My Lords, it has been agreed that, should any of the Questions for Short Debate not run for their allotted time this afternoon, the Committee will adjourn during pleasure until the end of the allocated hour. Therefore, each of the Questions for Short Debate will start at half past the hour. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes and, if necessary, time can be added on to the time for the Question for Short Debate.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the state of local and regional newspapers.

My Lords, it is no wonder that the most popular items in the 3 billion local newspapers read every week across Britain are the births, deaths and marriages column, followed by the letters page. For the 80 per cent of us who still read our local newspaper, they are not just a source of information and news about what is happening in our local community, a sounding board for local views and gossip and a public square for campaigns fought locally. A local newspaper is also a companion that walks with us down our street when we leave our home for work, the shops, the match or the pub. It arrives through the front door and lies around the house for the next seven days, like a next-door neighbour who is always ready for a cup of tea and a chat.

For those of us in local politics—maybe all politics is local—the local paper is the cornerstone of democracy. It offers a fairer report of real hand-to-hand politics that matters more to local people than ever do the less-read national papers, cut off and isolated as they are in the overall hothouse atmosphere of the Westminster village. I certainly owe my political career to my local newspapers during my three decades on Cheshire County Council, in the European Parliament and in the House of Lords. My only regret is that we in the Lords are seldom asked to write newsy columns for our local papers reporting the Lords, as once, as an MEP, I reported the European Parliament to my local electorate.

Britain’s 1,300 local newspapers—an unsung national treasure—now face their own cycle of hatch, match and dispatch, so I introduce this afternoon’s debate on their future. Claire Enders, an acknowledged industry analyst, suggests that half of those 1,300 titles may disappear in the next five years due to both cyclical and structural threats. Indeed, some 60 titles closed in 2009, although most were just free weeklies. The precipitous fall in advertising, the expansion of the internet and online advertising, the increase in local councils publishing their own quasi-local papers, and finally the competition from local radio and TV, including the BBC’s sometimes clumsy encroachment on traditional local newspaper territory, have all combined to undermine our local papers’ future viability.

The Newspaper Society offers a more sanguine view, asserting that print readership has remained remarkably stable. It rightly points out that local newspapers will have a crucial role in encouraging digital Britain’s development within the new, multimedia landscape. In this fast-changing panorama, do the Government have a role in not only promoting the independence, reliability and viability of local news, but also supporting and perhaps funding the traditional values of local and regional newspapers while encouraging fresh and innovative thinking on the role of the local press? The pivotal Digital Britain report published last June by my noble friend Lord Carter suggests that they have. I turn to the Government’s role and obligations.

The Digital Britain review charts the accelerating and vertiginous 30 per cent fall in local advertising revenues since 2008 for our local papers. Given that advertising provides 80 per cent of those revenues, does my noble friend the Minister recognise the need to staunch the haemorrhaging of such traditional income while encouraging the discovery of new revenue streams? Will he give guidance, for instance, to local councils now producing in-house newspapers, financed by the council tax, which thereby undermine and undercut local newspapers? While local councils must communicate effectively with their electors, is my noble friend nevertheless alarmed when local council papers include not only factual information but regular news stories? They also siphon off valuable local advertising revenues from the private sector. Where do the Government draw the line?

Secondly, will the Government continue to resist the repeated proposals to remove the current law obliging statutory notices to be posted in the local paper? Its abolition would imperil revenues, as well as depriving the local public of a trusted and familiar source for such notices. Local newspapers’ advertising revenues have been further undermined by the downturn, and are unlikely to be restored in the upturn. For instance, local estate agents now typically pay only a tenth in fees to papers to advertise homes for sale. “For sale” signs are now found typically on the web, not in the paper.

Will the Government also ensure that their own advertising in the local media is maintained, given the unparalleled reach and trust that the public have in their local newspaper? Moreover, the Government should not neglect those of us older and less technologically adept, who are not part of the Gadarene rush to the web and the internet. We, too, have a right to be properly informed through the familiar channels.

Is my noble friend alarmed by the loss of experienced journalists, formerly embedded in the community, the closure of high-street offices, the indifferent salary structures and the redundant road blocks placed in the path of trainees eager to enter this vital profession? One local editor explained to me the distinct advantage of having his newspaper office visible in the high street, as well as having most of his journalistic staff living on the patch that they report. Cutting down on local offices saves money but deprives good reporters of their vital contact with the news-giving public. The sad result of all this is the temptation to report by press release; it may save the expense of an experienced journalist but it impoverishes the trade of good journalism.

Will the Government cast a cold eye over the standards of training for entrance into the newspaper and media industry? Some university courses are perhaps less than adequate, and placements in local newspapers, which present the real learning curve for budding journalists, are drying up. Moreover, such placements are essential for trainee journalists to gain their seniority.

Is my noble friend satisfied that we are laying down firm foundations for the next generation of young journalists, who should be well trained, paid and motivated to face the sharp challenges of this fast-changing industry? Does he support the NUJ’s call for direct support for such training opportunities, and will he note that the tight funding in our local public institutions also hampers local papers? Thus, overzealous centralising of magistrates’ courts can stymie local newspapers’ ability to report local cases. An important public function that they perform is not only that justice is done but that it is seen to be done in the local papers. Curtailing police resources presents similar problems and so it is, too, with local councils, which sometimes shovel off public functions to non-transparent subsidiaries. For example, the former open local housing committees are being replaced by closed housing associations. Will my noble friend attend to these unfortunate restrictions on local newspapers in performing their essential function of holding our public institutions to democratic account?

On a wider canvas, it is clear that the interpretation of competition law has not kept up with the changing news media industry. While in the past the current competition law worked to prevent unhealthy monopolies, it is becoming clear that unless we widen the notion of competition to include other forms of news media it could result in some areas of Britain being deprived of a vibrant local newspaper. Bedworth, a town in the Midlands, already lacks a local paper and, indeed, its own local radio. The Government should redefine competition law to allow other forms of local news media to be considered as rival competitors, even if that means that a “one town, one paper” policy becomes the norm.

While we all revere the BBC, should we not ensure that its local reach does not smother the local paper? Indeed, do we not need some different business models, as suggested in the Digital Economy Bill? Those include, for example, developing teams of local journalists to sell on their local newsgathering to the appropriate local, regional and national outlets. In this model, the BBC might buy in such services rather than wastefully duplicating them. Alternatively, tax breaks might be offered to local papers to perform functions under a public interest remit.

Would the Government consider direct support to help establish new and genuinely local media organisations, including community trusts similar to the model developed by the Guardian Media Trust? Should not media organisations be required to sell on the names of titles that they close down to such community trusts for a nominal fee, and should not a levy be exacted from commercial operators that benefit from quality service content, including local news, but who have had no hand in its production?

This is an important debate, especially as an election draws near, where it is vital that the public gain the very best information that they can about a local candidate. As I say, I am not always sure that the national media perform that function well as opposed to local journalists.

Each and every one of us here could pencil in our own lives by reflecting on the different local newspapers that we have had over the years. In my case, those were the Oxford Mail and Times, the Coventry Evening Telegraph, the Brighton Argus, the Hanley Sentinel, the Manchester Evening News, the Chester Observer, Chester Chronicle and Chester Standard, the Wirral Globe and Wirral News, and even the Garstang Courier and the Lancashire Evening Post.

I hope that this is a successful debate and I am very grateful to the other noble Lords who are participating, but I feel that we are Stendhal’s happy few this afternoon. I wish that there were more of us to contribute to this important democratic debate.

My Lords, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this debate and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for introducing it. He spoke of the local newspapers that he remembers; that point is where I would also like to start—not too far away from Chester, where the noble Lord lives at the moment, but about three-quarters of an hour away down the coast.

We have seen such a reduction in the number of local papers over the past 50 years. In my own area, the weeklies then were the Conwy Free Press—that went many years ago—the Llandudno Advertiser, which others will perhaps remember, the Llandudno Circular Press, the North Wales Pioneer and the North Wales Weekly News. Those were the local papers that were a talking point at that time. Then, we had the Daily Post and, apart from that, for a time the Liverpool Echo and the Manchester Evening News were also widely sold in north Wales. The Western Mail tended to be, and I think still is, largely a south and mid-Wales paper, so we relied on both evening papers: the Manchester Evening News and the Liverpool Echo.

The Comet Free Press and the Llandudno Circular Press were the first to go. They were small one-man ventures. The North Wales Pioneer and the North Wales Chronicle were from the same stable. The North Wales Pioneer re-emerged as a freebie. The Llandudno Advertiser merged with the North Wales Weekly News. Today, we have two weeklies: the free Pioneer and the paid-for North Wales Weekly News. The Liverpool Echo and the Manchester Evening News arrive a day late and, I believe—but I could be wrong—they sell very few copies. The Welsh edition of the Daily Post sells well, especially in Welsh-speaking areas. The whole scene for Welsh-language newspapers has changed. We have lost many of the weeklies, but we now have nearly 60 Welsh-language community papers throughout the whole of Wales: papurau bro. There are also some, not as extensive, English-language local community papers, all run by volunteers. They keep the local spirit alive. The Welsh Assembly Government fund Welsh and English local papers. The effective news and comment come from the Daily Post and the North Wales Weekly News, which are owned by Trinity Mirror. The North Wales Pioneer is independently owned. There is no real competition to the two sold newspapers, one of which is daily and the other weekly.

The same is true in the rest of the United Kingdom. I believe that 80 local newspapers closed last year. Hundreds of journalists have lost their jobs, photographers have lost their contracts and the high street offices have closed. We have a debt to those companies that have kept the flag flying and their newspapers alive, but it can be dangerous to have only one local paper. If an extreme right-wing consortium took that paper over, it could be very bad news indeed, far worse than having to rely on Fox News and claiming that it gave us balanced news coverage.

In 1890, in the old Caernarvon Boroughs constituency, there were more than two local newspapers. That was the year of the by-election that returned Lloyd George to Westminster. If we had relied on Herald Newspapers of Castle Square, Caernarfon, we would have thought that Lloyd George was the Messiah. As a Liberal Democrat, I might say that he might well have been. According to the paper, his victory procession was composed of all the most upright, honest, sober and chapel-going young men. The Tories were very different. Songs were sung—I will not risk singing for the Committee:

“Hurrah! Hurrah! We're ready for the fray.

Hurrah! Hurrah! We'll drive Nanney away—

Ellis Jones Nanney—

The grand young man will triumph,

Lloyd George will win the day,

Fight for the victory of Cambria”.

Wonderful! It was not unbiased in any way at all. The North Wales Chronicle, based in Bangor, redressed the balance with a Conservative anthem, but I do not know the words.

If we had a monopoly of newspaper ownership, it would be a threat to democracy. The people who are able to help the weakest are those who have strength. Would relatively prosperous newspaper companies, such as Trinity Mirror, take a lead on this issue and encourage competition and having two viable newspapers serving a community?

We know that this is a difficult time and a time of great change for the newspaper industry. We do not entirely rely on newspapers. We can choose not to buy a paper and to get all the news on the internet. I was astonished to learn of the decline in newspaper readership. Between April and September 2008, at the height of the American presidential election campaign, in the USA, there was an average decline in sales of 11 per cent and in some areas, it was as great as 22 per cent. In recent months, sales of the San Francisco Chronicle declined by 25 per cent. The net is taking over.

However, like the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, I contend that local newspapers make an essential contribution by providing news of what happens in local communities. They are part of what holds a local community together. You can even attack the stories. I have often heard people say, “Have you seen what the front page of the Pioneer says this week?”; or “I don't agree with the editorial comment in the North Wales Weekly News”. At least you can have a discussion. Very rarely do you hear people discussing what appears on the internet. The paper in our hand is vital.

Are local and regional newspapers tending to emulate the format of the red-top national newspapers? I am not sure that is welcome. No more do you get news of what the local Women’s Institute is doing or where the Young Men’s Christian Association went last week on a trip. For a number of years, I was a local councillor and, occasionally, a journalist used to attend our debates. How many smaller council chambers now have a journalist attending their debates? That is something of the past, so local news is neglected.

The Assembly Member Joyce Watson says that, in the late 1970s, the Tenby Observer was in difficulties. To save itself, it was renamed the West Wales Observer, reporting news from across the region. But that did not do the trick, so the Tindle group stepped in and stipulated that any story which did not mention Tenby was not to be printed; it had to be a local newspaper. The result was that over a number of years the sales have risen from 3,700 to more than 7,000. People want the local element.

Mention has been made of advertising revenue and how local council newspapers—freebies—are welcome, but how they use funds that could help to support local newspapers. We have to ask whether councils need to print their own newspapers.

It was put to me earlier that it is time to consider relaxing the regulations between the involvement of the printed media with, say, television and radio and other factors mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison. That might provide local newspapers with the additional support they need.

Local and regional newspapers are vital for a thriving and democratic society. However, they need to be truly local, reflecting the life in their communities, as intended. Steps also need to be taken to ensure that there is true competition because I would hate to think of some of the right-wing organisations taking over one of the newspaper groups. That could be disastrous.

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, on obtaining a debate on this very important issue. I also remember my early years in local government and being terrified to see the chap sitting in the gallery watching and listening to every word and worrying that I would make a mess of my speech. That was a long time ago.

I do not wish to say too much about how important local and regional newspapers are, but they are an essential public service of which we should be proud and fiercely protective. At the moment, there is no doubt that local newspapers are in crisis. Many believe that they are in the greatest crisis that the industry has ever faced. It has been estimated by one of the most respected industry analysts that, at present, half the country’s 1,300 local newspapers will be out of business within the next five years. That is an extremely concerning prediction. In many aspects, local newspapers are the bedrock of the media industry. Much journalistic investigation and news content is collected by local newspapers and filters up to national newspapers, to radio, to online newspapers and even to television and the BBC. It is very important that local papers have the chance to continue their great and valuable work. Furthermore, it is imperative for democracy and local accountability that local and regional newspapers survive.

However, due to severe commercial pressures, such as we have already heard today—for example, a decline in advertising revenues, reduced circulation, the emergence of online newssheets to name but a few—many papers have been forced to close altogether. Between January 2008 and July 2009 alone, 66 local newspapers were forced to close. But even where papers have not closed, their offices on the high street are being shut, the number of journalists employed is falling and the number of photographers, as we have heard, is no longer the same. Between July 2008 and September 2009, more than 900 journalists lost their jobs. Is the Minister concerned that the decline in journalist positions will lead to a decline in applicants and specialist journalists, which will lead to a decline in the standards of journalism overall? What are the Government doing to support local and regional newspapers so that they can keep standards high?

In June 2009, the Digital Britain report acknowledged the negative impact on independent local newspapers of local authority newspapers. However, nothing concrete has been done to investigate this. Does the Minister agree that an investigation needs to begin so that solutions can be sought and enacted before more damage is done? When will the Audit Commission, Ofcom, the Office of Fair Trading, and the Government stop passing the buck and take some decisions? Does the Minister believe that newspapers produced by councils should have to be clearly distinguishable from commercial newspapers so that the public are not misled as to the independence of the reporting? Is the Minister concerned that if council-run papers replace their independent counterparts, it will lead to a less rigorous scrutiny of local officials at the price of democracy? Do the Government support council newspapers and have they any plans to tighten up the local authority publicity code?

As I said earlier, it is tremendously important that we see the decline in local news companies as a very serious problem. Their influence is huge and their likely disappearance will have much more dire consequences than I think many appreciate. Like others, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate and I congratulate my noble friend on raising such an important issue. I am glad that the importance of local media as regards local democracy and local representation was emphasised from all parts of the Committee. There is no doubt that local and regional newspapers lie at the heart of the democratic process. As my noble friend indicated, they are critical to the expression and the opportunities for the expression of views on behalf of the community.

I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. I am not too sure that the 21st century can quite replicate the circumstances which led to the emergence of Lloyd George in north Wales. But I understand entirely the way in which he has supported my noble friend Lord Harrison in emphasising the importance of the opportunity for expression from localities. It is not for us to comment on the other place in a significant way, but there is one matter on which I think we take public opinion with us and on which we can therefore speak assertively and with some real concern; namely, that a greater number of candidates for national positions as Members of Parliament should have local roots. There is a great danger in having a preponderance of people—I speak as one who may have been guilty of this—who are mobile and able to present themselves across the country. A substantial percentage of the House of Commons ought to be represented by those who come from their local communities and can best reflect their perspectives. That is at the heart of representation, and why the local media are important to the whole concept and health of our local democracy.

Of course the Government share the anxieties that have been identified this afternoon. We certainly made it clear in the Digital Britain White Paper that strong, diverse and viable news media are integral to our democratic life. A diminution of the regional and local press affects the choice and plurality of information sources and editorial opinion, as well as the people employed in the sector such as editors and journalists.

I accept the point made by my noble friend Lord Harrison, and reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Luke, about journalists’ training. There is no doubt, as we know, that a significant proportion of those who reach the high ranks in journalism in this country, particularly in political journalism, have done so through the ranks of local reporting, so there is concern that if those opportunities decline, the structure of training and the development of skills in journalism will also decline. I emphasise that the Government are concerned about this. There has been an inquiry into journalism skills and an expression of the need to examine those skills and how they should be nurtured. There is no doubt that this is an issue of real concern, and I am grateful to noble Lords who have emphasised the need in the case of the regional and local press.

The Publishing Skills Council carried out a skills survey last year that identified real gaps in training, which noble Lords have reflected in this debate. The skills sector has since produced an action plan that is now being implemented, so I can say that the Government have anticipated the concerns that have been reflected in this short debate and that action on the necessary training of journalists is in hand.

It is clear that there is real and significant pressure on local and regional newspapers at present. The decline in advertising and in circulation is real and urgent. There are two factors. We cannot disregard the recession and the fact that the decline in resources in our communities has an effect on the public’s purchasing of newspapers as well as of other goods over which people have a choice. The downturn in the economy means that much less advertising is available to support newspapers. We know how important advertising is. We should not underestimate the concerns that are caused by the downturn in the economy, but we can look to the recovery from that, and we hope that local newspapers survive so that they can participate in that recovery.

My noble friend Lord Harrison emphasised the principle underlying cause in his opening contribution, and the noble Lords, Lord Roberts and Lord Luke, reflected it in their remarks: the growth of the internet and online advertising as a direct competitor to newspapers and the news media. I shall cite some statistics. The value of regional newspaper advertising fell from £2.8 billion to £2 billion between 2002 and 2008. At the same time, the value of internet advertising grew from £0.2 billion to £2.8 billion. That is a real competitive challenge, which is having a dramatic effect on newspapers and helps to explain a great number of difficulties that they face.

Nevertheless, many local and regional newspapers across the country continue to remain viable and to provide an essential service for their readers. Noble Lords have been kind enough in their contributions to reflect on their local press. I will not miss this opportunity to reflect that the Oldham Chronicle is an evening daily that has been going for over 150 years. I attest to the obvious fact made by other noble Lords that, were an organ of such significance to go, so would a crucial linchpin of local democracy and community. Fortunately, despite its financial difficulties, the Chronicle is presently still printing each weekday.

There have also been amalgamations. We note that Trinity Mirror has announced that three of its west London titles are to be distributed free, extending their reach to far more homes than their current, paid-for editions. Noble Lords implied that it is all right for big companies to sustain free editions and that this shows that the market has declined for paid newspapers across the country. However, these are important initiatives in the areas where they are viable, where the advertising is significant and the group is big enough to sustain the position to extend a local newspaper.

We have been concerned to take certain steps in what is a genuine problem with local and regional news media. We are concerned about opportunities to introduce local and regional news consortia that can deliver an innovative and multi-platform news offering. That is clearly going to need some support, which is why the Government have identified the underspend on digital switchover of the BBC licence money. It is important that these consortia provide effective, accurate and dispassionate local news in their areas. There is no doubt that otherwise the pressures could prove so great that some areas would be devoid of that service.

We are also inviting the Office of Fair Trading to examine whether the media merger rules and market definitions properly reflect the current state of converged media. The OFT has amended its guidance to ensure improved synergies between itself and Ofcom in their approach to media markets. We are concerned with increasing Ofcom’s sensitivity to the challenges to the industry. We are bringing forward at the earliest opportunity proposals to address media ownership rules. These proposals, which will of course be subject to scrutiny by both Houses, follow Ofcom’s review last November. The noble Lord, Lord Luke, emphasised this point, raised also by my noble friend Lord Harrison. We are looking at the Audit Commission’s recent review of local authority publicity and how the Government’s code of recommended practice on local authority publicity might be amended. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the DCMS, on whose behalf I am speaking at this Dispatch Box today, has written to his counterpart in the Department of Communities and Local Government, drawing his attention to this important question.

I do not want to exaggerate the issue. None of us would deny the right of local authorities to communicate effectively with their local communities on the services they provide. However, when these perhaps stray into more tendentious comment and are sustained by advertising which, as the noble Lord, Lord Luke, hinted, might otherwise be available to local news media, then an element of unfair competition might come in. We are concerned about the relatively small number of cases. The number of local authorities where the line has been overstepped is not much more than a handful. We are asking the Secretary of State with responsibility for local government to look at practice and to evaluate the position against this changing situation. I have no doubt that if emendations are effected, local authorities will pay due regard to any changes in advice.

As is his wont, my noble friend Lord Harrison has raised an enormously important issue. A debate of this short duration and limited participation can scarcely do justice to a linchpin of local democracy. However, I emphasise that the Government are fully seized of the financial and economic challenge to local and regional press. It is important that action is taken to sustain local news as effectively as we can. None of us has any doubts that this is the basis of effective participation in local democracy and local interest, and is at the heart of the greater democracy represented by Parliament. That is why we need to cherish the grass roots of our democracy. I am grateful to my noble friend for having introduced this important debate.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the Howard League’s Commission on English Prisons Today.

My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Howard League for Penal Reform. I welcome the opportunity today to debate the report from the Howard League’s Commission on English Prisons. I look forward to a constructive reply by the Minister and am grateful to the distinguished noble Lords who have put down their names to speak in this debate.

The commission was an independent review of the prisons crisis by some of the country’s leading experts and practitioners who were asked to look radically at the purpose and limits of our penal system early in the 21st century. The final report, Do Better Do Less, was published last July. Key ideas in the report, such as introducing a model of localism in the criminal justice system and advocating the concept of justice reinvestment —to which I will return later—have been echoed in subsequent reports by the All-party Parliamentary Group on Local Government and a recent report from the Justice Select Committee entitled, Cutting Crime: The Case for Justice Reinvestment.

The time is now ripe for urgent reform. In summary, the report advocates a new approach of penal moderation and fundamental reform. One headline is a significant reduction in the prison population and the closure of establishments. Another is localisation, of which more later. Thirdly, there is the replacement of short prison sentences, which achieve little if anything, with community-based responses. Fourthly, there is the dismantling of NOMS, including the break-up of the centrally managed prison service, save for retaining some centralisation for the most serious and dangerous offenders.

The commission’s signal contribution to the debate was to link the penal crisis in our prisons to wider economic conditions and requirements. This was not new, but it re-emphasised that radical reform of the prison system can provide value for money—and save money. With prison numbers almost doubling in the past 15 years, it is fair to say that the imprisonment industry has been booming. Yet, as with many bad businesses, booming turnover has been accompanied by a bust in profit. Our prisons, groaning under the weight of more men, women and children than ever before, are simply unfit for purpose, particularly in being able to achieve any goals other than containment.

The commission identified that the need to reduce public spending over the coming years brought with it an opportunity to inject some sanity, permanence and stability into the penal system. The message at the heart of the commission’s report is in its title: Do Better Do Less. Instead of more legislative hyperactivity in the field of criminal justice and ramping up ever higher the use of costly imprisonment, the commission argued with force for a principle of moderation.

At the core was some well founded research, for plenty of information is available abroad. In its visits to other countries, the commission found that it was entirely realistic to have less crime, safer communities and fewer people in prisons. Surely that is the formula that we should adopt, yet here we are, bumping along towards 85,000 in prison, a figure that will increase as a result of the announcement, which I understand has already been made in another place today, that the early release scheme is to cease in March.

Germany, with 20 million more people than the United Kingdom, jails around 72,000 people, France only 64,000. Yet in both those countries campaigners say that there are too many in jail and call for reform. Are the English and Welsh really any more criminal or likely victims of crime than the French and Germans and our other neighbours? Why do we feel the need to imprison so many more people and what does it achieve?

Worse still than the sheer numbers, the prisons have become warehouses for dumping people with problems that should have been dealt with elsewhere. I would highlight the number of mentally ill people in prison, practically none of whom are dealt with in the way in which they would be in the community, were they to go through conventional clinical systems. In an overcrowded and overwhelmed prison system, those people will never get the help that they need to move on beyond the ever-revolving door. Reoffending rates speak for themselves; for young people leaving prison, the rates rise as high as 75 per cent.

The commission espouses the vision of less crime, safer communities and fewer people in prison. The real key to that lies in the communities approach. The commission advocated a more localised criminal justice system, particularly for communities where crime is of most concern and the public simply do not understand why things are as bad as they perceive them to be. The commission’s report advocates devolving criminal justice spending and giving local authorities in partnership with the police the lead role in the fight against crime. It argues that localism should lead to less money spent on process and more on actions, which produce beneficial outcomes for the whole community. What is missing, among other things, is a sense that the public and those elected to represent them have any local ownership of the criminal justice system, a feeling that would be especially useful in producing effective restorative justice.

A more responsive devolved system would allow local areas to shift resources smoothly from funding prison places to funding community needs. That is what is described as justice reinvestment, a concept that has come from the United States of America. Some states were unable to balance their budgets because of the very extensive use of prison. Those budgetary crises opened legislators to cross party lines and share new ideas. They mapped neighbourhoods to prison populations, and as a result experts were able to identify what have been called “million-dollar blocks”, so called because it costs $1 million a year to incarcerate a high proportion of the block’s inhabitants. The question that justice reinvestment asks is why we should not spend that $1 million not on prisons but on the area. In states that are pioneering justice reinvestment initiatives, that means reducing the use of prison and closing jails to free up funding so that it can be spent on dealing with the underlying causes of crime in these neighbourhoods. The Government have shown enthusiasm for the community court initiative in Liverpool—and I am delighted to see the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool in this Committee. It has proved to be very successful. The same can occur if they show similar enthusiasm for localisation of imprisonment.

Justice reinvestment is not about alternatives just within the criminal justice system; it is about making partnerships within and outside the criminal justice system. It recognises that the criminal justice system as we have it can be a very blunt instrument, and nowhere is that felt with more frustration than by judges and magistrates as they send people to jail and know that they will be back again, certainly in magistrates’ courts in city centres, probably within a few weeks.

Justice reinvestment, as advocated by the report, also enables localities to tackle issues of education and training, poor mental health and better public amenities, even stairwells, playgrounds and safe places for young people to hang out. Justice reinvestment, as advocated by the Howard League commission, advocates new local strategic partnerships and involves trusting local authorities and communities with responsibility but, I would argue, trusting them with the responsibilities and opportunities that they are best at. Thus, prison and probation budgets would be devolved to their control, giving them funds for justice reinvestment initiatives. If pilot projects were created, as has happened in the United States, I can see no argument contrary to the view that we would see benefit. I urge the Government, and the Minister in his response, to recognise that this report has made a useful and constructive contribution to the debate and that not to adopt it, at least on a test basis, would be an act of neglect.

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, on initiating this debate as president of the Howard League for Penal Reform and on the report, which was supported by the Howard League. It is extremely valuable and worthy of a discussion at least as long as the one we will have.

I shall deal with the point mentioned in paragraph 1.14. The page is headed “Wales” and has a green paragraph about Wales, but I do not see much connection between that paragraph and what happens later. It may be a compliment to the president to do it that way, but I am not sure. The point is about the terrific increase there has been in the number of 10 to 14 year-old children in custody in the period studied: 1996 to 2006. There has been a 550 per cent increase in the number of children in custody in that time. That is a very sad and extraordinary situation and, like the report as a whole, it requires urgent attention from Her Majesty's Government. The independent president of the commission was the president of Barnardo’s during part of her time at the commission. I am a member of Barnardo’s, and my wife was on the council for a considerable number of years, although she retired a considerable number of years ago. I take an interest in what Barnardo’s says. As your Lordships will know, the chief executive of Barnardo’s is Martin Narey. He was a senior official at the Home Office, and therefore speaks with a great deal of authority.

Over the period referred to, the number of 10 to 14 year-olds in custody increased by 550 per cent. The principal reason for that is that the detention order, which was introduced in the Bill of, I think, 2000, has greatly opened the possibility of custody for young children and not for serious offences only. For example, you can find yourself in custody for failing to turn up at the times fixed by the board for interviews. The cost of keeping a young person of this order in custody rises up to about £185,780 per annum. As someone remarked, you could have a student at Eton College for six years for that amount, and I humbly believe that, notwithstanding the criticisms that have been made of that venerable institution, the benefits of being there are probably rather greater than those of being in Her Majesty’s custody for a year.

The answer to this question is quite difficult, but the majority of young people in this position have been in the care of the local authority or under the charge of the social services, so people who have already been failed by the system are being failed again, at great cost to the nation. The sooner this stops, the better.

My Lords, noble Lords will recognise that I am in no way an expert on the prison system. I have only two locus standi for being here. First, I chair my party’s working group on localism and how to decentralise Britain. Secondly, I was involved in the Offender Management Bill some years ago, and spent some time talking to people in prisons and probation services around Yorkshire on what the Bill would mean for the prison system. I became less and less convinced of the case for NOMS as we went through the Bill, and more and more sceptical of the entire ideology of new public management.

I viewed with immense enthusiasm a quotation from Geoff Mulgan, of all people, in this report:

“There were never any serious theoretical, empirical or popular arguments in favour of centralisation … overcentralisation tends to be associated with poorer performance, and decentralisation with better performance”.

That is one of the more important messages of this report.

The other important message is that giving way to what the report calls “penal populism”, and which I would call the clamour of the Daily Mail simply to lock people up and forget about them, leads to greater expenditure and worse outcomes. I note that the United Kingdom now has the highest spending on law and order in the entire OECD—a point to consider when we think about future cuts in spending. Social care is cheaper; probation is cheaper. Above all, local management not only is cheaper but has much more effective outcomes. Many of us have seen local magistrates’ courts being knocked down and moved away from towns to regional centres.

The whole process of justice and social care is becoming less and less local, and it is now quite evident that we need to localise justice, offender management and looking after those who have started in care and are likely to go on being in care until they enter the prison system. I met a number of people in Leeds prison who were called POPOs—prolific and persistent offenders whom the prison officers assured me they had seen before and expected to see again and who would go on being recycled through the prison system until, in their mid to late 30s, they would finally grow out of it. I was also shocked to discover how much prisoners were moved around the system out of their own region. They lost touch with their families and were therefore likely to come out of prison without the framework that they needed to prevent reoffending.

I strongly support the report. I particularly support the whole idea that the offender must be seen not just as an individual but as a member of a community, and must be encouraged to go back into that community. That community also needs to be involved in the whole process. Liverpool has been mentioned. I should also mention Chard in Somerset, in which the Liberal Democrat-led council has done a great deal to experiment usefully with restorative justice. That seems to all of us to be the way forward. We welcome the report. Sadly, we also welcome its condemnation of one of the greatest failures of new Labour over the past 12 years.

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and, like other Members of this House, I am very grateful to the Howard League for producing this report. I also welcome and support the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, about children, about which we have had many debates on the Floor of this House.

When I read the report, I could not help reflecting on the fact that, in the Army, if you were told that you had to write a report on something, the first thing you did was go to the library and look up all the other reports on the same subject. You looked up all the recommendations that had been made, what had happened to them, and why, after all those other reports—there were usually a dozen—you still had to do the same thing.

The first thing I opened was the bibliography. I looked in vain for two documents which I very much hoped would be there: one was the wonderful report on the riots in Strangeways Prison and 23 other prisons, written by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in 1991, and the other was a White Paper, Custody, Care and Justice, agreed to by all political parties, which took the Prison Service into the 21st century, based on a real crisis. I looked for those documents because there were 12 objectives in that report with which, at the time, everyone agreed. I shall quote four of them: to end overcrowding; to improve co-operation with other services and institutions by working closely with the probation service and by membership of a national forum and area committees; to increase delegation of responsibility and accountability to all levels with clear leadership and a published annual statement of objectives; and to develop community prisons which will involve the gradual realignment of the prison estate into geographically coherent groups, serving most prisoners within that area.

That was 19 years ago and absolutely nothing has happened. Here we are with another report saying exactly the same sort of things, but bringing them up to date with justice reinvestment, which I support, with the dreadful story of the hyperactivity of new Labour, with all its Bills, its new crimes, its overcrowding and more prison places but no progress other than an increased reconviction rate. I welcome the four ideas, including the significant reduction in the prison population; investment in localities, exactly echoing that; and the replacement of short prison sentences with community-based responses.

Three weeks ago, I was in Libya advising the Libyans to do exactly the same thing. The Libyans have now gone further than we have as a result of our advice based on this document. To the dismantling of the National Offender Management Service I say, “Hear, hear”; it is a monster and it is a bureaucratic disaster. However, I have one problem with the break-up: it is about to appoint a new chief executive. It is very dangerous to appoint a new chief executive to an organisation which has clearly failed without being quite clear what that chief executive is to do, particularly as the Conservative Party has already announced that it intends to do something about NOMS as well. That is another matter.

Finally, on local partners, yes, they are waiting for that and we all know that they want to do it. Why on earth have we not listened to the advice on which everyone agreed 19 years ago?

My Lords, the Howard League for Penal Reform has provided us with a huge service. The Commission on English Prisons Today offers us detailed statistics, robust analysis and radical recommendations. In my visits to prisons, bail hostels and community sentencing programmes as bishop for prisons, I often hear people echoing what is in this report. Why, then, is this not already public policy? We know that prison has the threefold function of punishment, protection and reformation but unfortunately we allow the media focus on punishment to distort our public policy. The punitive element seems to obscure every other aspect. As this commission demonstrates, we are left with a criminal justice system that is financially wasteful, educationally ineffectual and socially negative. In other words, a better system, as proposed here, would save public money through greater and better community sentencing, reduce reoffending with local programmes on restorative justice and enhance social stability through local, strategic interventions. These are the messages that all of us concerned with community justice need to get out through the media and bring to bear on public policy.

It is extraordinary that millions of pounds can be found to build more prison places, while budgets are squeezed and purposeful activity in prison is reduced. We are putting more and more damaged people into prison regimes that are less and less restorative. That is not a recipe for a stable society, let alone a humane one. This is not about being soft on crime. It is about understanding why and how people get into crime, and why and how they get out of it.

In the faith sector, huge independent and voluntary resources are already being deployed in the rehabilitation of offenders. They would have a key role to play in the commission’s proposal for local strategic partnerships. But if we look at interventions to prevent criminal behaviour, we cannot ignore the role of the family. On listening to prisoners, I am constantly struck by how much of their behaviour can be traced back to parental neglect and family dysfunction. We need bold, new initiatives that will target the hard-to-reach parents.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, I was pleased to see that the commission had visited the community justice centre in Liverpool and had observed its success in working collaboratively across the criminal justice system in addressing criminal behaviour holistically. This is a government initiative and a government success on which they should be congratulated. However, when you ask why this approach cannot be adopted everywhere, the same issue—that of money—arises. Surely, as this commission suggests, it is profligate spending to build prisons and to incarcerate at huge public expense, when you could spend less money by diverting from prison those who could be punished and rehabilitated in other ways.

My Lords, I do not congratulate the noble Lord on getting this debate, because that is easy. But I thank him for doing so, because it is something he might not have done. It has provided us with an occasion on which to discuss this extraordinary and important report, although I recognise what the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has said about it being, in a sense, an echo of something that has been said previously. However, it is said in a different voice and has a different scale of detail. It lays much more emphasis on the most important aspect of this issue; namely, the role of the community.

Seeing a right reverend Prelate behind me tempts me to say that when God asked Cain where his brother was, Cain said, “Am I my brother’s keeper?”. The answer should certainly have been yes, because that is the basis of community. People are built by their homes—we have heard references to failed parents—and by the communities in which they live. They should be able to be safe in their streets, to know each other and to look out for each other’s children. That is the basic pillar on which society rests.

When someone gets damaged and is not supported by the system, they are taken out of their community, put into a prison miles away and then shunted around. The answer to this is to localise the prison service and its management, to stabilise and reduce its population, and to have recourse to the community to pick up the results and make a far better answer of it.

Page 145 of the House of Commons Justice Committee report refers to the experiment in the Deschutes County of Oregon, USA. The experiment devolved the management of youth offenders, excluding violent offenders, to the local authority and, to a certain extent, delegated the funding thereof. The report only summarises the statistical findings. The detail can be found on an Oregon website. The cost of incarceration by the county per day was greater than that provided by the state—$202 a day as opposed to $166. But the average length of stay in the correctional facility was 4.4 months, as opposed to 8.3 months. Therefore, it costs a good deal less. The cost of aftercare/parole was $62 a day, as against $20 when administered by the state, so it cost a great deal more. The average stay in aftercare/parole was 11.5 months, as opposed to 14 months—so, again, the cost was much less. The total cost per case was $48,396 when locally done, and $65,866 when done state-wide. The approximate saving on the current value of the dollar is $13,232 per case, and the actual outturns for reoffending are exactly the same, so the result is the same for a much cheaper price. If you add into it all the localism in this report, you will have a fantastically improved system.

My Lords, like all other speakers in this debate, I recognise the wealth and significance of this report, and I believe very deeply that we ignore its research and recommendations at our peril.

The report shows that our policies on imprisonment over the past 30 years have been laced with inconsistencies and misconceptions. The central irony is that while crime that is recorded by the British Crime Survey has fallen by 45 per cent in the past 15 years, the prison population has gone in exactly the opposite direction, more than doubling between 1992 and the present year. That is a very sobering central irony in the whole situation.

Parallel with this development, and certainly not unassociated with it, is the fact that Her Majesty’s Government have, in each of the past 13 years, added on average 100 brand new offences that carry a custodial sanction: that is, something in the order of 1,400 offences in the past 13 years. Since 1997, Parliament has passed no less than 23 criminal justice Acts. It is worth noting that between 1925 and 1985—a period of 60 years that included a world war and all the disruption of its aftermath—only six criminal justice Acts were regarded as necessary: one every 10 years.

As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and others have mentioned, we incarcerate 153 persons per 100,000. That is more than any other country in western Europe bar Spain, which has a figure of 160, and Luxembourg, for some reason—presumably because of the number of banks that it has every acre—which has a figure in the order of 155. We incarcerate 60 per cent more people per hundred thousand than France, Germany, Italy, Belgium and the Irish Republic. I ask the same question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile: are we 60 per cent more wicked, more criminally disposed, than the people of those countries, or is there another reason? I believe clearly that there is. There is mass hysteria in the community about imprisonment that has been brought about by successive Governments, who have led people to believe that you can wave a magic wand and that crime will simply disappear.

Opposition parties have shown that that is wrong, as they are entitled to do, but have given the impression that the Government of the day are presiding over a mounting crime wave. That is not the case. The ordinary citizen could certainly be excused for believing that we were going headlong down the path to disaster in relation to crime. Tabloid editors have predictably seen it to be to their profit to perpetuate these myths. Yet, for all the hysteria, the system has failed. Nothing shows that so remarkably clearly as this report. The system has failed to reform or assuage public fears, and in every respect. The statistic of two-thirds of persons being reconvicted within two years clearly shows that.

There is an alternative, as shown in this report. The situation calls for change not only in policy but also in the psychology of the whole community. It is possible to reduce the prison population in a sensible and safe way. It has been done before. Between 1908 and 1939, the prison population was halved. That was done by long-sighted people with vision and resolution. It is exactly what has to be attempted now. Whichever public leader stands up and advocates this policy will be traduced and vilified. He will be said to be a namby-pamby, starry-eyed romantic—but he will be sane. He will be putting forward a better idea and vision than what we have today in our brainwashed society in relation to imprisonment.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for securing this debate. The growing prison population and further increases in the number of offenders who return to custody are complex issues that require a multifaceted solution. It is encouraging to see that the Howard League has produced a thorough and informative account of the problems facing our prisons today—and the possible solutions.

The commission’s research shows that there has been a marked rise in the number of ethnic-minority prisoners, especially Muslims, compared to a lower increase in the number of white inmates. It goes on to reveal that the number of Muslim prisoners has doubled over the past 10 years and now stands at nearly 10,000 persons. This is particularly disturbing as Muslims account for 3 per cent of the total population in Britain but make up almost 11 per cent of the prison population. Why has this unacceptable situation arisen and what remedial action will be taken to address this alarming trend?

The annual report by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons draws attention to the fact that approximately one quarter of Muslim prisoners said they felt unsafe. More than 30 per cent stated that they had been subjected to bullying by prison staff. I acknowledge the reality that prison staff do a tremendously difficult job. However, any type of bullying is unacceptable. Will the Minister be forthcoming in revealing what measures the Government will take to remedy this situation?

A survey by the Muslim Youth Helpline highlighted that 63 per cent of reoffenders felt that they did not have the help they needed upon leaving prison. Some 82 per cent stated that faith-based support networks in the community would have prevented them returning to crime. It is therefore important to encourage and increase the number of prison volunteers from all faiths, while recognising that there is an important role to be played by religious leaders in our communities. Does the Minister agree that a greater emphasis should be placed on helping communities to develop faith-based projects that specifically target offenders?

The commission’s research shows that between 2004 and 2008 the number of foreign national prisoners rose by 29 per cent. I believe that those who enter our country and breach our laws have lost their right to a place in all areas of British society. We should therefore aim to speed up the deportation of foreign national prisoners before the end of their sentences, and extend automatic deportation to prisoners from non-EU countries who are serving sentences of less than one year.

There is a correlation between overcrowded prisons and the number of inmates who are committing suicide. This tragic state of affairs calls for greater attention concerning the mental health of inmates as well as their overall well-being. Prison is a deplorable sanction for young people, and should be reserved for only the most serious youth offenders. This view reiterates the ardent belief that child welfare is paramount to reducing youth crime and curbing reoffending rates. Our justice system should be fundamentally based on the principles of enforcing punishment and educating prisoners. Investments made in crime prevention measures will pay dividends in efforts to counter reoffending.

My Lords, from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, as it were, I welcome this report—and not only because it confirms my own prejudices. I have never been attracted by the sort of sentencing policy that tests the machismo of the current Government. Rather, I regard a willingness to work at the harder options—community-based responses are not a soft option, if properly structured—as a test of a community’s dignity. We must not underestimate the need to win the hearts and minds of the community, nor the difficulty of that task. Community-based responses need to be accepted.

This morning, in a local shop, I overheard a discussion about a number of burglaries that had taken place locally, where someone commented: “Lock ’em all up, that’s what I say”. That is an instinctive reaction from both a victim and a potential victim. As the report says,

“once the punitive genie is out of the bottle, it is not easily put back”.

The report refers to a characteristic of a more,

“moderate approach to penal policy”,

being,

“a mass media relatively uninterested in crime and punishment”.

That could not be said of the media in this country; they carry a heavy responsibility, and the right reverend Prelate’s term “distortion” was a temperate one.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Wallace for covering the issue of localism. I hope that stronger local partnerships are ideas whose time has come; they have been bubbling up for a little while, with other organisations looking at the same issues. We know that the risk of reoffending is much reduced by stable housing, employment, drug treatment planning and programming and family and local contacts—all things that are the very stuff of local partnerships. Education and training are vital; an offender needs skills to go straight. Partnership work between business and prisons or other penal schemes can help to achieve purposeful activity. I have one specific question for the Minister; do the Government recognise all this as an appropriate component in the Total Place work that is now being carried out, up and down the country, and is sponsored by the DCLG?

The report also mentions prisons built under the public-private finance initiative, an issue presently being considered by your Lordships’ Economic Affairs Committee. A good privately financed prison should be not just about bricks and mortar but also about facilitating a modern, productive regime through the bundling of building and services.

I was also interested in the report’s references to New York City being,

“in the midst of national mass incarceration”,

but it has reduced crime and the prison population. I wonder whether that goes with the broken-windows approach of tackling crime at the lowest level to seek to stop it escalating. That was pioneered in New York.

I congratulate the Howard League. If prison does not work, then more of the same will not work either. I believe that the report has identified and described what is far more likely to work.

My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Elton, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, for giving us the opportunity to debate the Howard League report. Sadly, we have only four minutes each to speak and only an hour for the whole debate. Perhaps the usual channels would consider a fuller debate on this matter in due course. We will also be debating some of these matters later in the Chamber, when the Minister repeats his Statement on prisoners’ early release. At this stage, we are debating a much broader strategy about prisons and, on that occasion, we should be able to listen to what the Government are doing or claim they are doing.

In the time available, I shall not set out the entire opposition policy on prisons, which was set out very ably by my honourable friends in another place in their report of last year, Prisons with a Purpose. I commend that to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and others and I hope that they will look at it. In the title of that document, Prisons with a Purpose, my honourable friends made it clear what they thought prisons ought to do: for example, that people should emerge from prisons in a better state than when they went in. One of the problems, which will be addressed in the Statement later, is gross overcrowding within the prison system, which makes it is very difficult for prisons to achieve much in the way of improving the lives of prisoners and making them more fit to face society when they are released.

Our brief debate has been very useful and a great many ideas have been put forward by all who have spoken. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern was quite right to highlight the dramatic increase in the number of 10 to 14 year-olds in custody. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, was also right to draw attention to the problems of NOMS, with which virtually everyone who has spoken in the debate would agree. The Minister will have to address the defence of NOMS when he replies, if he can.

We would agree with the vast majority of the report’s recommendations and the general direction that it takes. It is an excellent report. However, in some respects it is perhaps a little optimistic in that it goes further than we would as regards closing prisons. We are in a very strange state where the Government are boasting about a dramatic reduction in levels of violent crime but, as the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, pointed out, despite the alleged drop in the levels of violent crime, we have seen a dramatic rise in the number of people going to prison.

We offer broad support for the report, while being careful to state that implementation would be possible only when resources allowed. Some speakers referred to the very severe constraints as a result of our current economic position—I think particularly of my noble friend Lord Elton, who referred to the Oregon experiment with localism, to which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, also referred. That is a way of looking at things in other ways, which might lead to a reduction in the costs that this will impose on the taxpayer.

I welcome the chance that we have had to debate these matters briefly, and look forward to the Government’s response.

My Lords, I start by paying tribute to the Howard League for Penal Reform and to its president, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I thank the Howard League for the chance to discuss the important and radical report that it produced last summer and the noble Lord for introducing the debate. I also thank all other noble Lords who have spoken.

We very much welcome the contribution that the report has made to a continuing debate, although we do not of course agree with all its conclusions. The report argues for “penal moderation”. The Government agree that the use of prison must be effectively targeted, but we are in no doubt about the important role that prison continues play in delivering a fair and just society for victims of crime, the general public and communities. Prison remains the right option for dangerous, serious and the most seriously persistent offenders. To that end, we have increased prison capacity by more than 25,000 places since 1997, and are committed to increasing net capacity to 96,000 places by 2014, following the report of my noble friend Lord Carter. We will always make sure that there are enough prison places for those the courts sentence to custody or place on remand, and we make no apology for that. Resource spending on prisons was 42 per cent higher in real terms in 2007-08 than was the case in 1996-97.

One consequence of providing that additional capacity is that we can now withdraw the end of the custody licence scheme, as my right honourable friend the Justice Secretary told the other place earlier today and as we will discuss later. That scheme was introduced in 2007 as a temporary measure to ease pressures on the prison population, and we now have sufficient headroom in the estate to withdraw the scheme. We have always made it clear that the scheme would be temporary and it is right that we have ended it as soon as it was safe to do so. However, we do not believe that the Government are engaged in unthinking “hyperactivity”, as the report and some noble Lords have alleged. We are thinking through carefully the establishment of this new capacity, with a close eye on the needs of offenders. The new prisons, each of around 1,500 places, that were announced a few months ago, will be built in areas where places are most needed. That will ensure that prisoners can be held closer to home and will reduce the number of times an offender is transferred between establishments, which we know disrupts rehabilitative and educational programmes. We have increased investment in education provision, which is a critical part of rehabilitation, from £57 million in 2001-02 to more than £175 million in 2009-10. In 2008-09, nearly 38 per cent of offenders entered employment, training and education on release, and the figure into this year shows continuing increases each month.

We are also committed to providing alcohol and drug treatment for offenders in prison. The Committee will know that since 1996-97 funding for prison drug treatment has increased 15-fold with the introduction of the integrated drug treatment system, in particular. We are working with the third sector and the private sector further to improve the drug treatment framework available to offenders, as well as strengthening the continuity of support between prisons and the community. We have also done good work on alcohol offending.

In our view, prison remains a key, valuable and necessary element in our criminal justice system, but the Government agree that less serious offenders can often be better dealt with in the community. Therefore, we have programmes in place to divert offenders from custody when appropriate, including vulnerable women offenders. The female prison population decreased by 5 per cent between June 2008 and June 2009. Following the report by my noble friend Lady Corston, we committed to reduce the women’s prison estate by 400 places by March 2012. We are providing £15.6 million of new funding over two years to provide additional services in the community for women offenders who are not a danger to the public and for women at risk of offending.

We are also committed to action on diverting offenders with mental health needs, where that is appropriate. In response to the Bradley report, we published a national health and criminal justice delivery plan in November last year. We are committed to developing those policies further. Offenders with mental health needs and vulnerable women are not the only groups where we have seen the population falling or where we are putting into place measures to reduce the population. We have seen a decline of more than 600 in the population of under-18s in custody in the past 16 months.

We cannot be accused of treating prison as the be-all and end-all of the criminal justice system. We have ensured that the courts can use tough community punishments in place of short custodial sentences where doing so is justified and proportionate. Community sentences allow for direct payback to the community, while interventions that help offenders tackle the causes of their behaviour are provided. These sentences are enforced rigorously, with more than 90 per cent of offenders who fail to comply returned to court.

Within this broader approach to the promotion of community sentences, we are doing some important focused work on seven intensive alternatives to custody pilot projects currently under way around the country. They are targeted at offenders who would otherwise receive short custodial sentences. Nearly 1,000 offenders have started intensive orders in the pilot areas. The projects have developed innovative partnerships with the police and the third and private sectors to give offenders opportunities to turn their lives around or face swift and tough sanctions. The projects, which are being evaluated, have engaged with the courts to build sentencer confidence in intensive community orders as a robust, demanding and effective alternative to short-term custody.

The commission argues that local communities should have a role in managing offenders, and we agree. We introduced community payback, enabling the public to have a say in what unpaid work offenders carry out in the local community. Local agencies must work together to tackle what is a shared problem, to reduce the social and financial costs of offending and to improve life for local communities. The integrated offender management model, local commissioning and the introduction of probation trusts increase the scope for local flexibility and innovation. Crime and disorder reduction partnerships, working within local community justice boards, play a key role in reducing reoffending, bringing together and co-ordinating the actions of housing providers, health services, local authorities and other key players. Restorative justice has the potential to be an important part of community engagement, and we are moving actively towards a culture of more visible justice with a stronger focus on encouraging offenders to be more directly accountable to communities. We have also seen restorative justice being used in a pioneering way in the youth justice system.

If I had time, I would talk about the justice reinvestment programme in the United States. We have the Diamond Initiative programme in London, which we believe shows real promise. I do not have time to go into that today.

Moving on from the use of prison and community sentences to the institutional framework, it will not surprise the Committee that we do not agree that NOMS should be abolished. The recent reorganisation means that the prison and probation services are working together more closely than ever before.

If there are any questions that I have not answered— I am conscious that I have not answered all of them— I will write to noble Lords with answers.

I finish, first, by reminding the Committee that crime has dropped by more than a third and that the chance of being a victim of crime is at an historic low—these are important considerations; and, secondly, by reiterating our thanks to the commission, to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and to all who have contributed to such an important and thought-provoking report and debate.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what recent assessment they have made of human rights abuses in Iran.

My Lords, a week ago today, Mr Mohammad Larijani, the secretary-general of Iran’s High Council for Human Rights, told a meeting of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva:

“Iranian society is a successful model of brotherly and amicable coexistence”.

He was almost alone at the meeting in believing this. Here is what others said. The French ambassador, Jean-Baptiste Mattei, said:

“The authorities are waging bloody repression against their own people, who are peacefully claiming their rights … France recommends that Iran accepts the creation of a credible and independent international inquiry mechanism to shed light on these violations”.

The United States and Britain called on Iran to open up visits by the UN investigator into torture, as well as by other human rights experts who have been barred from the country since 2005.

“Grave human rights violations continue to be committed”,

said the British ambassador, Peter Gooderham.

Mr Michael Posner, the US assistant secretary for democracy and human rights, said that Washington,

“strongly condemns the recent violent and unjust suppression of innocent Iranian citizens”.

Western nations said collectively at that meeting of the Human Rights Council that they wanted to see a halt in the execution of child offenders, in the disproportionate use of the death penalty against political opponents, in violence against women, in discrimination, and in the clampdown on free speech.

The facts deny Mr Larijani’s claim, and the appalling human rights record of the mullahs’ regime has been condemned by the United Nations on 57 separate occasions. His country hangs more people than all the other countries put together that still use capital punishment, except China. Since the 1979 revolution, more than 120,000 political prisoners have been executed and 600,000 tortured. Officially allowed torture includes the amputation of limbs without anaesthetic, the gouging out of eyes with a spoon-like instrument, and the stoning to death of both women and men.

A year ago last month, 59 people were hanged, including a 35 year-old woman after 12 years on death row in Rafsanjan prison. In September and October last year, 15 male and four female prisoners were hanged. Iran has also hanged the highest number of children in the world, and now has about 70 awaiting the rope. It is hard to imagine, but human rights abuses have worsened since the stolen presidential elections of June 2009. The anger of millions who protested about that has now turned into demands for an end to absolute clerical rule, and for democracy and human rights.

On 11 February, when the mullahs organised a rally to mark the anniversary of their 1979 takeover, more than 70,000 security personnel, including the corrupt Revolutionary Guard, stood watch. Some 500 pro-democracy demonstrators were arrested in one district of Tehran alone. They taunted security officers with shouts such as, “The uprising will continue”, and, “You can’t make the country a garrison forever”. The speech of phoney president Ahmadinejad was greeted with shouts of, “Down with the dictator”, and “End absolute clerical rule”. A crowd of 10,000 marched on the notorious Evin prison demanding the release of political prisoners. There were protests in other parts of the country. More than 60 journalists are among several hundreds awaiting mass show trials.

Doubtless, as evidence of Larijani’s claim of brotherly and amicable co-existence, the mullahs have decreed that those demanding democracy and human rights are guilty of waging war on God—“mohareb”—because of their support for the PMOI, the main opposition group inside the coalition, the National Council of Resistance of Iran. On 28 January, two men were executed for waging war on God and at least 10 others have been found guilty on the same charge. The Guardian reported on 4 February that the Foreign Office was urgently seeking information on reports that a 24 year-old with joint British-Iranian nationality was among 16 people on trial. What response, if any, has there been from Iran on this?

A surprising aspect of the demonstrations in December and since has been the regime’s acknowledgement that the PMOI has been leading them. For years, the regime has denied the PMOI’s existence and derided any support it claimed inside the country. On 29 January, no less a figure than Ahmad Jannati, head of the powerful though unelected Guardian Council, said that,

“those who try to shatter the structure [of the regime] … and enemies of the revolution who intend to topple [it] … must not be treated with compassion. There can be no room for mercy; it is now time for toughness”.

On 18 January, Mr Salavati, the mullah’s prosecutor in Tehran, said that,

“Since the core of the PMOI has not been eradicated, Article 186 of the Islamic Punishment Act would still apply to the PMOI”.

In accordance with this article,

“As long as the core of that organisation remains in place, all of its members and supporters … are mohareb”—

that is, enemies of God. Overall, in the course of the demonstrations following that stolen election, it has been estimated that more than 10,000 people have been arrested with many facing torture in prison.

On 17 February, the UN Human Rights Council said Iran had rejected calls for the release of all political prisoners and refused to accept an international inquiry into the recent violence. It also refused to end the death penalty and said it would not make torture an offence under its laws. It also refused entry to the country to the UN special investigator on torture. Other recommendations by the council included the ending of discrimination against women and stopping the harassment of journalists and bloggers.

We should not seek to interfere in Iran, despite the human rights abuses. It is for Iranians to find their own way to democracy and respect for human rights. Yet we should make clear that we applaud those millions bravely demanding democracy so that they know that they do not stand alone. We need to tighten economic sanctions until the regime ends its nuclear defiance and ceases torture and executions. As former Prime Minister Tony Blair told the Chilcot inquiry on 29 January,

“the nature of the Iranian regime makes me even more worried about the prospect of them with a nuclear device”.

That worries me as well.

My Lords, I begin by congratulating my noble friend on securing this timely debate. We do not have as many opportunities for considering the situation in Iran as that situation deserves, and he is to be very much congratulated on this. My purpose in intervening is not to produce a list of human rights abuses; we have done that time and again, in meetings in this Palace and in debates. It has been done so often that it is almost pointless to repeat it—the repression, the torture, the killing of children and the discrimination against women. As my noble friend said, the situation in Iran has been condemned by human rights bodies of the United Nations 57 times. I find it very difficult to catch up, because every time we have a figure for the number of times that it has been condemned, the figure is already out of date, because it increases again with the next meeting.

Condemnation does not seem to be working. The Revolutionary Guards and the mullahs are indifferent to world opinion and impervious to argument. The question that we might consider is what the international community can do. The charter of the United Nations had much to say about human rights, but did not spell out any specific sanction. It was a different world, so the question of sanctions was felt to be unnecessary. Everyone felt that, once something was put to the test before a tribunal established by the charter, that would be sufficient; it would be respected—as it would be by almost every other regime in the world. However, that does not work here. At that time there was an overwhelming feeling that the governing factor was national sovereignty. It was felt that what went on within the borders of a nation was between the Government and the people: that it was not the business of the rest of us and we should not be interfering. That is all right if the people are not silenced, but when they are not in a position to participate in the discussion and when every attempt to protest meets with brutal repression, it can hardly be said that this is a matter between the Government and the people. We saw on 11 February that the people of Iran are crying out for change, but their protest was brutally repressed.

The question still arises of what the international community can now do, given that Article 2.7 of the charter of the United Nations emphasises that what goes on within the borders of a nation are peculiar to that nation. One thing that we should be doing is revise the charter, because we know now the importance of international opinion in maintaining the almost universal standards incorporated in the charter and the subsequent human rights covenants. But there are two possibilities, of which my noble friend mentioned one.

The first possibility that springs to mind is military intervention, although that is not something that I would seek to recommend, as it would do more harm than good to those who are already the victims of the infringements, and would probably not achieve anything at the end of the day, because what would be left would be a wilderness.

My noble friend suggests economic sanctions. I hope to see our Government recommending economic sanctions at the Security Council, but they would have to be selective. What we would not want to see are sanctions that would make worse the poverty that already exists in Iran where 85 per cent of the population are living below starvation level.

I know there seems to be plenty of time, but those speaking in the gap should keep their remarks to under four minutes, if possible.

I am most grateful. There is the possibility of oil sanctions, which would impinge on the mullahs but would not necessarily make worse the poverty of the people. It would be an enormous benefit to the morale of the people of Iran to know that the world is on their side. We have tended to be mealy-mouthed on this subject. I would like to see something much more forthright from our Government.

My Lords, the regime in Iran is as evil as any regime can be. It is of the most obnoxious kind. Next month, we celebrate International Women’s Day. The brave women and girls of Iran, who face up to the mullahs day by day, are a shining example to us all. I hope that they will be remembered on International Women’s Day. Our Government must bravely oppose this regime. It is obvious that it is anathema to the majority of the Iranian people.

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on a timely debate. I wish to raise the relationship of Iran and the United Nations Human Rights Council. We are now in a somewhat surreal situation, but we should remind ourselves that human rights abuses did not start with the mullahs and the Islamic Republic. The last days of the shah were also pretty grisly, and when two opposition activists were executed a few weeks ago, it was a reminder of what happened then.

It is possible that Iran may soon be elected as a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council because the Islamic Republic is a candidate as part of the Asian regional group. That council is, among other things, charged with making recommendations about human rights violations. As my noble friend said, on 15 February Iran was subject to a periodic review of its human rights record and showed the importance it attaches to that body by sending a large delegation headed by Mohammad Larijani, the brother of the Speaker of the Majlis. If Iran were to be elected in May, it would have serious implications for the credibility of the United Nations Human Rights Council, which is already, and quite properly, assailed from a number of directions. I understand that there are currently five candidates for the four places on the Asian regional group: Qatar, Malaysia, Thailand, the Maldives and Iran. There is, as yet, no indication that any one of the other four will withdraw but, if one were to withdraw, Iran would be elected automatically. It is clearly an important objective of the Islamic Republic to be so, and it is said that it is bringing pressure on at least one of those countries to withdraw its candidature. Thus, we are in a remarkable position. Iran is currently in the dock, alongside other malefactors such as Burma and North Korea, because since 2005 it has excluded all UN rapporteurs investigating human rights violations. Yet it is now, at least possibly, on the verge of becoming a member of the council.

Fairly recently, about three years ago, I had the privilege of meeting Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian woman who won the Nobel Peace Prize. She is now calling for the creation of a UN special rapporteur for Iran. Finally, would my noble friend, when he responds for the Government, indicate the current situation in respect of Iran’s candidature and the prospects of Iran succeeding and therefore becoming a member of the UN Human Rights Council?

My Lords, will my noble friend say how the Government see the connection—

My Lords, the noble Lord should have put his name down in the gap. We have another gap speaker to go who has signified that he will speak.

I made some inquiries earlier and did not know that I had to put my name down.

It should be signified to the speakers in the debate and to the Chair. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord King of West Bromwich, could say his few words—I remind him to keep to three minutes—before the noble Lord.

My Lords, I thank you for allowing me some time. There is no doubt about what is happening in Iran. It has been going on for so many years, with so many people suffering, that the catalogue is endless. The recent report of 17 February by the Human Rights Council clearly said that Iran rejects all calls to release all political prisoners or to accept an international inquiry into the recent violence. It also refused to end the death penalty and said that it will not make torture an offence, so personally I cannot see what else people would want to see to condemn this regime without any conditions at all. We have already seen what is happening in Afghanistan when people have gone in there to help a democratic system. Iran is going even further than that in making life difficult for all Iranians who live there.

It is quite clear that appeasement is not going to work. I was listening to the television yesterday and I think that Mrs Thatcher, when Argentina was invading, said that dictators like those in Argentina never understand the word “appeasement”. She was totally right, and the same applies in this particular case. We should really try to put some sanctions in—not sanctions in name, but in a proper format—so that they can do something to help the Iranians. Obviously, we have also learnt, to our cost, that any military intervention in other countries seldom works. In the case of Iran, the opposition party and the people of Iran are really struggling to make their viewpoint known and are expecting some help from the outside world. The least that we can do is provide that help in sanctions and other measures that the UN should now take along with other countries, so that something can be done.

I congratulate my noble friend on his sustained campaign on human rights, but we are now drifting into a more and more intolerable relationship between internal human rights and the nuclear enrichment problem, with the American military more or less saying, “We will not intervene militarily, but we do not know what Israel will do”, and so on. It is very obvious that there is a vicious circle in which the regime can play the external threat alongside more and more internal repression. How does my noble friend the Minister—along with Russia, America, France and China, et cetera—see the relationship between nuclear non-proliferation, and all those other questions, and the need not to find ourselves in the worst of all possible worlds, where there is more and more internal repression? If there could be a revolution without other consequences, that would be one thing, but could my noble friend put the jigsaw together in some way, however difficult that might be?

The noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, has most wonderfully provided us with an opportunity to discuss human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran today. We are all grateful to him for that.

I am absolutely sure that the situation worries anyone who has any knowledge of the region, and, for those of us who have many friends there, the situation is particularly poignant. Indeed, we in the United Kingdom have very high expectations of Iran to follow the ways of living, the cultural modalities and the diplomatic and civil society rights to which Iran has so successfully signed up over so many years. Iran is one of the most ancient of civilisations, and the UK has a magnificent history of co-operation in all aspects of life. Many citizens of the United Kingdom come from the Islamic Republic of Iran or from the Shah’s regime before then. Indeed, we have a large number of Persian-British citizens who talk about these issues almost daily whenever we meet them.

I must immediately put my cards on the table and say that I do not share the pessimism of the noble Lord, Lord King, about the possibilities of dialogue. Today, the Foreign Affairs Council of the European Union, under the chairmanship of the European High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, is discussing both the nuclear issue and political and human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Our position as a key member of the European Union must be this: that the EU must be willing to consider new restrictive measures against Iran unless it responds favourably to the international community’s offer of engagement on the nuclear issue, and at the same time be willing to seek a negotiated solution with Tehran. In other words, this is not the either/or situation to which the noble Lord, Lord King, has perhaps pinned his colours; this is a situation in which, as a key member of the European Union, we would very much prefer a negotiated solution.

Only a week or so ago, on 11 February, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, who is also Vice-President of the Commission, declared:

“On the anniversary of the Islamic revolution, which for many in Iran should symbolise progress in fundamental freedoms and rights, the European Union notes with great concern that a large number of Iranians have been prevented from expressing their views”.

Earlier, under the Swedish presidency following the elections, the EU perhaps put on record our complete position:

“The EU reiterates its commitment to human rights and democratic values, not least freedom of expression and association. These are universal human rights, and the EU recalls that Iran has committed itself to these rights as a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The EU deplores the violations of freedom of expression and freedom of the press—national as well as international—in connection with the events following elections day. Restrictions remain at an even higher level than before the elections”.

The noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, has already made these points.

I also recall the statement by Robert Cooper, the General-Secretary of the Foreign Affairs Council, which is also how I see the situation:

“We urge Iran to reconsider the opportunity offered by this agreement to meet the humanitarian needs of its people and to engage seriously with us in dialogue and negotiations. This remains our consistent objective”.

These are sad times when we think about human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Condemnation will not necessarily provide us with enough progress to resolve these issues. We need to remember when we talk about and contextualise common values that different points of reference arise in the thinking of those on the other side of the dialogue which bring in connotations quite different to those we intend. Perhaps background knowledge or bitter historical memories may arise. I recall briefing both the Islamic Council of Iran representative, Dr Larijani, when he first came to Brussels, and Javier Solana, the predecessor of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton. I felt concerned before they went into their dialogue that they were talking completely different languages. One great problem is that the Islamic Republic has been so isolated for so long and so far away in every single way. Eurospeak is not easy anyway, but even the language of human rights as we interpret them does not somehow bring in the same connotations and values that we identify.

A false understanding creates different judgments and breeds mistrust in a way that we do not wish it to. Mutual mistrust kills mutual understanding and culminates in exclusion of dialogue and the other, especially if an established, modern block, such as the European Union, wants to set up dialogue with a society which I might describe as in transition to modernity, and which also has in it confusing elements.

Human rights are common currency today in our dialogue. They and democracy are discussed absolutely everywhere. Elections and election monitoring happen everywhere. Yet in all the countries where I have monitored elections and discussed human rights, there is a different understanding. I believe strongly that certain components of human rights are absolutely fundamental, such as the right of freedom of expression or to practice whatever faith you wish freely. They are fundamental human rights to which all nations of the world have signed up, including the Islamic Republic of Iran. Yet their implementation is sometimes understood in different contexts. We have to understand more clearly the cultural identity of the people to whom those rights are being ascribed. In other words, we need to organise our approach towards the Islamic Republic of Iran to make it absolutely clear that we are not dictating. Rather, we are reminding both them and us of our shared cultural identity, which over many decades and generations has brought us closer together.

We believe in human rights, but a society in transition, such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, may prefer to take our particular analysis of what is a human right in a completely different way. The vital thing now, if we are to avoid an absolute confrontation, is to go back to the table and try to work out some sort of context where dialogue can take place. We are discussing human rights in Iran at a time when mistrust between the Muslim world and the West is probably at its height—I hope it goes no higher. This is a difficult time. It is paramount upon us to open up these blocked channels of communication and start again. Britain has a special position: we are part of the European Union and we have the transatlantic alliance. Far from thinking that the time is now passed for proper dialogue and bridge-building internally and externally, it is never more important than now to try again.

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, for initiating this important debate today. Iran is not a country that can be easily caricatured. It is blessed with vast natural resources, the world’s fifth largest global oil reserve and an intelligent population with a long and impressive history and now with a thirst for change and development. Yet it has one of the worst human rights records, ranked 145 out of 167 in the Economist Intelligence Unit’s democracy index.

It is hard to know where to begin in the seemingly unending human rights abuses, with key issues including a total disregard for the right to life, the right to a fair trial, the rights to freedom of speech, religion and equality, the rights to freedom of assembly and expression and the prohibition of torture, to name but a few. There have been reports of extra-judicial killings, scores of civilian deaths during peaceful protests and of the rape, ill treatment and torture of prisoners in detention, many of whom have been detained without just cause, access to justice, medical care or their families.

All this is set to a backdrop of concern over Iran’s nuclear programme, which despite considerable international pressure, including sanctions, continues unabated. Ahmadinejad has said that the Islamic republic will continue to enrich uranium up to the 20 per cent level, which is a significant step on the way to making weapons-grade material. Astonishingly, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, reminded us, Iran is expected to seek membership of the 47-member Human Rights Council in elections in May. On 15 February, Mohammad Larijani, secretary-general of Iran’s high council for human rights, told the United Nations that Iran was,

“in full compliance with the relevant international commitments it has taken on in a genuine and long-term approach to safeguard human rights”.

But Michael Posner, the United States assistant secretary of state, said that Iran’s statement to the council was,

“strikingly at odds with the reality on the ground”.

Furthermore, Iranian officials have ruled out the notion of an external investigation into the state of their domestic human rights. No Human Rights Council official has visited the country since 2005, and numerous requests from special investigators have remained unanswered. As long as this type of woeful behaviour continues, Iran’s human rights record should never disappear from our radar.

Finally, I have five questions for the Minister. First, have the Government any evidence that the scale of protests in Iran is diminishing? Secondly, does he feel that recent clashes between opposition supporters and government forces following the deaths of the dissident cleric, Grand Ayatollah Hoseyn Ali Montazeri, have further undermined the legitimacy of the Iranian regime? Thirdly, what discussions has the Minister had with his Iranian counterparts to end the on-going persecution of the Baha’is in Iran? Fourthly, what discussions have the Government had with Iran and our allies about reducing Iran’s nuclear projects? Finally, what contacts have Her Majesty's Government had with the revolutionary guards?

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, on securing a debate on this important and worthy subject and in particular for the powerful indictment he gave of the deteriorating human rights record of Iran. It rightly continues to command the attention and concern of this House, the international community, and most importantly the people of Iran.

The determination shown by protestors on Iranian streets since the disputed election last June clearly demonstrates their strength of desire for democracy, human rights and fundamental freedoms. Nothing in my brief says whether those are increasing or decreasing but the fact that they continue is very clear. I shall seek to provide more flesh on that skeleton, if I may. The Iranian people have raised genuine concerns, which their Government have a responsibility to address. Sadly, their Government have responded with violence, brutality and oppression, as a number of noble Lords have very succinctly and clearly expressed.

There are two threads running through the debate: one is the Iranian record on human rights and whether sanctions on that issue are appropriate; the second is the separate but important nuclear issue and whether there is a case for sanctions. We are clear that sanctions must lead to a result which, in this case, is to bring Iran to a productive, sensible dialogue on the nuclear issue. For that reason, sanctions under consideration should be targeted, proportionate and reversible should Iran change the direction of its nuclear programme. That is in response to my noble and learned friend Lord Archer. We believe that it is vital to keep the issue separate from human rights to ensure that the sanctions are effective and achievable. We continue to lead the international community in condemning repeated violations of human rights in Iran and we will continue to assess the appropriate forums for further action on human rights. I shall return to that a little later. It is important to bear witness to the efforts of the Government of Iran to force their people into silent acquiescence and yet to acknowledge the very brave refusal of many of those same people to accept that.

On an important point made by my noble friend Lord Corbett, and referred to by a number of other noble Lords, clearly it is not for the British Government to decide who runs Iran; however, we must defend the basic principles of human rights and governance. These are not western principles; they are universal. My noble and learned friend Lord Archer made that point on the desire to investigate further the issue of economic sanctions.

In a very thoughtful contribution, the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, talked about cultural differences. The key is that there are cultural differences in Iran. I think the cultural difference is entirely between those who see a modern, democratic country looking forward—I agree with everything said by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, for it is a country with enormous resources and enormously talented people, who want the opportunity to expand—and those who would look backwards. In that sense the cultural differences are not between Iran and the neighbouring countries, Britain, the UN, the EU or any other country, but concern those within the country. We have seen that since the elections of last year. It is not for the British Government to determine the outcome of elections in that country.

My noble friend Lady Gibson made a point about the role of women in Iran. Women have played a prominent and courageous role in the post-election protests, and dozens connected with the campaign for equality and the Mujahedin movement have been sentenced to imprisonment and flogging on charges of acting against national security and propaganda against the system—something which must, in any circumstances, be condemned. Yet Iran signed up to international commitments, which this regime continues to abuse. The treatment of demonstrators, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, said, bodes ill for any improvement in Iran’s human rights record in the short term. You only have to look at the detention of people during December’s Ashura protests and the February revolutionary commemoration.

The Iranian Government are cynical in their response to the universal periodic review of the Human Rights Council. Its response testifies to a complete state of denial by Iran’s leaders, who pretend that there are no significant problems whatever. Yet observers, not only British observers, would say that the human rights situation in Iran is probably the worst that it has been in 20 years. Freedom of expression has been curtailed, and the Iranian Government have sought to crush any form of dissent from their own people. Newspapers are banned if they carry reports considered unfavourable to the authorities. Access to the internet is sporadic, mobile phone networks are intermittently switched off, and satellites carrying international news have been jammed.

According to the International Press Institute, Iran now leads the world in jailing journalists. On the weekend preceding the 11 February Revolution commemorations, some 65 were reported detained. Those journalists who are tried often receive lengthy prison sentences for attempting to bring information to their fellow citizens and the outside world—information which in most countries of the world, not just western Europe or North America, would be expected to be available. Two recent examples of this persecution include Bahman Ahmadi Amouie, sentenced to seven years and four months and 32 lashes, and Saeed Laylaz, who was sentenced to nine years for maintaining ties with foreigners and working to overthrow the Government—which means that he had contact with someone outside Iran or outside Iran’s leadership.

The 10 days of dawn leading up to the anniversary on 11 February were marked by a chilling campaign of mass arrests, executions and calls for public hangings. This culminated in a heavy security presence on 11 February to deter any opposition protests during the regime’s show of defiance. Since June, countless demonstrators have been beaten on the streets by police and plain-clothed government supporters for peacefully exercising their right to assembly. Many were arrested and have subsequently appeared in televised show trials, making what are widely seen as forced confessions and self-denunciations. The Iranian people are all too aware of the means by which such sham confessions are elicited. Widespread allegations of torture and abuse of detainees have emerged widely.

Iran has committed itself to internationally accepted standards of justice, and has signed international protocols to that effect, which should extend to safeguarding the treatment of detainees and the right to a fair trial, but clearly does not. These show trials are deficient in many ways, and it is all the more concerning that a number of death sentences have been handed down during these trials. On 28 January, the Foreign Secretary expressed his appal at the execution of Mohammad Reza Ali-Zamani and Arash Rahmanipour, sentenced to death during these grotesque parodies of justice. Rahmanipour was just 19 at the time of his execution, but he is by no means the youngest Iranian to have faced the noose. As my noble friend Lord Corbett emphasised, juveniles are not in any way inviolate. Forty juvenile offenders have been executed in Iran since 1999, and an estimated 130 young offenders await a similar fate on death rows. This is simply wrong. It is also in clear violation of internationally accepted norms and standards. The Iranian Government cannot avoid knowing this, not least because they have ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

As my noble friend pointed out, these death penalty issues are of major concern, as Iran is second only to China in the number of people it executes. We know of 388 executions in 2009, at least 100 of which were carried out in the days immediately following the June presidential election. The Iranian government have started 2010 in the same deplorable vein, sentencing a number of protesters to death for the crime of mohareb, acting against God. Many of those convicted of capital offences for non-violent activity in defence of their rights are members of ethnic minority groups, who represent a convenient scapegoat for a Government desperate to deflect responsibility for their failings. Iranian regions with large minority populations, such as the Kurds in the northwest, the Arabs in the west and the Baluchis in the south-east suffer long-standing repression and economic disadvantage.

A number of points were made. First, on the point my noble friend made about the Baha’i faith, it has been subject to mounting persecution since the elections. The authorities seek to vilify the faith, deeming it responsible for recent violence on the Tehran streets. The prolonged incarceration and psychological torment of individuals is unacceptable. It provides a strong example of a flawed judicial process.

The noble Lord, Lord Corbett, raised the question of a British dual national who was in court in Iran earlier this month. When we saw reports of this, our embassy in Iran immediately sought clarification from the Iranian Foreign Minister, who subsequently informed us that no British citizen had been in court on those dates. We pressed that and the Iranian authorities, based on the understanding that an individual may be a British-Iranian dual national, do not recognise that dual nationality and therefore would not accept any British interest in the case.

On the question of the Human Rights Council, raised by my noble friend Lord Anderson, there are five candidates—as he rightly said. We have received no indication that any of the five candidates wish to withdraw. We encourage contested elections to ensure that the human rights credentials of members running for election are under scrutiny. We encourage all UN states to consider the human rights record of candidates when voting. That is set out in the founding resolutions of the Human Rights Council itself.

Finally, my noble friend Lord Lea asked how we deal with the issue of nuclear sanctions. The position is that the IAEA board in November signalled yet again the international community’s concern about Iranian nuclear progress and expressed its regret that Iran refused to meet with the E3+3 countries to discuss its nuclear programme. We are now pushing for multilateral sanctions that will affect decision-makers in the regime, with the aim of bringing Iran to productive and sensible dialogue. We would consider tightening existing sanctions and extending them to other sections targeted in the regime. This probably echoes the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson. We are looking for a change of heart, bringing a dialogue to the table.

Even at this late stage, we hope that the external pressures applied—even by debates in a Committee of your Lordships’ House—will have some impact and that we will move forward so that that great country can be restored. It has had 100 years of blight in one form or another. It is about time it was able to emerge. The democratic movement within Iran is making it clear that it is determined to emerge.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this—

I am sorry, but there is no right of reply to this debate, unless there is a question for the Minister to clarify something.

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have considered co-locating public services in under-used church buildings.

Before the debate proceeds, I remind the Committee that in the event of a vote in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes from the sound of the Division Bell and 10 minutes will be added to the time allotted to the debate.

My Lords, there are nearly 50,000 church buildings in England; 16,200 of them belong to the Church of England, and the rest are mostly owned by the Catholic Church, the free churches and other denominations. Many sit on prime sites at the centre of their communities, yet they are often large and underused. There is a growing trend to return church buildings to their original function not just as places of worship, but places of assembly, service and celebration for the whole of their community. This ancient tradition, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London reminds us in the report Churches and Faith Buildings: Realising the Potential, has in more recent times been overlaid by distaste for mixing sacred and secular, but this dichotomy is increasingly being challenged. This underused asset base is considerable and, because of shortness of time, I want to focus my words today on church buildings, not on properties owned by other faith communities. As socio-economic conditions get tough and public finances are inevitably reduced, we need to relook at this property portfolio.

I know from many years of experience working with churches across the country, today as a non-stipendiary minister in the United Reformed Church, that the users of these buildings can often be small elderly congregations who find it very difficult to maintain or use effectively the asset that history has bequeathed to them. As many noble Lords will know, the Bromley-by-Bow Centre, which I founded in East London, began in such unpromising circumstances. Twenty-six years ago, I arrived as the minister to be greeted by 12 elderly people, all over 70, in a 200-seater church, sitting where they had always sat. It looked as though the dead had been carried out and no one had noticed.

By applying more entrepreneurial business principles and developing partnerships with the business, public and voluntary sectors, today we own a three-acre site that is run by 177 staff. The centre manages over 125 different activities each week, and on site there is a polyclinic, which brings together not just the biomedical model of healthcare but a wider range of other public services through an integrated approach. Two thousand people each week pass through the site, and with our partners, the housing company Poplar HARCA and Leaside Regeneration Ltd, we are putting together a £1 billion regeneration programme on an area of land the same size as the Olympic park on the other side of the road. Today, this church-based project has demonstrated new ways of delivering public services that are breaking new ground and challenging the traditional silos of government whose old-fashioned, expensive, bureaucratic approaches have so often failed to engage effectively with local residents and raise their quality of life.

Three years ago, I was approached by the then general secretary of my small denomination, the United Reformed Church. The church was becoming increasingly concerned about the scale of the problems it was facing with the condition and efficient use of its 1,700 buildings. I was told that many of them were listed and were a drain on limited resources. It was a serious problem that called for a new solution. Three and a half years later, my colleagues and I have created a new property agency for the United Reformed Church, called One Church, 100 Uses, and here I must declare an interest as a director of the company. This community interest company, a social enterprise, is now actively involved in the redevelopment of more than 30 church sites across England. Working with the Church of Scotland, we find that it shares similar problems. Yet underneath the apparent difficulties, we are discovering opportunities. We have discovered the rich rewards that appear when local communities begin to provide services for themselves. Not only does it save money, it creates healthier, more responsible people and stimulates an enterprise economy, which in turn encourages social cohesion. That is not a bad win-win scenario.

The church is fundamental to this outcome. Indeed, it has always played a central role in the care and service of local communities. The idea of the servant church goes back 2,000 years. The successful recent amendments to the Equality Bill illustrate that there is still a stomach in the Christian churches for us to play this important role. In past times, the church was coming to this caring/provider agenda from a position of authority and power. Today, it comes to it from a position of weakness and vulnerability. Perhaps that in itself is an opportunity.

If the church stops hiding behind committees and archdeacons, and instead shows strong business-like leadership, it can play an important neutral role in bringing partners to the table and in opening up conversations with the health provider, the local authority, the school, the housing provider and the shop. We are doing that on a number of sites across the country.

The church, the local school and the health centre are often the only long-term stable players in a local community, as governments change and countless new policies pass our door. Successive new policies can often further fragment local partnerships in practice and can prevent positive action. But few Ministers stay around long enough to observe the practical consequences of all this activity.

Politicians on all sides have been talking the language of joined-up thinking for some time now, but often it is not happening where it is most needed. Building partnerships is a complicated business, especially given the contradictory and disconnected commissioning processes that are in place. The connections and partnerships that could bring these buildings to life, deepen community cohesion and use limited funds far more efficiently, are just not happening. I could illustrate this in Glasgow, Bradford, Oldham, Gainsborough and Poole in Dorset, but there is not time. Believe me, it is a serious issue.

After 60 years of the state promising and often failing to provide, let us encourage choice and diversity. Let us not assume that the public sector will deliver it all. It will not. In hard economic times people have to huddle together for warmth. In rural communities, the pub, church, post office and village hall are often not sustainable on their own, which is why there are now 12 post offices in Anglican church buildings and in one of our developments we are looking at a police base in the church.

Perhaps I may describe just one example of a working partnership on the ground where we hope to develop some of these themes; namely, Harmans Water, Bracknell. The community centre across the square from the church closed due to health and safety concerns. A small library next to the church is open only 16 hours a week. A new housing development brings some Section 106 funding and a whole new community. The church, which is home to both the United Reformed Church and Anglican congregations, already hosts a range of community services and has insufficient space. With the support of the local authority and Bracknell Forest Homes—the local housing association—our plan is to build a new centre for the community with a wide range of community facilities, services and a new library. There will still be a librarian for probably only 16 hours a week, but it is hoped that the library, which perhaps will be next to a new cafe, will be accessible for more hours with self-service and will be joined by many other information providers. The police want a help point and the local children’s centre, the primary school and the college need a kitchen where families can learn about healthy living, et cetera.

So what are the key messages I should like the Minister to take from this debate? First, the credit crunch has caused many large-scale regeneration projects to stall. I know that because I am involved in one of them. However, often smaller-scale local developments involving church buildings and the clusters of buildings around them are being missed. Developments such as this are less risky and can provide a real opportunity to lift the local quality of an area. But they can happen only if everyone huddles together and pools their budgets.

To grasp these kinds of local opportunities we require focused leadership in the public sector and the churches. These projects do not happen by chance. We also need practical politicians experienced in the workings of the world. Church-based developments can provide them with an opportunity to redefine the role of the politician as the practical person and the bringer of partners to the table. This is where our politics will be renewed; not here in Westminster.

New Labour says that it believes in community, but this Government have often produced lots of strategies, policies, committees and legislation rather than getting involved in the practical realities of a local neighbourhood. I see little evidence that any future Government have woken up to this opportunity either. Politicians need to be grounded in real projects; the micro and the macro are connected, as any business person knows. I seek to present to the Minister today an opportunity that can enable us to use limited public funds more efficiently, to bring life to underused assets and to create social cohesion and a spirit of enterprise in some of our most vulnerable communities.

Finally, I encourage the Minister to take a closer look at these local opportunities to use public money more effectively. I ask Her Majesty’s Opposition whether it is not developments such as this that provide a practical opportunity in communities to explore what statements about a post-bureaucratic world might actually mean in practice.

I thank the Minister for taking part in this debate and the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, for a helpful discussion of this subject, and I look forward to hearing what they both have to say.

My Lords, I venture into this field as someone who has been a Methodist superintendent minister for more years than I care to remember. I am still an active supernumerary minister on the local Methodist circuit, and I welcome the opportunity to think things through which the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, has given me this evening.

There are many, many answers to the question because buildings, areas and congregations differ a great deal. Many church buildings, as we have already heard, are already in community use in one way or another. Three years ago, I went to close one old Methodist chapel in the village of Glan Conwy and found 16 people there. They did not want it closed because on Monday it was the place for the playgroup, as it was on Thursday. The local choir met there on Tuesday, and Wednesday night was bingo night. I do not think that John Wesley would have approved, but we just have to accept that this all helped in the community.

Other things happen in our churches: arts classes, language centres, play schools, elderly citizens’ meeting places, youth clubs and police help points. I do not often look on the dark side—I may be known as a bit of an optimist—but I can see a dark side with which I cannot come to terms. We hear that there are many opportunities in town centres, but rural areas are different. Who wants a chapel that is in a field and literally miles from anywhere? There is no real opportunity to use such a chapel for a community or government purpose.

I know that English Heritage, and Cadw in Wales, are aware of the various situations and how the listing of buildings can create difficulties—we have already heard about some of them—in planning, in the change of use, in the sale of property, in maintenance costs and in costs to make over a building. The development of church buildings can sometimes be restricted because of listing regulations.

The local Methodist church in the Conwy Valley village of Penmachno was listed about three years before it was decided to close it. It had been a thriving church in a quarrying, rural area, but as the quarries had closed and farm labourers were few there was nothing else to do except close it. Yet it was a listed building and after all these years is still not adapted for any other use, because they are fighting planning and listing regulations—immense problems for purchasers who would want to make it into a home. In many rural areas, I honestly do not see either central or local government having any realistic alternative for the use of church buildings. Populations are few and widely scattered. They commute to work, if there is any and if they are of an age to work—after all, we have a very ageing population in our villages. The community that was not able to support a chapel is also the community that faces a lack of vision. I do not have a vision of what we could realistically use those buildings for.

We know about falling numbers at services. There are few to keep a local church or chapel going. Possibly, it is a denomination that is unable to provide pastoral care or ministerial oversight. In another chapel that I am thinking of, there is one officer left—and that officer is of a good age and is not able to take responsibility for that building. He will, possibly, open the church door once a month, but they cannot cope; even with ministerial oversight, there are not the people there to shoulder the burdens and responsibilities.

I do not know whether you have been phoned up at two or three o’clock in the morning to hear, “Ah, Mr Roberts, the slates have been blown off the roof of the chapel”. That would be because they have landed in somebody else’s back garden. What do you do? I must say that I did not go to attend to it in those dark hours. There is nobody there to take responsibility, but the tiny congregation sometimes does not want to close the chapel. Perhaps they were christened or married there; they have spent all of their lives there, and it will break their hearts but there is no alternative.

I would like to see churches of all denominations working together—and they are, much more than in the past—to solve some of those questions. It has happened; we know that some church buildings are used by two or three different denominations. Yet then, instead of that one individual having to face the burden, we need some outside advice. I do not know whether we could work together—it must be on an ecumenical basis—because they struggle with, “How can we afford to repair the roof? How can we even afford the insurance premium?”. I do not know whether some other churches are like my own Methodist church; some communities with a congregation of six have an insurance premium on their chapel of £1,200 a year. They cannot possibly meet that sort of demand, so I suggest that the Government could somehow lead on this. We want expert guidance, helping sometimes to even take the burden of the decision to close from the shoulders of the local congregation. The painful decisions can be shared, but someone other than me must look at whether there is a way to tackle insurance premiums.

A younger membership with more energy and vitality might be able to maintain buildings and have the vision to adapt demand to the 21st century. I know that it happens in some places. Only last week, I was in one local church converted from a warehouse where it was standing room only. That was wonderful, but the previous Sunday, a week yesterday, I gave the closing service in a little village chapel in a part of Llandudno called Penrhynside. When I became a minister there, many years ago, there were six places of worship. One by one, they have closed—I am going to try to do something about this—and the last service in the village was held a week yesterday. It was very sad, but the people keeping it going were all over 80 years of age, and there was a limit to what they were able to do. So there is a different pattern. People, not buildings, make churches. But if the building is in a state of disrepair or needs special attention, we have to meet that need. Of the six chapels in the little village, one has become the village hall. Three chapels have become houses. The one that I closed the other day has not yet decided what it will do—it will probably be put on the open market—and one has been demolished. You need only one village hall, not five or six. They cannot all be adapted. Perhaps local councils or the Welsh Assembly Government can give some leadership. But, in many instances, I do not think that there is any realistic proposal that could save our buildings.

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, for bringing this issue to our attention. It must be 35 years since, as a youngish curate in east London, I found myself in a post-war restored Victorian church that seated 1,100 people. On my first Sunday morning, I counted 48 people in the congregation and more than 1,000 empty seats. We spent the next five years working hard on completely rebuilding that church and redeveloping the site. Now, there is a multi-purpose centre with provision for sheltered accommodation for the elderly, a general practitioner facility, language teaching for Bengali women and counselling rooms, as well as a place of worship.

That set me out on a path which I have sought to follow in my ministry over the years since. In the 1980s, I found myself as the parish priest in Canvey Island. There was a transplanted east London population of 40,000 people, many of whom were young families detached from their extended family networks in London and often with very severe family pressures and difficulties. We adapted the church buildings, in partnership with Essex County Council social services department and the Children’s Society, into a family centre which provided all kinds of provision for needy, young families. That provision has endured for 25 years.

The issue which the noble Lord has brought to our attention is very close to our hearts. For most of its history, the Church of England has had a vision for its church buildings as the centres of community life. Medieval church buildings were designed to be places of education, social care and community cohesion. Part of our mission as churches is to work among and for the benefit of the whole local community, and not just for the benefit of those who attend. The two biggest assets which the churches bring to this task are our buildings and volunteers. As has been mentioned, the Church of England has 16,200 parish churches across the country. In many places, they are not only the oldest public space, but the only remaining public space once the shop, post office, school, pub and so on have disappeared.

The Church of England, for which I speak, is especially well placed to serve as a potential service delivery point as it has a presence in every community. Its unique legal status means that its churches provide a service to all who live within the parish—whether people want to get married or to use its facilities for funerals or in other ways. My colleague, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, in his opening presentation to the recent Church of England synod debate on the potential of church buildings, said:

“We are the custodians of a countrywide infrastructure which would take billions”—

of pounds—

“to replicate and which has huge potential at a time of financial stringency”.

There is much research available to show that churches, as well as other faith groups, have a special contribution to make. They are deeply rooted in community life, able to reach out to the most vulnerable groups and are well placed to provide high-quality local public services. In recent years, many surveys have been carried out—funded by regional development agencies, government offices and local authorities—to map the contribution of faith groups in their local communities.

One such survey has been done in my home city of Leicester and demonstrates that more than 400 different community groups, sponsored by the various faith communities in a highly ethnically diverse city, are reaching the most hard-to-reach communities across the city. The Church of England is already playing its part, and churches are increasingly becoming vital partners in building strong communities. Examples have come to the Cathedral and Church Buildings Division of the Church of England of the many varied and different ways that church buildings are being used by and for the community. They include churches as locations for major civic events; as locations for social and community activities, including support for the elderly, the homeless, asylum seekers and so on; and as places of education, attracting school visits, UK online centres, Sure Start centres, nurseries, adult education centres, classrooms, after-school clubs, libraries, heritage centres and conference centres. These are all examples of provision already in place. Post offices, doctors’ and dentists’ surgeries, health centres, gymnasia, community shops, police stations, cafes and farmers’ markets have already been mentioned.

In my own diocese of Leicester, the St Philip's Centre is at the forefront of resourcing the church and public and private sector organisations, including the police, teachers and health workers, in faith literacy, a vital skill in public service today. It is based in an inner-city church in a largely Muslim neighbourhood. In the Church of Christ the King in Beaumont Leys, a white outer estate, the church is used extensively by groups supporting large numbers of transient asylum seekers and other destitute people. Leicester Cathedral plays host to the Welcome Project, which assists asylum seekers, and is presently planning for a major new diocesan centre reaching out to those not in employment, education or training. All these activities are taking place in living churches that are still parish churches, part of the parochial church system and still first and foremost places of worship.

The 2005 parochial returns register found that 44 per cent of churches now have lavatories and 37 per cent have kitchen facilities. Four years on, the figures are likely to be considerably higher. Such amenities enable churches to host a wide range of community events. The Pastoral (Amendment) Measure 2006, which came into force in January 2007, allows the lease of part of a consecrated church building, provided the church continues primarily to be used as a place of worship. This enables longer-term occupancy by outside groups and allows them to meet additional funding conditions. This is a role that we want to encourage national, regional and local authorities and other bodies to recognise, and it is a role that we are encouraging our churches to welcome, for example, by encouraging parishes fully to engage with the development of their local community plan and dioceses to participate in local strategic partnerships, local area agreements and local action groups. There is an increasing number of area or regional Christian and multi-faith groupings, as well as individuals at diocesan level, already actively participating in LSPs and other local, community and voluntary sector networks and alliances. This is beginning to create new partnerships and give us increased access to a more level playing field in terms of access to existing and new areas of funding. This in turn has strengthened the church’s capacity to develop the use of its buildings for worship and mission to the wider community.

However, we cannot continue to sustain all this activity or reach the full potential of church buildings as community resources without increased support from various partners, which must include government at all levels. That is why this debate is so important. The 2004 report, Building Faith in our Future, set out to celebrate church buildings and the contribution they make to their local communities. It called upon government and the community and voluntary sector to work with us in partnership. The report sets out many ways in which those partnerships can be built.

In January this year, St Peter's Church, Peterchurch, in the diocese of Hereford completed a project to refurbish the interior of this grade 1 church. Obviously, it will not be possible for every church to be so adapted nor, due to location or other factors, will it be possible to find such important extended uses but, where they arise, it is vital that we pursue the possibilities. By using these buildings to their full potential, they can become a real resource for their local communities. They can build social capital, serve community building and be a vital resource to the people of England. They are precious to the whole community and an asset beyond price that deserves all our interest and investment.

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, for initiating this debate and raising a very interesting and important subject. It has certainly stimulated in me considerable thought. Prompted by the debate, I have looked at and learnt more about the organisation of which he is part—One Church, 100 Uses—and was taken with the excellent and innovative work it is doing and the many excellent projects which he did not have time to develop. In this debate, I would have been more interested to hear of some of the problems to which he alluded but also did not have time to expand on. Here, we need to address problems and find solutions rather than simply congratulate ourselves on a number of excellent projects, wonderful though that is.

I reread the 2008 report referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, entitled Churches and Faith Buildings: Realising the Potential. I hope that the Minister will be able to bring us more up to date on some of the government actions which were recommended in that government report. The report was primarily about enabling faith groups, and the third sector in general, to learn about and have better access to funding. It is a hugely important subject, which I do not diminish at all, but it was rather less full on how to get access to the levers of power, particularly at local level.

Here I declare my interest, not as one with diminishing congregations but as a London borough councillor for 36 years—I still am a London borough councillor. I have rather different experience from my noble friend Lord Roberts. In London, we do not have too many chapels in the middle of fields but we have an increasing number of underused church buildings of all denominations where there is very real potential. The noble Lord, Lord Mawson, referred to considerably underused property assets. They are more than property assets: I think we all recognise that churches are very much more than simply buildings and often are very historic buildings. They are, always have been and always should be the centre of a local community. The initiative to put churches at the centre of communities more than perhaps they have been in recent years is greatly to be welcomed.

We in local government know that there are bad times ahead and that, whoever wins the general election, we shall be facing a very severe financial time over the next few years, probably the like of which I have not known in my 36 years. There have been some good times and a few bad times, such as when Anthony Crosland told me, within a year of my being elected, that the party was over, and it has been like that ever since. We are in for some difficult times which will require all of us in local government to think outside the box and to be very much more innovative in our approach to how we provide services for our communities. It is of particular interest to me that we should be much more innovative in the way in which we engage with our communities. In a period of financial cutbacks it will be especially difficult but important to engage with the communities, otherwise the mismatch and the disengagement will be all the more severe.

One point that perhaps strays a little from buildings and is much more about the churches is how local government engages with faith groups and churches and vice versa. In my view, faith groups should always be represented effectively in local strategic partnerships—I think the Minister would agree that that is the case on good LSPs. I stress the word “effectively”; they should be there not simply because it is good to have them listed among the membership but because they can play an effective role as partners. Inevitably, there is always a mismatch between the statutory partners with all their resources, even in hard times, and any community or voluntary group that simply does not have that infrastructure readily available to it.

Nevertheless, a good partnership will work as a good partnership. That will inevitably lead to more innovative thinking, new and different ways of providing services for and with the local community, and to returning church buildings very much to the sort of use for which they were originally intended, as the noble Lord has said—not just in their important role as a centre of worship but in the equally important role as a centre of the community.

I have two particular interests in the way in which some of this might happen. I have the responsibility in my local authority for the public library service, which is a great interest of mine. Indeed, I ought to declare an interest as vice-chair of the All-Party Group on Libraries, Literacy and Information Management. At all times, but particularly at financial times, the library service, particularly branch libraries, come under enormous pressure. There is a great fear that they will be in the forefront of financial cuts, and sometimes it is right and appropriate that branch libraries should close simply because they are in the wrong place. I would prefer to say that they should be relocated rather than closed.

I wonder whether in some cases relocation to an underused church building could be very appropriate for a branch library. I do not have time to wax eloquent—if I could—on libraries, but they are very much more than just places for books and the use of the internet, important though those core businesses are. Several branch libraries in my own borough are self-service—the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, referred to self-service libraries—enabling them to stay open for much longer.

I shall give two brief examples. In the first couple of months of this year libraries in my borough have been issuing freedom passes in London to anyone over 60 who wishes to renew their freedom pass. My borough is one of the few that are using public central and branch libraries to do this, and the libraries have been packed with people who have not been to a library since they were children and who note that libraries have changed just a little in the past 50 or 60 years. Many of them are going on to use libraries. That may be an innovative use for some underused church buildings. At the other end of the age scale, we use our library every Friday evening for what would otherwise be called a youth centre. This Friday is live music and open mic night for young performers, which is rather different from the traditional image of the “shh” public library.

The other issue to which I want to allude is very much a London issue and on a rather larger scale. Over the next seven years, London education authorities will have to find an additional 50,000 primary school places. That is a huge problem. Normally we talk about a funding problem—the Minister may be pleased to know that I will not allude to that particularly—but this is also a space problem. In many schools, there is the physical problem of where to put additional classes, even if you can afford them. If you add to that my party’s aspiration for smaller class sizes, it is even more of an issue. It is clearly not possible or appropriate for many church buildings to accommodate primary school classes, but it must be possible for a number of church buildings to do so provided that the buildings are properly built and designed for use as a classroom and are properly equipped. Any problems can be overcome, and probably more cheaply, than by trying to build new classrooms.

Those are two brief examples. We know that we are in hard times and that local government will need to be a lot more creative and innovative in its thinking over the coming years, and I hope very much that it will start to work much more closely with the churches, particularly in respect of the huge underused property asset to which the noble Lord referred.

I was beginning to feel inadequate as this debate unfolded. The first two speakers were ministers and the third a Bishop, so it was of huge comfort when the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said that he was a councillor. I am not a minister and do not think that the Minister is a minister, as his training is as an accountant. So I make that the church three and the laymen three.

I thank and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, not only on introducing this debate, but for the excellent work that he has already done on co-location of public services and utilising underused churches. His portfolio is truly outstanding, and I hope that we can develop and expand his project across the UK. There are thought to be 46,500 churches, chapels and meeting houses in the United Kingdom, of which 37,000 are in England alone, so the scope for co-location of public services is enormous.

Many churches are used, if they are lucky, for a couple of days a week for various services, and others maybe once a week. The church in my village in Norfolk is used once a month; otherwise, it remains locked. Maybe there is a difference in rural areas, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. Examples of the successes that we have heard of this evening are all about urban churches; so there is probably a difference due to the size of the communities involved. It may be easier to do it in urban areas than in small rural parishes. But there is scope there too, no doubt.

There are many other more everyday co-uses for church buildings, such as cafes, cyber-cafes, shops and farmers’ markets; they can also be used for cultural activities, such as exhibitions, drama performances, lectures, rehearsals and concerts; or for community services such as mother and toddler groups, playgroups and drop-ins for youth groups or elderly people, to name but a few. Some churches may not like the idea of having a commercial activity under their roof, but there are many non-commercial activities to think about. At a time when our essential public buildings and services are being scaled down or closed altogether, we are fast losing these vital spaces and opportunities for our daily activities, or to just come together to meet and talk. Co-locating key public services on the same premises offers benefits to service users in terms of lower journey times to get to a service that they require, and to providers, in that they would benefit from reduced overhead costs, such as the duplication of rent and building maintenance.

Often churches are on large, central plots of land, which can be used and developed to provide vital community activities. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, has developed a garden centre on excess church land. Many churches support that idea, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester said. In 2004, the Church of England published a Green Paper on its ideas for facilitating such a development, and in March 2009 the Government outlined a blueprint to help churches and local authorities work closer together to deliver a greater range of community services. What progress has been made since then? Maybe this question would be better directed at the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, but can the Minister say of the 16,000 Church of England churches, how many have started offering public services and what measures have been taken to engage other denominations and faiths so that they can open up their places of worship to local communities? What is being done to ensure that church and public alike are properly informed and supported about these possibilities?

Sadly, we now live more and more in a secular society. The church used to be one of the hubs of the community, a vital component in community cohesion. The church today is continually looking for ways to engage with its communities. Surely this would be an excellent way to achieve that and one way to bring the church back to the centre of community life. This might ruffle the feathers of the right reverend Prelate but all too often, especially in the rural areas that I see, the church is rather distinct from the communities. That is sad.

The best if not the only way of achieving the required results is probably at a grass-roots level. At my church in Norfolk, for example, there would need to be discussions between the parish council, the parish priest and maybe the local school. As chairman of our parish, I have heard nothing of the Government’s plans to help churches and local authorities work together. Maybe I missed it. Have the Minister’s plans filtered down to parish levels and, if not, should he not ensure that this happens?

As for the church, the local vicar is in a difficult position. Presumably he would need to ask permission from his superiors for other approved activities to take place in his church. In the same vein, if the bishops think it would be a good idea, as I believe they do, and a good way of bringing communities together in the church and utilising the church facilities, should they not ensure that this policy filters down to parish-priest level? It may well do. I am looking now at the right reverend Prelate. What better way is there to get the church back into the centre of the community?

Some churches and cathedrals already provide venues for many other uses, as we have heard. Yet the percentage is too small. The portfolio of the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, is testament to the potential success of this programme. We on these Benches support any proposal aimed at developing communities and bringing people closer together. The co-location of public services in underused church buildings is a great idea if properly thought out and supported. I hope the Government will support it.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, for introducing this debate on public services and church buildings. As others have done, I acknowledge the work he has done at the Bromley by Bow Centre and the innovative projects in which he has been involved, some of which he outlined this evening. I also recognise the expertise that has been available to us in this short debate. I understand that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester goes back 25 years with Canvey Island.

The noble Lord, Lord Mawson, outlined some difficulties particularly with larger regeneration projects, with a slightly ambitious proposition that we should somehow redefine the role of politicians in all this. I accept that politicians should have a more practical engagement at local community level. The noble Lord said we should look closely at opportunities that might be going amiss. Perhaps we can find time outside this debate for a discussion of this, as I am interested in feeding that back to colleagues.

I begin by referring to an earlier debate on a similar theme. In October 2008, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford introduced a debate entitled Welfare: Churches and Faith Communities by asking Her Majesty’s Government,

“what future role they envisage for churches and faith communities in voluntary sector and welfare delivery partnerships”.

In his opening remarks he stated an important principle:

“this is not simply a pragmatic issue about how, in times of scarce resources, we cajole agencies such as the churches into filling the increasing number of gaps in the welfare state. Churches and voluntary agencies are not a backstop for the public sector”.—[Official Report, 9/10/08; col. 363.]

Let me put this another way. At the heart of every tradition of belief is an integrity that cannot be simply co-opted to serve the ends of the powers that be at any one time or place. If government, national or local, is to work in partnership with faith communities, respect for this integrity is a fundamental principle, but it would be unfortunate, to say the least, if this principle were misinterpreted to mean that there can be no common ground between the public sector and faiths. Of course there can.

All communities need resources if they are to be thriving, cohesive and sustainable. They need reliable public services, particularly during such times that we have been through recently, when economic conditions are less favourable. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, this is the time to be innovative, particularly at local authority level. The days are gone when the public sector could deliver virtually all these services in a top-down manner. If services are to meet the needs of communities, communities themselves have to be engaged. Faith groups are deeply rooted in their local communities and are often better placed than public agencies to reach people who might otherwise be marginalised. This engagement is a great deal more than mere consultation; it is sometimes correctly referred to as co-production.

I began by referring to the important principle of respect for the integrity of faith communities. I now want to stress another principle at the heart of faith communities—the principle of service to others, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, referred. This can be about working for a better quality of life in a local community or it can be about global issues of justice or the environment. It is on the basis of this principle that the public sector can build a working partnership with faith communities.

There is a straightforward conclusion to be drawn from all that I have said so far. We cannot afford to overlook the important community assets represented by churches and other faith buildings, and we certainly cannot afford to allow them to be underused. I think that the right reverend prelate referred to the fact that they are custodians of a significant infrastructure.

A key element of my department’s current partnership with faith communities is the shared desire to build strong and positive interfaith relations. We are currently taking forward the major programme of work and investment announced in Face to Face and Side by Side, published in July 2008. It aims to release the greatest public benefit from the resources of faith communities through partnership working, especially through partnerships between faith communities and the public sector. Face to Face and Side by Side recognises that buildings are among the most significant resources of faith communities. I quote from Section 2 of the framework on shared spaces for interaction and social action:

“With 54,000 places of worship in the United Kingdom, faith communities are essential providers of sacred and secular spaces for people to interact and pursue shared activities. These spaces are found in all parts of all our communities from large cities to small rural villages. They are used by local people for local events and activities”.

We have heard of a huge array of things that go on in faith buildings in our short debate this evening. They,

“often function as the primary resources and buildings for community spaces and essential meeting places”.

Much of what I want to say today simply expands on this quotation, drawing out in more detail its implications and setting out what is being done to tackle the challenges that lie behind it. There certainly are challenges to be faced if the full potential of the resource is to be realised. A key challenge is the relationship between faith communities and the wider third sector. The third sector itself can often face barriers when working in partnership because of inadequate understanding of its scope and diversity. The work of faith communities is no different, ranging for example from a neighbourhood-level lunch club once a week to nationwide support for people with problems such as homelessness and drug addiction. Without their stock of buildings across the country in every community, as well as dedicated volunteers, faith communities would not be in a position to deliver this impressive range of services.

The Government have continued to invest in the capacity of the third sector over recent years, especially through the programmes of the Office of the Third Sector, which are worth more than £515 million over the 2007 CSR year. It is vital that this investment reaches faith communities, who are, simply and straightforwardly, eligible for it; I must emphasise that to eliminate any doubt. This principle has underpinned an important recent paper on faith buildings. Churches and Faith Buildings: Realising the Potential, which has been referred to already, was published jointly last March by the Church of England and five government departments. It confirmed the position of faith groups as significant contributors to society, and outlined the different sources of funding and other resources which faith communities could draw on to ensure that the potential of faith buildings is realised.

One important source of funding that faith communities could apply to to support similar approaches to the use of their buildings is the DCLG’s Communitybuilders programme. That provides support for community anchors: organisations that operate locally, at the heart of their communities, and are able to respond holistically to local problems and challenges. Through the Communitybuilders programme we are investing £70 million to help anchor organisations work towards long-term financial stability, so that they can meet the needs of their communities for generations to come. Clearly, many faith buildings may be seen as community anchors.

However, central and local government funding for community-focused organisations will be increasingly strained in the current economic climate. For this reason, my department wishes to make it easier for all community groups to develop the resources and finance they need to make better use of their buildings for the good of their local communities. The DCLG recently launched its community enterprise strategic framework, outlining the department’s direction of travel in supporting community-focused organisations. Community enterprises represent a distinct and important part of the third sector. They operate not just as a not-for-profit deliverer of local services, investing any surplus back into their communities, but as focal points for local people to identify the unmet needs of their communities and to respond with help from their own income-generating activities.

Many faith buildings already host community enterprises—cafés, room hire and nurseries, for example—all of which have enhanced the community and provided important income for the building. We want to see that approach extended. Just this month, it was reported that a church in Carmarthenshire is looking to run its own tenpin bowling alley, would you believe. Not only will it be used to create important local jobs, but the profit that it makes will allow the church to undertake important community projects, such as developing a food bank and debt counselling.

Money cannot do everything; we also need to equip people by helping to change cultures and changing the way people think. Churches and faith communities have to learn how to work effectively with the public sector, and vice versa. This culture change cannot simply be decreed, either by the public sector or by faith communities. Like any relationship, it has to be worked at. We have consistently promoted that key message, not least in supporting the publication by the Church Urban Fund of Believing in Local Action alongside our Face to Face and Side by Side. Believing in Local Action uses practical case studies to demonstrate the benefits of partnership between local third-sector organisations and local faith groups. It shows consistently that local faith communities are better equipped to work in public partnerships, and therefore have better access to appropriate resources when they align themselves with wider third-sector networks.

As I have said, this is a two-way process. I want to affirm the efforts that faith communities are making to equip themselves, such as the Church of England’s Crossing the Threshold programme, which is aimed at helping dioceses and parishes to get the best from their buildings for wider community use. It began with a conference in the Hereford diocese last November, where one of my officials was the main speaker and a toolkit was launched, aimed at supporting parishes in beginning the process of developing their churches as a resource for the whole community. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, will see that as one route into helping parishes to understand and engage in the process.

My officials are also currently planning a conference to take place next month, whose working title is “Faith and Social Action: Innovation and Expertise”. The conference will highlight examples of good practice and use workshops to explore some case studies in greater depth. I am pleased to say that two of the case studies deal explicitly with public service delivery by churches: the Springfield Centre in Birmingham and St Peter’s, Peterchurch, in the diocese of Hereford. Incidentally, St Peter’s is a listed building and English Heritage is very much involved in encouraging and helping in these situations.

The intention is to produce a conference report that will be a resource both for faith communities and for the public sector, supporting them to co-operate effectively in delivering the services that local communities need and deserve. One of the main speakers will tackle directly the collocation of services, such as village shops and post offices, in churches, especially in rural areas, and will show how his own organisation, the Plunkett Foundation, is offering resources to churches wishing to go down this social enterprise road.

I shall try to deal with one or two of the points raised, but I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not deal with them all. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, talked about buildings, areas and congregations differing. We very much recognise that, which is why local engagement is important. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that having faith communities as an effective part of the local strategic plan is entirely appropriate and should be encouraged. One can understand the dilemmas when places of worship could be closed. As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said, people have memories and do not want churches to close. The right reverend Prelate talked about all the uses that are being made of living churches; we do not have to empty a church for this to happen.

The right reverend Prelate talked about the vision of the Church of England to be at the heart of the community—the whole of the community. That is supremely important. He referred to the 16,200 churches, but I am afraid that I do not have any data for the noble Earl on how many of those are engaged in some form of community use. The idea of public library services being collocated seems an interesting example. Then there is the issue of urban areas that are running out of spaces for new school places. There are some interesting concepts there. It is part of the theme of having an innovative approach, which will certainly be the watchword for the local government.

The LGA completed a survey of local authorities’ engagement with faith groups in 2008 to inform, update and resource local authorities to work with faith and interfaith groups in their area. It is hoped that the next step towards producing this updated resource will be taken in the near future. Both the LGA and the Improvement and Development Agency are actively engaged in this. There was the interesting example from the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, of the church that is used just once a month. His concern about the rural community was not so much that the building was isolated in a field but that the church was isolated from his community. He was talking on the same theme of the benefits of collocating services.

I hope I have demonstrated that the Government are actively supporting the collocation of public services in churches and other faith buildings, both in principle and in practice. The Government have no magic wand that will transform things overnight. Indeed, I have argued that a top-down approach would be counterproductive. We are not complacent; we acknowledge that more can be done. We will continue to work with faith communities in the spirit of partnership, which as well as being about mutual support is equally about mutual challenge. In doing so, we must keep before us the aim of partnership, which is not about scoring points off one another but about improving outcomes for local communities.