Before we commence, there are a couple of announcements I need to make. It has been agreed that should any of the Questions for Short Debate not run for their allotted hour this afternoon, the Committee will adjourn during pleasure until the end of the allotted hour. Therefore, each of the Questions for Short Debate will start at half-past the hour, in case anyone is involved in any further amendments. If there is a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to assist farmers in Afghanistan to move from opium poppy cultivation to a sustainable alternative livelihood.

I thank the Government for allowing time for me to raise this very important Question, which impacts not only on DfID but also on the Ministry of Defence, as peace in Helmand would have a profound effect on the morale of our soldiers out there. I declare an interest as patron of the mother and child clinic in the Panjshir Valley.

With the problems created in Afghanistan due to the war over the past three or four decades, there exists, especially within the UK, a keen interest to help the people of Afghanistan to better their lives and develop a strong and stable nation. One of the steps to creating economic strengths and stability within Afghanistan is through agriculture, and one of the successful substitutes for growing opium poppies is the cultivation of pomegranates.

In 2007, Afghanistan produced 95 per cent of the world’s refined opiates, with a street value of some $38 billion. On average, 90 per cent of the heroin in the UK stems from Afghanistan. The cost to the UK alone of the heroin problem is £16.4 billion per annum. Furthermore, opium cultivation now takes place almost exclusively in provinces most affected by insurgency, with Helmand being the most profitable. Therefore, a substitution would also seriously damage Taliban financing. The UNODC said:

“There is now a perfect overlap between zones of high risk and regions of high opium cultivation. Since drugs are funding insurgency, and insurgency enables drug cultivation, insurgency and narcotics must be fought together”.

The Taliban is thought to have earned as much as $100 million from this trade.

Since the Russian invasion of 1979, agriculture has received new impetus, and lately Afghanistan has become poised to become a major exporter of pomegranates, a traditional crop for centuries. Foundations such as POM354 are already in place, trying to persuade more farmers and tribal elders to make this transition from the growth of opium poppies to pomegranates and to help meet the need of farmers.

DfID recently launched its country plan for the next four years for Afghanistan. This plan sets out the framework for Britain’s aid to Afghanistan, with a pledge of more than £127 million per year between now and 2013. This is worth £30 million a year being used to help farmers move away from opium cultivation. As a result, other nations are beginning to take interest, such as the US, Canada and the Netherlands.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office acknowledges that eliminating the opium poppy without developing viable legal livelihoods is not sustainable, and it is therefore suggested that the focus should be on substitution, mainly by pomegranates. The case for replacing opium poppies is clear, but why with pomegranates? Afghanistan is known to have the best pomegranates in the world. Kandahar in the south produces perhaps the world’s best. The Afghan Government are currently implementing a $12 million US-funded initiative intended to modernise and expand the country’s pomegranate industry.

However, many farmers still need to be persuaded to make the transition from poppies to pomegranates. Fourteen of the 34 provinces are poppy-free and I hope that more will follow that trend. The key organisation doing this is POM354, which was founded in Britain by James Brett. Its concept is simple, and as a result, has led to its huge popularity within Afghanistan and the rest of the world. In a short space of time, POM354 has managed to establish substantial consensus within the Government and among farmers. In November 2008, 22,000 farmers signed up to the POM354 scheme and, as a result, in March 2009, 40,000 pomegranate trees were planted. Furthermore, as a result of aid and work by foundations such as POM354, Afghanistan as a whole saw a 6 per cent decrease in opium production between 2007 and 2009.

The goal now is for POM354 to obtain further financial support from organisations in donor countries. It is generally accepted that there is only a short window to alter Afghanistan’s agriculture in favour of pomegranates. Without outside aid, the project would not be able to become operational, as the farmers need to be sustained during the three-year period of conversion—the time between the saplings being planted and becoming fruitful. POM354’s target is over the next 10 to 15 years to develop 175,000 hectares of mature pomegranate orchards generating a substantial income. Through its various schemes, farmers will create their own infrastructure to facilitate this new agricultural development and, in the process, generate greater revenue per hectare than the poppy. Will the Government continue to support alternative viable crops? As a result, the heroin supply would drastically fall and the Afghan people would have a development programme prosperous enough to resist the Taliban and, in doing so, create worthwhile livelihoods and a greater chance of peace in the area.

I apologise for not putting my name down, but I was concerned about my possible involvement in the Coroners and Justice Bill. However, I seize the opportunity of the gap to support every word that the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, said. One always listens with interest and admiration to what she says.

My interest in Afghanistan was stimulated by my visit to Helmand province last year to see what was going on and to listen to what people said about what they were trying to do, very much along the lines of what the noble Baroness was talking about. I was told—I had read about this before but I had not heard it from the people—that until the time of the Russian intervention, Afghanistan was one of the major exporters around the world of dried fruit and nuts and produced the best. It was mentioned that that should be restimulated as an alternative to the heroin crop—not just pomegranates.

It is particularly sad to learn that our intervention in 2002 was very largely responsible for what has happened to that wonderful growing land in the Helmand valley. Until 2002, that valley was virtually the grain basket of Afghanistan but in 2002 the World Food Programme took in an enormous amount of grain to help feed the people in Afghanistan, so much so that they destroyed the market for the Helmand farmers. Being unable to sell their crops, the farmers took to poppies instead, stimulated, of course, by the Taliban. I discovered what we were trying to do about it: the Royal Air Force had flown in a very large number of sacks of seedcorn which were being held in depots so that, at the end of the poppy crop, the farmers could be given seeds and encouraged to grow something else.

Of course, growing wheat is not what it is all about as much as selling it. Therefore, in taking over the villages and towns of the Helmand province, the military were trying to open markets to which the farmers could take their wheat and sell it. Unfortunately, the Taliban realised that, so they tried, first, to undermine the whole market structure. Secondly, knowing that farmers have to get their wheat along the roads, the Taliban and others have been mounting roadblocks through which the farmers have to pass and in which they are relieved of money, which undermines their wish to go to market. In addition, of course, by having to keep those roads open, the military lay themselves open to all the mines and other devices planted beside the roads which cause so many casualties. So the process, admirable though it is, is not at present organised well enough to be able to achieve the end for the farmers, which is to help them to break away, and it is causing great problems for the military.

What do we do about it? I had a long talk with the commander of the Afghan National Army in Helmand and asked him what he felt was most needed. He said, “Two things: first, you have to stop the bombing”, but that is nothing to do with this particular subject, “and, secondly, water”. He said that if you look at the geography, not just at the Helmand valley but at adjacent valleys and other valleys in similar places, you will see it is possible, through civil engineering, to introduce water into the valleys which would encourage the growing of the sort of alternative crops mentioned by the noble Baroness. Therefore, if the world community really wants to help Afghanistan, it has to enable the crops to be grown in the areas where they might be grown, and so encourage the whole process to start.

I think that we could do more. I used to talk about dried fruit and nuts until listening to the noble Baroness speak about pomegranates, but I have often wondered whether the supermarkets of the world might not be encouraged to get together to buy the crop from the farmers in advance to give them some economic wherewithal to survive until the crop is sold, thereby contributing to what they would gain. In this whole area to which the noble Baroness has drawn attention, there are openings in which the world can contribute very considerably to the development of Afghanistan and particularly to the development of those whose lives are made such a misery by the activities of the Taliban at present.

Before I come to the subject of this afternoon’s debate, I extend our sincere condolences to the family of Major Sean Birchall, who was killed in Helmand last Friday, the third Welsh Guardsman to be killed in action, and our profound gratitude to all the soldiers of my regiment and other servicemen who are risking their lives in a cause that is absolutely vital to the whole world—the maintenance and strengthening of a free and democratic Afghanistan. It is essential that we support them with the military resources that they need to defend themselves and the civilian population against the Taliban and, in particular, to deal with IEDs, the favourite weapon of the terrorists. Do we have access to the counter-IED technologies, on which the Americans are reported to be spending $4 billion a year?

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, on securing this debate and having dealt so effectively with the question of crop substitution. As she says, poppy cultivation reached an enormous peak of 8,200 tonnes in 2007, and the area under cultivation was also a record at 193,000 hectares in that year. But there are now hopeful signs. There was a reduction in 2008, and the business is concentrated in the seven provinces of the south and south-west, where the terrorists are still influential. The Secretary-General's special representative says that a further improvement is likely in 2009. With the extra 20,000 NATO troops, and the Afghan army also increasing in numbers and efficiency, there ought to be positive feedback, as the terrorists find it harder to coerce farmers into growing poppy, and to raise the taxes on their production, which is their main source of revenue. Crop substitution would make an enormous impact on the finance of terrorism, whether in the form of pomegranates, fruit and nuts or what seems to be the main alternative—wheat.

At the same time, the relative economics of growing poppy and those other crops have changed. The EU special representative's April counternarcotics update quoted a local estimate from Helmand that wheat is now about 8 per cent more profitable than opium, and the report suggests that there may be a window of opportunity for alternative crop development, as the noble Baroness said. In 2008, DfID and USAID jointly issued free wheat seed to 32,000 farmers in Helmand, and it would be useful to know what the plan is for this year. We are also reviewing, with the Afghan Government, a new four-year programme to succeed the Helmand agriculture and rural development programme, to which DfID contributed £30 million over 2006-09 for infrastructure, including roads, wells—I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, that water is of vital importance in this climate—and an agriculture high school. How far has the review of the programme progressed, and do we believe that it will achieve a permanent and sustained transfer from poppy to wheat cultivation in Helmand?

The same report contrasted the huge success of governor-led eradication programmes in Helmand, which it says dwarfed those in all other provinces and were the highest ever recorded for GLE in 2008. This governor, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, will confirm, is exceptional in Helmand, in terms of both his abilities and his incorruptibility. Does the Minister think that perhaps that is not the case with other governors of provinces where narcotics are grown or trafficked, and that some may either have active interests in the local narcotics industry or are not strong enough to challenge the authority of local narcotics traffickers? If so, do we have to acquiesce in the situation, or could there be a strategy for their replacement?

Richard Holbrooke, the US special envoy, has slated US eradication efforts as “wasteful and inefficient”. If eradication is to continue, should it not be concentrated on the GLE rather than the poppy eradication force activities, which are costing more than a hundred times as much per hectare as the GLE and achieving less? Do the Government have a view on whether eradication should be done at all? If so, how should it be incorporated into development at provincial and district level, and who should do it?

Do we also agree with Mr Holbrooke's call for,

“a very significantly expanded agricultural sector job-creation set of programmes involving irrigation, farmer-to-market roads, market places and seed”?

This seems to be the pattern in Helmand, where a month ago Mr Ian Purves, the UK's development co-ordinator in Garmsir, was showing journalists round the new bazaar, new tarmac roads, solar-powered streetlights and the refurbished school and health centre. The local farmers in and around the town are now growing wheat from seed distributed in 2007 instead of poppies. The Commander of the UK Task Force Helmand told the journalists that the local government and people had grasped the opportunity of better security to improve their living conditions, and the same could happen throughout the south as the Taliban is defeated.

For the time being, according to DfID, Helmand still accounts for more than 50 per cent of the country's opium poppy cultivation in 2007-08 and was also the most important province in terms of heroin processing and trafficking. But provinces in the peaceful north, such as Badakhshan, now virtually poppy-free, also need help. Of the $32 billion spent by international donors in Afghanistan, only $8 billion has been channelled through the Government, and in Badakhshan the farmers say that they have had no help from either the Government or the aid agencies. UNAMA, the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, is supposed to co-ordinate the aid programmes, but with those vast sums, a third of the population is still chronically food insecure. What is the Government's view on the transparency and accountability of these programmes, and can the Minister say whether any of the missing $24 billion not spent through the Government has been allocated to the promotion of alternative crops? Why is that not among the six core areas of UNODC's strategy?

The DfID evaluation report published last month said that counternarcotics efforts are a combination of economic development, provision of social services, and better governance and the rule of law. It said that programmes such as the Afghanistan alternative livelihoods project and research in alternative livelihoods fund have made valuable contributions to producing alternatives to poppy. There is considerable effort to secure Afghan ownership of the programmes. We fund most of our alternative livelihood programmes through the Afghan Government and their agencies, and that must be the right approach in the long term. But the narcotics mafia has infected the Government themselves, with senior figures either using government institutions to run the business, or protecting the major narcotics traffickers. These traitors to Afghanistan would take ownership of counternarcotics efforts only in order to subvert them, as has happened, to some extent, with eradication. The quarterly report from NATO puts this in more diplomatic language when it says:

“Most of the ministries remain ineffective, under-resourced and lacking in skilled or experienced personnel, and this lack of institutional capacity makes it difficult for ministries to administer and disburse funds”.

Are we using financial, developmental and military forces effectively to drive forward Afghan-led reform to clean up the Administration, and can these efforts succeed when President Karzai himself tolerates drug collusion by senior officials and even Ministers?

The management response to the DfID evaluation says that both on the Afghan side and in DfID, the context has changed since the evaluation, and on poppy cultivation, a new initiative to sustain reductions is being developed by the Afghan Government with DfID's support, taking into account the lessons learnt from both successful and unsuccessful efforts to date. Could the Minister say how is this work progressing and, in particular, how the weak co-ordination among donors and the ineffectiveness of UNAMA and other UN agencies are being tackled? Can the knowledge and experience of counternarcotics that we have acquired be transferred to other donors, particularly to our 18 EU partners who are involved?

Finally, does the Minister consider that PRTs have a useful role to play in counternarcotics strategy, bearing in mind their lack of an explicit mandate and, if any of them have done effective work, could that be continued by other agencies?

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this important subject. I would have been even more grateful had it been standing room only at the back and had a lot more noble Lords been interested in the subject—it may be due not to a lack of interest but to other attractions. However, in the contributions that we have heard we have had quality even if we have not had quantity. I shall seek to answer the many questions that were asked, but perhaps I may start by putting the issue into context.

It is one of those debates where there are no two sides; we have had a series of points, questions, criticisms—justifiable in many cases—and an understanding that we have to do more to alleviate the tragedy that is Afghanistan. While there is much to do, we have some successes to point to.

As we all know, Afghanistan remains one of the world’s poorest countries. We know that the UK’s own security is threatened by continued instability in the Afghanistan and Pakistan region. We are committed to helping the Government of Afghanistan secure the future of their country and forge a better life for all Afghan people.

Three years ago, the UK and Afghanistan signed a 10-year development partnership agreement. This April, the Secretary of State for International Development launched a new DfID country plan for Afghanistan, worth £510 million in aid over the next four years. That firmly underlines our commitment, and makes Afghanistan our fifth largest development programme world wide. Our efforts, civilian and military, are contributing at national and local levels towards helping Afghans overcome the insurgency and secure, govern and develop the country for themselves—a point that was made in the debate.

It is worth looking back over the past seven years to some of the progress that has been made. This year, Afghanistan will hold its second set of democratic presidential elections. In the previous election, six out of 10 Afghans exercised their democratic rights by voting for the first time in more than 35 years—a figure that should make us slightly ashamed of our own voting performance in elections held recently. Five million refugees have been able to return home. And where just one in 10 Afghans lived in districts with access to basic healthcare, that figure is now up to eight in 10.

Of course, very serious challenges remain across Afghanistan. In the past year, many Afghans have become more pessimistic about their personal safety and their country’s prospects for moving forward. Afghanistan is facing simultaneously four scourges that would individually trouble any country in the world: weak governance, poverty, insurgency and narcotics. It is the last of those challenges and how we find alternative ways forward which are at the centre of today’s debate.

The noble Baroness spoke of alternative agricultural products to replace the farmers’ requirement to grow poppies. She made reference to Helmand province in particular, where the suggested alternative to poppy-growing is pomegranates through the project, POM354. DfID is supportive of the aims of POM354. Discussions have taken place with Mr Brett, who is no relation of mine—I say that to protect his reputation, not mine—and officials have offered technical assistance and advice. Our development programme works to create the economic conditions for organisations such as POM354 to succeed, but we do not fund individual initiatives. Our recommendation to POM354 and its initiative is to produce a detailed business plan which will help to maximise the programme’s chances of success and help conversations with donors. DfID will continue to provide advice on such a plan. We have also had reference to the wheat-growing initiative, which I will come to in the latter part of my contribution.

The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, raises an important point about the infrastructure requirement to allow markets to work and the growers of products to have access without intimidation. DfID is supporting infrastructure in Helmand with £32 million over the next four years aimed at irrigation, the Lashkar Gah to Gereshk road—which addresses the question about access to markets—the Gereshk hydro-power plant, which will help to boost the economy and the opening of airfields for the first commercial flights at Bost on 3 June, together with £4.5 million for an agricultural centre to improve access to markets.

We are also aware of the need to improve the economic and commercial background to the country. DfID is supporting the Afghanistan investment climate facility with £30 million to improve the regulatory environment in which to start businesses, removing some of those bureaucratic and difficult obstacles that prevent small businesses of any kind getting to the point at which they are sustainable.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised a series of points that are all worthy of comment. He made a point which I echo, and to which the Government have already committed, which is of course our condolences on the death of Major Sean Birchall. It is a sad fact of life that our brave soldiers give service. That inevitably has its cost, which is a terrible burden for their families. Whenever we hear of the death of service personnel, support staff or the innocents involved, we can only send out our hearts to those who have lost a loved one.

The noble Lord raised counter-IED technologies, on which the Americans, as he pointed out, are reported to be spending $4 billion. He gave me advance notice of the question, so I was able to seek reference to the ministerial Statement to the House of Commons made by the then Secretary of Defence, John Hutton, on 29 April. He made the point that units will provide important additional capabilities for UK forces in Afghanistan, and said:

“We shall also enhance our capability to counter Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). These devices are a major threat to our troops, those of our allies and to the ordinary Afghan people. We are deploying personnel with a range of skills to detect, dispose and exploit IEDs and to prevent them being laid. Other personnel will improve our ability to defend our bases while we shall also reinforce our already significant reconnaissance capabilities. We shall increase the number of tactical unmanned aerial vehicles. We shall also deploy Sea King air surveillance and control helicopters and the new airborne stand-off radar. These complementary systems track use radar to track movements on the ground. They can help our forces to detect, follow and intercept insurgents before they can lay IEDs”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/4/09; col. 46WS.]

The noble Lord also referred to the extra 20,000 troops and sought positive feedback. We hope to see security gradually improving with the additional 20,000 NATO troops, and increasing numbers and efficiency in the Afghan National Army. Security is an important aspect of our long-term development efforts. It will allow for better access to markets and, in turn, offer farmers an alternative to poppy growing. Poppies are collected at the farm gate, while farmers take other crops to market—a point ably made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. NATO rules allow ISAF partners specifically to target individuals with narcotics interests.

The noble Lord also raised development to replace the HARDP programme, how it has progressed and whether we can achieve a permanent and sustained transfer from poppy to wheat cultivation in Helmand. DfID has agreed in principle to fund the Helmand alternative livelihoods programme, the first stage of which will be operational by September. The aim of the programme is to reduce poppy cultivation, but its success will depend on the overall security situation and the development of market prices for poppy and agricultural produce.

The noble Lord also raised the comparative lack of success of the GLE in other provinces compared with Helmand. He rightly made comments about the energy and efficiency of a particular governor and whether other governors were being encouraged or, indeed, removed if they do not achieve the same endeavours. At the moment, I prefer to take some comfort from the successes, but we need to seek to sustain and to improve the capabilities of the Government of Afghanistan in all the areas where we can clearly see weaknesses that need to be reduced.

On illicit livelihoods, we have previously had a debate about whether poppy cultivation could be changed from illicit to licit, which, on that occasion, was not seen as an answer to the problem. Equally, eradication on its own will not solve the problem. It is an important deterrent and can play a catalytic role in influencing farmers to give up poppy cultivation. It needs to be balanced with measures to interdict drugs, bring criminals to justice, build institutions and encourage development of rural communities to provide alternatives for poppy farmers. It is essential to insert a credible risk to poppy growing and to target the big traders who will benefit most from the narcotics trade. We also need to ensure that we do not measure success merely based on the area where the poppy has been eradicated. The important factor is that the contribution of the poppy trade to the economy is falling, which is something from which we should take some comfort.

We also have an answer to Mr Holbrooke’s call for a very significantly expanded agricultural sector job-creation set of programmes, which is a very firm yes. That is why DFID’s programmes focus on economic development and the agricultural sector, two key development priorities of the Afghan Government, as outlined in the Afghanistan National Development Strategy. We are also supporting several major infrastructure programmes in Helmand province to improve access to markets. That includes rebuilding the Lashkar Gah to Gereshk road, the refurbishment of the power plant and the recent resurfacing of Bost airfield.

On the Government’s view of the transparency and accountability of the £32 million spent on aid, we are working hard to ensure that international aid to Afghanistan is more transparent and that the donor community holds the Afghan Government to account. We want to see other donors increase the proportion of aid which they spend directly through the Afghan Government’s systems and we are committed to spend at least 50 per cent of our aid through the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund, which is managed by the World Bank and independently monitored. The ARTF reimburses the Afghan Government on proof of legitimate expenditure. A significant proportion of international aid is spent through NGOs which promote alternative crops, but we are unable to provide a precise figure for that. The promotion of alternative crops is a key priority under the Afghan national drug control strategy, which informs the UNODC’s programmes.

On central government, under the new country plan, DfID has placed renewed emphasis on supporting the Afghan Government in building credible state institutions. We are supporting the High Office of Oversight which is the Afghan body tasked with the implementation of the Government’s anti-corruption strategy. We are also helping the Afghan Government to strengthen the rule of law and we are supporting a number of NGO-led programmes to improve transparency and accountability. However, it is for the Afghans to elect their Government and to hold their Government to account.

On the management response to DfID’s evaluation, which was raised by the noble Lord, DfID has committed £30 million over four years to the comprehensive agriculture and rural development facility—CARDF—to boost the agricultural sector and job creation in Afghanistan. We have focused on three pilot areas, including Nangahar, and we are working closely with the UNAMA agricultural task force and with the Afghan Ministry of Agriculture—MAIL—and Minister Rahimi to support MAIL’s reform programme. We are also in contact with the deputy special representative for UNAMA, Mark Ward, who is responsible for donor co-ordination.

The question was also raised about the knowledge and experience of counternarcotics that we have acquired. I was asked whether we could transfer it to other donors, particularly our partners in the EU. The answer, again, is yes. Several EU partners are now interested in joining and supporting the CARDF programme, which is to be welcomed.

The last point was on the PRTs and the roles that they have to play in CN strategy, bearing in mind their lack of an explicit mandate. The UK-led PRT in Helmand is an integral part of the development effort in Afghanistan; DfID works through and with the PRT to plan stabilisation and long-term development in Helmand province. The PRT works with the Afghan Government, line ministries and bilateral donors, and we understand that other PRTs do the same.

There is no silver bullet to address the scourge of narcotics in Afghanistan, and I suspect that there is no particular silver bullet to provide one alternative solution, be it pomegranates, wheat or whatever. We have had success in the distribution of wheat; unfortunately, the production of wheat is dependent on price in the market and on having a successful harvest, which is something that farmers have had to be concerned about for centuries. That has proved in the past year or two to be very favourable in respect of Afghanistan; we cannot guarantee that we will have such success in climatic conditions in future.

Our approach is to deliver real success. The Afghan Government’s existing programmes have contributed to the completion of some 28,000 community-led development projects, from agriculture, irrigation, and power and water supply, with another 50,000 on the way. The Government have distributed with our support some £500 million in small loans to 440,000 farmers, families and shopkeepers to help to invest in new ways to feed their families. In Helmand, where the US funded the governor’s food zone programme, to which I referred when talking about wheat production, wheat seed was distributed to 32,000 farmers as an alternative to growing poppy. While it is too early to make a long-term judgment, it has proved to be a success in the early stages. As a result, we have seen the decrease of poppy production by some 19 per cent across the country. Only two years ago, six provinces could claim to be free of poppy; today it is 18—just over half of the 34 provinces of Afghanistan. However, we recognise that progress is fragile. The risk of reversal is a high one; although higher wheat prices, lower poppy prices and the climate have worked in our favour, we cannot guarantee such factors.

We can guarantee that our commitment to Afghanistan is long term, as is our commitment to democracy and the freedom of its people. Our commitment to assisting the democratically elected Government and their agencies to bring a better life for Afghanistan’s people is also long term, and I hope that this debate will stimulate thought and encourage others to continue to support the efforts that we make. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing this debate to our Table and to noble Lords who have contributed. I hope that I have answered their questions in my responses as well as joining in with the chorus of support for what we are doing and encouragement to do more.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they will take regarding those prisoners released from Guantanamo Bay who return to the United Kingdom.

On hearing President Obama’s decision to close the interrogation centre at Guantanamo, I was pleased that that courageous and difficult step had been taken. It is of course against the principles of our own legal system for a citizen to be indefinitely imprisoned without charge. It is specifically contrary to the provisions of our own Magna Carta. The President's action was thus in accordance with our own precedents and tradition and his courage in making a clean break with the previous American practice was to be welcomed. I sense that that was also the reaction of many of our fellow citizens.

At the same time, I can see that the consequences might lead to some awkward decisions for our own authorities. It would only be just for a British citizen released from Guantanamo who wished to return here to be entitled to do so, accompanied, if he wished, by his wife and children. But other cases might be less straightforward. What if a released prisoner not of British nationality, who has previously had the right to reside here, which right had expired meanwhile, wished to return as a resident? I believe that there has been a case of that kind. We could no doubt ask the US authorities what they knew about this person’s political activities in the United States and why he had been imprisoned. I have little doubt that they would try to help, but while we should not be unsympathetic to his request, we could not be said to be under a particular obligation to him.

Then there are other applicants who may have had no previous close connection with our country, but who may have concluded that this would be a desirable place for them to live for an indefinite period. Here, too, we should feel under no obligation to admit such persons but we could ask the American authorities for an account of the reasons leading to their imprisonment.

My interest has been that an early debate would enable us to be enlightened about the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to such requests, which could be of considerable interest to public opinion in this country generally. To my knowledge, no such statement has yet been made. Some several weeks have elapsed since I gave notice of this Question for Short Debate, since it seemed rather a large topic for an ordinary parliamentary Question, which means that it has lost a certain amount of its topicality.

Meanwhile, there has been a fresh development. According to an article in the Guardian on 16 June, an important meeting was held by European Union Governments in Brussels the previous day to discuss these issues. The newspaper stated that the meeting cleared the hurdles for up to 50 Guantanamo returnees to be accommodated in EU countries. It also stated that the United States had agreed to pay the European countries that accommodated them. Each country would decide whether to take in the former detainees, with a deadline in January next. According to the newspaper, officials were said to remark that they were,

“not far away from a breakthrough”.

Meanwhile, I read some breaking news in another newspaper article recently that the United States Government had reached an agreement with Bermuda for four prisoners from Guantanamo to be transferred to Bermuda financed by a payment from the United States Government. Were our own Government asked about that? Did the US Government consult us before making an agreement with a British territory, and if not, why not?

It would be appropriate for the Government to make a formal statement about their attitude to these developments, which are of considerable interest and some concern to our citizens. Could they also cover the awkward fact that, whatever we decide ourselves, other European Union states may be inclined to accept these people who, having established themselves within the EU, would then be free to travel to this country as EU residents? That might have awkward and unforeseen consequences.

My task today was not to criticise the Government but suggest to them that this is a subject of some considerable importance to the nation as a whole, and it would be helpful if, at an early date, a full authoritative statement could be made, possibly in Parliament, for the information of the country at large.

I take the opportunity of the gap to make a practical point on the Question raised so clearly and succinctly by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. When I was the Chief Inspector of Prisons, I went to the special centre in Belmarsh where IRA terrorists were held. I was extremely concerned about the conditions in which they were held, but also about the staff who had to look after them.

Noble Lords will remember that a number of Iraqis were put in Belmarsh without trial for a considerable time. Again, their conditions and treatment had not been pre-planned. Fortunately, there was an extremely able governor in Belmarsh who realised that this was not a normal imprisonment, of either a sentenced or unsentenced prisoner, but for an indefinite period. Again, there is the question of the staff who have to look after them.

Obviously, this is a hypothetical question. We do not know if, or how many, people from Guantanamo may be returned to the United Kingdom. We do not know for how long they may have to be detained. My question to the Minister is simple, although I acknowledge that it is possibly more for the Ministry of Justice than the Home Office. Have the Government taken steps to identify the sort of conditions in which people like this ought to be held? To pitch them into a normal or high-security prison would be wholly inappropriate, bearing in mind where they have come from.

Secondly, have the Government identified the special staffing measures required for psychiatric and other treatments from the time that they have been in that place? Have they taken steps to identify the sort of staff who might be suitable? Not all of them are. Have they taken steps to make certain that there is briefing and training for them before they go to where the prisoners are sent with the resources needed to look after them while they are there?

We on this side of the Committee have always been particularly opposed to the Guantanamo experiment and the extent to which extra-legal imprisonment outside the Geneva conventions has been part of the US anti-terrorist operation. We are not here today to discuss the whole of extraordinary rendition, but I simply mark the fact that there are wider issues that will continue to exercise us.

I have recently read yet further information coming out of the United States that suggests that Diego Garcia has been used as part of the extraordinary rendition programme. I gather that a large number of prisoners is still being held in Bagram, not all from Afghanistan. The question of what happens to them remains active. How far members of the British Government or intelligence agencies were aware of what was going on, or may indeed have colluded in questioning some of these prisoners, are questions that we must leave at the moment to lie on the table but which we have to come back to.

Today, we are concerned with what happens to British citizens and residents as they are released from Guantanamo and whether Her Majesty’s Government will be playing an active role in taking non-British citizens in order to help the Obama Administration in closing Guantanamo—something which, in principle, we strongly support. However, we recognise that the practicalities are complex. We hope that the Minister can tell us the position on British citizens and residents who remain in Guantanamo. Progress has, we know, been made. What arrangements will be made for them as they return to Britain?

I should like, however, to ask in more detail about the situation with Bermuda and, potentially, other British Overseas Territories, and how far we will share in taking non-British citizens. In a BBC report some days ago, a senior US official was quoted as having told the BBC that,

“it was a deliberate decision not to consult London on the resettlement, after other countries came under pressure from China not to accept Uighurs”.

It is unclear from reports that I have read whether Her Majesty's Government preferred not to know what was happening, or were kept entirely out of the loop and were not informed about what was happening. I hope that the Minister may be able to throw at least a shadowy light on the distinction. Is he aware of any other consultation between the United States and other British Overseas Territories which might be willing to take such ex-detainees? Might there have been some agreement between Bermuda and the United States dating from the Cold War period which covered particular arrangements between them, as people have suggested to me, or was it simply a one-off?

On non-British citizens, the European Union has, as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, remarked, agreed in principle to help the Obama Administration close Guantanamo. Italy, I understand, has already agreed to take three of them; I do not know whether the Minister yet has information on whether other Governments have decided that they will share in this process and, if so, how many they will take. Do Her Majesty's Government consider that it should be part of our responsibility to help close Guantanamo and this deeply unfortunate episode in American foreign policy? If so, will we be willing to take people who would have to be kept in detention after they arrive in the United Kingdom? Whether we allow them to be released when they arrive here or recognise that they may also have to be detained—and, if so, under what authority—are more complicated issues. I hope that that does not raise too many questions for the Minister.

I thank my noble friend Lord Bridges for introducing this timely debate. It is rather a pity that more Members of our House were not here to join in.

As my noble friend said, we on these Benches have long called for the closure of the facility at Guantanamo Bay on grounds that I think we all share: that if we, the coalition countries, seek to respond to terrorism in ways that undermine shared values, the outcome will be to achieve precisely the objectives that the terrorists seek. It is therefore extremely good news that the facility is going to be closed, although I think that we all recognise that it poses some real challenges, including the requirement not to return detainees who are assessed as posing no security threat to countries where they might as a result of their return be tortured or face other degrading treatment, and, in countries where they may be received, that they do not pose a security threat, which is one of the main concerns of those of us in this Room today. The net result of that, as we are beginning to see, is that the closure process is going take perhaps a little longer than the US Administration might have wished.

Does the Minister know how many detainees the US Government have now assessed as being capable of release? Reports have consistently indicated that something in the order of 220 detainees are still being held at the facility, which is still quite a large number, of whom 50 have been cleared for release without trial. Has he any further update on how many are going to face some kind of process and how many are to be released? Is the UK going to take any of them? I understand there are 50 of them, but there may be more. Have we had further requests from the US Administration?

I turn to those who are coming back to this country. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, referred to the US/EU statement of 15 June on the closure of Guantanamo Bay. It contains two slightly contradictory sentences. It states:

“the primary responsibility for closing Guantanamo and finding residence for the former detainees rests with the US”.

It goes on to state,

“we also recall the request by the Government of the United States to assist it in finding residence for some of those persons cleared for release ... whom it will not prosecute, and who for compelling reasons cannot return to their countries of origin”.

It goes on:

“Decisions on the reception of former detainees and the determination of their legal status falls within the sole responsibility and competence of a receiving EU Member State”.

That slightly suggests that in general we are prepared to take people, but in particular and in practice, that may be very difficult. Does the Minister have information about how many of our partners in the EU are likely to be taking them and how does the UK compare with them?

The UK has already accepted 14 detainees over the years, the most recent being Mr Binyam Mohamed, whom I shall return to in a minute. The Foreign Office has said that it regards that as “already a significant contribution”, implying that we are not willing to take many, if any, more. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that situation.

The safety of the British public is of paramount concern. If detainees are coming back to this country, and particularly if there are to be more of them, can the Government explain the criteria they are adopting for admission and how they will ensure that these individuals do not represent a security threat? In the case of Mr Binyam Mohamed, can the Minister update us on his status? Will he remain resident in the UK? If so, on what basis? Is he judged to be a security threat? If so, what would be the circumstances of his residence here and how, if necessary, will the general public be protected? The issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, are relevant in this particular case and more generally. We need to know. It places a burden on our security services if these people have to be detained and if they are not, but are a threat, they are a danger to the public. I do not underestimate the difficulties, but it would be good to have some clarity.

The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and other speakers referred to the detainees who went to Bermuda. I am as curious as they are about the circumstances under which this transaction took place. It is a great oddity that when two sovereign states are close allies, the sovereign power in Bermuda appears to have been uninformed and kept out of the picture. I do not regard that as a friendly act. It seems improper conduct on the part of the United States. I hope a protest has been delivered.

As a practical matter, what is the status of these Chinese Uighurs? Are they considered to be a security risk? Will they have freedom of movement? Are they expected to integrate into Bermudan society in the long term? Are they at liberty to leave? There are some interesting questions, and if this experiment goes wrong, we, as the sovereign power, will be landed with the problem.

I have another question about the EU/US statement to which Her Majesty’s Government have signed up. It says that,

“as a result of EU rules relating to an area without controls at the internal borders, a decision of one Member State to accept”,

a detainee and the determination of their legal status falls within the sole responsibility and competence of the receiving EU state. That is as may be, but as my noble friend has said, people can travel around inside the EU. I would be grateful to know what internal arrangements between member states will be made to ensure that the Schengen arrangements—the UK is certainly not a full member but it has a relationship—do not become a means of evading the necessary security precautions.

In the UK, our security services are still facing allegations about complicity in torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. That is not the object of today's discussion in detail, but I would be grateful for any update that the Minister can give us. It is a pity that the Foreign Secretary continues to refuse to publish the guidance from the Government. I know that it is old guidance and the new guidance that the Government have promised will be published when it is consolidated and reviewed, but when will that be? I also hope that the Government will be willing to publish the Intelligence and Security Committee’s further report on alleged complicity of the agencies in torture and other degrading treatment, which we know was submitted to the Prime Minister in March. I say that not out of idle curiosity because it is important that we do what we can to preserve the good name of the country. Our intelligence services do such extraordinarily important work on our behalf that we must not let this odour of suspicion about their standards and behaviour linger. It is an important part of having clarity and confidence—clarity about the facts and confidence in the agencies of government.

Finally, on the question of Mr Binyam Mohamed, it would be helpful if the Minister could give us an update on where the Attorney-General has got to in her investigation and whether there is any indication of when her investigations are likely to be concluded. There is a key lesson to be drawn from the operation of the facility at Guantanamo. As I said at the beginning, let us not in future respond to the terrorist threat in ways that defeat the purposes of our own society.

It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify some of the issues that have been raised in the debate because the object of debates of this kind are on the one hand to know what the security situation is, and on the other to know that we are securing ourselves in ways that are consistent with our liberties.

I thank noble Lords for what has been a useful discussion. As was mentioned by a couple of speakers, it is a shame that more noble Lords were not involved, because it is useful to go into some of these areas. They are important.

As a backdrop, before we go into detail, it is important for us to remember what a monumental event 11 September was to the United States, which did not lose 60,000 people in the Blitz in London. Something like this had never happened before. It is the largest ever loss of life—just under 3,000 were killed—on US soil as a result of a hostile attack. It was a shattering moment for the US and for the world. There was a realisation that we faced a new kind of threat. It is fair to say that the world has changed as a result.

We all know how the United States responded and I do not think that it would be sensible to rehash all those arguments here. However, on one specific point, the United Kingdom has long held that the indefinite detention of detainees is unacceptable and that the Guantanamo Bay—I am never quite sure of its pronunciation, but I am sure that it is not “Gitmo”, as the Americans seem to call it—detention facility should be closed. As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, said, one of the problems of Guantanamo Bay is that it has added to our problem and our risk. It has been a cause of radicalisation and further extremism. It was not very clever in any sense. It was wrong that it happened, but it was also damaging and extremely dangerous.

As the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, mentioned, not just the people of Britain but also the Government welcomed President Obama’s executive orders of 22 January covering the closure of Guantanamo, interrogation techniques and detention standards. That was a brave and absolutely correct thing to do. These moves demonstrate a real commitment to addressing the challenges of violent extremism in a manner consistent with upholding human rights, civil liberties and the rule of law. All of us would applaud that.

However, we have not just said that we welcome this commitment to close Guantanamo; we have backed it up with action. We should be proud of that in this nation. We have already taken back into the UK 14 former detainees, nine UK nationals and five individuals who were previously lawfully resident in the country. That is more than any other European country; I will come to numbers, as far as we currently know them, of other European countries a little later. We have also requested the release of one further lawful resident, Mr Shaker Aamer. That is going on at the moment.

We continue to discuss with the United States Government how best we can work with them and our European partners to see the closure of Guantanamo, and we will share our experience in accepting the transfer of former detainees. Again, I will come on to the checks we do on them later. Certainly, it is not our current intention that we should take any more. We have done rather well in this area. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked whether we were taking any more. As I say, we are negotiating on one at the moment, but we have no intention of going any further.

A number of speakers raised the issue of Bermuda. We were unaware that that was going to happen until it did. By accepting these detainees from the US Government, Bermuda overstepped our constitutional agreements with it in handling foreign and security policy. It was not a proper thing to do. It was a mistake. We have been clear with the Government of Bermuda that their actions were unacceptable and are looking at the operation of the general entrustment. However, we must deal responsibly with the situation as it stands. We are looking at ways to ensure that these men are dealt with in a properly humanitarian way while protecting the security of the United Kingdom. They do not have travel documents, so they cannot actually get here. We are considering all options and are discussing them with the United States and the Government of Bermuda. That discussion is still ongoing, so I cannot really go into any more detail. I am particularly interested because I am going on holiday to Bermuda in July, so I hope that they are reasonably safe chaps. It would be awful for the Minister responsible for counterterrorism and security to be blown up in a hotel sitting alongside four Uighurs, but I am sure that they are not that dangerous and that it is being handled.

On other British Overseas Territories accepting detainees, which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, mentioned, that is a good question. As I hope we have made clear, we have taken a lot ourselves and have been in touch with all these other Governments in the region and elsewhere who are now fully aware of the need to discuss any such action with us; I think they were before. We have discussed it with them under the terms of their individual entrustments. They have confirmed that they are not in similar discussions with the United States.

It was mentioned that the EU justice and home affairs Ministers agreed a framework in early June for accepting into the European Union those individuals cleared for release but who, for compelling reasons, cannot return to their countries of origin. As I understand it, France has so far accepted one individual and Italy will accept three. I do not know how many Ireland will be taking, but Spain is taking four or five, Portugal two or three and Hungary one or two. Those are the latest figures I have and I know no further details. However, something is happening. I was at the JHA conference where this was discussed. One area of concern was the ability of individuals returned to the EU to travel within the Union. It was a key consideration in that debate. People in the Schengen area were particularly concerned, but our borders are a little tauter and tighter. There were discussions about how security concerns would be discussed between states, how people would be monitored and how relevant information would be shared between member states about these people and their movements.

President Obama has committed to closing Guantanamo Bay within the year. We would encourage all nations to do their part, as Britain has, to help the President fulfil his commitment, but we recognise the real difficulties in this. We must not kid ourselves; Guantanamo Bay contains some dangerous individuals. Noble Lords will be aware of statistics issued by the US Department of Defense on the number of individuals who have been released from Guantanamo Bay who have returned to fight coalition troops—there is one man who is heavily involved in killing our people in Afghanistan—or to engage in terrorist activities elsewhere in the world. Of course, a number of them are not a risk, which is where the difficulty lies. On top of this, some of the men in the camp come from countries where they would be at risk of cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment on their return, which adds to the problems.

People coming back to this country have had a very thorough check by our agencies to look at their details and ensure that they are not a major risk. If they were, the prime role of the Government is to protect our citizens, so we would have to ensure that they were locked up.

That brings us on to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. He touched on the slightly hypothetical question of whether we had taken steps to identify the conditions in which a difficult, long-term person would be held and the special staffing necessary. None of the people we have taken are anywhere near that category. Some terrorists we have put in prison are inside for quite long periods. The noble Lord raised important issues about psychological profiling and having a proper psychologist looking at them. As far as I am aware, the MoJ does that to an extent. If I am wrong in that, I will get back in writing. It is a valid issue, but it is hypothetical with these people because we do not intend to take any such person.

These difficulties mirror our experience in trying to disrupt terrorist activities. When we cannot prosecute or safely deport people, what we do with them is a real issue. It is one of the things we are constantly wrestling with and we have debated it on the Floor of the House on a number of occasions.

We are doing our bit to close Guantanamo. Our first priority and overriding responsibility is the safety of the British public, which must come first. We gave full consideration to national security, and we have made sure that those who come back here are not a risk to the British public. Assisting the US to reduce the number of individuals at Guantanamo Bay helps it in its efforts to close it. It has real difficulties, for example, in the negotiations with Palau. It is getting quite desperate in some areas. We need to do everything we can. I cannot go into specific details on individuals.

The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, asked about statements. The Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary have updated Parliament on developments when appropriate. Indeed, they reported on the EU discussions. I do not think they could produce much more than that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, asked about the number of individuals still in Guantanamo. The latest figures I have—I think it is a moveable feast—show that 244 individuals remain detained. All the cases are being reviewed on a rolling basis and, so far, only 30 have been cleared for release—not the figure of 50 that was given. As I said, this is a moving figure and will be changing all the time.

We touched on torture and allegations of UK complicity. I would first endorse what the noble Baroness said about our agencies. We are extremely lucky with the quality of the people in them—as well as in the police force, SO15 and across the board. We should always recognise that when we discuss this matter, we must not let any of them be fall guys for some error that might have been made in how instructions were passed out. We condemn torture wholeheartedly; it is not acceptable. I cannot talk about ongoing cases involving the police. They were passed to the Attorney-General and the police are now dealing with them.

The Prime Minister has said that we will produce a new code, in which the ISC will be deeply involved. It remains our wish to consolidate the review with the ISC. It is not clear when we will be able to publish it, but we are moving forward as quickly as we can. I agree that that is very important, because our agents and people in the field are at risk. I know, for example, that one of our allies’ agents was killed when carrying out an interview. They are involved with really dangerous things. The alleged torture of Mr Mohamed is the subject of a police investigation which I cannot talk about.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, spoke about extraordinary rendition, which we condemn. He mentioned Diego Garcia. It is a fact of record that a couple of flights went through there. We were totally unaware of them; the Americans apologised profusely. It was quite appalling that it should have happened, but I believe much more in mistake than conspiracy. It is amazing how often mistakes happen in huge, complex operations.

The issue of rendition is made all the more difficult because the Americans talk of a “war on terror”—I do not like that term—the theatre for which is world wide. That immediately makes the perception of rendition different from the way in which we would look at it. These are difficult, complex issues.

As we made clear when we published the CONTEST strategy in March, the Government’s approach to counterterrorism is based fundamentally on a set of guiding principles, foremost among which is respect for human rights. If lose that, we do the terrorists’ job for them. As a nation, we believe that Guantanamo Bay should be closed—I have described how it helps the terrorists—but we cannot just stand on the sidelines and criticise it, which I do not think we have done. We have stated our position; we have not shirked our responsibilities. We have taken 14 detainees and are trying to get a further one. This is a good thing; it strengthens our national security, notwithstanding some of the other issues that then come to light. The message that we send to the rest of the world is that the closure of Guantanamo Bay is fundamental to our concept of how one should behave, which I hope will help our huge prevent strategy for radicalisation and recruitment. I know that we would all agree that promoting human rights, democracy, good governance and the rule of law is the best guarantee of our security. That is the way forward.

Perhaps I may be allowed a few concluding words. I thank all who have spoken, particularly the noble Lord, Lord West, for his thoughtful and thorough reply. There is a tendency, which I hope we have avoided, to adopt a tone of high moralistic disapproval of what has happened. We should remember, after all, that we have done something not too dissimilar in our own past, for example, in transporting people to Australia in conditions of terrible inhumanity. Only a few of them ever came back—they built Australia as a result, so perhaps some good came out of that. I trust that no one will feel tempted to repeat this particular experiment, which is very difficult to bring off for a democratic and law-abiding country.

It is extraordinary that one should try to find a sort of terra nullius, where there is no legal jurisdiction and which you pinched or borrowed from somebody else called Cuba. That is repugnant to our own attitudes, and it is rather astonishing that our American friends should have done it. It is courageous of President Obama to have drawn it to an end. If we can help him bring it to a conclusion, I am sure that we are doing the right thing. I thank the Minister for replying so carefully to the points that we have raised.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to draw business opportunities in India to the attention of United Kingdom companies and to attract Indian investments in the United Kingdom.

It is a great pleasure to open this short debate this afternoon. I declare my interests. I am deputy chairman of HSBC Private Bank (UK) Ltd, I am a member of the advisory board of the UK India Business Council, and I was a member of the parliamentary delegation on a visit to India arranged last March by the Industry and Parliament Trust.

In addition, I declare, rather more informally, a long-standing interest in India and in British-Indian relations stemming from a three and a half year diplomatic posting to New Delhi in the early 1980s. The extended visit arranged by the Industry and Parliament Trust gave me the opportunity to take a snapshot of the new India and the opportunities now presented to British business. That led me to request this short debate today.

At this stage, I pay tribute to the work of the Industry and Parliament Trust. It performs an invaluable service in fostering better understanding between Members of both Houses and the world of business. I think my noble friend Lady Coussins may intend to say a little more about our recent IPT visit, but I want to place on record my gratitude to the IPT for arranging the visit and my admiration for the work it does. I also express my thanks to other organisations, including Virgin and KPMG for generously supporting our visit.

The Question I tabled asks Her Majesty's Government about promoting trade between the United Kingdom and India because I think it is timely to remind ourselves and others of the huge importance of India to our national economic well-being. I firmly believe that India is important to us in the short term, as we look at opportunities and the importance of trade with the emerging markets as vital components in extracting ourselves from the recession. In my view, it is important in the medium term because there are good reasons to believe that further deregulation of the Indian economy will offer real opportunities for important sectors of the British economy. It is important in the long term because I believe that India, the sleeping giant that I knew 25 years ago, is now wide awake and intent on developing into one of the major economic and political powers of the 21st century.

The UK’s business relationship with India is founded on three very solid pillars: first, India's stable democratic political system; secondly, its growing economic strength; and thirdly, our unique bilateral relationship. India's political stability is a vital anchor not just for British business interests, but globally. It was therefore with a mixture of relief and admiration that the world watched as 400 million Indians went to the polls in their recent general election. Any business operating overseas welcomes the reassurance of a stable political context in which to operate. The recent general election not only gave that reassurance but, in producing a clear result rather than a period of weak coalition politics as many pundits feared, it has offered India the possibility of firm political leadership at this time of global economic crisis.

India has not escaped from the consequences of the crisis, but for Indians it is a downturn, not a recession. India is still registering positive economic growth of the order of 6 per cent, having for some years been running at 8 to 9 per cent. This is a huge achievement, certainly for one who remembers the “Hindu rate of growth” of the early 1980s. The liberalisation policies of the 1990s transformed the Indian economy. Our hope must be that the recent election result will encourage this liberalisation process to continue in a way that will provide further real opportunities for British business.

The breadth of our bilateral relationship is the third pillar. It is certainly true at the political level, but it is so evidently operational in business relations and in the dynamism and excitement of the cultural relationship. The danger here for British business is complacency. Since we speak the same language, share 250 years of history and enjoy each other's culture and company, we might make unwarranted assumptions about each other that our competitors avoid. Nobody these days can be complacent in any world market.

How can we build on these pillars? I have five suggestions on which the Minister may care to comment at the end of this short debate. The first is to make sure we think through the give and take of our relationship with India. British business needs the help of the Indian Government. It needs them to introduce further measures of market access and deregulation in the sectors of financial and professional services, retail, education and defence to name a few of major interest to this country. Are we now working out how best to encourage this process by thinking where we can help in return? It may not be by reciprocally offering market access here because so much of this exists already. It may well be across our wider political relationship with India, whether it be in the Home Office over visas, climate change negotiations or on counter-terrorism. I believe we should take nothing for granted. We need to devote our scarce diplomatic resources to ensuring that, with India, we are partners of choice in multilateral forums and partners of habit in our bilateral dealings.

My second suggestion is that in our business dealings with India we concentrate on co-ordinating the work of the many agencies: the FCO, DfID, UKTI, the British Council and UKIBC. Promoting business with India is a crowded area. Certainly, on our recent IPT visit, I was impressed by the way in which these organisations were working together. However, there could easily be a degree of overlap, duplication and, at worst, competition.

My third suggestion is that we need to need to look for creative, innovative ways to encourage SMEs to look for opportunities to trade in both directions. How do small firms make the initial approaches, look for partners or undertake market research? At one end of the spectrum, small but adventurous enterprises that are willing to explore India need help and guidance to get going. The UKIBC is hard at work here, but are we devoting enough resources at regional level both here and in India to stimulate and inform this crucial SME sector?

My fourth suggestion is that we need to understand and anticipate the speed and extent of India's economic development. I have been much impressed by the recent work done by the UKIBC to promote India's emerging cities beyond the well known centres of Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai and Bangalore. There are real opportunities in the so-called "tier 2" cities. Are we doing serious research now into how we in the UK can penetrate further into what I would call “village India", that vast internal market of rural India? Do real opportunities exist? If not, why are mobile phone operators selling 15 million phones across India each month? Why would Tata develop the Nano car at a price that will take ownership beyond the urban middle class? Why would Hindustan Lever develop the Shakti programme to distribute its products to women in the villages? Of course, rural India has the most enormous issues of poverty and deprivation, but there is every evidence that Indian business is looking at how it can bring growth to this huge emerging market. We should keep an eye on it too.

Finally, we should encourage British firms that are operating in India to look at their corporate social responsibility programmes to ensure that they complement and support their business plans. In all conscience, it would not be acceptable for any significant enterprise in today’s world to operate in India without having a serious corporate sustainability plan, to contribute over and above the direct economic impact of the business to help in some way to address the social issues besetting that 42 per cent of the Indian population below the poverty line and the many others who are not far off it.

I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate by raising these points. I do so not in a spirit of criticism but in the hope of making a contribution to the policy-making debate on a subject which I think is extraordinarily important to the United Kingdom.

On the eve of India's independence over 40 years ago, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru made a pledge in his famous speech, “Tryst with Destiny”. He said:

“A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends, and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance. The service of India means the service of the millions who suffer. It means the ending of poverty and ignorance and disease and inequality of opportunity. The ambition of our generation has been to wipe every tear from every eye”.

Has Pandit Nehru's dream come true? Sadly, not yet—nowhere near it. But we know more than ever that India today, as my noble friend Lord Janvrin has said, is an emerging global economic superpower.

I congratulate my noble friend on securing this debate on such an important issue. India’s success offers opportunities to us all. I am very proud to be the chairman of the UK India Business Council whose aim is to spread the awareness of business opportunities between Britain and India, especially among the small and medium-sized enterprises in all parts of the UK, in the regions and in London. Our mission is to increase trade, business and investment between our two countries in both directions.

However, the reality is that people have been very slow to realise the renaissance that India has been undergoing. I can give you an example. Whenever I speak to business audiences around the UK, I ask how many people are doing business in or with India. In a room of, say, 200 people, I do not exaggerate when I say that only a few hands go up.

In my own business I try to practise what I preach. In 2005, after a long break, we started manufacturing in India once again for the Indian market. After a year and a half of teething problems and settling in, we were soon producing in nine locations across India. We have an entirely Indian team operating in India, with sales increasing rapidly. For five years, India's GDP growth rate has averaged nearly 9 per cent. My own company is just one example of a growing trend and I know that there is enormous potential for partnership between the UK and India. The non-resident Indian community, the people of Indian origin in the UK, can be a real bridge between our two countries and ambassadors for both countries. The Asian population of this country makes up just 2 per cent of the population, yet contributes more than double that to the economy of this country. Where the UK and India are concerned, we are pushing at an open door. Our skills, experiences, common use of English, the rule of law, democracy and a free press all lend themselves to closer co-operation.

In November last year, I spoke at the Hindustan Times Leadership Summit in Delhi. I shared the podium with a remarkable young man, Chetan Bhagat, who, at the age of 35, has become the biggest selling author in India. In his speech, he spoke about what really matters to young Indians. He said that young Indians want politics of similarity and not the politics of difference and elitism and, above all, they want education.

There is a huge shortage of capacity and quality in education at every level in India—in higher education as well as in skills—and yet, to this day, foreign universities cannot open in the country. On the other hand, I am delighted to see that here in the UK we have numbers of Indian students increasing and record numbers coming here to study. Last year, I am proud to say that the UKIBC and the UK India Roundtable, of which I am a member, played a crucial role in ensuring that foreign students are now able to work in the UK for two years after they graduate. That will be a huge help to foreign students, particularly those from India. Our universities are fantastic. We punch above our weight continually: four out of the top 10 universities in the world are British. The number of Indian students now has increased five-fold to 25,000.

People are still not waking up to the India story. In 2006, Larry Summers, who at that time was president of Harvard and is currently the director of the White House National Economic Council, opened up the Harvard Business School research centre in India. He said that if, in 1991, when he was the chief economist at the World Bank, he had said that in 15 years’ time India, which at that time was nearly bankrupt, would have foreign exchange reserves of nearly $200 billion, he would have been called insane; and if he had predicted that a country that was nearly bankrupt would be growing at 9 per cent a year, he would have been called mad. That is the reality of India.

In 2007, when the UK India Business Council held an event, Jim O’Neill, the chief economist of Goldman Sachs and an advisory board member of the UK India Business Council, gave an update on the famous BRIC report on the rise of Brazil, Russia, India and China. He said that when it was first published in 2003, it was criticised for being too optimistic as regards India, but when he gave his update he said that in 2003 Goldman Sachs was not even looking at India as a country until the BRIC report. It revised its forecast and has now predicted that India and China could be two of the largest economies in the world by 2050. While the western world is in recession, the Indian economy is expected to grow at around 6.7 per cent, which is fantastic. The Indian middle class is growing very rapidly. It is already estimated at over 200 million and is projected to grow to over 500 million in the next 15 years. That is amazing. India saves 35 per cent and has woken up to the world.

Today, we had a meeting with the Confederation of Indian Industry. It confirmed that today, more than ever, India is looking west. Having chaired the Indo-British Partnership for six years and the UKIBC, I have seen this Government’s support for doing business in India go from zero to the £1 million a year we receive from UK Trade & Investment, which is fantastic. We are now generating our own income as well. It shows what a difference £1 million can make to the bigger picture. It is an example of public/private partnership at its best because we work closely with UK Trade & Investment, the British High Commission in India and the Indian High Commission over here.

We are seeing Indian investment here increase by leaps and bounds with Tata acquiring Corus and Jaguar Land Rover, hundreds of Indian companies investing in the UK, and trade between our two countries increasing rapidly with £10 billion of goods and services both ways. However, I still believe we are scratching the surface. Vodaphone’s purchase of Hutch in India has been an enormous success. In a short while, it set itself the target of 100 million users in India by 2010. It has already reached 74.1 million users.

Quantum leaps are being made. I always tell small businesses to go out to India and have a look for themselves. In 2004, there were 19 direct flights between the UK and India and two airlines to choose from. Today, there are more than 119 flights. British Airways alone has 43 flights per week to Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore, Chennai and Kolkata, with flights to Hyderabad being added. However, there is so much more we need to do. The UKIBC recently released a report on emerging cities in India. They are cities we do not hear about over here, but they have enormous potential for British business—and for SMEs in particular.

We have all been lucky recently to witness one of the greatest spectacles in the history of democracy: a country of 1.1 billion people voting in five phases over nearly four weeks with nearly 60 per cent of the population casting their votes. Regardless of which party they voted for, each vote represented democracy, justice, empowerment and the right to be heard, and the winner with the clearest margin was democracy. With a leader like Dr Manmohan Singh at the helm, we can expect greater reforms in every area, economic liberalisation and the opening up of pathways to and from the country. However, we must respond with openness, and we are continually criticised by Indian business about visas, which I find very embarrassing.

I conclude by imagining India and Britain as two great rainbow nations in every way, and a rainbow stretching between the UK and India. The normal story goes that there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but there is a pot of gold at both ends of this rainbow.

I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Janvrin for securing this debate. First, I put on record my thanks to the Industry and Parliament Trust for organising the delegation to India last March, of which I was fortunate to be part. Although it was my first visit to India, the advance briefing sessions organised by the IPT were detailed and wide-ranging and were reinforced by helpful sessions in Mumbai by UKTI and the British Council.

I wanted to go to Mumbai and Chennai to see what I could learn about how Indian businesses are responding to the challenge of corporate responsibility and sustainability issues, in which I have a special interest. My remarks on this topic will pick up from where my noble friend Lord Janvrin left off. I am also interested in the value placed by employers on language skills in the workforce and the impact of that on economic success. Finally, I wanted to learn something about the place and role of women in the labour market. On all three counts, I learnt a great deal, and I believe that British business could also learn a great deal and benefit from the closer economic ties with India that more relaxed regulation should encourage.

In the UK, my professional work is advising businesses on corporate responsibility, but I should perhaps declare here for the avoidance of doubt that I have never worked in any paid or unpaid capacity for any of the companies that we visited in India, or those whose names I shall mention today. I am aware that, in some cases, companies in the UK are still at the stage of needing to have the basic business case for social responsibility spelled out to them. In India, there seems to be a different, much more open and positive, mindset about this issue that UK companies looking to take advantage of business opportunities in India should appreciate.

We should not, of course, underestimate the different social backdrop against which these comparisons are made: the grinding poverty of India is overwhelming and 240 million people live on less than a dollar a day. Only 3 per cent of the workforce pays taxes, the remainder being in the so-called informal sector. Basic infrastructure like road building, rubbish clearance and public transport are desperately inadequate, and the culture of corruption is still rife across much of commercial and public life. However, perhaps because of all these things rather than despite them, leading-edge companies in India have understood and mainstreamed their corporate responsibility programmes in an impressive way. This goes both for Indian companies like the Supreme Group, Tata or the Bollywood studios, as well as for the vast big-name multinationals operating in India, such as BAe Systems, HSBC, Shell, Cadbury or KPMG. Of course, there is Hindustan Unilever, which my noble friend Lord Janvrin also mentioned, which, although part of Unilever's global operations, is uniquely permitted by the company to have its geographical designation of Hindustan in front of the word Unilever in recognition of its groundbreaking corporate history in India.

I have time only to mention briefly a few examples of what some of these companies are doing, but the best place to start is to quote Jamshetji Tata, the founder of the Tata Group, who said as long ago as 1904:

“In a free enterprise, the community is not just another stakeholder in the business, but is in fact the very purpose of its existence”.

This is a good summary of the philosophical case for embracing corporate social responsibility. The community comprises your future consumer base, future workforce, future investors and future shareholders, so it is nothing more nor less than enlightened self-interest which should drive responsible business practice in the interests both of commercial success and social benefits.

In Tata's case, it has identified the opportunities offered by the growth of the so-called second-tier cities in India as a focus for backing a massive road-building programme, which, together with their new environmentally friendly Nano cars, will offer new routes to market for millions of rural producers. Prospective UK investors and businesses would also do well to look at the second-tier cities and not just target the obvious places like Mumbai, Chennai, Delhi and Bangalore.

I will also mention the work that we heard about at HSBC in Mumbai, which sets a genuinely global standard in understanding what corporate sustainability is all about. Through partnerships with NGOs, its programme empowers rural women with economic and educational skills and experience. This results in possibly the only real example of the achievement of social mobility we saw and, of course, helps to provide HSBC with a broader base of customers and workforce for the future.

An excellent example of corporate social responsibility delivering a win-win situation in both India and the UK is the manufacture of sustainable packaging by the Supreme Group. Accredited by the Fairtrade Foundation, Supreme's eco-friendly and ethically manufactured bags not only provide much employment in state-of-the-art factories in south India, they provide the bags for several UK supermarket chains including Tesco, Sainsbury and the Co-op, which helps these companies meet their own environmental targets—and the rest of us to use less plastic.

I also want to mention the concept of social enterprise, and one particular example in Mumbai which demonstrates brilliantly what can be achieved by an ambitious young individual trained in business and economics who wanted to put her skills to use by meeting a social need through the medium of business. This was a young woman who established a company called Dial 1298, which is Mumbai's—and probably the world’s—first sustainable ambulance service. Mumbai did not have an ambulance service that served the whole population, free and on the basis of need. Sweta Mangal decided to set one up, which would sustain itself by charging people who wanted to be taken to private hospitals, so that a free service could be provided to everyone else. The company now attracts independent investment, and receives technical advice from the London Ambulance Service, which Sweta Mangal had come across herself when she was a postgraduate student at the LSE. The company is seeking further investors and partner organisations so that it can roll out the 1298 service in eight more Indian cities and the entire state of Kerala over the next five years. I ask the Government to ensure that opportunities to engage with social enterprise in India are drawn to the attention of UK businesses in the same way as more traditional, profit-making commercial opportunities are.

Sweta Mangal's postgraduate study outside India is a typical story, which is also relevant to why India's economy is so healthy. Well-educated Indian graduates are hungry for experience and opportunities and their confidence, ambition and willingness to take risks is an attitude the UK could learn from. In a global market, and with multilingual skills as well as top-notch scientific credentials, Indian graduates are in a position to exercise a significant competitive edge over UK graduates in the jobs market. I hope that the Government will do more to encourage UK graduates to seek post-graduate and work experience in India, in order to broaden their horizons and enhance their competitive position.

I read an article in the Hindu newspaper while I was there that seemed to sum up the attitude I was talking about. It was about how teachers at a Chennai training centre, which offers courses in 26 languages, were reporting a surprising new demand for learning Swedish. This turned out to be because Sweden had recently relaxed its visa requirements, which in turn had opened up educational opportunities for Indian students, who were seizing them with great alacrity and making sure they learnt Swedish first. India expects to be the world's second largest economy by 2050. Despite the obstacles of scale, India has lessons to teach the UK and business opportunities to offer, both here and there. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government intend to make sure the UK learns from, contributes to and benefits from India's economic success.

First, I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, for this important debate. The noble Lord could not have chosen a better time because a number of key events have taken place over the past few weeks both here and in India.

First, we had the general election—a point well made by the noble Lords, Lord Bilimoria and Lord Janvrin, in the world's largest democracy of 1,000 million people. The sheer scale of the operation beggars belief. Over 650 million voters went to the polls over a few weeks to elect a new Government. That is twice the number of electors in the whole of the European Community. It was almost a faultless performance with the use of electronic computerised voting machines. Unlike Iran and Zimbabwe, there were no allegations of vote rigging. The most important part of the process was that a substantial number of voters participated. That puts our European elections to shame when the mother of democracy cannot get even half her electors to the polls. The results demonstrated a strong Congress Government. Communal politics have been cast aside and the fundamentalist parties could not dent the desire of Indians to have a secular country. Look around the subcontinent; while the rest of the neighbours are faltering to maintain the semblance of a democracy, India has emerged as one of the most important, mature democracies in the world.

Secondly, I draw attention to the meeting held between the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry and the Indo-British All-Party Parliamentary Group on 9 June 2009 at the House of Lords. We were delighted to welcome Dr Amit Mitra the chief executive of FICCI and its director Harsh Pati Singhania. The meeting featured the former President of India, Dr APJ Abdul Kalam, who spoke about the global sharing of knowledge and resources to improve development. The dialogue between the two groups revealed the extent of the opportunities and the enthusiasm on the part of Indian businesses to interact and forge relationships with UK business. That has been achieved to some extent with big business and large corporations. However, it was revealed that the UK's reception of Indian business teams is the weakest in Europe. France, for example, hosted bilateral trade talks with Indian and French businesses, with over 200 French corporations represented. The UK is also under-utilising its small and medium enterprises in its trade relations with India.

FICCI noted specifically that it has a dynamic and growing corporate sector, which is interested in working with UK SMEs. Unfortunately, all requests to the UK Government and business organisations have received little or no response, other than some of the initiatives taken by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, and others. I hope that the Minister will have some comment to make on that point.

While UK regional development authorities, such as the UK India Business Council and the CBI, work on SME-related issues, they are all disjointed and work on piecemeal projects. As a result, no one knows what is happening on a regional or even a countrywide basis. The main deficiency is the absence of a single co-ordinating body that is able to mobilise a quality, robust SME group that could engage in large-scale business-to-business meetings. FICCI, for example, has been doing this with all other European communities, such as France, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands and Spain. Why not the United Kingdom?

This is a longstanding problem. There is an urgent need to have a co-ordinated effort from the UK to get Indian SMEs and their UK counterparts to engage in an exchange of bilateral trade. We are looking for the Government to take some kind of leadership role and harness the UK's SMEs. The advantages of this approach are two-fold. It will generate enormous growth in entrepreneurial activity, which is one of the most important forms of economic growth in the recession. With ordinary avenues of employment shut down, many highly skilled individuals are unemployed. Their skills need to be harnessed and the self-starters encouraged in engaging in creative, innovative work. Secondly, it is highly advantageous for the long-term eradication of poverty in countries such as India, where entrepreneurship is often the only way out of poverty.

However, it is also important that people who become wealthy, who are able to generate large sums of money, do not take a top-down approach. The development of the country as a whole needs to be linked to the increase in high-net worth individuals so that the generation of wealth does not create a country of rich and poor but rather a healthy economy which helps to alleviate the dire poverty which affects all of them. According to the World Bank, small and medium enterprises are essential for dynamic economic growth and job creation. The sector in India has been hit hard by the current downturn with credit growth slowing and demand falling in both domestic and export markets. Improving access to finance for this sector is the key to long-term development. This cannot be achieved without robust attention to the role of women in the formal and informal sectors. Hard work alone is not enough to promote economic mobility. Organized dialogue in all sectors and also across urban and rural areas between India and the UK is the key to achieving millennium development goal number one: the eradication of poverty.

India is often criticised for its government, particularly in relation to its bureaucracy. It is said that Britain invented bureaucracy and that India perfected it in triplicate. However, let us remember that there are more than 1 million self-help groups, many supported by NGOs, which are creating a grassroots revolution. The magnitude of this invisible groundswell is much larger than Grameen Bank. The positive side of the Indian economy is its strong financial institutions. There is a great challenge ahead: the demographic dividend can be prevented from becoming a demographic deficit. We salute the major conglomerates like Tata and others, which have shown what can be done in their contribution to India’s economy. They may not feature in a list of the world’s richest millionaires, but their contribution to alleviating poverty and promoting educational programmes is second to none.

I am delighted that the Minister is responding to this debate. I do not wish to make him uncomfortable, but I will pose questions. Why is there not an exemption from social security contributions for Indian professionals on short-duration visits from India? They pay social security contributions despite no social security benefits being available to them. If Belgium, France and Germany can do this, why can the United Kingdom not do it? Bilateral trade is also impacted by our visa regime. I do not criticise the points system, but repeated attention is drawn to the difficulties of obtaining a visa. We are not talking about immigration, but we should make sure that business visitors and senior providers are facilitated to travel to the UK to explore business opportunities and business contracts. Will the Minister not accept that timelines are short in the business world? We need clarity, uniformity and transparency in visa and work permit procedures. An example is the IT industry. It is particularly impacted by issues such as delivery of service, which is dependent on movement of professionals at short notice.

Medical tourism requires examination. There are difficulties with insurance portability and the three-hour flying rule that preclude UK patients getting treatment in India. Should we not look at regulatory changes here? Then there is the classification of Indian products. A case in point is the Indian whisky made not of malt but of molasses. It cannot be sold as whisky here, so now the British Government term it rum. Something must be fundamentally wrong. I do not wish to undermine the quality of Scotch, but India consumes a substantial amount of Black Label, yet it cannot reciprocate by selling its own product in the United Kingdom.

I welcome Patricia Hewitt's appointment as chair of the UK India Business Council. More than that, I welcome the valuable work that has been undertaken by our own Industry and Parliament Trust and the work of Sally Muggeridge.

Finally, in the 17th century, Britain entered into trade with India in the name of the British East India Company. That was 250 years ago and provided us with 250 years of British rule. I promise one thing: Indians are not here to establish Indian rule or an Indian Raj, but they can surely show a way out of the dire economic predicament in which we find ourselves.

The noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, is to be congratulated on introducing this debate and drawing attention to the outstanding opportunities for investment and trade between the United Kingdom and India, to which many of your Lordships have referred.

India has always held a special fascination for the English. I do not think that we, today, fully realise quite how much, in relatively recent times, India dominated the thoughts and aspirations of so many English men and women. India, with its huge diversity and its immense variety of scenery, culture and climate still retains its fascination—a fascination almost mesmerising, as one sees the country rising from nowhere to become one of the foremost economies in the world, as commented upon by many of your Lordships, including the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria.

Reforms in the 1980s and 1990s have allowed business the freedom to develop, and one can only stand in awe at the release of the energy and vitality of India's 1.2 billion inhabitants, which has driven the economy forward and enabled the development and manufacture of increasingly sophisticated goods. Anyone who revisits today one of the main Indian towns after a gap of as little as three or four years will hardly recognise the place. It is unquestionably an economy and a country in which British companies should be heavily involved. As well as an enormous and fast-growing market place, there are other advantages, such as no language barriers, a generally warm welcome to the English, a legal system which is at least comprehensible and a skilled workforce which grows in number on a daily basis.

Equally, we should welcome Indian investment in, and involvement with, the UK economy. Sadly, recent events have not shown Her Majesty's Government at their best. The Foreign Secretary's recent visit to India was not a success. It is a mystery to me how a Government such as the present one, with their record of failure, can have the temerity to start dictating to others how to run their affairs—especially a country like India which is currently demonstrating such success.

Closer to home, there is the case of Tata, owner of Jaguar Land Rover and other major investments in the UK. I read in the press that, because of the economic downturn, Tata is now seeking further working capital on normal commercial terms—although from banks; there would be government involvement. I am unable to comment on the merits or otherwise of this request, but I hope that Her Majesty's Government will bear in mind that Tata, as has been mentioned today, is a serious Indian company and not the sort of business out for the quick kill, but here for the long term. It is one of the largest and most highly respected companies in India and all the work of such organisations as UK Trade and Investment, and the other organisations that we have heard of in the debate today, will become pointless if Indian investors see that a company of the stature of Tata is not treated with respect and straight dealing.

I ask the Minister to help avoid creating an example to potential Indian investors as to why they should avoid the United Kingdom. There is great affection in India for this country, and it would be a pity for anything to damage that goodwill.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, on securing parliamentary time for this important debate. I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss the issues that he and other Members of the Committee have raised this afternoon. It has been a wide-ranging and fascinating debate. I confess an interest in as much as I live in Southall, a centre for Indian businessmen, and have a love of Indian literature and culture.

This is a historic moment for India. Less than a month ago, we witnessed the conclusion of the elections in the world’s largest democracy, an election that has returned a Government with an increased mandate to drive forward economic reform—a point emphasised by the noble Lords, Lord Bilimoria and Lord Dholakia. I am confident that India’s commitment to the liberalisation of its economy can only be strengthened and will continue, because here is a Government who genuinely understand that opening up the economy will create a quantum leap in India’s ability to attract foreign investment, accelerate much needed infrastructure development and drive forward inclusive, sustainable growth.

India is not immune from the global downturn. It no longer remains on the sidelines of the crisis. Growth is likely to fall to 4.5 per cent in 2009 from the 8.5 per cent average of recent years. It is estimated that there will be an extra 9 to 12 million Indians living in poverty in 2009 as a result. While 6 per cent growth might seem high to us, for India to achieve its millennium development goals and lift the 456 million Indians who live on less than $1.25 a day out of poverty, it needs to deliver sustained growth of at least 9 per cent a year. Unlike in China, the population is getting younger, but India will be able to reap this demographic dividend only if it makes substantial investments in its physical and social infrastructure. UK companies have much to offer in this respect, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, reminded us in relation to education, for example.

Since 1991, India’s gradual opening up to international trade has fuelled consistently high economic growth that has made a real and substantial impact on people’s lives in India. Now India is entering a new phase—it is moving up the value chain. Whereas the early years of its growth were fuelled by offshoring and low-cost, low-value service provision, the emphasis now is on value-added, R&D-rich, manufacturing and services—from ground breaking new oncology treatments in the pharmaceuticals sector, to highly sophisticated knowledge process outsourcing, to world-class, innovative production in sectors as diverse as nanotechnology, animation and renewable energy.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, remarked, we are witnessing the beginnings of a geographical shift to the tier 2 and tier 3 cities of India, where new clusters and new opportunities are emerging and where those who have not so far benefited from India’s awakening will have a chance to do so.

For UK companies to maximise their potential for success in India, they need to understand that the Indian market of today is not the same as it was 10 years ago, or even five years ago; the opportunities, the challenges, and the business environment have moved on, and so must the mindset of any UK entrepreneur seeking to engage with India. There is a critical need, therefore, to raise awareness in the UK of the new opportunities emerging in India so that our companies can maximise the potential from this challenging, exciting and important market. We were urged in that direction by everyone who contributed to this debate, especially the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. I am delighted, therefore, that on 9 June, during World Trade Week, my noble friend Lord Davies, Minister for Trade, Investment and Business, officiated at the UK India Business Council launch of a detailed report on the opportunities that exist in tier 2 cities in India. The UKIBC will now work in partnership with our UK trade and investment staff in India over the course of the coming year on outreach activities in these cities, aimed at alerting and demonstrating to British business the opportunities that they represent.

I have a couple of comments on UK social responsibility—an area that I declare an interest in as I am still the vice chair of the Ethical Trading Initiative. Benoy, an architecture firm based near Nottingham, builds retail malls in tier 2 cities in India. It is very successful. It built 50 houses for low-income families at the same time as building a mall. I was interested in the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, about the Tata approach on enterprise and the responsibility to community, and the Supreme Group and its eco-friendly bags. I was even more interested, as my young daughter is currently studying for a degree in paramedics, to hear about the Dial 1298 sustainable ambulance service. I would be fascinated to hear more about that. A point was also made about the opportunities for UK companies to engage with social enterprise.

If there was a difference in the analysis, I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, did not fully recognise the work going on by the UKTI network. We have 86 staff working in nine offices in India—an increase of 18 per cent over the last couple of years. These new staff include a financial services specialist seconded by the Treasury to the Deputy High Commission in Mumbai, and a new deputy director based in Delhi to oversee the UKTI network in India. The team has a real record of success, generating nearly £270,000 in chargeable services last year, providing support to nearly 3,000 British companies seeking to do business in India.

As a matter of interest, 90 per cent of UKTI customers are SMEs; 50 per cent of all Indian investments in the EU are in the UK. The British Chambers of Commerce work closely with the UK Indian Business Council and the UKTI to help SMEs to get into India. The UK Indian Business Council has a special programme called Next Generation, which helps new young entrepreneurs and SMEs break into Indian markets. I do not feel competent to comment on the rather complex rum deal in relation to—

I was reflecting the views of those at the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry. Those are the people at the other end who know precisely what is going on in relation to the business issues that I was talking about. It was their reflection and if they do not know, it is no good saying, “This is what we are doing”. It is about time those people at the other end are informed about the activities the British Government are undertaking in their country.

I will reply to the noble Lord on that point to ensure that we are doing as he says.

I will give a few examples of the recent successes that UKTI in India has been involved with in the last three months. It has helped Pavers Shoes, a Yorkshire-based family firm, with plans to set up a manufacturing facility in India and collaborate with local partners to set up 1,000 retail outlets across the country. It helped Sheffield Forgemasters to win a £30 million contract in March as part of a technology transfer deal with Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited. In February, it supported Integrated Project Management Limited in winning the supervisory project contract for the expansion of Chennai airport. Of course, UKTI has been instrumental in supporting some of the biggest UK commercial deals in India, such as Cairn Energy’s oil project in Rajasthan, which will provide 20 per cent of all of India’s domestic oil production, and Vodafone’s $11billion acquisition of Hutch Essar, the biggest ever British investment in India.

It is through this commitment that UK exports to India in 2008—the latest year for which figures are available—were at £5.9 billion, an increase of 49 per cent on 2005. The UK is now the third biggest exporter to India. There is no room for complacency, but that is surely not a bad track record. We would all like to improve the situation, but on that basis I would rather see the glass half full than half empty, as it was in the assessment of the noble Lord, Lord Howard.

We can achieve far more in India. That is why, in 2007, in response to a recommendation by the Trade and Industry Committee, we decided to set up and fund a new organisation—the UK India Business Council. The UKIBC receives £1million of grant funding per year from UKTI and is on course to achieve full match funding from the private sector by the end of its third full year of operation. It plays an important role in supporting our efforts to raise awareness of the opportunities in India—something that all contributors to the debate have emphasised, and they are surely right.

The UKIBC’s programme plan for 2009-10 has an ambitious set of objectives. It aims to advise at least 800 UK companies through the course of the year, referring at least 400 of those to UKTI for specific, bespoke support. It will also continue to produce research and conduct awareness-raising events throughout the UK, support us on ministerial and other high-level visits and on the full range of bilateral trade issues that we address under the banner of the Joint Economic Trade Committee.

The UKIBC has a real asset in its board members, its staff and the networks of entrepreneurs and business leaders that it has created in order to capitalise on the opportunities of the new, emerging India. I would like specifically to mention the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, the chair of the UKIBC, whose visionary leadership, dynamism and passionate commitment has been instrumental in driving forward our relationship with India. He will step down as chair in July, and we sincerely thank him for his marvellous efforts. He will be succeeded by Patricia Hewitt. I am delighted, however, that he has decided to stay on as president of the UKIBC and will still be playing a role in the organisation in the years to come. We will only benefit from that experience.

The scope for increasing bilateral trade between the UK and India is limited by the fact that, despite 18 years of economic liberalisation, some key sectors in India remain closed or partially closed to foreign competition. There are regulatory hurdles and legislative barriers that prevent our banks, accountants, law firms, retailers, insurers and educational institutions, to name but a few sectors, from competing in the open market. The Joint Economic Trade Committee was launched in 2004 to address these market access issues so that both countries can benefit. They will benefit if there is more open trade.

When my noble friend Lord Mandelson co-chaired the last JETCO meeting in Delhi with Kamal Nath, the then Indian Commerce Minister, in January, he emphasised the advantages to the Indian economy of opening up to wider competition. He also stressed that UK companies were mindful of the perceptions that some in India had of the perceived threat to domestic concerns of market opening, and that is why we have factored these issues into our lobbying strategy. For example, my noble friend Lord Mandelson launched a financial inclusion strategy during his visit, the aim of which was to raise India’s awareness of the extent to which UK financial service companies are committed to participating in an inclusive growth agenda. Similarly, the UK accountancy bodies have worked with their Indian counterparts on mutual recognition of qualifications.

I am conscious of the time, so I should like to end on inward investment. Around 600 Indian companies have a base in the UK, of which approximately two-thirds are in the ICT/software sector, the next significant knowledge sector being pharmaceuticals. Their investment is worth around £9 billion, and the UK attracts around 50 per cent of all Indian investment in Europe.

The success of Indian entrepreneurs in the UK is well known in India. India has entrepreneurial talent and is a priority market for UKTI’s Global Entrepreneur programme, supporting links between exceptionally talented entrepreneurs and their counterparts in the UK.

India is a young country; 40 per cent of the population is under 15. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, it has a young mindset. Challenges are huge as regards poverty, social exclusion and literacy but, if the economy opens up, UK companies have a lot of expertise to offer and can drive forward long-term, sustainable and inclusive growth. Once again, I thank noble Lords for the opportunity to debate this vital issue. If there are one or two points that we have not covered, we shall do that in writing.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what examples of good practice they have identified in residential work with children and in child and family social work.

I am grateful for this opportunity to hear from the Minister her examples of good practice in social work and residential childcare. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, to other speakers present this evening and to those who have briefed us in the last few days.

Given the brief time available, I hope that I may be forgiven for reading from a script on this occasion. My noble and learned friend, Lady Butler-Sloss, regrets that she cannot take part. She asks that directors or children’s services and senior managers be required to carry a minimal caseload or spend a week at a duty desk so that they understand the pressure on the front line.

I declare my interests as a trustee of the Adolescent and Children’s Trust and the Michael Sieff Foundation. I have the honour of being vice-chair of the Associate Parliamentary Group for Children and Young People In and Leaving Care. I commend to your Lordships the work of Hackney and its reclaim social work model. I have no time to discuss that this evening, but it is well presented on pages 48 and 49 of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, The Protection of Children: a Progress Report.

We reap what we sow. When we fail to value our social workers and our residential childcare workers, we are responsible for what follows. For instance, when we point a finger at the principal social worker responsible for Victoria Climbié, three fingers point back at us, indicating our failures to provide the framework in which that social worker could succeed.

A fortnight ago, I received an e-mail from a recently qualified child and family social worker. It stated:

“Last week I happened to interview three newly qualified social workers working in child protection for my research project. The interviews were very hard as all the three social workers broke down and questioned why they were putting themselves through this; with one social worker telling me that the interview was the first time in months that she had a chance to reflect on her work and talk to someone about her practice and its emotional impact”.

When we neglect the people at the front line working with our most vulnerable and challenging children and families, we find ourselves with consequences unbearable to own, and rather than taking responsibility for our failures, we too often blame the staff or their managers.

I was prompted to table this debate in response to the death of Baby Peter. I was reminded that so few of us know what these practitioners do day by day. We all know teachers, doctors and nurses, but how many of us have spent time with a social worker or residential childcare worker or with their clients? I hope that this debate may increase awareness of the important, varied and challenging work that these professionals do. Will the Minister undertake to do all that she can to deepen understanding in Parliament of what they do? Without this understanding, I fear that we will never create the secure base that makes practice effective and safe.

I pay tribute to front-line child and family social workers for what they do. These professionals are the advocates for families with disabled children, helping the child with Down's syndrome to get the support he needs to enjoy life. They are the people who enter squalid flats, braving bull mastiffs and threatening language to check on a child's welfare. They are the ones who support the child in care, taking a consistent interest in their welfare, being at the end of the phone, sending Christmas and birthday cards. They are the ones with the judgment of Solomon, who decide whether a child is safe in their family, whether they should be placed with their grandmother or aunt or better placed in care. They are the ones requiring the judgment to weigh all the factors and make the best decision in the circumstances, a decision which may profoundly affect that child's whole life. Truly, we should value these people at least as highly as we do doctors or lawyers.

I now pay tribute to residential childcare workers. These are the staff who sit with an asylum-seeking child from Afghanistan and comfort her on the evening she hears that her parents' town is being shelled. They listen to the young woman from Sierra Leone as she weeps and tells of how her sister had her hand cut off by a militia man. They comfort the bulimic, the anorexic and the self-harmer. They have to respond to the child who absents himself from home overnight and the young woman who has been receiving gifts from men, possibly grooming her for prostitution. They befriend the children who have been abused, physically, sexually or emotionally. They have sometimes to deal with children who set fires, steal or sexually abuse other children.

According to the Office for National Statistics, 68 per cent of children in residential care have a mental disorder. A psychiatrist observed to me that often the profile of the needs of children in a residential home is close to that in a psychiatric unit. In the latter, the carers are nurses and a doctor acts as manager. In children's homes, the staff are still often without a minimal qualification and managers are without a degree. Surely, we should value staff in children's homes as highly as doctors or nurses. When staff in children's homes can be paid less than those working at the check-out in a local supermarket and when newly qualified social workers can receive minimal support, as my noble friend Lord Laming's most recent report highlighted, are not we guilty of monstrous ingratitude for their work?

Carl Anselmo, a care leaver and current intern of David Kidney, MP for Stafford, spoke last week of what he had learnt in Parliament. He said that, most of all, he now recognised the need for parliamentarians to understand much better what social workers, foster carers and other front-line workers do. This is all the more important, I think, because of the tremendous progress that Her Majesty’s Government have made in recent years in beginning to address the needs of these practitioners. The Social Work Task Force, led by the respected Moira Gibb, chief executive of Camden local authority, is expected to report in the autumn. There is now the opportunity for the Government to do for social work what they have so successfully done for teachers: to raise the status of the profession and restore its standing. Yet Ms Moira Gibb has raised concerns that the recession may undo some of this tremendous progress. Many parliamentarians may soon, I regret, depart. How do we sustain the gains made? Surely, this legacy must not be lost. Will the Minister consider learning from business and the armed services as she thinks how to bring the experience of front-line social care more powerfully to the heart of Parliament?

The Industry and Parliament Trust provides fellowships in business for parliamentarians. Could this model be adapted for social care? Would the Minister consider offering hospitality to parliamentarians and front-line practitioners to make the work of the latter more vivid and present for us? I recognise the good work already done by the General Social Care Council and others in this regard. A health visitor’s representative recently advised me that there are four health visitors ready to take me or other parliamentarians on their visits to some of their clients. Would such an offer be impossible from social workers? Might Parliament not develop a corporate social responsibility policy involving visits to front-line practice? I recognise that many parliamentarians already take a great interest in this area.

I thank again all the child and family social workers and residential children’s work workers making a difference to the lives of their children. I look forward to the Minister’s response to this debate and to learning of examples of good practice. I repeat my sincere thanks to noble Lords who are to speak.

There is one principal reason why I want to intervene briefly in this debate. It is because I have unqualified respect for the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who always raises the standard of our debates on issues of this kind, not just because he speaks with passion and sincerity but because he speaks with experience of the subjects under consideration. He is a front-line worker. In the second Chamber of Parliament—and we all say that the great advantage of a place like this is that it brings so much experience together for our deliberations—we are short of people with front-line experience in this sphere of our national life. The suggestions that the noble Earl made about giving opportunities for parliamentarians to familiarise themselves with the realities of what this entails by spending real time with social workers in action in society are commendable. I hope that the Minister can endorse that suggestion and look at ways in which it can be furthered.

There is a wider reason why I want to speak in this debate. I worry about our society. What kind of society do we want to be? What has happened to us that we have become so materialist that we all sneer at the concepts of compassion and concern? I sometimes wonder whether there is not a sort of defensive psychological dimension to public attitudes; people have a guilt complex about not doing all they should to ensure the well-being of children, so they look for scapegoats to blame when things go wrong and project the responsibility that we all share on to an individual, quite unfairly. We now hear that there are indications of a crisis developing in the recruitment of social workers. The evidence so far is anecdotal, but it seems likely. After the way in which the cheap, superficial, entertainment media have sensationalised serious events in recent years, I am hardly surprised. Why would somebody want to go and expose themselves to that kind of not just ill-informed, but easy, sordid criticism that will sell more newspapers? Every time something goes wrong, the overriding critical priority is to get to the bottom of it and to consider it judiciously and carefully, not quickly to find a scapegoat, blame him and run him out of town. The noble Earl is right in what he said; we all share responsibility in these circumstances.

When we are discussing penal policy, we discuss the problems of the young in detention. In debates in that context, I have said more than once over my years in this House that when I had the opportunity to see some of that work at first hand, I was repeatedly struck by how it would be miraculous if young people did not end up in an offender institution because of the failures of society on so many fronts and the nightmare that they had gone through in their lives. Then to expect a social worker suddenly to be parachuted into a situation and to make right everything that has gone wrong in society as a whole is just unimaginative and stupid, as well as being very wrong. As the noble Earl said, many social workers have been seriously damaged for a lifetime by the kind of ill informed and vicious criticism that is meted out. Of course, it is very easy to say, “All that is very well but it is bleeding heart liberalism and not the tough stuff of managing society”. I happen to believe that it is the liberal sentiments of the so-called bleeding heart liberal—and noble Lords present who belong to the Liberal party will forgive me if I use that word not in a party-political sense—that get to the heart of the issue. That is why it is easier to sideline them in deprecating terms of that sort.

If we are to get this right, we all have a responsibly to recognise that there are not scapegoats. It is not individuals who are responsible; we are all responsible, as the noble Earl said. In that context, we must resist the temptation to pass off our responsibility on to the shoulders of others. I am very glad that the noble Earl introduced tonight’s debate and glad of the siren call that he put forward praising and building up our social workers. Why do our newspapers not tell more success stories and more cheerful stories about the good work that is done all over the place, day in and night out, all over the country? There are, as he says, dedicated people who are working with conditions of service that are not as good as they would get working at a checkout in a supermarket. We must get our priorities right in society, and the noble Earl has again given us an opportunity to open up a debate in that direction. What can we say to the journalists who play the cheap game and play to the gallery in a nasty, sinister way? What can we say to politicians of all parties who do the same thing? Let us not pretend that the political community is immune from the fault of looking for easy scapegoats instead of taking the opportunity to educate the public as a whole about the complexity of the situation. Let us say, “Each time you behave in that way, you become very much part of the problem and not the solution”.

I, too, thank the noble Earl for introducing this debate to focus our attention on social work, and in particular residential work with children. The noble Earl is a great champion of disadvantaged children and families and raises issues with great knowledge and passion that should be of concern to us all. I am also greatly encouraged to hear the noble Lord, Lord Judd, extol the virtues of liberalism.

We have spoken on previous occasions in this Chamber of our dismay that the United Kingdom, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, fails to ensure that all our children have care and support commensurate with our national resources. International reviews and analysis have the UK well down on the list in the well-being of children. We know that the Government are investing £130 million in social work reform, including £57.8 million in response to the report from the noble Lord, Lord Laming. The increase in expenditure on children’s social care has increased by more than 90 per cent in the past 10 years, which is a commendable response to need but a sad reflection that the need is so great. The figure also raises questions over whether the resources are being used to best effect.

Without any doubt, social workers undertake a complex and difficult job, as the noble Earl described so graphically, taking decisions that can be life-changing for children and families. They work with unfortunate, dysfunctional and sometimes dangerous communities and, to quote the Social Work Task Force, they do,

“some of the most valuable yet challenging jobs in our society. They support people at times in their lives when—perhaps because of bereavement, addiction, mental illness, disability, old age or because children are at risk of neglect or abuse—they are at their most vulnerable, and can be most difficult to help”.

The task force's first report last month sets out clearly the messages from social workers of the stresses of their work, the pressure of high caseloads, staff shortages, bureaucracy and a lack of resources to do the job. Sometimes it is the lack of quality supervision, poor IT systems, an office environment which makes it difficult to work confidentially, or burdensome processes. In order to comply with the integrated children's system, experienced people find that in this sector, as in other professional sectors, administration detracts from professional judgment and expertise. Given the nature of this work, in sensitive and often highly charged cases, it is to the credit of this hard-working profession that, with nearly 80,000 social workers, over a period of three years only 74 conduct hearings were completed. Yet the GSCC receives an average of 42 complaints about social workers a month. That is a picture of how many of these complaints end up being without foundation or cause to pursue.

Social workers need a rich variety of personal skills, yet are often measured in mechanistic, numeric ways. We see the dead hand of filling forms and ticking boxes, which is rewarded more readily than humanity, judgment and care. We have the extreme example, which has already been cited, of the Baby Peter case, where the measurable reports rated well, yet a young child suffered and died. The publicity from that tragic case had ramifications which could endanger more young lives. The media raged against failures in social work, and this undoubtedly had an effect on current and potential social workers. Those of us in politics and Parliament at this time can begin to understand how demoralising it can be to have an entire profession tarred with the shortcomings of a very few. Following the Baby Peter case, the Guardian in February declared:

“The same voices who are so keen to diagnose gaping wounds in society are often also the most given to attack the profession that administers the social bandages”.

Vacancy rates in some areas have threatened to become a vicious circle, as shortages impose additional, sometimes intolerable, burdens on remaining staff. A recent survey from the Local Government Association reported that councils are struggling to fill vacancies in children's services, with 57 per cent finding it harder to recruit child social workers over the past six months and 38 per cent saying that it has become more difficult to keep them. A staggering 91 per cent report difficulties in retaining front-line workers; in that connection, I, too, welcome the noble Earl’s suggestion that some of us might perhaps experience at first hand what some of the social workers are living through on a daily basis. These shortages cannot be adequately filled with temporary appointments. It is a real danger that good people are being deterred and fewer people are coming forward as social workers. We are now also hearing of shortages of foster parents, so that young people who might benefit from and flourish in a family situation find themselves in residential homes, not because it is best for them but because it is the only accommodation available.

The Government's response needs to be positive and creative, with education of course having a key part to play. Currently in your Lordships' House, we are considering the Apprenticeship, Skills, Children and Learning Bill, parts of which address measures for children in residential care. There are measures to ensure continuity of care and education for young people, endeavouring to put in place measures for the children of today to become confident and caring parents of tomorrow. As a long-term aspiration, we should surely aim to reduce the number of children and families in need of social care, through reducing the number of children who become disenchanted and demotivated while at school.

That Bill also addresses apprenticeships, aiming to expand the numbers of employment opportunities for the young. Apprenticeships can be appropriate for adults, too, and the Government have announced plans for 50,000 new adult social care apprenticeships and a new management trainee scheme. The General Social Care Council is working with other bodies to expand education and training. Since the creation of social work degree courses in 2003, they have registered over 10,000 graduates, but it is not known how many of those graduates are currently practising social workers. By its very nature, social work tends to involve high levels of practical vocational achievement, which may more appropriately be accredited through vocational certification than academic, but having a degree pathway offers wider choices to those in the profession.

It is a reality that too many children and families do not have the quality of life that this country should offer them. There have been reports, task forces, and initiatives addressing these issues. We should now be seeing action, results and improvements, not just in numeric reports but in cultural changes in behaviour, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, and in a more caring and supportive society. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on how the Government are responding to the issues raised so pertinently this evening by the noble Earl.

I join noble Lords in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who works tirelessly in ensuring that some of our most vulnerable citizens have a voice. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, is of course right: it is crucial that we do not scapegoat individuals but look more broadly at what we expect from social workers and the system.

I declare an interest as a provider of social care in the care sector. I understand very much the concerns that the noble Earl raises. The sector has undergone many dark days, yet even with all the reports, inquiries and recommendations, we often find ourselves reading news headlines reporting another victim and another social worker being blamed. Recent figures show that nearly half our local authorities have a social worker vacancy rate higher than 10 per cent and at least eight local authorities are missing at least one-third of the required number of social workers. While vacancy rates rise, we have also seen an increased demand for care places; March 2009 saw the highest figure ever recorded in a single month. Can the Minister say if there are sufficient resources and accommodation to care for these children?

We were all dismayed when we read the horrific details of Baby Peter’s injuries. Since then, some other cases have been reported and, while the Government have said that they accept the recommendations made by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, after the inquiry into baby Peter's death, I urge the Minister to look at one of the proposals made by my own party to create the role of chief social worker. That person would work across government departments, with unions such as Unison, the BASW and with other bodies to ensure that what often falls between different departments is delivered through a much more focused direction led by a dedicated person.

If we are to ensure that social workers command the same respect as workers in healthcare, we first need to raise their standing in the community. I come across social workers who are extremely committed to caring for, protecting and delivering effective services to those in their charge. The difficulty that the sector has is that it remains the Cinderella service of healthcare and social care. My honourable friend Tim Loughton convened a social workers commission to examine how children's social work can be strengthened and supported. The findings placed great emphasis on improving training, working conditions and front-line services. That cannot happen if social workers are tied to their desks through bureaucracy and form-filling. Will the Minster look at a programme, similar to Teach First, dedicated to care to help and encourage graduates enter the profession of social work?

For children who are the most vulnerable and whose start in life has seen little happiness, stability or love, the most important thing is to know that the person managing their case work is constant and that they will not be not pushed from pillar to post with different social workers as each time there is a change the relationship needs to be redeveloped.

How do we put value on those who deliver the service? We should surely do so, first, by looking at pay structures that correspond with those of similar professionals working in multi-agency teams and recognise differences in living costs across the country. Given the shortage of qualified social workers, can the Minister say whether she agrees with me that the Government’s recent recruitment campaign to encourage 500 former social workers to return to work will still fall short of the numbers required? What interest has there been and what has been the cost of the campaign?

I have long argued that if we are to be serious about encouraging people to work in the sector, there must be a real change in the Government’s attitude to the value and savings that the sector brings if early intervention with multi-agency support can be made consistent when a child enters the system. The Baby Peter case, like that of Victoria Climbié, highlighted the failings of communication and contact with the children. What is being done to employ more health visitors? How will those staff employed from outside of Great Britain be assessed for recognising circumstances that may be culturally different from their own? There may be issues around language, for example. Are there statistics to show what proportion of cases of abused children comes from minority communities? Is there ongoing training for working within those communities where reporting may not be, for whatever reasons, even harder than within the wider population? I ask only because a number of incidents have been brought to my attention.

This is an area of life where we all want improved outcomes for all our citizens. We know that those who have a poor start are disadvantaged educationally. Through low self-esteem, they find low-end employment, if any, and they are more likely to be the victims of drugs, alcohol and crime. I say “victims” because that is what they are. They fall into a failed-life outcome because we as a society have failed to provide the support that those children need. We then, sadly and wrongly, place the blame at the door of social workers.

I say to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that I know the difficulties that social workers face. They are there to provide care. I understand why in his eloquent opening speech he asked the Government to get to grips with the weaknesses within the system. It is the system that fails the children, not the social workers.

As always, I shall listen carefully to the Minister’s response to this important debate. I know that she shares our concerns.

I thank noble Lords for giving me the opportunity to join a debate which only scratches the surface. I think that we are all hungry to have a full and comprehensive discussion about all the issues of concern that noble Lords have raised. As ever, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has facilitated our discussion, for which I am grateful to him. I noted his comments on behalf of his noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss, who called in and listened to some of the speeches.

What we really want to talk about is the transformation of the social work profession, to which we will return. So much work is being done around the country, led, as the noble Earl pointed out, by the extremely able chair of our Social Work Task Force, Moira Gibb. There is great experience around the country to draw on, such as in Hackney, where innovative practices are being developed.

Noble Lords have touched on a real concern about the public standing of social workers and the impact that the media coverage of the tragic death of Baby Peter has had. We are extremely concerned to support the profession.

I am delighted to be able to use this opportunity to say how highly the Government value the contribution made by social workers. We recognise their unique contribution and we want to do what we can to support and develop the profession. One way in which we are going about that is to develop, for example, a marketing campaign which will help to improve the public understanding of social work. That has to wait a little until we have heard more from the Social Work Task Force. We are working at laying the foundations of that campaign and we are ready to get started as soon as the situation is right.

I was very interested in the idea suggested by the noble Earl about how we can facilitate a greater engagement between parliamentarians and the social work profession. I shall certainly think about that, as it has cropped up a couple of times. Analogies with other professions can be well made.

I note the extreme challenges faced by the profession, which have been highlighted by noble Lords today, and the difficulty of continuing to do a great job in the face of what is sometimes very challenging media coverage. I agree that we should do everything that we can to support social workers and to ensure that they feel valued for what they do. For example, in advance of hearing from the Social Work Task Force, we have introduced the newly qualified social worker programme, which is about supporting all new social workers. That is being rolled out in September to all social workers in public and voluntary sector settings and it will ensure that newly qualified social workers have the support and the time after gaining their degree qualification to develop into fully confident professionals.

Noble Lords will be aware of how concerned we are about vacancies and the turnover of social workers. That varies around the country, but it is too high and it is a big challenge to provide the quality of service which we know the profession wants to deliver. We have asked the Social Work Task Force to look at this and to give us its recommendation about how workforce planning could be developed. In the mean time, we are sponsoring graduates to undertake social worker training and we are encouraging them to turn to a social work scheme. We are also looking at developing a significantly ambitious marketing campaign. As the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, pointed out, the degree in social work has resulted in an increase in the number of social workers coming forward to work for a degree, which is very welcome. The bursary has also helped.

The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, talked about the challenge to get the balance of record keeping, administration and front-line service right. We have been very clear. We invited the Social Work Task Force to give us recommendations on, for example, how we should develop the integrated children’s IT system which has been mentioned in the media. We have been delighted to accept recommendations on how the system should be developed and simplified for local authorities to implement locally. We look forward to receiving further recommendations from the task force on further barriers to effective front-line social work practice. I know there will be many. Like many, I am committed to doing what we can to develop and transform the social work profession in the light of our experience working with the teaching profession. The noble Earl has been very clear on a number of occasions about the benefits of drawing from the teaching experience. We are doing just that.

I am slightly conscious of time, so I want to move on and talk about some of the points that we were aiming to make with regard to, for example, residential care. I want to use this opportunity to emphasise the important role that residential care plays in the lives of many children, as my noble friend Lord Judd emphasised. Although most children will benefit from living in a family setting, residential care is the right choice for many, and we must not forget that. The Government’s Care Matters White Paper set out our agenda to give all looked-after children a better start in life and is well established as a comprehensive and thorough programme following on from the Children and Young Persons Act, which noble Lords were very involved with. The key to achieving that is high-quality provision but, at the same time, we must make sure that children are placed in the most appropriate placement for them. That is why the work we do to develop the social work profession is so important, because of the judgments that must be made.

At the heart of our policy and of our thinking are the child and young person. That is why the Care Matters White Paper highlights the importance of basing every placement decision on a proper assessment of the individual child’s needs and why empowered professionals are so important. The care plan for each looked-after child must be based on those needs, setting out clearly agreed objectives for each individual child and timescales for achieving them. Those judgments are made by professionals. In addition, the Care Matters White Paper also committed us to revising the existing statutory guidance—this picks up a lot of the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Garden—putting on a statutory footing the requirements for delivering best practice through guidance for health bodies as well as for local authorities. Ensuring that high-quality provision is delivered through advice and guidance is key.

I am pleased that this debate gives me the opportunity to highlight some specific actions that the Government are taking to improve the quality of care for looked-after children, especially those with particular mental health problems. As I have mentioned, we are producing statutory guidance that will raise expectations about how local authorities and primary care trusts should improve access to CAMHS services for looked-after children.

We are committed to developing innovative approaches to meeting the needs of children and young people with the most complex needs. This includes children and young people on the cusp of care, whom noble Lords have been interested in, and those who are looked after. An example of best practice that we are looking at is piloting the multisystemic therapy programme, working with children and their families, when the young person is at risk of out-of-home placement—they are on the cusp—custody or residential education as a result of their behaviour.

We are supporting a multidimensional treatment foster care programme to develop interventions for looked-after children and young people with the most complex needs and challenging behaviour. These are tightly controlled and carefully evaluated programmes, and are starting to show what I consider to be some positive results—which is more than I can say for the Minister’s time allocation.

I know that I will have to wind up in a minute. I will have to write a letter. I wanted to talk a lot about the Children’s Workforce Development Council and how we are reviewing the national minimum standards for residential care, which is so important. I also wanted to talk about how important Ofsted’s role is in driving up standards, and more about how to ensure that the children’s workforce is knitted together through a common language, common approaches to information sharing and common professionalism, working to deliver the best possible outcomes for children and young people.

There are so many examples of best practice around the country that it would be unfair to draw on a few, although I was particularly interested in the remodelling social work practice that Hackney has been leading on. So I fear that I will end up having to write to Members of the Committee to answer some of their specific questions.

In closing, we are indebted to the work of the Social Work Task Force. We are eager to hear from it, and extremely committed to building on the work that we said that we would do in the Children’s Plan and our workforce strategy, and taking that further forward so that we can all do our best for children and young people in this society.

That completes the business before the Grand Committee this afternoon. The Committee stands adjourned.