a hospital—there are no beds at the hospital to go back to—but that he should, if possible, go to the local hospice.

In my brother's case, he went to the local hospice, where he received the medical assistance and enormous compassion and loving care for which the hospice movement is noted. It was given not only to him, as the patient, but also to his wife and to his children, who received a great deal of comfort from the manner in which the hospice helped and guided them. Since my brother died, that same hospice has continued to be in close contact with my brother's widow and has given her and her family every possible help and assistance.

My second reason for wishing to have this debate is that when I had the privilege for 31 years of being the Member for Worcester in the House of Commons, I witnessed the foundation of a new hospice. In 1984, a group of my constituents, who had noted the effects of the hospice movement elsewhere, decided that the city of Worcester would greatly benefit from a hospice. With a group of volunteers, they raised a very substantial sum of money to buy the building and to start a hospice in Worcester.

It is only a few weeks ago that I, having been its patron over many years, visited that hospice and spoke to the chairman and the chief executive to discover how they were progressing and what was happening. Perhaps I may give your Lordships a little information about that hospice because I think it is an illustration of what is happening throughout the country.

As I said, the hospice was started in 1984. Progress was such that by 1993 it was tending to 280 patients. Last year it tended to 700 patients. In fact, it is dealing with approximately 60 per cent of all those in the area who are suffering from cancer—a remarkable contribution to the health service.

During that period it has recruited a full-time and part-time staff of 38 people, all of them professional and well trained. But it also has 450 volunteers, who provide more than 1,500 hours of work per week for no payment. Those, too, are people who have gone through training in order to provide proper assistance to those in need.

In 1993, with 280 patients, the hospice had an expenditure of £418,000. This coming year it will have an expenditure of £1 million and will deal probably with 800 patients and more than 500 referrals from the National Health Service. There has been an increase in expenditure this year of £264,000, but during that same period the increase in its funding from the National Health Service has been a meagre £13,000. In 1993, the National Health Service provided 30 per cent of its expenditure; by 1996, that had been reduced to 25 per cent; and last year to 20 per cent.

This creates a problem for the future of that hospice. In the county of Worcestershire there are only four beds available for patients who, like my brother, have passed beyond the possibility of treatment and are in the dying phases of their lives. I repeat: only four beds in the whole of Worcestershire. Aware of this problem, Sir Richard's Hospice discussed with the hospital authority the need for more beds and came up with a scheme to create 12 to 15 more beds in the county. The capital cost of doing that is £4 million. The local health authority said that it had no capital expenditure of that kind to put into it.

So those at Sir Richard's Hospice said, "Right. We will go out and raise the £4 million of capital expenditure to create the beds that the people of Worcestershire require". But they obtained no funding at all from the local health authority—not only in terms of capital expenditure but also for the running costs, having completed the project. The running costs will be £500,000 a year, and they cannot get a penny in funding from the local health authority towards that expenditure; nor can they obtain any kind of long-term guarantee about funding.

So what are the trustees of the hospice to do? If they decide to proceed with the capital expenditure—where they will raise all the money—they will be unable to service the capital expenditure and the facilities provided. They cannot recruit new staff and they cannot enter into contracts when the degree of funding available is perhaps nil and when no guarantee can be given. One might consider that that is a local case and that it is not repeated all over the country; but if one looks at the national scene, one finds that it is repeated all over the country.

I want to say a few words about the national development of the hospice movement over the years. It is a very remarkable achievement. We now have 185 hospices for adults, which spend £250 million a year. Of that, less than one-third is contributed from the National Health Service. Hospices deal with the majority of cancer patients in need of care.

The Government—quite understandably and to everyone's applause—have said that they have a great campaign as far as concerns cancer. They also have a campaign to seek better facilities for the elderly. If there was ever any part of the National Health Service which has contributed to both of those areas, it is the hospice movement—and yet year after year the proportion of its expenditure funded from the National Health Service has steadily declined. In the past two years, it has gone down from 35 per cent to just over 32 per cent, and that decline is continuing.

The Government have said that it is the duty of the health authorities to give hospices long-term contracts. Of 13 hospices in the Midlands, only two have obtained any kind of long-term contract—and those two long-term contracts exclude any contribution to costs. So they are not particularly valuable long-term contracts.

In announcing their policy that this should be dealt with by the local authorities, the Government have a valid argument: local authorities know the local needs. I have nothing against that. But if in relying on the local authorities to do this the Government find that they are not doing so, they have a duty to take speedy action to ensure that the proper funding is provided.

The hospice movement has contributed not only to the elderly and the dying; it has also dealt with the problems of other incurable diseases. It has offered considerable help to people with the problem of AIDS. It discovered very quickly that, although there was a great need to give counselling and help to the elderly in their final days, there was an even more horrific problem of children with incurable diseases. There are now 17 children's hospices in this country, which spent £20 million last year. The total contribution from the National Health Service to these children's hospices is a meagre 4 per cent of all of their expenditure.

As somebody who spent most of the time between 1970 and 1990 in Cabinet, I am well aware of the problems faced by governments in regard to expenditure on the health service. I have sat through Cabinet meetings and Cabinet committees with a desperate desire to achieve—in fact, we always achieved—extra expenditure on the health service, but there was never enough expenditure to meet the growing needs. Here is a classic area of the health service where the expansion of need is gigantic. Cancer has been and is increasing, and the number of elderly people is increasing at a rapid rate. There will be a 20 per cent increase in the number of elderly people between now and 2020. Anyone looking at the health service would want to see the hospice movement rapidly expanding and being even more active than it has been in the past. This movement, founded only in 1967 by a very remarkable lady creating one hospice in Sydenham, is now making this enormous contribution to the health service of our country.

I was always in favour of extra expenditure, being described as the leading "wet" in previous governments and in John Major's autobiography as the "Dick Turpin of the Cabinet". I recognise the problems. In the totality of expenditure on the health service, here is one area where for every £1 given, one receives more than £1 by voluntary effort and voluntary contribution. One has injected into this service a compassion, an understanding and a sympathy that is quite unique. Anyone who visits hospices and meets the volunteers—the people running them and guiding them—will recognise their unique spiritual and compassionate contribution to the health service.

I urge the Government to examine the drift in contributions from the National Health Service to see whether, by perhaps administrative methods if not direct financial methods, this can be changed and the movement encouraged to expand in the future. If one does not do that, one will quickly face a crisis.

In 1998 Professor David Clark examined the hospice movement and said that one in five hospices was worried about its financial viability. The position has deteriorated since then. Instead of an expanding movement in the coming decades, we shall have a contracted movement, to the immense detriment of the National Health Service. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Walker, for the very moving and practical way in which he introduced this informative, challenging and timely debate. It enables me to mention some of the constructive, caring and civilised community work that the hospice movement provides in Northern Ireland, work and services which bind strongly all classes and creeds in caring and the relief of suffering which, sadly, in due course, will affect some one in three people in Northern Ireland.

For me the debate is something more. It is a much more worthy change than trying to analyse, explain and cope with the evils, distrust, the terrible human suffering and deaths that cruelly and sadly arise from rampant sectarianism generated political evils.

For the past 25 years I have been actively involved in voluntary aspects of the hospice care services in Northern Ireland. I warmly applaud the dedication of all involved in the provision of the caring, compassionate and qualitative services provided by the Northern Ireland Hospice, the Marie Curie Centre, the Foyle Hospice and the Newry Hospice.

I wish to mention especially the provision of a new Northern Ireland Hospice Children's Service. This was launched two years ago with a £5 million appeal to provide an essential children's service for some 700 life-limited ill children, a number recorded annually in Northern Ireland. The appeal fund was launched two years ago in February 1998. It provides for a purpose-built hospital with suitable bed accommodation for 12 children up to 18 years of age. It will also have suitable living accommodation for family members of the very ill children in the hospice.

The estimated cost of building and suitably equipping the children's hospice is £5 million. Some £4 million has already been donated voluntarily by hospice friends and supporters. It is scheduled to open officially on 1st April 2001. It will require some £1 million per year to provide the essential nursing, bereavement counselling and support personnel.

I know from debates and reports in this House over some 22 years that there is earnest, studied support for 50 per cent funding by government of approved hospice annual revenue expenditure. For some years the Northern Ireland Hospice annual revenue costs have had a "grant in aid" from Northern Ireland health boards in the region of 13 per cent for approved revenue account expenditure only. There is almost entire dependence on the generosity of local citizens and special fund-raising events for both capital and approved revenue expenditure.

A number of noble Lords have held ministerial office in Northern Ireland. I know that they are well acquainted with the priority needs in the Province for special cancer-related illnesses and hospital treatment. There have also been a number of special debates in this House expressing concern about the hospice movement's unique nursing services and related financial needs.

Noble Lords will be well acquainted with the financial needs of the hospice movement about which the noble Lord, Lord Walker, spoke ably today. The Chief Whip, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the Leader of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, are on record as having drawn attention to the important role of the hospice movement within the National Health Service. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, stated in 1998:

"However, I can assure the noble Lord that I am concerned that those great instincts and methods which have been pioneered by the hospice movement in palliative care are extended and included in the health service … I shall certainly make it my business to ensure that that good work is extended".—[Official Report, 16/7/98; col.415.]

I firmly believe that there should be urgent and due consideration by the Government of approval for hospices receiving 50 per cent of all duly approved revenue expenditure. I look forward to receiving a positive reply from the Minister.

My Lords, I, too, would like to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Walker, for his contribution and authoritative start to this debate. It is, I believe, a timely debate on the hospice movement.

Perhaps at the start I ought to declare my interest or the perspective from which I approach the subject. As a student nurse I spent many months on night duty going from ward to ward acting as a special nurse to dying patients. That had a lasting impact on my professional outlook. From that time I have always regarded the care of the dying as one of the most skilled and worthwhile areas of nursing care. Later in my career I became a council member of St Anne's Hospice, Manchester, with a particular brief to look at the educational needs of the hospice nurses. I am still a vice-president of St Anne's but with far less active involvement. Later I became a trustee of the Malcolm Sargent Cancer Fund for Children and the council of Macmillan Cancer Relief. I am aware that there are many other voluntary agencies, all contributing to this field and representing a tremendous public commitment to care.

I have been privileged to visit many hospices in this country and in other countries. Without exception, it seems to me that the hospices that I have visited in other countries pay tribute to the model set in this country. The hospice movement has inspired the imagination of the public since its beginnings with the work of Dame Cicely Saunders, who has already been mentioned. She started at St Joseph's Hospice before she founded her own hospice. When speaking she often reminded audiences that a hospice was originally a place of rest for travellers kept by a religious order. It was the devoted care given by the nuns at St Joseph's which was a powerful inspiration to Dame Cicely in her own experience of bereavement and became a model for her future work.

That model included expert physical care, bedded in the kind of hospitality which was the hallmark of the ancient hospice, and the recognition that the process of dying is as much a spiritual journey as a physical process. There has been a close association between the hospices and the various Churches and representatives of different faiths in acknowledgement of that. To this Dame Cicely added her expert knowledge of pharmacology with which she was able to pioneer new approaches to pain management. Those have transformed the experience of dying for many.

The hospice movement has profoundly influenced the way in which we care for the dying. In what can be a traumatic experience for patients, relatives and friends, the kind of care which allows people to die in peace and with dignity is highly prized and the public have always been willing to give generously to providing that quality of care.

I have talked to different people who are now intimately involved in the hospice movement and they have raised several issues with me. I have talked to nurses who belong to the RCN forum for palliative care. One of them is the matron of the Berkhamsted hospice. I have talked to the chief executive of St Anne's Hospice, Manchester, and the chief medical officer of Macmillan Cancer Relief. I have read with interest the information exchange published by the National Council for Hospice and Specialist Palliative Care Services.

In the early days, which I can still remember, of hospice provision, funding was almost entirely from the voluntary sector. Gradually, hospices pressed the fact that they were supplying healthcare that would normally fall to the National Health Service and they were able to negotiate funding for a proportion of beds based on the estimated local need. It was quite a fight to establish that principle. But the contribution of health authorities has always come under pressure, reflecting the pressure on resources in the National Health Service itself. The previous government at one time made a commitment to work towards a 50/50 funding. However, as Peter Tebbit pointed out, NHS contributions measured as a percentage of annual running costs have declined on average by about 3 per cent over the past three years despite the cash contribution rising year on year.

The contribution to individual hospices varies from 9 per cent of the total cost to 61 per cent of the total cost. There is a tremendous variation. At St Anne's Hospice, Manchester, the contribution from the National Health Service has fallen from 51.2 per cent to 33.4 per cent over five years. Even in National Health Service-managed units, there is an increasing call on non-NHS funding. There is thus an increased reliance on non-NHS funding and there is a competition for fund raising between hospice and hospice and other charities, particularly the cancer charities.

Dr Maher of Macmillan Cancer Relief pointed out to me that a high percentage of posts in palliative care—lecturers, researchers, doctors and nurses—are funded by the voluntary sector. She said that they at Macmillan are able to pump prime appointments, but then no one seems willing to take on a more permanent funding of the post. In addition, effective palliative care needs to be organised across a number of organisational boundaries in a range of units. A worker may have to work in palliative care, general practice, a hospice, in a DGH or in a cancer centre. There is a reluctance to share in funding for such posts across boundaries.

In summary, there needs to be a more equitable and dependable process for palliative care funding, a longer term and more stable health authority contract base and a clear funding policy based on tangible criteria for cash distribution. A great debate is going on between the voluntary and statutory sectors about what criteria should be adopted for funding. Peter Tebbit suggests that the Government's own healthcare policies should be used as a basis for determining funding criteria.

I wanted to make many other points which people have fed in to me but perhaps I may conclude by saying that, much as I applaud the advances in technical care in the health service, we have to bear in mind that we need not always strive officiously to keep alive. We need to remember the human aspects of dying, to be able to consolidate our approaches to pain management and to allow people to die at peace and with dignity, sustained by their own faith and spirituality.

My Lords, I join my noble friend Lord Blease and the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Walker of Worcester, for initiating this important debate. The noble Lord, Lord Walker, referred to his time in the House of Commons. When he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I was his shadow, we often crossed swords over the Dispatch Box. Similarly, when I became Secretary of State for Industry, the same thing happened again. However, I am very pleased today to be able to walk side by side with him and to thank him very much for initiating this important debate.

I start by declaring an interest. I was a founder trustee of the Ashgate Hospice in Chesterfield, which serves the whole of north Derbyshire. I am now one of its vice presidents. The Ashgate Hospice was opened in 1988 after a very successful fundraising campaign which was massively and generously supported by the local people. By some standards within the UK the hospice is quite small. It has 14 beds, a day centre, a home care team, specialist palliative care nurses and a bereavement support service. Its administration and nursing arrangements are organised by a dedicated hospice manager and a medical director. They lead brilliantly teams of nurses and carers as well as dozens of local volunteers. I honestly do not know how the people of north Derbyshire could cope without the hospice and the contribution it makes to the National Health Service. It is a very special place.

The Ashgate Hospice has established a very good working relationship with the National Health Service locally and with charitable organisations. I expect that the excellent relationship that I find in north Derbyshire is repeated throughout Britain where hospices and National Health Service trusts work closely together. The partnership between the statutory services and the voluntary services is the only way to maximise or optimise the care that is so essential for people with terminal illnesses.

All the indications show that the need for palliative care is set to rise. As people live longer, and as the older age groups are at greater risk of contracting the disease, cancer incidence will increase. As the treatment for cancer improves, people will be surviving for longer; in other words, living longer with their cancer. The need for more and more palliative drugs and care will increase. That trend will put even greater pressure on the resources of hospices and on the voluntary services.

The new optimism that existed as regards the benefit of good palliative care is now becoming more widely understood. But it is tempered by uncertainties about the funding of hospices. That was the essential point made by the noble Lord, Lord Walker of Worcester. There are great uncertainties now as to how the funding will take place.

I understand that the aim of 50/50 funding for hospices advocated by the Conservative government in the early 1990s has now been abandoned. Will my noble friend the Minister say whether it was in fact advocated by the previous government, why it has been abandoned, and whether the matter can be re- examined? Also, is it the case that the palliative care moneys given by the Government in the early 1990s, which were ring-fenced, have also been scrapped? If it is the case, why was that decision taken?

In the early 1990s, the Government made available special additional money for the provision of drugs to hospice patients. As palliative medicine has developed as a speciality, money for drugs has not been increased, except, I understand, to cover the cost of inflation; therefore hospices are now expected to meet from voluntary sources the additional cost of drugs. If that is the case, I cannot see that it is right. I should like my noble friend the Minister to comment. He will know that hospices are expected to find some costs for drags as palliative medicine develops. However, to place a great burden on the voluntary sector is not the best way to go about it.

There is another matter on which I should welcome my noble friend's comments. The higher pay awards for trained nurses are greatly to be welcomed, and nurses deserve every penny. But is it true that the cost of those pay awards will have a disproportionate effect on hospices because they employ larger percentages of trained nurses than average? Coupled with the pay awards is the 1 per cent increase in employers' contributions to the National Health Service pension—because hospices try to match, and in most cases do match, National Health Service pay and conditions.

Will my noble friend say something about the £23 million New Opportunities Fund for hospices, which I understand was launched in October 1998? Is it correct that the fund will not be fully distributed until the end of this year? Why will it have taken two years to administer it?

I am told that the question of whether hospices are to receive adequate finance is a burning issue at present. The split between the statutory and voluntary funding of the hospice movement, and the question whether the proportions are correct, is casting a cloud over those who do so much to make them a success. I had intended to talk about St Christopher's Hospice, but the noble Baroness has already done so and I shall not repeat her comments.

I have no doubt that my noble friend the Minister will readily accept that the hospice movement has made, and will continue to make, a massive and valuable contribution to the National Health Service. But I hope he will acknowledge that there are worries and concerns about the rising costs of running hospices.

In north Derbyshire, the population is not well off. Great swathes of industry have gone over the past two decades. All the coal mines have been closed and most of the heavy industry has been shut down. The male unemployment rate is above the national average. So the task of raising money year on year to fund the hospice is a matter of immense concern. It is necessary to raise some £600,000 a year to maintain it—and that takes some doing. I hope that, in replying, my noble friend will be able to reassure all those who have helped—I have done very little, but I refer to the thousands of volunteers who have pioneered the hospice movement—that not only is their work valued and worth while, but that the Government stand ready not only to encourage but to help financially as well.

My Lords, I join with noble Lords who have spoken in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Walker of Worcester, for introducing this issue. It is nearly 30 years since I had the privilege of meeting Dame Cicely Saunders and ensuring that clergy in training received the opportunity to experience ministry to the dying at St Christopher's Hospice. I was caught, and since then I have been involved in the hospice movement, as Bishop of Wolverhampton in raising sufficient funds to build Compton Hall, and, when I came to Bristol, undertaking a role with St Peter's Hospice.

Local hospices are registered charities—and perhaps we need to remember that, and that they are delighted that they are; otherwise, funding would be even more difficult. But they are also significant community organisations, as I hope to demonstrate, as well as healthcare institutions. Perhaps I may use the example of St Peter's Hospice in Bristol, as it illustrates some of the issues which have been alluded to but which need to be underlined.

There are some 1,400 volunteers in the local hospice movement. That is a significant number of people. They are financially supported with great generosity by men and women across the Greater Bristol area, which St Peter's Hospice now serves. That is what the community contributes to the hospice movement. In return, it receives an immense amount. There are presently 350 patients, who are seen in their own homes by specialist community nurses. That has been one of the great developments over the past 20 years since the hospice movement started at St Christopher's. Keeping patients at home supports the family and allows people to die with dignity among those whom they know and love. We should be very proud that, as a nation, we have been able to pioneer that approach.

In addition to home care, there are 100 places in day hospices—another creative development. It must be seen alongside the original concept of providing beds in a particular hospice. St Peter's now has two hospice buildings, one in the south and one in the north of the city. Thirty beds in all have been provided, but funds are presently available for the use of only 20. That is a significant factor. We cannot quantify the contribution made to the health service by the hospice movement. However, we do know something about the quality of life that it aspires to provide.

As we have heard, hospices have spawned a speciality called specialist palliative care, involving consultants and highly qualified nurses who deal with some of the most complex cases. St Peter's Hospice was the first palliative care provider in Avon. Since then, St Peter's has encouraged the development of hospital teams and presently pays towards consultants' salaries at two local hospitals. It is not just about receiving, but about giving to Frenchay and Southmead Hospitals in the Bristol area, so extending palliative care and pain control to patients in those hospitals. Many of the staff of the trust care teams were trained by St Peter's Hospice and at the hospice itself.

There are also continuing new initiatives, not merely a movement from the provision of beds to domiciliary care and day centres. There is now a lymphodema service. I did not know what that meant, so I rang up to ask. I am told that it seeks to ameliorate the distressing, painful and often debilitating swelling of the limbs and body arising from certain cancerous conditions. That initiative, which is provided by St Peter's Hospice and has a very high reputation among the medical and nursing professions, improves the quality of life of patients, which is important. It also brings about a reduction in hospital admissions, which allows beds to be used for other people.

I was told that, with grateful thanks to the National Lottery Charity Board and the New Opportunities Fund, it would fund such an initiative—it was not required—but that no one would continue to contribute to the annual cost of £86,000 to keep the service going. That is one of the problems that we face. By and large, capital costs can be met by the generosity and understanding of English people, but to maintain the ongoing revenue costs is much more difficult. We are in danger of losing some of the greatest initiatives because that has not been taken care of.

Clearly, the hospice movement has engaged the hearts and minds of Englishmen and women, and that has been exported abroad. Two years ago I spent some time in Norway. From the middle of the previous century that country has had a very great tradition of caring for people through institutions. Norway did not provide a great deal of care for those with terminal conditions but it learnt from us and is grateful for it.

The hospice movement provides to those with terminal conditions dignity and a quality of life. Perhaps it courts something which is an important part of human nature: the need to care. The hospice movement provides us with an opportunity to exercise the care and generosity which all of us need. The movement is about dying with dignity and, if we are honest, it is to talk about ourselves, because we too may need to be ministered to there.

I should like to raise two issues both of which have been alluded to. First, I refer to continuing costs. The lymphodema service will continue in its present way only if we can begin to address the issue of revenue costs. At the present time, Avon Health provides only 13 per cent of the running costs of St Peter's Hospice. I am delighted to hear that we get a little more than has been suggested by the noble Baroness, but 61 per cent is out of all proportion to what we could hope for. If we received 20 per cent—an increase of only 7 per cent—an extra 10 beds could be created. Just think- how they would contribute to the healthcare of the community.

We are really talking about a partnership between the hospice movement and the National Health Service. One of the problems in the NHS is understanding how it might organise itself into partnership with voluntary organisations. I believe that it requires a change of mind and ethos, but I also suspect that it needs confidence that it has the necessary funding over a significant period of time. Therefore, I echo the questions that have been asked of the Minister and look forward to hearing his answers.

Dame Cicely taught us that the hospice movement is about hands on the bedclothes which need to be taken by somebody else so that the patient does not die totally alone. Hands are also about partnership and being moved out from the hospice movement to be held by the National Health Service so that it underpins the healthcare of a whole community, not just part of it.

My Lords, like all who have spoken, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Walker of Worcester for initiating the debate. I add my congratulations to him on his distinguished speech. I too must declare an interest as a former president of Help the Hospices. How fortunate we are to have such a thriving and flourishing hospice movement in this country. One must never forget that as soon as the hospice movement is mentioned the mind automatically switches to Dame Cicely Saunders who initiated the movement and who has animated so much of it over the years.

The whole concept of palliative care has moved up the medical agenda in recent years. In 1987 it was formally recognised as a sub-specialty in the medical world. Major teaching hospitals have professors of palliative care who did not exist 20 years ago. More and more doctors now concentrate on this branch of medicine. I should like to hear the latest total from the Minister. I understand that in the middle of last year the figure was about 100. Those developments have knock-on effects on hospices. Changes in the hospice movement must take account of developments in palliative care. In this country we used to take pride in the fact, rightly, that in the NHS we had the best medical service in the world. Alas, those days have long since gone. However, we can and do claim to have one of the best hospice movements—if not the best—in the world, and long may it remain so. The acknowledged dedication of all concerned, both professionals and volunteers—Macmillan Cancer Relief, Marie Curie Cancer Care, the Sue Ryder Foundation and many other local groups and interests—contribute to the success of the hospice movement. All of them must be sustained and supported with adequate and steadily increasing financial provision from both public and private sources.

People often think of the hospice movement only in terms of the buildings themselves and those who occupy them without appreciating that the majority of patients are now looked after in their own homes. Outreach and respite care are vital elements which are highly regarded by patients and their families and friends. All aspects of hospice care must be cherished, but one cannot avoid the financial implications. However, the hospice movement is probably, in aggregate, the most successful charity fundraiser in the country with its diverse and locally focused enthusiasm. One of its secrets is that people are more likely to give to their local hospice than to a national charity because they have ownership of that local hospice.

It is the combination of enthusiasm and ownership which contributes so much to the success of fundraising. But the Government, through the NHS, should not take advantage of that by reducing the element of state funding which would otherwise be required to do the work of hospices. We need a greater contribution from the state—the NHS—to core funding which is essential to maintain the hospice movement. An answer by a health Minister in another place last December revealed that approximately one third of hospice running costs is met through the NHS. If that is in a reply to a parliamentary Question, one can rest assured that it will not be over one-third. That contribution has gone down to 32 per cent, and it would be helpful to hear the Minister's comment. Although that figure applies generally, one of my greatest worries is that children's hospices account for less than one-twentieth. If that fact were widely known in the country—I hope that the Minister will tell us that the figure is indeed 4 per cent—people would rise up and say that more should be done.

It seems to me from comments already made about the 50–50 split that that is about the right proportion. I should own up to the noble Lord, Lord Varley. Although it was a Conservative government who made the 50–50 split objective in the early 1990s, it was another Conservative government in the mid-1990s who abandoned the target. Today's debate has shown that there is no party point to be made on the issue. I hope that all of us are united in urging greater support from the Government. It would be better if we had a Treasury Minister sitting on the Government Front Bench because it is not the health Ministers who are being difficult or reducing funding, as I know from my experience as Minister for Health many years ago.

As I understand the position, government support for the running costs in England has declined from about 35 per cent in 1996–97 to under 32 per cent in 1998–99. Therefore, I welcome very much the establishment of the Independent Hospices Representative Committee (IHRC). This new body will be working with Help the Hospices as a powerful, authoritative and persuasive voice in urging the Government to meet their responsibilities by increasing NHS funding for hospices.

Putting on a political hat, and not a party political one, if one thinks of a co-ordinated approach by all the local hospices in the country to their local Members of Parliament, and pressure from all party sources locally on those Members of Parliament, urging that more should be done, a pretty powerful lobby would be built up of which I hope the Government would take proper account. I have mentioned the wonderful organisation Help the Hospices. I again pay tribute to the Duchess of Norfolk for her fabulous fundraising and long term leadership of that organisation. Her contribution to the hospice movement has been, and is, superb.

I conclude by saying that I hope that the representations that come from the Independent Hospices Representative Committee later this year will give the Government an opportunity to review the whole area. I hope that the effect will be an increase in the support given to hospices and a more rewarding partnership, as the right reverend Prelate said, between the voluntary and statutory sectors for the benefit of the hospice movement in all its varied and fulfilling aspects as it grows and develops to meet future needs and public expectations.

My Lords, perhaps I, too, may congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Walker of Worcester, not only on initiating the debate but also on the very passionate and persuasive way in which he introduced the subject today. I also thank other noble Lords for their particularly knowledgeable contributions to the debate, all speaking from their own personal experience.

Hospices are a cause very close to my own heart. My late wife, Vicky, died of ovarian cancer in 1987. She did not actually die in a hospice because she had an unexpected remission for a short period due to steroid treatment. In 1986 we went through the process of identifying where she wanted to die and, above all, reconciling ourselves to her imminent death. The place we chose was located in Clapham. We were very lucky indeed to have it so close at hand. The Trinity Hospice is our nearest. It has huge local and London-wide loyalty from all who know about it.

It felt strange to her at the time to be doing all these things because as part of her early research in setting up Cancer BACUP she visited St Joseph's in Hackney and St Christopher's in Sydenham, where she met Dame Cicely Saunders. It seemed to be odd to be looking at hospices from a different angle. Fifteen years ago she was also fortunate in some ways in that she was able to take advantage of pioneering home- based palliative care techniques, many of which we now take for granted. Bart's itself was a pioneer at the time, but it had learned almost all of those techniques from the hospice movement.

One of Vicky's last acts before she died was to appear in a programme called "After Midnight". She argued strenuously against the case for voluntary euthanasia. Her case was that the right pain control would be the antidote to the legalised euthanasia argument. I totally agree with a brilliant article which appeared last June in The Times by Valerie Grove. She said,

"If there were hospices for everyone, or hospice backed home care, euthanasia might never be discussed".

As the result of the work by pioneers like Dame Cicely, we now have a total of 236 hospices caring for 60,000 patients a year, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Walker, and other noble Lords. They involve a huge number of volunteers, as mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol.

I welcome the resources, such as they are, that are made available by the Government. As we have heard, just under one-third of hospice resources are derived from the NHS. There is about £20 million for palliative care coming from the New Opportunities Fund, with 88 lottery awards made to 75 hospices. However, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Varley, asked some extremely cogent questions about the funding and when it will be made available.

I also welcome the much stronger role that palliative care now plays within our hospitals as well as in our hospices, which led the way in the first place. I particularly welcome the way in which the department is spreading best practice. But as we have heard from every single noble Lord in this debate, there is a great deal more that should be done.

As we have heard, Government funding has been declining over the past three years and hospices are having to rely more and more on, and compete for, private donations. If that has been the case under the existing commissioning system, what effect will the commissioning by the new primary care groups have? What guidance is being given to the primary care groups? Will the agreements be sufficiently long-term, as noble Lords have asked, or is the picture painted by the noble Lord, Lord Walker, and others correct as regards individual hospices? Is there a major problem, with hospices that can raise the capital being unable to guarantee that revenue funding will be available in future years?

There are also parts of the country where there is less hospice or palliative care than in others. How will that imbalance be assessed and dealt with? Is there any evidence that the health improvement plan system is up to the task? Will the relevant national service frameworks, such as that coming down the track for older people, make sure of that? Also, is it NHS policy to have palliative care and pain control clinics attached to each district general hospital? What is the pattern of care anticipated by the Government? Clearly, there are also insufficient doctors who have the necessary skills to deliver palliative care. What plans do the Government have to improve that situation?

A number of your Lordships have mentioned the very wide role that hospices play, quite apart from the care for those in residential care. They are not solely concerned with palliative care for the terminally ill. They are also a valuable community resource. They are as much concerned with maintaining a good quality of life or providing respite care as helping people to die with grace. As we have heard, family support is key. I mention the St Christopher's At Home service, to name just one.

As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Walker, hospices also work with families in post-bereavement circumstances. We should certainly value and encourage all these activities.

The vast majority of patients in hospices are there as a result of cancer. Ultimately, however, we need to ask why we have this number of terminally ill cancer patients. Recent reports from the hospices themselves show that carers and managers say that an increasingly large number of their patients are reporting a history of medical errors or delays in treatment. Some hospices claim that one in three of their patients have been victims of delays or misdiagnosis. There is little sign that delays are improving. If anything, they are getting worse.

There are deep concerns, despite the priority attributed to cancer by this Government—I welcome the appointment of Professor Mike Richards as National Cancer Care Director and his making supportive care one of his highest priorities—and a huge amount of additional resource is needed. An additional 500 cancer specialists are needed. We need to spend £ 1.2 billion on equipment and £170 million on drugs, as Professor Karol Sikora recently stated, if we are to catch up with the rest of Europe.

All these aspects have a severe knock-on effect on the numbers who will be treated and cared for in our hospices in the future.

I wish to raise another matter with the Minister which is relevant to hospices and those who are terminally ill. It concerns the joint statement from the BMA, the Resuscitation Council, and the Royal College of Nursing on decisions relating to cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The matter was raised not only by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, in a recent Question for Written Answer, but also by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, at Starred Questions. The statement requires doctors effectively to obtain consent from a patient who is dying of terminal cancer if he has not indicated his wishes, even when resuscitation might be futile and unethical. Under the statement doctors are required "to sensitively explore" the wishes of patients regarding resuscitation in those who are dying of cancer. A very experienced and senior consultant medical oncologist at St Bartholomew's and the Royal London Hospital has written to me in the following terms:

"Many patients who are dying of cancer and who arc aware of the situation nevertheless wish to spend their remaining time without having to confront the issue directly. In this situation when a patient's heart stops, they have died as a result of terminal cancer and any attempt at resuscitation would be futile. Nor would anyone wish to resuscitate someone who had just died of terminal cancer, when nothing could be done about the illness which had caused their death".

These are not statutory guidelines but there is enormous pressure on doctors to follow the recommendations of the statement because of the fear that it would be used as an example of best practice if a doctor was challenged in court on the issue. I hope that the Minister and his department will look into the issue. It is a matter of considerable concern to oncologists.

This important debate has highlighted the work and value of hospices. I have an enormous admiration for them and believe that we should aim for all those who are terminally ill either to have residential or at home support from a hospice. The ethos of hospices as an institution is one of the most impressive I have ever come across. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol said that they had engaged the hearts and minds of men and women. I do not think that that statement can be improved upon. Dame Cicely was quoted in The Times last June. As so often she had it right when she said:

"You're trying to give people the space for them to discover that they arc who they are and that it's all right and not too late. If you have cancer you have a great chance: there is much to do and share and learn from".

My Lords, every so often the House has the good fortune to debate a subject that carries with it a deep resonance for all of us; and this is one such example. I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Walker for giving us that opportunity and for the superb and moving way in which he introduced his Motion. After a debate of this quality, there is little left for me to say other than to draw together some of the more important themes, and this I shall try to do.

Perhaps the best description of what the hospice movement seeks to achieve was one given to me recently by the charity that my noble friend Lord Hayhoe has supported so closely, Help the Hospices. A hospice is a place that seeks to add life to days, even when days cannot be added to lives; and to offer the best quality of care to every patient according to his or her needs or wishes. Hospice care is based on the simple idea that a dying patient is a living person; someone who deserves peace, respect and calm until the very end of his life.

I do not think that there can be any better guiding principle than this for the care of the terminally ill; but it is a principle that surely casts its net even more widely because it gives rise to a mode and style of palliative care that should, and does, inform every branch of clinical practice and every type of nursing discipline. Indeed, the idea that it rests on is the same one that makes the National Health Service itself speak as powerfully to us as it does: and that is the idea of human dignity. If there is any guiding belief that marks a civilised society—I refrain from saying too much about a Christian society, although I could—it is surely the belief that individual human lives and human dignity are worthy of the highest recognition in all that society does.

I am struck, as many noble Lords have been, by the predominance of the voluntary sector in the provision of hospice care. The hospice movement has its origins in the work of religious orders during the last century, but it was developed in earnest after the Second World War, principally by Dame Cicely Saunders and two national charities, Marie Curie Cancer Care and the Sue Ryder Foundation. The science of palliative care was developed largely by those pioneers—a care that nowadays is also provided within NHS hospitals and in the community by GPs and district nurses. Hospice care is available to all, regardless of race, religious belief or ability to pay. My noble friend Lord Hayhoe made the point that palliative medicine is nowadays a distinct medical specialty, focusing not simply on the control of pain and the enhancement of life, but uniting as far as possible the psychological and spiritual aspects of care to bring dignity to a patient's final days.

I mentioned ability to pay. Patients do not, of course, pay for care provided by voluntary hospices. The greater part of the running costs of such hospices is funded from charitable sources. But, as my noble friend Lord Walker was right to emphasise, the NHS is also a contributor to, just as it is an important user of, hospice services. It is perhaps worth recounting some recent history. In the early 1990s specific funding for voluntary hospices was ring-fenced by the Department of Health, so that a certain budget was assured. Then from 1995–96, the funding was absorbed into the ordinary departmental allocations which had the benefit of enabling health authorities and hospices to agree contracts over a longer term and thus provided a firmer basis for planning ahead.

Before that, in 1993 Ministers had set a target. The target was that, overall and over time, public funding for hospices should match voluntary giving, pound for pound. There was a recognition then that the voluntary sector and the NHS needed to work together and develop hospice services in a structured and co- ordinated way and to plan services flexibly over the long term. But that equal division of financial responsibility, as my noble friend has revealed, has not materialised. Indeed, it is apparent that the proportion of hospice funding provided by the NHS is falling, not rising. That is a matter for concern. I follow the noble Lord, Lord Varley, and the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, in asking for the Minister's comments.

We have heard the point made by my noble friend and many noble Lords that across England the average percentage contribution from the NHS towards running costs for voluntary hospices fell from over 35 per cent in 1996–97 to 32 per cent in 1998–99. That fall coincided with an increase in the use of hospice services by the NHS. In other words, the NHS is leaning more and more heavily on the voluntary hospices and providing proportionately less and less means of sustaining that burden. Currently the voluntary hospices are raising well over £150 million a year from non-NHS sources, with hospice running costs rising at a rate of 8 per cent a year. There are real fears that with increasing competition from other charities, the National Lottery and even fund-raising by NHS trusts, the hill for hospice fundraisers will become too steep a hill to climb.

Let me follow my noble friend's example of St Richard's Hospice and the right reverend Prelate's example of St Peter's Hospice with the example of the Hospice in the Weald, situated in Tunbridge Wells. At any one time, this hospice is looking after 200 patients, whether in the community, in nursing homes or in the hospice itself. Last year, a total of 545 patients were referred to the hospice by GPs and hospital doctors. The team provides counselling and family support as well as training in palliative care to health professionals. There are service agreements with two health authorities and an active partnership with the local NHS at every level. Yet, of the annual running costs of £1.5 million, only £262,000, or 16 per cent, is covered by statutory income. The remainder of the running costs have to be met from charitable fundraising.

That is a tall order for any voluntary organisation, but it means also that any ideas for expansion of the hospice's services—additional beds, treatment for lymphoedema, or physiotherapy—simply cannot be countenanced without the support of partner health authorities. Discussions are, I understand, under way, but even now the Hospice in the Weald is receiving only half the rate of funding from the West Kent Health Authority (on a per capita basis) compared to that given to hospices nearby. Such a gap seems anomalous.

The picture is even less satisfactory when we look at support for children's hospices. The Association of Children's Hospices has stated that while some children's hospices receive anything between 8 and 15 per cent of their funding from health authorities, many others receive nothing at all. The average amount is less than 5 per cent. Compared to adult hospices, this is almost derisory. Although no doubt the reasons for the discrepancy are partly historic in that children's hospices are a comparatively new phenomena, there is more than a feeling here that health authorities are placing undue reliance on the ability of such hospices to attract charitable income. To echo my noble friends Lord Walker and Lord Hayhoe, I ask whether this is right and whether it is not something that Ministers should review carefully. There could be no better recognition of the valuable community service provided by children's hospices than a firm commitment by government to increase the level of statutory funding.

As other noble Lords have pointed out, it is impressive and extraordinary to look at the growth of the hospice movement over the past 20 years. Since 1980, the number of hospice units in the UK has grown from 38 to 223; the number of beds from 1,000 to more than 3,000. Of those units and beds, the independent sector accounts for about two-thirds; and this of course excludes the development of community support teams, hospices at home, day centres and bereavement counselling, all of which are an integral part of modern-day palliative care.

What is equally striking is the regional disparity of service provision. In the north-west, there are 66 hospice beds per million of population; in Trent, only 36. Why should that be? I should be glad to hear from the Minister what research the Government have done into ways of making hospice coverage more generally accessible. Indeed, we shall have an especial cause to thank my noble friend for his Motion if we hear from the Minister tonight not simply a political commitment to the hospice movement and all that it embodies, but a concrete statement of aims and a sense from him of how those aims are to be achieved. For of one thing we can be quite sure: demographic trends, the increasing number of elderly in the population, and the increasing incidence of chronic fatal illness will make the need for hospices ever greater over the next quarter-century. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that these trends are recognised and that that recognition will be translated into support from government that all right-thinking people will welcome.

My Lords, I join the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Walker of Worcester, on being successful in securing a debate on the hospice movement. I found his remarks most moving. His patronage of St Richard's Hospice in Worcester has given him tremendous insight into the achievements and challenges of hospices in this country.

Like other noble Lords, I want to pay tribute to three important figures in the hospice and palliative care world. I refer, first, to Dame Cicely Saunders, who has rightly been mentioned by many noble Lords tonight; and, secondly, to Professor Eric Wilkes who in 1980 chaired a working group which considered the organisation of primary, continuing and terminal care services for cancer. He set the scene for the changes that we have seen in palliative care during the past 20 years. It is also appropriate to join the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, in admiring the enormous fundraising gifts of the Duchess of Norfolk.

Like other noble Lords, I am a great admirer of the modern hospice movement. Every noble Lord has mentioned at least one hospice he knows well and I cannot resist the temptation to pay tribute to my local hospice in Birmingham, St Mary's Hospice, which does extraordinary work for the city of Birmingham and its people.

From the foundation of caring for the whole person, the hospice movement has established the development of effective symptom control, openness, respect for the patient's own wishes and needs, and care for the patient's family as the cornerstones and founding principles of palliative care. It is this approach which sets this country among the world leaders in palliative care, as the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, pointed out.

My noble friend Lord Blease spoke vividly of the achievements of the hospice movement in Northern Ireland and it is the same throughout the United Kingdom. The care provided by hospices, the great majority of which are voluntary organisations, is clearly unsurpassed. However, it is worth reflecting that in this country 60 per cent of people die in hospital. One would have to admit that too often their care and the support for their families is not all it ought to be. With staff under pressure, it can sometimes happen that bad news is broken insensitively, that families may be given inadequate information and support, or that dying patients may not receive the consistently high quality of care we would all wish.

However, I believe that excellent examples are to be found where the NHS is doing well. In the Bloomsbury area of London, a rapid response palliative care crisis support team, spanning hospital and community settings, is run and managed by nurses. The primary care team and the specialist palliative care team work well together. Both the health and social care needs of patients are met, including personal care. There are many other examples.

The principles and practice of palliative care, which are all about partnership and quality of care, must be available to all healthcare professionals, to people facing life-threatening illness and to their carers. The field of hospice and palliative care is setting gold standards in partnership working, as the right reverend Prelate said. That is why in June 1998 we distributed to the NHS three excellent guidance documents, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, pointed out. These covered cancer pain, the last years of life, and the provision of palliative care in hospitals. The documents, produced by the National Council for Hospices and Specialist Palliative Care Services, and written by hospice experts, are available to help all NHS trusts. Taken together, they identify how all concerned can improve the quality and care they provide for the dying.

That is a good example of hospices and the NHS working together. I was particularly interested in the reflections of the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, on her experience in the NHS. There can be no doubt that the lessons learnt in the hospice movement have also had a profound effect on NHS practice—it is not yet sufficient, but they have appreciably improved the quality of what the NHS does.

Another area which I have mentioned in relation to partnership working concerns joint appointments for consultants, crossing health and voluntary sector boundaries. I know from a recent visit to my local hospice that shortage of medical directors in particular is an issue for many hospices. We certainly support the joint appointments approach, with a medical director also holding a consultant's post within a local NHS trust. In answer to the question raised about the number of palliative care consultants in post at present, my understanding is that there are 245. That figure is growing year by year, and I am very pleased about that.

A number of questions have been raised about standards and performance indicators and the consistency of service availability throughout the country. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, pointed out, there is no doubt that there are striking differences in the provision available in different parts of the country. That is one reason why, as part of the implementation of our overall cancer strategy, the Government are currently working to develop sets of performance indicators and standards for palliative care.

That work is being taken forward with the National Council for Hospices and Specialist Palliative Care Services as the voluntary organisations with specific expertise in that area. The work is an integral element of the Supportive Care Strategy and will play a significant role in ensuring equitable access to, and quality of, palliative care services. The standards and performance indicators are part of the generic national core standards which will be developed for cancer generally. They will be used as a tool by service providers, health authorities and, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, primary care groups to deliver and measure continuous quality improvement in services in a consistent manner across the country. They will have the potential for making significant differences to patient outcomes.

A number of questions were asked about the New Opportunities Fund and, in particular, about its palliative care initiative. My noble friend Lord Varley raised a number of points about that. As noble Lords will know, the New Opportunities Fund is a major distributor of lottery money and is responsible for distributing grants to education, health and environment projects determined by the Government. The New Opportunities Fund is allocating £23 million as part of the Living with Cancer programme to fund projects based on a palliative approach to care. In answer to my noble friend Lord Varley, I understand that the second phase of the overall NOF cancer funding programme, which embraces the £23 million, was launched in February this year. Applications must be submitted by May and announcements will be made in September. I very much hope that hospices will make bids and, obviously, I hope that they will be successful.

That brings me to what I imagine to be the crux of this debate: the issue of funding of hospices. I know from the comments made by every noble Lord in this debate and, indeed, by the enthusiasm and vigour with which my own local hospice has lobbied me in this area that the issue of funding is a matter of great concern to the hospice movement. I have certainly taken careful note of those comments and of the particular points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Walker, in his opening remarks.

In responding to those matters, I turn first to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Blease and the noble Earl, Lord Howe. They spoke of the intent of the previous government in the early 1990s to move to what is known as "50:50 funding". As the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, also remarked, that concept was withdrawn in 1994–95. My understanding is that it was withdrawn on the basis that it was not sensible to specify centrally what the proportion of NHS funding in each area should be, given the extent of local diversity, both of services provided and of alternative sources of support. I give an example of that. While noble Lords have been absolutely right to point out that on average the NHS contributes approximately 31 per cent of the funding, the actual contributions to hospice running costs vary from 9 per cent to 61 per cent, reflecting local circumstances.

I was also asked about the move from central funding, which, I understand, occurred after the financial year 1995–96. Between 1990 and 1994, funding was allocated to the health authorities in England specifically to support hospices and similar organisations. However, since 1994 those resources have been built into the general NHS allocations. It is also true that guidance was issued to health authorities which made it clear that each health authority should agree a local strategy for the provision of specialist palliative care provision based on an assessment of the health needs of the local population and taking account of local priorities, available resources and patterns of services. I am well aware that there is a general view within the hospice movement that that has not worked through sufficiently. It is felt that it has left hospices with problems in relation to funding and with a lack of certainty about future funding from the NHS.

I also accept the point raised by my noble friend Lord Varley in relation to pay awards made by the NHS which the hospices will follow. I accept that if we make awards above the rate of inflation, if we accept the pay review body awards in full, and if we make provisions to upgrade certain nursing grades for good reasons, that will have a knock-on effect on the hospice movement. It seems to me that that issue falls to local discussion and, clearly, it should be taken into account by the NHS when it considers its resource allocation decisions with regard to hospices.

I have listened very carefully to the serious points made about funding. I believe that the way forward is through local discussion. The health improvement programme is the mechanism by which a serious discussion can take place, embracing health authorities, trusts, the voluntary sector and primary care groups, and where decisions can be made about the appropriate level of future support. Of course, the whole purpose of health improvement programmes is to enable longer-term decisions to be made, rather than the "short-termitis" from which, I believe, we have suffered in the past.

It is important to recognise that ultimately this is a matter for local decision, based on the local healthcare needs of the population, and that there will always be different priorities for different local health systems. I believe that that is inevitable. However, in reflecting on the points raised by noble Lords, I accept the need to examine how the profile of palliative care can be raised overall within the health authority decision- making process. I can assure noble Lords that over the coming months we shall consider how that can be achieved.

In addition, I very much share the concern of both the noble Lord, Lord Walker, and the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, with regard to what I believe they described as the need for long-term stability in funding decisions made by the health service. That point has certainly been made to me by a number of hospices. On that matter, I can say only that I share the noble Lord's wish that the NHS could give more long-term certainty to hospices. I shall certainly explore what can be done to encourage that because I believe that it is important. It is consistent with both the whole notion of a comprehensive spending review and our wish to move to longer-term planning for the NHS in general.

I am also aware that currently approximately only 50 per cent of health authorities have in place palliative care strategies. Again, I accept the need to explore the reasons why some health authorities are able to develop strategies and others are not.

I want to make a couple of points before concluding. I fully accept the points raised by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, about the changes in hospice work and the move towards more home-based care. We should all applaud that. I am confident that hospices will always look for new challenges in the future.

Of course, I applaud and accept all the support that noble Lords have expressed for the hospice movement this evening. I understand the points that have been raised about funding. The noble Lord, Lord Walker, will understand that as a humble health Minister, I cannot give any commitment tonight; but I shall reflect on the debate. I have affirmed our commitment to developing a set of performance indicators and standards in relation to palliative care; to use the health improvement programme as a key feature for bringing about change; and to consider how we can encourage long-term stability in financial allocations. Again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Walker, for introducing this debate.

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his summing-up and for his assurance that he will carefully examine the points that have been made—

My Lords, the time allotted for this debate has now elapsed. Does the noble Lord, Lord Walker, wish to withdraw the Motion?

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.

rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what they consider to be the role of sport in schools.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, for making this evening's debate possible. I thank him for setting us off in such a terrific manner.

I start by declaring several interests as chairman of the General Teaching Council and of the Education Standards Task Force. My only other closely related experience is that I once made a film about athletics which I hope went a little way towards celebrating our somewhat better days of sporting achievement; that is, before we forgot how to play cricket, lost faith in our ability from the penalty spot and learnt to come last in ski-jumping without complaining.

All the interventions in this evening's debate will, I am sure, demonstrate the seriousness with which many of us treat the provision of sport in school. In addition to the obvious benefits to physical fitness and health generally, sport remains a powerful tool in helping to shape young people's behaviour and attitudes. It can break down barriers and build bridges among individuals and, indeed, within whole communities. It can have a unique impact on social inclusion and local and regional aspiration, as I have seen in Sunderland, where I work as Chancellor of the University; a city completely united in love of its football club.

Twenty years after it was written, I find it hard to improve on the words used, albeit in a rather unfortunate context, by one of the characters in "Chariots of Fire", played by Sir John Gielgud. He stated:

'"Our games are indispensable in helping to complete an education. They create character, they foster courage, honesty and leadership. But most of all an unassailable sense of loyalty, comradeship and mutual responsibility".

Frankly, I could not have put it better myself.

As I am sure that we shall reach unanimity as to the value of sport, I shall leave questions regarding which party should be held primarily responsible for the current less than adequate provision to those noble Lords with greater knowledge and experience of the history of the matter; though I would suggest that the issue of blame is likely to be the least productive aspect of our debate. Having said that, to my mind it beggars belief that criticism can honestly be levelled at any initiative that in the space of just 18 months has turned around the literacy of our children to a point at which we are comfortably within sight of the Government's overall targets for improvement. That only goes to prove that miracles can happen when sufficient focus, commitment and resource are brought to bear. Surely a similar level of focus, commitment and resources will now be needed to be brought to bear on this problem.

For that reason I welcome the Government's announcement that as we escape from the bindweed of illiteracy, PE will once more be reinstated in the curriculum, but I rather despair at the low level of expectation contained in many of the proposed solutions.

We are told that from September of this year pupils will have at least two hours of physical activity each week, which will include curriculum time and what is termed "out of school" learning opportunities. Two hours is less than halfan hour each school day or even nothing all week if a match can be arranged on Saturday morning. I have to believe that 100 years from now, anyone looking back at Hansard will be amazed that this debate was regarded as necessary, but necessary it clearly is.

Surely it is only in Britain that we tolerate the sort of reductionist discussion which holds that we can either achieve academic success at the expense of our national sporting prowess and physical health or vice versa. It seems bizarre to belabour the issue when we can find any number of working models that deliver excellence in both fields of endeavour.

The private school system in this country has for many years seemed perfectly able to deliver a high level of academic results at the same time as developing a considerable degree of excellence across a wide range of winter and summer sports. "Ah, yes", I hear the cynic's response. "But public schools have far more resources and are therefore able to fund the kit, supervision and, indeed the playing fields required to offer serious opportunity to each of the children in their care". "Ah, yes", say another group of cynics. "But public school kids come from more privileged backgrounds where sport is probably taken far more seriously", to which the only reasonable response seems to me to be, "Nonsense".

The fact is that this whole debate would be rendered irrelevant if we would only stop being two-faced about the barriers to success and acknowledge once and for all the simple truth that we have a choice. We can choose to prioritise sport, to ascribe real value to its health, social and emotional benefits, and to invest accordingly. However, that would mean digging far deeper into our pockets to find the money required to turn what to my mind are perfectly reasonable expectations into reality.

We need money to buy back the sports field sold off by the previous Government. We need money and commitment to train a generation of brilliantly motivated and highly professional sports teachers. We need cash to invest in the kit for every age group and, if necessary, every sport. We need to pay the groundsmen and the extra staff required to develop the skills and support the team competitions from which schools gather their sense of achievement. We need to ensure that sufficient funding is effectively targeted and managed for our Olympic hopefuls after they leave school. Then, and only then, I suggest to your Lordships, will we be wholly entitled to indulge our national preoccupation with whinging and whining on the back pages of our national press as we greet yet another Test failure; yet another near medal-less Olympic fiasco; yet another national humiliation on an international stage.

As long as individual success can only be achieved at the price of parental near-bankruptcy; as long as we look to our imperial history as a source of inspiration rather than our current levels of financial commitment, we are deluding ourselves and, frankly, wasting a whole lot of time and energy.

There is an alternative. We may decide as a society that we do not want it both ways; that we do not sufficiently value the benefits of sport. That is OK, but let us at least be honest about it. We could stop applying the odd million pound's worth of sticking plaster to this gaping wound and just retire to our sofas to watch "Match of the Day". We could even reinvest that odd million in making programmes about other people's sporting achievements, and possibly sell them abroad. Better still, let us invest the few bob we save and put it into the health service to shore up the support system we shall undoubtedly need as a nation of increasingly obese, unfit, couch potatoes.

In conclusion, this is surely what in policy terms is known as a "no-brainer". The health and social benefits of sport arc not in dispute; our willingness to fund them is. In terms of its outcome, this is not an either/or situation. We can have academic and sporting excellence—

My Lords, I remind the noble Lord that this is a timed debate and he is well past the allotted time.

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. I shall be finished in exactly 30 seconds. I hope the House will indulge me.

We can have academic and sporting excellence. How we achieve that is not a particularly complex problem on the scale, for instance, of the search for a cure for cancer. Give or take, there are around 25,000 schools in England and Wales. The question is simple: is the long-term health of our children and the overwhelming sense of national pride that comes from international success worth the price tag attached? It is all a question of national will, and the final answer lies in another place at the far end of the corridor.

My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, for raising the issue of sport in this House. As we all know, this is a timely debate.

I agree with the noble Lord that schools seem to have missed a trick by giving such a low priority to sport, especially team sport which I believe to be the most important. Equally, we all know of the problems of bureaucracy and form-filling. I do not think that we should try to turn political tricks on this question. It is much too important for that and affects us all, whichever side of the House we may sit.

It is difficult for schools in general and teachers in particular to keep up with form-filling and to look after sports. It is a sad fact that for many teachers it is not possible to devote the time they so unselfishly gave in the past to organising games such as cricket, football, rounders and, indeed, any team games, which are so essential to youth and what is most missing today.

This is in no way to denigrate individual achievements. A shining example which I was lucky to see was Lennox Lewis winning the heavyweight title, and unifying that title, for Britain. Another achievement, perhaps not so headlined in the press, was the dramatic announcement a few months ago by the noble Lord the Minister of his prowess at bar billiards and his championship.

More seriously, we seek to promote team games, which are character building. Though we may not make the headlines—with the notable exception of the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey—most of us will testify how we all carry the lessons of teamwork, which may well mean unselfishness and fair play, into our adult years.

We have heard the Government tell us that school fields are no longer being sold off to the extent they were. That they should be sold at all is sad. A rather disturbing article appeared in yesterday's Daily Telegraph on which perhaps the Minister will be able to comment when he comes to reply.

It is at school that youth should absorb the lessons that team participation brings. All too often these days it is from watching TV that boys and girls learn how games are played and the antics in which their sporting heroes are engaged which stick in their mind. We are all saddened to see the increase in professional fouls and today's adage seems to be, "Anything goes provided you do not get caught doing it". That is a sad indication of what we are doing in this country.

That was not the attitude of past years. It was at school that one was taught about fair play. It used to be said, "that just is not cricket"—a saying which today would probably merely bring laughter. It is not as though such changes in attitude have brought us any good. We need only study recent Test Matches and World Cup competitions to see that the new attitude has not achieved anything. I hope the Minister can assure us that the Government accept that more is required than lip service to the reduction in the sale of playing fields, for instance, which I mentioned. We need a proactive effort to promote sports in schools; assistance to headmasters once again to promote sports and thereby the team spirit in schools. Those are sadly lacking at the moment and a generation of young people who do not automatically absorb such teachings in school is a generation which is letting down both themselves and the country.

My Lords, I must first declare an interest as the chairman of Warrington Rugby League Club. Secondly, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey of Tonbridge, for asking the Question. I would feel more certain of winning a few Test Matches if Cowdrey C. was coming in at three or four.

I want to discuss practical examples. When we look at the Sport England survey of schools, it makes for disturbing reading. There is less sport played in schools now than five years ago. Even more disturbing is the fact that 95 per cent of primary schools have no qualified PE teacher, and 85 per cent have no part-time assistants in relation to sport. That is dismal reading. That is why I want to concentrate on Warrington, a town I represented; a town I know a lot about.

Although pressure has been put on the primary schools in relation to literacy and numeracy, in Warrington most of the primary schools allocate extra time for sport and PE. In addition, there are good links between the secondary and primary schools so that help can be given from one to the other. Warrington also had its own sports festival last year and its primary schools received very good Ofsted reports.

I want to talk also about what we are trying to do with the William Beamont Secondary School. The school obtained a grant of £278,000 from the Department for Education. Because the school is part of a public private partnership, the private partner put in another £1 million which enables the school to have 10 all-weather pitches, a new sports hall and better changing facilities. It also enables Warrington to put forward the William Beamont school as a sports college for 2000–01. That means pupils who show prowess in sport can develop their ability along with their academic studies.

I may be accused of parochial preaching but I want to mention what Warrington Rugby League Club is doing. It developed a link with primary schools and is putting those schools in touch with their nearest amateur rugby league club. Since September 1999 that partnership has resulted in 5,000—I want to emphasise both boys and girls—receiving coaching in rugby football. That is a way forward for the future. In addition, it enables the club to look at the difference between participation and excellence.

The club initiated a schools scholarship scheme. Children who are outstanding in sport in Warrington can be offered a scholarship through the club, just as they would if they were good in arts or drama. They can then go along to the William Beamont school and develop their sport along with their academic studies. That is the way to spot the winners of the future and to maintain our sports. When I refer to "sport" in relation to William Beamont and the participation of the Rugby League club, I mean all sports, not just rugby. We are looking at children who are good at all sports.

The rugby club players are participating in the scheme. They encourage healthy eating and advise children on the right diets. They sit down at the schools and eat with the children as well. The stadium at Wilderspool will form the "wolf den". It was opened by my good friend Estelié Morris, the Minister for Educational Standards, and it will cater for children who are losing interest in school. It will offer them an education through the club and through the colleges. Players will participate, encouraging the children to develop an interest. They will be able meet their local heroes—we are the only professional club in the town—and find a new interest. I believe that by bringing about the "den" we will be helping children from the most deprived areas.

I should like to say to Peter Deakin, our chief executive and his staff, to Daryll van der Byll, the coach, and the playing staff that they are doing an excellent job, not simply on behalf of the Warrington team but in helping to promote it as part of the community.

My Lords, for too long in this country we have failed to recognise fully the parlous state of physical education and sport. I mention from the outset "sport" and "physical education" because the two are linked; they are not mutually exclusive. In the past many experts have tried and failed to identify the difference between the two, but for what purpose? Physical education may not be sport, although sport is certainly a form of physical education.

Our youngsters generally receive their first experiences of sport through schools' physical education lessons. Gone are the days when children, before entering school, played freely in the streets, in the fields, climbed trees and rode bicycles. Many enter school physically and socially under-developed. It is vital therefore that their introduction to sport through physical education is a positive one.

The responsibility for delivering physical education and sport to our young children is enormous. We learn from research conducted at the University of Exeter, for example, that the average child between the ages of 13 and 16 receives only around 20 minutes a week of beneficial cardiovascular activity. We know also that by the year 2030 there will be only 1.5 million children in this country under the age of five, as against 3.3 million in 1961. So we have a declining market. By the time most children reach secondary school, they are already lost to sport.

It becomes more important, therefore, to ensure that the links between exercise, health and well - being are established in the minds of our children from the point at which they enter school. If we establish good habits early on, while few will aspire to become international athletes, the social benefits of sport will remain and we will continue to find willing and enthusiastic volunteers on whom sport will continue to depend.

Therefore, it seems to me that we need to shift our emphasis to the primary sector where we need specialists in physical, social and health education who can feed in positive values in the young and create in their minds the link between these three disciplines, to introduce skill learning and to sow the seeds that sport is a force for the good in their lives.

Having then set about bringing physical education and sport back into the mainstream of school life, before we can make progress in improving standards at the international level, we need to recognise that there is a sporting continuum and that, at each stage of the child's development, learning must be supported by excellent teaching and coaching with a scientific base.

For many years we failed to provide sufficient resources for teachers and coaches. Many of our best coaches have been tempted overseas. Others have remained, making the best of a bad lot. I can hear people saying that we now have a lottery. That is absolutely right. But are the funds being spent strategically?

In schools, head teachers are saying that 57 per cent of teachers cannot deliver the National Curriculum in physical education. At teacher training college, most student teachers receive only 30 hours of physical education or sports training during their four-year course. We also know that since 1987 a further 97 per cent of 14 year-olds have fewer than two hours of physical education each week. These are damning statistics. Regardless of our political leanings, we should be ashamed of the way in which we have allowed physical education and sport to become marginalised in comparison with other subjects.

In the 1960s, we began to offer students newer sports such as golf, badminton, table tennis, and so on. Now it seems to me that the choice has become more one of either opting-in or opting-out of the PE programme. The problem has been worsened by the decline in specialist teacher training courses and a subsequent decline in the morale of teachers in physical education.

Children learn discipline through sport; they learn to work in groups; they are given opportunities to show leadership; and they learn how to make good decisions. But we have almost written off an entire generation in physical terms. We must, therefore, redress the balance and aim by the year 2010 to have in all primary schools the specialists I have already mentioned. We must also do better than relegate physical education and sport to after-school activities for those few who are interested.

Physical education should be a core part of the curriculum. There must be more funding provided at the primary level to create the massive shift in attitude among teachers, parents and children that exercise is part of the education for life. Given the declining numbers in the younger age groups, it is vital that we present physical activity as fun, as enjoyable and that skill learning is introduced as soon as youngsters enter the school system by enthusiastic professionals. For sport to take the quantum leap, there is a need for radical changes in policy, structure and funding. The function of the Sports Council movement needs to be reviewed and altered radically. We must ensure that television and all sponsorship money finds its way down to the grass roots of all sport.

We have given many sports to the world. I earnestly hope that the Government will give physical education and sport a very much higher profile in all our schools than it presently enjoys. That would be good for all our children and our nation as a whole.

My Lords, I heartily endorse all the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey of Tonbridge, on the effect of sport on character building. I am, possibly, the only Member of your Lordships' House who has a diploma in physical education, although noble Lords will appreciate that it is a very yellowing document these days.

I shall concentrate my few remarks on the more practical aspects of physical education and sport. It is generally thought—indeed, it was mentioned twice tonight—that schools are required to provide at least two hours a week of physical education, which includes sport. But that is not the case. I have with me the physical education section of the new national curriculum, which states:

"The Government believes that two hours of physical activity a week should be an aspiration for all schools"—

an "aspiration"; in other words, it is not necessary. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that there were once two compulsory subjects in education: one was religious education and the other was physical education. I think it is time that we went back to that. Physical education ought to be a compulsory subject.

The report of Sport England, which was published last week, says that some schools do not have any physical education time at all. If that is the case, it is little short of scandalous and the Government really ought to be looking into the matter. Much is said these days, and rightly, about the foundation of physical education and sport being laid in primary schools. However, there is a snag.

Fully qualified physical education teachers—those holding a degree or a diploma in physical education and sports science—cannot, and should not, be expected to teach 7 to 11 year-olds. Their training is directed towards secondary age pupils and, more than that, to schools with a wide range of facilities, such as a gymnasium, a sports hall, a swimming pool, an athletics track, and so on.

It is no surprise at all—at least, not to me—that there is a shortage of PE specialists in primary schools. There is a strong case for including specialist PE training in the training of some primary school teachers. Indeed, some teachers in primary school have that as their main interest and it should be exploited in their training. Such training should and would be different in a number of respects from the training that people receive who intend to teach in secondary schools.

Perhaps the most important sports facility is the playing field, and here we have a considerable problem. The previous government—I do not say this in a political sense—literally allowed the sale of thousands of playing fields, both school and community playing fields. We are still feeling the legacy of that policy today in our schools.

I should like to inject a personal note. It relates to a matter that I raised during the very first week of the life of the present Government, just after they came into office. It has taken two years to change the system. Where there is local objection to the sale of playing fields or community fields—and there very often is—the matter must now be referred to the Secretary of State for his decision. That is the new position and it is an improvement. However, when I say that of 83 applications for sale made up to the end of last year only three have been refused by the Secretary of State, it may not be—I put it no stronger than this—as effective as might be thought.

I realise, of course, that the more rigorous criteria—there are more rigorous criteria and—may have reduced the number of applications. I believe that to be the case. But, on the basis of what I have just said, the position needs very careful examination. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take due note of the situation.

My final point concerns the range of sports and activities to be taught. Of course, things have changed a great deal since the early days when physical education came into the curriculum. It consisted then of physical training based on the old Swedish system of exercising, football and cricket. Every school should provide the widest possible range of sport. This depends on the school's facilities and the qualifications of the teachers. In some ways, it means that pupils should be given something of a "taster", if I may so describe it, of the range so that their inclinations and strengths can be developed, be it in basketball, swimming, athletics, gymnastics, cricket, tennis, netball or other sports. Most specialist PE teachers can train pupils to a high degree of competence in a number of sports. The obvious question to ask is: are we providing adequate facilities for sport in our schools and sufficient specialist teachers? The evidence suggests that there has been much improvement in this field in recent years, but a great deal remains to be done.

My Lords, I do not wish to declare an interest other than a particular enthusiasm for improving the situation for sport in this country. I believe that it is well known that I come from Northern Ireland, where I believe that for years we have done things better. To prove it I shall list our sports stars.

We are a province the same size as Lancashire but we have such people as Darren Clarke, Rowan Rafferty, Eddie Irvine, Dawson Stelfox, who climbed Everest, etc. We produce these stars and we win. Why is that? We have the highest activity rates of school aged children across 30 countries. We have the fittest schoolchildren in the UK. I read, rather sadly, the comments of Sport England's Public Affairs Unit, which states,

"In general, children are receiving a declining amount of physical education each week … The proportion of primary school children … doing PE five days a week fell from 4 to 1 per cent … The survey found that the vast majority of primary schools had no full-time".

PE teachers etc., etc., etc.

A hundred years ago we worried about malnutrition in schools; now we worry about obesity in schools. It is time something was done about this matter. We in Northern Ireland have been doing things differently. One of the key factors is that, since its inception, the Sports Council for Northern Ireland has always been part of the Department of Education for Northern Ireland. Education is managed by five Education and Library Boards, each of which has its own PE adviser. Our present Minister of Sport understands the system well.

The Sports Council for Northern Ireland has its own unit, which focuses primarily on the development of school sport. The Department of Education for Northern Ireland's strapline "Learning for Life" gives vision to teachers of the relevance of the physical education programme to the future lifestyles of their pupils and therefore enhances the importance of school and community sporting links.

The ethos of the strapline "Learning for Life" is promoted through in-service training for teachers and at a number of high level conferences which are held each year with plenty of attendant publicity. The Northern Ireland common curriculum gives children a broad and balanced experience of sport, and is compulsory to the age of 16 across a wide range of activities. Two of the key strands which are essential components of the PE curriculum delivery—these are inspected—are: attitudes which encourage a sense of fun, confidence building, fair play and co-operation; and health related physical education which makes children and parents aware of the relationship between activity and mental and physical well-being.

PE falls under the unique banner of creative and expressive studies. Hence, unlike in this country, it is protected from being squeezed by the extra pressure applied by governments to the literacy and numeracy initiative, as outlined in the Guardian of February 28th and the Guardian Education Supplement of February 29th. Those articles demonstrate clearly the problems that arise in this country from such a policy.

The Sports Council for Northern Ireland has recently launched the Youth Sport project. This now operates in 600 out of 1,300 schools. This has led to a dramatic increase in the number of extra-curricular activities provided to children of all ages. Five schools of sport, one for each area, have been established with a special remit to develop excellence in young people.

All this adds up to strong parental expectation that schools will deliver a high level and high quality of PE across a wide range of sports; and to high commitment from non-PE teachers, who are prepared to give time and effort to "out of school activities". We have never suffered from the withdrawal of teachers from those activities that occurred in this country when there were industrial relations problems. Those problems arose many years ago but they still exist. Some 93 per cent of primary schools in Northern Ireland provide a range of five or more activities after school. There is strong parental support of extra-curricular activity, which includes local clubs and school teams. We are fortunate to have a large number of medium-sized community based sports clubs. All this is delivered by a highly motivated and dedicated force of PE teachers, whose enthusiasm is maintained by professional in- service training and the ongoing relationship between the Education and Library Boards and their PE advisers, who link in with the Sports Council for Northern Ireland and with the senior people in the department. Therefore I offer a better and an alternative way.

My Lords, when as a schoolboy I used to follow the England cricket team, it never occurred to me in my wildest dreams that I would find myself speaking in your Lordships' House in a debate initiated by one of its greatest ever players. Therefore it is a privilege, 40 years on, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, for the pleasure he gave me and my generation then, and for introducing the debate this evening.

When he batted for England, one of his greatest skills was that of timing. It is obviously a skill that has not deserted him as he has initiated this debate in the week that Sport England has published its report Young People and Sport in England. That survey presents a contradictory and a disturbing picture. On the one hand young people and their parents still attach a huge amount of importance to school sport. It is shown to improve academic achievement, to reduce truancy and to increase fitness and health. But on the other hand the survey shows that the amount of physical education provided in schools has declined alarmingly.

People believe that schools should provide three- and-a-half hours of PE a week. Sport England states that the minimum should be two hours, and that it should be part of the core curriculum. We have heard much about the core curriculum from a number of noble Lords during the debate. I share their view, as indeed does the Central Council for Physical Recreation; namely, that sport should be included in the core curriculum. I understand that the Government say that two hours should be an "aspiration". However, the proportion of children getting even two hours a week fell from 46 per cent to 33 per cent over the five years between 1994 and 1999, so we are not even matching the Government's aspiration.

A further problem to which my noble friend Lord Dormand referred is the loss of school playing fields. As your Lordships will be aware, the present Government changed the policy of the previous administration, and since October 1998 it is supposed to have become much harder for playing fields to be sold off. One important change is that Sport England has become a compulsory consultee in the planning process and the decision is now taken at ministerial level.

In common, I imagine, with several of your Lordships, I have been sent some critical briefing on this subject by the CCPR, which claims that the new policy is not doing nearly enough to stop the sale of playing fields. I hope that when my noble friend replies to the debate he will be able to assure us that, if a playing field is sold, it is normally replaced by alternative school sports facilities.

Another serious concern is that the levels of skill in the most important sports of younger children are getting worse. Trevor Brooking, the Chairman of Sport England, was quoted in last Sunday's Observer as saying,

"The fundamental problem is that children are not being taught the basic techniques of how to hold a bat or racquet, or how to kick a ball. Kids leaving primary school at 11 now are. technically, the worst generation I have ever seen".

This means that the pool of talent from which the great sportsmen and women of the future will be drawn will be that much smaller and they will have less time to develop their skills than if they had had the benefit of participating in sport at an early age, as did the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey. I refer to his comments about playing football at the age of 10.

My final point concerns the question of sport for girls, a particular problem to which far too little attention is paid in this country. I wonder how many of your Lordships are familiar with Title IX—which is always written in Roman numerals—of the United States Educational Amendments of 1972. This is the landmark legislation which banned sex discrimination in schools, in both academics and athletics. It states:

"No person in the US shall, on the basis of sex. be excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits o?. or be subjected to discrimination under, any educational programme or activity receiving federal aid".

That means that, for every dollar spent on boys' sport, exactly the same amount has to be spent on the girls. It is widely believed throughout the US that it is this legislation which has been responsible for the huge growth in high school sport for girls in the United States. Before Title IX, only 16,000 women played college sports; now 160,000 compete at college level.

The sport which has benefited most has been what the Americans call soccer. Of the 18 million Americans who play soccer, 7.5 million of them are women. It is widely believed that that is why the Women's World Cup was won by the Americans last year.

Let me conclude with a quote from a paper which is probably not often referred to in your Lordships' House. The Omaha World-Herald states:

"As the U.S. women's soccer team takes its victory lap around the country this winter, playing indoor soccer games against the World All Stars in front of sellout crowds, they do much more than just celebrate their monumental victory this past summer in the World Cup. In a way, they are celebrating the landmark ruling of TITLE IX. which was a monumental victory for all women athletes".

I have not the slightest doubt that if we had similar legislation in this country the prospects for girls' sports generally would be transformed. Perhaps my noble friend will tell us that that could become an aspiration too.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, for instigating this discussion. My only regret is that there is not sufficient time to do the topic justice, because, as other noble Lords have said, the recent surveys are quite depressing. The noble Lord introduced the topic with the elegance that I remember him demonstrating at the crease some years ago. My only regret then was that he did not play for Lancashire—where I, too, used to go in at number three.

I want to focus on what we mean by sport in schools, why it is important, and to offer some thoughts on its current state. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I reverse the question and spend time considering the role of schools in sport as well as the role of sport in schools—and schools, of course, are not the only players, so to speak.

I am grateful for advice to the Youth Sports Trust—of which I know the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, to be a patron—to Sport England, to the Health Education Authority, to the Trust for the Study of Adolescence, where I am a trustee, and also to teachers who have given me valuable insights.

First, then, what is "sport"? I do not wish to confine my remarks to competitive sport or to team games, important though they are. There have been moves for the past 15 years, at least, to encourage health-related exercise in schools in all parts of the UK. This is supported by the new curriculum guidelines on PE, to which I shall refer later.

Schools can help to set patterns for future fitness, as can families, clubs and private facilities outside schools. Future fitness is partly established while young. Successive reports from the UK Department of Health point out that the UK has high levels of coronary heart disease. Regular physical activity has been shown to combat not only this disease but to improve skeletal health, with a positive impact on, for example, osteoporosis, particularly in women. According to the report Young and Active, the recommended activity levels are one hour a day with, at least twice a week, activity to enhance and maintain muscular activity and bone health.

Research from universities, the Sports Council, Sport England and OPCS suggests that young people are not participating in enough physical activity to acquire the potential short and long-term health benefits. There is a particular need to increase activity levels among young people who have a disability, who are female, or who are from a black or minority ethnic group. For example, female school leavers aged between 16 to 24 appear to have half the level of physical activity of males of a similar age.

Young people, of course, are not thinking about avoiding coronary heart disease or osteoporosis when they take up physical activity; they want to enjoy it. Enjoyment was the main motivating factor found in nine studies of young people and physical activity. Others included excitement of the game, improving skills, keeping fit, losing weight, being successful and relaxation.

Physical activity can make a valuable contribution to education in general, as others have said. It encourages collaborative working, discipline, tenacity, the ability to cope with success and failure, and self- esteem.

Traditional games lessons—with which many of us are familiar—may have the opposite effect. We were fortunate if we enjoyed games and were good at them. If we were not, then not only could this damage self- esteem but it could discourage us from any kind of physical activity in future. I remember, both as a pupil and as a teacher some years ago, the forged notes with the ingenious excuses as to why someone could not play hockey that day, and the cunning employed by some of the less athletic boys, who contrived as the cross-country run began to hide in the local chip shop and to join the run as it returned. We cannot force children to enjoy sport. We can try to offer a choice of physical activity.

Schools cannot do it all. Time given to PE in schools—as the Sport England survey shows—has gone down. That is not surprising given the pressures on the curriculum. I cannot see this being reversed, except perhaps in specialist schools. We need to examine the potential of after-school activity, of local facilities and of activity and research sponsored by the commercial sector. I know, for example, that Nike, with the Youth Sports Trust, is looking into the activity levels of girls of 11 to 14.

It seems to me that local health clubs and gyms, sports clubs and classes in, for example, yoga, pilates and martial arts, could be usefully used by education authorities to ensure that young people do some kind of activity which they enjoy and may continue. Maybe some kind of credit system could be established locally, where a youngster could miss a sport in school that he or she was not suited to do for something else possibly outside school.

The national curriculum for maintained schools promotes activity-based PE, including dance, games, gymnastics, athletics and so on. There is an emphasis also on gaining personal knowledge and skills about activity, and on planning and evaluation. The Healthy- Schools Standard has sport set within general health education. The GSCE and A level in PE demand not only active participation in sport but also analysis of what sport is about.

I want to suggest some possibilities for improving levels of physical activity and standards of sport in young people. First, we need a comprehensive national survey of health and fitness in young people. We need, built on objective surveys, to set targets for improvement and to monitor standards. We need more case studies on good practice. We need better links between primary and secondary schools. We need more training for teachers and encouragement for their enthusiasm. We need school inspections for PE which focus on extra-curricular activities and not on team sports only. We need more collaboration between agencies at a local level, such as education, health and leisure, and with the commercial sector.

I am not pessimistic about sport in schools. I think that we need to build on new approaches so that activity for all, as well as excellence, becomes a reality.

My Lords, one can only adequately consider the role of sport in schools if one also considers the contribution made to schools by local amateur sports clubs. I hope that I may address a few remarks to that end.

The CCPR report, to which several noble Lords have referred, also said that the Government are addressing only half the equation if clubs are not considered along with schools, in particular the funding of clubs. Most noble Lords will be well aware of the important contribution that amateur community sports clubs make to school sports. Indeed, it is a growing contribution as the level of sports activity within schools themselves declines, as we have heard today.

Some of the advantages of having vibrant local sports clubs are as follows. Out of term time, sport is only available to most pupils through local amateur sports clubs. They often have much better facilities than the schools, whether kit or pitches; the coaching is invariably better. Sometimes the coaches are ready and willing to go into schools. The hard competitive experiences that pupils will receive competing in their local sports clubs is valuable. The noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, referred to the concentration factor.

There is wider socialisation to be had in clubs, across the age groups. There is also the learning of the importance of making a contribution to the club, without which the club will fail. There are the parental links that clubs so readily provide and which are hugely valuable and underpin good sporting achievement both in schools and outside.

Many clubs provide sports facilities that are simply not available in schools. In my own home town of Sudbury, for example, although 30 miles inland we have an excellent rowing club which trains young children from the local schools.

There is the vibrant link that the clubs provide between schools and community. We all bewail regularly in other debates the decline in community and the lack of awareness of citizenship. This is a real bridge that carries young people into the community, where they mix with all sorts of other people. It can become, and often is thank God, a life-long obsession where one eventually declines from being a player into being a provider, maker of tea, marker of pitches, fixer of fixtures. I play in the Sudbury Fifth XI—one has to be over 50 years of age or under 16—and an excellent side it is.

I refer to the remarkable speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the NCVO annual general meeting in February. It was remarkable for its vision and the extra concessions he announced for charity. I sincerely hope, as raised in this House in earlier debates, that the Minister and the Government will carry through to a conclusion, so to speak, the efforts that are now being made to help local community amateur sports clubs to do the job I have described even better by allowing them the same tax exemptions—income tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax—as charities. That is hugely important, and doubly important because it encourages local citizens to make contributions to their own institutions. Where that happens one can be quite sure that the contributions will be well aimed, well applied and well policed because people do not like wasting their charitable funds. I hope that the Minister will consider that point.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, for initiating this debate and congratulate him on attracting speakers. Very little has been said in this debate with which I disagree.

As I was jotting down notes, the one thing that came across was that everyone thinks that sport is a good thing. That is rather reassuring. Everyone is agreed that it has gone wrong as far as schools are concerned. The crack that has occurred is probably as a result of the Education Act 1988. That is probably the collapse of something that was already struggling. Academic institutions such as schools faced a variety of fashions and academic pressures. The idea of a healthy body had been pushed on to the back burner. Finally, the 1988 Act killed it off because teachers had to count their hours—and their voluntary activity, which was propping up an inadequate system, disappeared. We all should take the blame for that because we helped to set the tone. The Conservative Party has talked about the fact that we have non-competitive sport. Non- competitive sport is exercise. Sport is a competition. That is why we do it. That is why we enjoy it. It is fun. It is a competition. One is testing oneself against someone else. One hopes that teams are evenly matched. That is surely the essence of sport.

We have teachers who are not providing this base. That is something about which the Labour Party might have something to say. The Liberal Democrats in the middle will say, "We told you so" on both counts, but they will get no prizes for that.

If we accept that we all share the blame, we can then try to see what can be put right. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, showed us one example of the way forward. Unfortunately, we cannot follow that now because we have to start from where we are, not from where we should be. The fact is that one has to integrate and take these things seriously across the board. One has to be sure of what is going on.

As for the Minister of Sport—I have referred to this before—no matter how good that person is, he is a very small fish in a very big pool. That person has to attract the attention of the Department for Education and Employment, and of the Treasury.

The speech of my noble friend Lord Phillips about small clubs was absolutely apposite. It is something I have raised before. As we cannot expect teachers to do this, it is the small clubs which carry on and which provide the team organisation and the diversity of sport which modern society demands. We are no longer satisfied with kicking a football around, hitting a cricket ball or a tennis ball. We have a much greater and more diverse sporting world in front of us. We need to interest people in all the other minority sports. Apparently, in certain parts of the country, Rugby Union and Rugby League although well established are minority sports.

We have to try to achieve a situation where school teachers are trained in creating that sampling base. It must start in primary school unless one is prepared to give it about double the time in secondary school. If we are going to do that, we must look to the training of teachers—to new teachers coming into the profession and to teachers already in service. If we do not do that we cannot succeed.

Parents who are enthusiastic about sport will take their children to the small clubs. The haves and have- nots will grow dramatically apart. If we allow that to happen, we will create a couch potato child in front of the television or video screen who will go on to become much more a part of the problem. I refer to the people who talk about watching sport as opposed to playing it. If we do not address that, we are going nowhere on this issue.

Schools cannot provide every single participation activity as they did in the past. We have seen the destruction of the past. We cannot go back to that. It just is not going to happen. We must ensure that the whole community is involved, and we must look at the situation as a whole.

I have heard the Minister previously on the subject of school playing fields and other activities. He gave a very reasonable answer, saying that certain small sports fields are now being disposed of because they are not needed any more, or are being sold off in order to provide an all-weather pitch somewhere else. That is a decent answer. He also said that sometimes the school itself no longer exists. That hits the issue on the head. It is not just an educational and school problem; the whole of that community is losing an asset.

The degree of consensus within this debate tells me that we must either all have it very right or very wrong. I wonder what the Minister thinks is the correct interpretation.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing this debate. Like the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, when I was a child never in my wildest dreams did I think I would end up batting in the same team as my noble friend. It is a delight to be able to do so tonight.

It is a timely debate because we, on these Benches, launched our own blue paper on the future of sport last night. Copies are available in the Opposition Whip's Office. We want to deliver a commonsense future for sport. We still await publication of the Government's strategy for sport. I hope that the Minister may be able to give further information about the publication date tonight.

Today's is a timely debate following upon Sport England's publication of the disturbing results of its latest survey this week. It found that schoolchildren spend far less time on sport than they did only five years ago. It highlights 10 causes for concern about the state of physical education in both primary and secondary schools in England.

One issue on which we are all agreed is that sport matters in a child's education. It teaches our children life skills and it helps to keep them healthy. Most of us first experience organised sport in school and it helps to shape our attitude to sport as we progress through our educational careers and well beyond. It is thus vitally important that children are encouraged to become involved in sport at an early age, especially since less intensive leisure activities, such as computer games, are now more available to children. Schools should aim to make sport as enjoyable, wide ranging and well taught as possible, since schools foster recreational and international athletes alike.

As I argued in an earlier debate, it is vital that when we talk about using sport as a vehicle for social inclusion we avoid treating it solely as a therapy. It should be a discipline for excellence, too. In promoting sport as something we can all do, we must not forget to promote it, too, as something that only some people can do very well. A number of those are present this evening.

I was interested to hear from my noble friend Lord Glentoran about the successes in Northern Ireland in producing sportswomen and men of high calibre. I hope that we are able to learn from that example.

Sport England's survey points out the importance of having,

"experienced and qualified teachers who can motivate and help young people acquire the skills and knowledge that will enable them to go on to maximise their sporting potential".

I was interested to hear the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, about the issue of training teachers. The Sport England survey discovered that 95 per cent of primary schools had no full-time specialist teaching staff for PE lessons—I appreciate the reasons given by the noble Lord for that being so—and 86 per cent did not even have part-time specialist staff. Primary school teachers now receive as little as 30 hours training in their four years at teacher training college. The number of PE specialists in training is set to drop by 30 per cent in the next three years. There will be 1,200 fewer people pursuing those courses. What do the Government believe should be done to reverse that decline?

In general, children receive a declining amount of physical education each week. Falls in the amount of time spent in PE lessons are particularly pronounced in primary schools. Only 11 per cent of children aged six to eight spent two hours or more a week in PE lessons last year. That is down almost a third on the figures from five years ago. My noble friend Lord MacLaurin was right to say that it is critical to shift the emphasis on sport to the primary sector.

Next Wednesday is International Women's Day. That caused me to reflect in particular about the participation by girls in sport and PE. Reports such as Sport Uncovered have had some very worrying things to say about what is called the gender factor; namely, that girls give up sport, particularly competitive sport, earlier than boys, given half the chance. I have concerns about the trend in schools to let girls opt out of competitive or team sports. It is on the basis that the girls do not like it and can get perfectly healthy exercise by taking part in dance or aerobics. But I do wonder what this will mean for the ability of future generations of women to compete effectively in gaining employment in the business and professional world when they have missed out on an opportunity given by competitive sports to learn teamwork and leadership skills.

Surely our overall objective must be to restore sport to the heart of educational institutions. The question for all of us is how we and the Government can help and not hinder this process. I look forward to the Minister's response.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, for giving the House the opportunity to consider the important issues of the role of sport in schools, which was his subject matter, and the role of schools in sport, which my noble friend Lady Massey, rightly, I think, added to the subject matter. It reminds me of the Bellman in The Hunting of the Snark:

"No one shall speak to the man at the helm"

The Bellman added:

"The man at the helm shall speak to no man".

Perhaps I may find myself in that position.

It is particularly appropriate that the noble Lord should have opened the debate. After all, his outstanding career was launched at Tonbridge school, where I understand he was in the school First XI at the age of 13. It could be argued that he gave at least as much to his school in sporting terms as he took from it. For those of us with more modest sporting abilities—in my case, much more modest, although it was cruel of the noble Lord, Lord Sand berg, to remind me of my minor jest about bar billiards—we have to take what we can from the opportunities that are available to us, in school or anywhere else. One point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, and echoed throughout the debate, concerned the importance of sport both in terms of fitness and in terms of character building and discipline. In order to achieve that, sport has to be enjoyable and fun. That was recognised throughout the debate.

The simple answer to the noble Lord's Unstarred Question is that the Government place very high importance on school sport. We are committed to improving the quality of teaching and learning in physical education and school sport. We have begun to put in place plans to help schools to build up their expertise to help all young people reach their potential in the sports and activities which they enjoy.

The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred to the role of team sports in other activities. I hope she will agree that when we are talking to 14 to 16 year-olds we have to give them a wide range of choice. If that choice includes, as well as team sports, gymnastics, dance and outdoor activities, that probably is more likely to bring more young people into those activities which have the benefit of building fitness and character than if the restriction is to team sports alone. Good physical education and sport is not an optional extra. It must sit at the heart of the curriculum.

Much has been said about the curriculum as an issue. It is entirely appropriate that we should have had a number of references to the Sport England national survey which has just been published. My noble friend Lord Faulkner described it as a contradictory and disturbing picture. He is right. There are clearly some very bad findings in the report and it is only right to acknowledge them. But there are some good things as well.

My noble friend Lord Dormand was concerned that a wide range of sports should be available. The number of sports available in schools is still about eight, both for boys and for girls, and has been the same since the previous survey in 1994. The survey showed that 87 per cent of children play sport frequently outside school. That has not changed since 1994. Indeed, membership of local sports clubs by children has increased from 42 per cent to 46 per cent. I do not know whether that encourages my noble friend Lord Hoyle. The other encouraging figure that I drew from the report is an increase from 62 per cent to 67 per cent in the proportion of children playing sport in their lunch breaks and from 74 per cent to 79 per cent in children playing sport after school. Although some elements of the picture are disturbing, there are some encouraging aspects.

On the issue of the curriculum, it is true that it is now an aspiration that all pupils will spend a minimum of two hours a week on physical activities within and outside the curriculum. The reason why it is an aspiration is that, generally speaking, we have tried to be less prescriptive for all subjects in the national curriculum than we were previously, and we have allowed that for some schools there could be a different balance. As for the two hours referred to by my noble friend Lord Puttnam, many schools already achieve that and more, but the Government want to see the two-hour minimum offered in all schools. I hope that will be seen as an aspiration which has some teeth to it.

In order to achieve that, we have taken a number of initiatives to which I want briefly to refer. First, there is a programme to appoint up to 600 school sports co-ordinators, who will have a major impact on the development of physical education in school sport, both in primary and secondary schools. I entirely take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord MacLaurin, about the importance of primary schools and starting from the primary school. The co-ordinators will organise programmes to bring suitably qualified specialist coaches into schools to support teachers and coach pupils. They will organise inter-school competitions, build links between groups of schools, and bring families together with schools and local authority sports development officers and governing bodies of sport. I was pleased to hear from my noble friend Lord Hoyle about the role of Warrington rugby league football club in schools.

The co-ordinators will be in place over a period of four years. Both in schools and in out-of-school-hours clubs, they will have a great deal to contribute to sport in school—and sport for schoolchildren, which should be the definition that we are talking about. After all, £160 million is available from the New Opportunities Fund and £80 million from the DfEE standards fund to support out-of-school learning, including sport, focusing on communities with the greatest needs.

A second initiative to which I want to refer is the provision of specialist sports colleges. I acknowledge, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, that Northern Ireland has had such specialist schools for a long period of time, but we are building up the number of specialist sports colleges. There are 37 up and running now; 23 more have been designated; and we plan to have over 100 sports colleges by September 2003. They will receive additional capital and recurrent funding from the Department for Education and Employment to raise standards in their specialist subject and across the whole curriculum. They will also work with primary and secondary schools, sharing good practice and providing guidance and support to other teachers. They will work with local sports administrators and sports providers, aiming to provide a seamless pathway of quality sporting opportunities, from curriculum sport right through to sports clubs and beyond. They will provide opportunities in physical education and sport for all pupils, not just those with particular talent and ability.

A number of noble Lords made reference to the need for better teacher training and for in-service training, as was referred to in relation to Northern Ireland. That is what the Youth Sports Trust does. Sue Campbell of the Youth Sports Trust has been appointed to a joint post between the Department for Education and Employment and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which we are convinced will beef up the activity of both departments. So far as concerns initial teacher training, the Teacher Training Agency is reviewing DfEE Circular 4/98. We shall make sure that the Teacher Training Agency is aware of the concerns expressed and ask it to do what it can to address them.

Sports facilities present a difficult problem. The Sport England survey quoted one in four teachers as saying that sports facilities are inadequate. That must be a starting-point for change, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Cowdrey, rightly said, with all speed. Of course, some schools with poor facilities do a marvellous job with them. But that is not an argument for having poor facilities. The most important thing I have to say, apart from mentioning the general increase in educational expenditure, is that schools have been under-represented in terms of lottery funding. In 1998–99 the amount of lottery money going to schools and colleges from the sports lottery fund fell from £31 million to £14 million, and Sport England is committed to putting that right. It will now devote at least 20 per cent of its lottery resources over the next 10 years to youth sport projects.

I turn now to the vexed issue of playing fields. I do not want to make this a party political issue and shall try very hard not to do so. The changes that we have made involve local authorities being required to consult Sport England on all planning applications. That has been happening. There has been a significant increase in the number of local authorities consulting Sport England. The DfEE has made it a requirement that all state schools should seek approval from the Secretary of State for the sale of playing fields, including consultation with community and other user groups. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lord Dormand that it is not enough to say that, because a school is closed, the playing field is not needed. Community use and adequacy of provision in the area as a whole ought to be the considerations. The Secretary of State for Education gives approval only when the funds raised are ploughed back into sport and education, and where remaining playing fields fully meet the needs of the school and community, both now and in the future.

I shall not go over the figures for those playing fields that have been disposed of. The figures that I want to leave with the House are these. First, of the applications considered by Sport England in 1996–97, 13 were approved against its objections; whereas between 1998 and 1999 only six were approved against its objections. That is a significant measure. In addition, because of the new legislation from the Department for Education and Employment, the number of school playing field disposals has dropped from 40 a month to only 12. One could be purist about it and say that no playing field should be disposed of. However, I hope that noble Lords regard that as a very significant improvement.

I have run out of time. I express gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, for his praise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech to NCVO. The charitable status of sports clubs is a difficult problem, and if it can be resolved adequately it will make a huge difference to the provision for young people. But I hope that all of the comments that I have made show how seriously the Government take the issue of physical education and sport in schools. We have a duty to ensure that children learn at a very early age the benefits of physical education and sport and how much fun it can be. Then, and only then—we are not there yet—we shall build a solid foundation on which to develop our sporting heroes and stars of the future, and a nation of confident and fit young people who have a real interest in the development of their communities.