asked Her Majesty's Government:

What bonus payments are to be paid to members of the Armed Farces who have served in Kosovo.

My Lords, no specific bonuses will be paid to service personnel who have served in Kosovo. However, on 20th December 1999 my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced enhancements to the payments available during separation. These are to be introduced shortly and I am happy to tell the House that all those who served in Kosovo on paid, separated service will be eligible for them.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, is it not the case that the Government have pressed the pay review body for a payment of £1,000 to all personnel who served in Kosovo; that the review body has insisted that that money should be paid to all servicemen and women serving overseas; and that the amount involved will be taken away when a full-scale pay review is carried out in the course of this year?

No, my Lords, I do not believe that that is quite right. The expected cost of the provision for the previous two years—the payments will be backdated—all the way across the three armed services is something in the region of £6 million. Of course, those payments directly attributable to service in either Bosnia or Kosovo will come out of the central reserve. It is a complicated formula; backdating is involved. I believe that the Armed Forces will be pleased to receive the bonus payments as well as the backdating and the shorter period of eligibility introduced by my right honourable friend.

My Lords, I am totally and utterly confused. Does the Minister not agree that, as a matter of principle, it is entirely wrong that soldiers, sailors and airmen should be paid more for doing their duty under active service conditions? Surely the whole principle is that they should be paid a proper wage with an "X-factor" to take into account the dangers they may meet and the discipline they endure and serve under. Therefore it is quite wrong to say that they would receive extra money. Of course they must not receive less money, and I hope the Minister agrees that if there was a difference between what they were paid in Germany because of a local overseas allowance and what they were paid in Kosovo because that local overseas allowance had been removed, that difference should indeed disappear. But I hope that the principle that they are paid to be fighting soldiers, sailors and airmen will not be forgotten.

My Lords, I agree entirely with what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, says. The fact is that what is known as the X- factor is taken into account in service pay. The noble and gallant Lord will know that that amounts to about 12 per cent of the pay of our servicemen and women. The enhancements announced by my right honourable friend were to the allowances made for paid, separated service. It is not a question of paying our servicemen and women when they are on active fighting service, but of paying them when they are undergoing the particular problems of being separated from their home base. As I hope I made clear in my Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, the payment is not directly attributable to service either in Kosovo, Bosnia, or anywhere else where servicemen and women may be actively engaged; it is because of the separation from their home base.

My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister, but does the X-factor not take into account an element of separation, of which I certainly experienced an enormous amount during my service in the forces?

My Lords, the X-factor takes into account the fact that servicemen and women throughout their lives may be disrupted; they make have to work in a number of different bases. It does not take into account the fact that, from time to time, they may be separated from their current home base. It is for that reason that the payment, now enhanced by my right honourable friend the current Secretary of State, was introduced on 1st December 1997 by my former right honourable friend George Robertson, now my noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Which elements of the New Agenda Coalition resolution, approved by the United Nations General Assembly on 13th October 1999, they found unacceptable; and why.

My Lords, the resolution to which my noble and learned friend refers contains many elements that we strongly support, including its calls for faster progress towards multilateral nuclear disarmament. But it also included proposals which go beyond the internationally agreed way forward; for example, the conclusion of a treaty giving negative security assurances to all non-nuclear weapons states, before that issue has been properly discussed in Geneva.

We had a specific difficulty with the proposal that nuclear warheads be removed from delivery vehicles. We examined that question in detail in the Strategic Defence Review and concluded that it was incompatible with a credible submarine-based deterrent.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, which was substantially more informative than the uncharacteristically dismissive answer which she gave me last week. Does she appreciate that at stake is the confidence of the non-nuclear powers in the whole non-proliferation process and that at the forthcoming review conference, the whole process may collapse? Even if the Government are undismayed that 121 countries disagree with us, will they, in future negotiations, at least consider it possible that the American Senate may be wrong?

My Lords, perhaps I may say straight away that if I appeared to be dismissive to my noble and learned friend, then I wholeheartedly apologise. All noble Lords will know that my noble and learned friend must be commended for the resilience and persistence with which he has pursued this quite right issue. But I must reiterate that Her Majesty's Government are entirely committed to disarmament. We have made that absolutely clear in what we have done. It is of great sadness to us that the New Agenda resolution contains so many issues with which we agreed, but a number with which we disagreed and, therefore, we felt obliged—honour-bound—not to vote for it. That does not in any way detract from our total commitment to pursuing nuclear disarmament with vigour.

My Lords, will the Minister agree that the matter is becoming disturbingly urgent? The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is effectively no longer supported by the United States. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty will be reviewed in April this year, and there are some worries about whether it is likely to be renewed. We now know that the Start II Treaty is still completely stuck in relationships between Russia, the United States and others. In addition, the first conversations are now starting about the possibility of a major amendment to the ABM Treaty, which some of us regard as almost the last real obstacle to proliferation. Can the Minister say whether Her Majesty's Government are addressing this whole group of issues and, if so, what opportunities there may be for later discussion and debate on this crucial matter?

My Lords, the noble Baroness rightly raises all those issues, which are causing us a great deal of concern and, if I may respectfully say so, frustration. We all had hopes and aspirations that the process would be more quickly addressed. As I have said previously to your Lordships, the reality is that we need to take our partners with us. However, agreement is necessary for negotiations. We cannot negotiate with ourselves; we need others to engage in the process. Therefore, we are taking all the opportunities available in Geneva and elsewhere to push the issue and to encourage all our partners to look at the matter in a way which will be most conducive to bringing about the long-term aim; that is, nuclear disarmament in an environment which guarantees international safety.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is no more than prudent for the Government to take note of the fact that, many years on, the Russians have still not signed the Start II Treaty, that they are producing new nuclear weapons, and that they show no sign whatever of taking proliferation seriously? Will the noble Baroness agree that in those circumstances the Government are behaving with the utmost prudence?

My Lords, I certainly agree with the last statement that we are behaving with the utmost prudence. However, we hope that the new Russian Duma will at last ratify Start II, opening the way to early negotiations with the United States on a Start III Treaty. We are very keen to obtain an early agreement on a work programme in the conference on disarmament so that negotiations can finally start on a fissile material cut-off treaty. We are working with our key international partners for the success of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review at the conference in April to which I have already referred.

My Lords, will the Minister agree and, if so, will she underline in the interests of clarity for everyone concerned that our nuclear deterrent now consists entirely of Trident submarines? We have no other nuclear delivery systems. Will she agree that to remove the warheads from those missiles would make the whole Trident system incredible and virtually useless?

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will understand when I say that I support what he has said. I underline that the strategic review was very clear that Trident is the most effective way to guarantee our security and that any signature in relation to the New Agenda will make that less easy to deliver.

My Lords, I welcome the Minister's initial response. Can she go further and agree that defence policies cannot be decided upon by anyone other than the states concerned? Does the Minister agree that resolutions such as the New Agenda Coalition, which could result in members of the international community determining the defence needs of others, risks contradicting the United Nations Charter, which acknowledges the right of all states to self-defence? Will she give an assurance that the Government will not allow our defence policies to be decided upon elsewhere?

My Lords, I can certainly give that assurance. Her Majesty's Government will continue to put the needs and security of this country at the centre of their policy and development.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What steps they are taking to prevent suspected war criminals from entering the United Kingdom.

My Lords, in appropriate cases those convicted or suspected of war crimes may be prevented entering the United Kingdom in accordance with powers in Rule 320 of the Immigration Rules. We are considering the scope for obtaining better information on those who may be war criminals so that those powers can be used to best effect.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer. However, I am sure that he will recognise, as the Home Secretary did, that Konrad Kalejs should never have been allowed into this country after the judgment of the United States court against him and after he was deported from the United States and Canada as a war criminal. As my noble friend may recall, the Home Secretary promised an inquiry into how that happened and how it can be prevented in future. Is the inquiry being set up? How will it be constituted and when will it report?

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his questions. I am grateful to him also for the way in which he has raised these issues. An inquiry is being set up and will be looking at the way in which the rules are interpreted. As I am sure that most noble Lords will be aware, the ports warning index had not picked up the fact that Mr Kalejs entered the United Kingdom. We are now reviewing the way in which that index works. We shall review the information currently held about convicted or suspected war criminals and shall consider how best that can be brought up to date. That will, of course, involve obtaining information from other jurisdictions. We shall also consider what standards of evidence are appropriate in deciding whether to exclude someone who may be a war criminal.

My Lords, as regards suspects who may have entered this country in the past, was it not an omission, after the top Nazis had been tried in Nuremberg, to have no system in the UK until 1991 for trying any suspects who had concealed themselves among the many thousands of post-war refugees from eastern Europe whom it was impossible to screen thoroughly at the time?

My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord said. He is clearly very expert in these matters. We should be grateful to the last administration for putting in place the War Crimes Act. We should be grateful too for the way in which the police service conducted its very thorough investigations following the passing of that legislation.

My Lords, whose responsibility is it now to make sure that the list of undesirables that is carried by immigration officers is up to date?

My Lords, it must be for the Immigration Service to ensure that the list is updated. It will mean that we must work closely with other jurisdictions and increase the level of international co-operation in this field so that we can have an effective and active suspects list.

My Lords, the Minister's last answer is very welcome. Does he agree that given the creation of the War Crimes Tribunal and now the International Criminal Court, it will become even more important to have international and, in particular, European Union agreement on such matters of commonality when such people appear at our frontiers?

My Lords, I agree with what the noble Baroness said. That international co-operation is essential. For that reason, the recent Dutch initiative is to be warmly supported and our Government are playing a very active part in that. Such co-operation will be essential for the future if we are to bring to book war criminals and suspected war criminals.

My Lords, will the Minister accept that there is widespread concern about the way in which the case of Konrad Kalejs was dealt with and, in particular, the evidence that he was interviewed by the police but only to ask him how he had got into the country and when he proposed to leave? At no stage was it ever put to him that he had been deported from the United States because it was believed that he was an officer in one of the worst, nastiest and most vicious extermination squads during the last war. Given that background, will the Minister give us an assurance that the suspect list is now up to date, with characters like Konrad Kalejs included on it, so that if such an individual were to come to our shores again, all the necessary authorities would be notified?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his extensive question and I agree that it is a matter of concern. Clearly, the Government are very concerned. As I said, we must work with our colleagues in other countries to ensure that the suspects list is kept up to date. I know that officials here are busy working to ensure that that is the case. No system can be absolutely perfect. Eighty-four million visitors to this country go through our entry regimes every year, 12 million of whom would be checked against that index. We have to conduct an extremely extensive operation. With the best will in the world—and we have that will—we cannot always get it right.

My Lords, was the information about Mr Kalejs entered on the Schengen Information System? If so, is not that a strong reason for us to be part of it?

My Lords, I am not clear that I can answer the first question. It is obviously of tremendous importance that we have proper data entries on the index of the ports warning system so that we can properly fulfil our obligations in ensuring that people who are suspected war criminals are effectively brought to book, not just now but also in the future.

My Lords, will the Minister answer the supplementary question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Janner, about the inquiry? The Minister acknowledged that there is to be an inquiry, but he did not tell us its terms, who is to be on it and when it will report.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for reminding me of those parts of the question which I have not covered. I shall need to carry out some further research to fully answer the question. I shall be happy to write to my noble friend Lord Janner and place a copy of that correspondence in the Library.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his answers. I recognise that during the eight days or so of the holiday period, the British police did not have sufficient opportunity to make proper investigations. However, will my noble friend assure the House that he will do everything possible to encourage the Australians, who have Konrad Kalejs there permanently, and the Latvians, in whose country he was the officer in charge of that horrendous death squad, to take action? Will he assure us that our authorities and our police will do everything that they can to assist such inquiries?

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his questions. I assure him that contact continues with the Latvian authorities, which are expressing increased interest in pooling information from all relevant sources. I assure him also that we have made known to the Australian authorities that the Metropolitan Police Service is willing to share available information which it has on file. We continue to press those matters and shall continue to do so with all the vigour that is necessary.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether present levels of care for elderly people in the National Health Service are adequate.

My Lords, the Government are committed to a programme to ensure fair access to consistently high standards of care across the NHS. For older people, we are currently engaged in identifying where improvements are needed.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. But does he agree with what I perceive to be a frightening practice of asking elderly patients entering hospital whether they wish to be resuscitated in the event of their heart stopping?

My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important question concerning the information which is made available to patients and the desires that patients are able to express about the treatment that they are to receive. It is right that we should listen to what patients say in those circumstances.

I suspect that the noble Baroness raises a wider issue concerning the withholding of treatment and she will know that BMA guidelines are available which make a thoughtful and useful contribution. At the end of the day those matters lie within the clinical responsibility of clinicians. At times they have to take extremely difficult decisions and it behoves us all to support them in that.

My Lords, I am sure that the Minster will agree that the availability of high dependency and intensive care beds is of crucial importance to the care of older people. Indeed, they claim to have increased the numbers of high dependency and intensive care beds. Why is it, therefore, that they have held back the results of their own internal review into those beds? Is that the Government engaging in deceit or is it the product of ignorance?

My Lords, it is neither. We have indeed set up a national beds inquiry to look at the NHS as a whole to see whether the distribution and number of beds are appropriate and adequate to the needs of the health service. My understanding is that work on that inquiry is still ongoing but is nearing completion. We should certainly hope to publish the results shortly.

As regards the noble Lord's suggestion concerning the number of intensive care beds and high dependency unit beds which are available, I reiterate the point that the Government have already made. We have made available 100 extra beds this winter.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a place for community cottage hospitals in the nursing of elderly people near their homes when they have conditions such as chest infections and flu, as has been experienced lately? Does he agree also that some elderly people become confused? It is difficult to nurse them and nurses should be trained to give a little more TLC to those who are elderly.

My Lords, nurses do a magnificent job. While we are committed to improving the education, development and further education of nurses, we owe a lot to them and the contribution they make, often in difficult circumstances. I am surprised that the noble Baroness did not invite me to visit a community hospital, as she usually does on these occasions. I acknowledge the enormous contribution that they can make. Where they have the support of local primary care groups, GPs and other staff, they also have a valuable contribution to make.

My Lords, will the Minister return to the first answer he gave to my noble friend regarding the question that is sometimes asked of elderly people when they go into hospital? I understand that the Minister cannot discuss personal cases, but will he accept my assurance that my mother was not simply given advice? When she arrived in the A&E department, after having been told that she had not suffered a heart attack, she was asked whether, if her heart stopped during her overnight stay, she wished to be resuscitated or whether she should be left. Does the Minister agree that that is a frightening question to ask an elderly lady? Does he accept also that, after protesting in writing, I received a letter from the hospital to say it was national policy to ask that question?

My Lords, I am always prepared to investigate individual issues and will be happy to do so in this case. I am not aware of a national policy as to how these matters should be approached and am prepared to look into that, though I am surprised by what the noble Baroness was told.

Delicate issues surround this area which have to be dealt with sensitively. That is why the BMA guidelines on the withholding of treatment are an important contribution to that debate. It is right also that every adult with the mental capacity to make their own treatment decisions should have the right to refuse medical treatment if they so wish. However, the question as to how they discuss that with clinicians must be handled with care and sensitivity.

My Lords, is my noble friend satisfied with the progress made in the elimination of mixed wards for older people? Is he confident that that progress will be maintained in the future in the light of the review that he mentioned in his Answer to the initial Question?

My Lords, I am aware that for older people, as well as for most patients in the NHS, mixed sex wards have proved to be wholly unacceptable. We are committed to ensuring that those wards completely disappear by 2002 and are working towards that.

My Lords, when the Prime Minister at the weekend said that he would bring health service funding up to the level of the European Union, was that a promise or an aspiration?

My Lords, the Government gave a clear commitment in their manifesto to increase investment in the NHS in real terms year on year and put that money towards patient care. That is what we have done. The Government acknowledge that levels of investment and intervention are not up to the levels of our European neighbours. The Prime Minister clearly signalled his readiness to tackle that and honour the commitment made. Already next year the proportion of national income spent on the health service is set to rise to 6 per cent for the first time ever.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that in England and in Scotland, and possibly also in Wales, elderly patients occupy hospital beds because they are not able to afford nursing home fees and there is currently not enough money to service them in their own homes?

My Lords, I am aware of those problems. That is one of the reasons why the Royal Commission on Long-term Care was set up. We are considering its recommendations and the financial implications of those recommendations.

A number of factors lead to difficulties of discharge of patients from hospital, partly to do with problems in ensuring that the right community services are available. The co-operation now taking place between the NHS and local government is bearing considerable fruit. From April of this year the use of pooled budgets and new flexibilities will lead to improved co-operation and enable us to ensure that the services required in the community are available. Thus some people will not to have to go into hospital in the first place; but those who do will be able to be discharged as soon as they are able.

My Lords, after the first debate on Pakistan, my noble friend Lady Farrington of Ribbleton will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the Patten Report.

My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make new provision for the welfare, care and assistance of deafblind persons. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.

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

Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Weatherill set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Earl of Sandwich to two hours.—(Lord Carter.)

rose to call attention to the situation in Pakistan; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so I should perhaps start with an explanation of my interest in Pakistan. Also, I ask for the indulgence of the House in allowing the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, who is to speak last in the debate before the Front Benches, a little tolerance to answer some of the points that arise. After all, he is from Pakistan and I am only Pakistani by association.

From 1942 to 1946 I was privileged to serve in an Indian cavalry regiment, the 19th King George V Own Lancers. After partition in 1947 our PM squadron formed the nucleus of the present 19th Lancers in Pakistan while our Sikh squadron became Shinner's Horse and the Jat (Hindu) squadron, the Central India Horse.

Those noble Lords who have served in a cavalry regiment will know of the bond of pride and affection that exists, a genuine family spirit that is deep-felt and remains for life—in Urdu, a bhai-bundi; a brotherhood. Thus it was when I let the commandant of the 19th Lancers know that I was to be in Pakistan last August with a CPA delegation. He immediately replied that if I was unable to meet the regimental "family" in Multan, they would meet me in Peshawar. And they did.

At that party, among those present was General Pervais Musharraf. As a former Speaker of the House of Commons I am not in favour of military coups. Nevertheless, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, stated in his outstanding speech on Wednesday last,

"Those of us who have been in Pakistan fairly recently know that both political parties in that country were corrupt, incompetent, unpopular and highly damaging".—[Official Report, 12/1/00; col. 629.]

Sadly, that is the truth. Indeed, when General Musharraf took over on 12th October last year it was not as a military dictator but as chief executive, and there was general rejoicing. Many critics with little or no knowledge of Pakistan have decried his actions on the basis that he overthrew a democratically elected government.

Several points need to be made regarding the election which brought Prime Minister Sharif to power in 1997 and his subsequent misuse of office. Vote rigging was rife. So was the use of forged ballot papers and multiple voting by women, covered from head to foot, who managed to vote several times because they could not be recognised. Even so, the turn-out at that election was a mere 32 per cent of the total electorate. It was, sadly, very much a case of the old adage:

"Democracy is not just about one man one vote—it depends too often on who counts the votes!"

It would be possible to give numerous other examples of the misuse of power during Nawaz Sharif's time in office: his curtailing of the powers of the president; his politicising of the judiciary; and, when the press became critical, his freezing of bank accounts and imprisoning of the editor of the Friday Times. Prime Minister Sharif's regime has been accurately described as "kleptocracy masquerading as democracy." It is worth saying that today, by contrast, the Pakistani press is free, and free to comment critically, as it frequently does.

So enter General Musharraf, who had been sacked while out of the country on an official visit to Sri Lanka. It is known that the civilian flight on which he returned to Pakistan was refused permission to land, despite having only seven minutes of fuel left when it eventually put down in Karachi after the army had taken over the airport. In General Musharraf's own words, this was not so much a military coup as a counter-coup—the army's reaction to a reactive event.

Despite Pakistan's suspension from the Commonwealth and blacklisting by other members of the international community, accurately headlined in a leading article in The Times at that moment as "Harsh and hasty", General Musharraf has not sought to isolate his regime but has made efforts to ensure that his country is a responsible player on the international stage. He has announced a unilateral military de-escalation on international borders with India in an attempt to defuse tension between the two countries and has called for,

"unconditional, equitable and a result orientated dialogue",

in seeking to resolve the core problem of Kashmir and Jammu.

Prime Minister Sharif openly courted Taliban and other extremist elements in the region. General Musharraf has behaved quite differently. He has sought to stem the growth of militant Islam and has made genuine indications that he is committed to the principle of good government. At his first news conference he pledged to set up a national accountability bureau which would embrace all sections of society, including the army, and stated his intention to protect the rights of minorities and to promote religious tolerance in Pakistan. He has said that he wishes to re-establish democracy in the spirit of the founder of the nation, Quaid-i-Azam; that is, respect for the rule of law—one must bear in mind that Mr Jinnah was a Bencher of Lincoln's Inn—respect for human rights; respect for minorities; and respect for the rights of women under the Quaid's slogan of faith, discipline and unity.

General Musharraf has inherited a country which is virtually bankrupt; a country whose foreign and domestic debt is almost equivalent to its GNP; and a country in which the payment of taxes has been pretty well voluntary and in which vast sums have been borrowed (as much as 4.8 billion US dollars) by a few powerful people, and never repaid. All this is well documented.

General Musharraf needs help and support in overcoming vast problems—not condemnation, but practical and positive support. I say that because I believe the alternative would be chaos and highly dangerous to us all. Pakistan is surrounded by a number of other highly volatile and unstable "Stans". We surely have a vested interest in seeking to ensure a strong, friendly and responsible Pakistan within the Commonwealth, a rock of stability in a very unstable part of the world. The alternative is a fragmented and irresponsible Pakistan with a nuclear ability. Think how dangerous it would be to India and, indeed, to the rest of the world if the Taliban had access to nuclear weapons. To those who say that we have no direct interest, I respond that 1 billion people in 55 countries are Muslims and that there are in this country over a million citizens, many of whom have strong links with Pakistan.

Kashmir will remain a dangerous flashpoint until a just and equitable solution has been found. It has already been the cause of two wars between India and Pakistan and the cause of some 25,000 deaths. Unless one has been to Pakistan it is difficult to appreciate how passionately this is felt.

We have both an interest and, I believe, a responsibility because the matter was not fully addressed in 1947 when the Maharaja of Kashmir (a Hindu) opted to remain independent rather than—at that time—join India or Pakistan. We should bear in mind that most of his subjects were Muslims. It may be that the Maharaja was right and that the only solution is an independent Kashmir with its boundaries guaranteed by the international community. However, that is a matter for another day.

My purpose today is to urge Her Majesty's Government to give General Musharraf and his government—a government of "all the talents" in which, incidentally, there is only one military Cabinet Minister, apart from the general himself—encouragement and support in helping to overcome the inheritance of massive economic problems. It is pointless to refuse to do so until a date for democratic elections has been announced. That would merely ensure a repetition of the bad old days of corruption, which has been a major cause of Pakistan's problems, with all the dangers and the consequences that I have outlined.

It is impossible to be absolutely certain that General Musharraf will succeed, but my reason for initiating the debate today is to draw attention to the potentially disastrous consequences if he fails. It is for that reason that I submit that he must be helped and not hindered in putting Pakistan on its feet and, thereafter, reestablishing democracy. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

My Lords, we are truly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, for introducing this extremely important subject. We do not give enough time to discussions of Commonwealth affairs and, given the fact that 1 billion people live in south Asia, it is really important that we pay attention to the region. I cannot claim the noble Lord's long and deep associations with Pakistan, but the one thing I can claim is that I was born in undivided India. Therefore, I regard myself as a citizen of undivided India since birth, as well as of this country.

It is important to remember that Pakistan has had a great deal of bad luck from its beginning. I was involved recently in contributing to a report on south Asian human development, devoted to a discussion of the crisis of governance in south Asia. There it was pointed out that Pakistan's main creator died soon after Pakistan's creation, while India had the benefit of 17 years of the Prime Ministership of Pandit Nehru. Mr Jinnah died within 13 months of independence, and Pakistan's first Prime Minister was assassinated soon after.

Pakistan has had a series of incidents involving bad luck; again and again the attempt to create a stable, democratic polity in Pakistan has met with many problems. We are going through another phase in which there is a hiatus, an interruption in the democratic polity in Pakistan. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, in that although I would oppose a military coup and would not want to see a permanent non-democratic regime in Pakistan, I think that we could for the time being suspend judgment and scrutinise the actions of General Musharraf quite closely to see what his policy turns out to be.

Pakistan has had a series of regimes that have failed to tackle the basic problems of literacy, social reform and land reform. Pakistanis one meets, either in Pakistan or abroad, agree that there is a big feudal overhang in Pakistan society. The need to remove feudal elements and to make the Pakistan elites abide by the rule of law—pay taxes for example, and behave as if they were like all other citizens—is extremely urgent.

It must be said, rather sadly, that the democratic regimes established since the death of General Zia-ul-Haq in 1988—Ms Bhutto as well as Nawaz Sharif—have failed to inculcate democratic habits in the population or to do very much to correct any of the anomalies that Pakistan faces.

I think that what is currently going on in Pakistan is, first, a quick emergency attempt to restore fiscal credibility in Pakistan. That is extremely important, as the noble Lord said. Pakistan has problems of both internal and external debt. There is a failure to collect taxation, and, as the noble Lord also pointed out, the elite who borrow money from banks habitually do not pay it back. The lists are public, and heading the list of people who do not pay back bank loans is the former Prime Minister, Mr Nawaz Sharif, as well as the man who headed the anti-corruption bureau. Therefore, there is not much to be said about the pretensions of the previous government to fight corruption. It was a purely partisan effort to get at Ms Bhutto.

We have not only to suspend judgment, but to be very attentive to what happens in Pakistan. For example, I am very heartened that the legal procedure that has been followed to bring Mr Nawaz Sharif to trial is proceeding normally, as it should. We have to watch it very carefully. It could easily be that the court is not convinced that Mr Sharif has done anything very wrong. If that happens, it will present the crucial test of General Musharraf—whether he allows Mr Sharif to he free to live in Pakistan; if Mr Sharif is not convicted by the special court, he has every right to stay there.

I agree that this is all hypothetical, but it could happen. If the ex-Prime Minister is not convicted of the charges against him, the question will arise as to how General Musharraf deals with the case. I should like him to say, "That is fine, and until such time as I think that elections can be called in Pakistan the ex-Prime Minister is free to live and conduct himself in Pakistan, but he cannot have the job back". That was the whole point of the interruption.

Something will have to be done if that contingency arises. Although many of things that the noble Lord said against Mr Sharif are true, and I could cite more examples, none of them is an indictable offence. He tried to bully the supreme court; he had his own person as president and made him sign over some of the powers; and he is corrupt. but none of that is an indictable offence.

Therefore, we must be very careful and watch the course of events in Pakistan. I hope, for the sake of Pakistan and the sake of south Asia, that General Musharraf will set an example of being as subject to the rule of law himself as he would like everyone else to be. The principal lack in Pakistan is of the rule of law, or at least in terms of members of the elite behaving as if they lived under the rule of law. That is very important.

I also hope that while he is in charge General Musharraf will not only clean up the outstanding debts owed to commercial banks, as well as the outstanding tax, but will also put in place institutions and practices so that payment of due taxes becomes a routine habit and does not depend on how large a landlord one is.

On a previous occasion Moeen Qureishi was briefly brought in to, as it were, manage the transition. He made a condition that any candidate for election had to settle all his or her debts. Reports are that Ms Bhutto went to the bank with a billion rupees in cash to clear her debts. I think that many more billion rupees need to be paid by Mr Nawaz Sharif and the entire Cabinet, which has been sacked, before we can have any confidence in them.

I do not want to go into the question of Kashmir or south Asia. As the noble Lord correctly said, that is for another day. If I start speaking on that, not just nine minutes, but nine hours will not be enough. I want only to say this: Kashmir is not just part of south Asian politics; it is part of British politics. It is our problem and not just south Asia's problem. Many, many citizens of this country are deeply concerned, and they have different views on it. There is no single agreed line on Kashmir. Even historical facts can be disputed again and again. It is very important that Her Majesty's Government keep an eye on this problem and do anything they can to help solve the burning problems in south Asia.

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, for introducing the debate on Pakistan, an area in which my organisation, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, has been working for many years.

Although problems abound, after talking to our Pakistani colleagues both in the United Kingdom and in Pakistan, we believe that there are some grounds for optimism and some developments that can be encouraged, many of which have been outlined already.

For example, at the first news conference after the coup General Musharraf pledged to set up a national accountability bureau to attempt to rid the country of the corruption that beset it during previous administrations.

Secondly, General Musharraf has had talks with human rights groups, including our own contacts, and has consulted Asma Jahangir of the Pakistani Human Rights Commission.

Thirdly, General Musharraf appears to be distancing himself from the Taliban movement in Afghanistan. He has respected the recent UN sanctions imposed on that regime, and he has ordered the closure of Afghan banks and frozen Taliban bank accounts.

Perhaps most encouragingly, General Musharraf has promoted tolerance in Pakistan along the lines of the constitution, which was designed to be a model for democracy by its founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who made the following eloquent and famous declaration:

"You are free: you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques, or any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion, caste or creed. That has nothing to do with the business of the State. We are all citizens and equal citizens of 3ne State".

The developments I have mentioned are worthy of encouragement. If General Musharraf is genuine in his attempts to move Pakistan towards implementation of a human rights-based constitution, he could prove himself to be a leader indeed worthy of support and there could be a window of opportunity to help Pakistan to move towards democracy.

However, there are continuing problems. I shall concentrate briefly on two areas: first, the rights of women and their quality of life; and, secondly, religious freedom. The Hadood laws represent a significant departure from the vision of Jinnah's constitution. These laws illustrate how the constitution of Pakistan has been changed so that women suffer discrimination within the legal framework. For example, in 1979 promulgation of the Hadood Ordinance introduced the so-called "Islamic punishments" for crimes including slander, theft, drunkenness, bearing false witness, rape, adultery, fornication and prostitution.

I give one example concerning rape. The law requires four male witnesses to testify that an unlawful act has occurred between a man and a woman. In Pakistan this instruction has been applied to rape. If rape is not proven, the accuser—a woman who may already be the victim of that rape—is charged with adultery. The punishment for adultery is death or imprisonment. The result is that thousands of women, unable to defend themselves in a court of law, are serving sentences of various terms, accused of adultery when they themselves have been the victims of rape. Thus a large number of rape victims do not take recourse to the law but suffer their fate in silence.

Such practices and policies associated with the Hadood laws and the Shariah laws of evidence, which make such stark distinctions between men and women, are gross violation; of the UN Declaration of Human Rights which affirms that human rights should be granted to,

"all, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion".

It would be a good indication of General Musharraf's commitment to human rights if he were to find an opportunity to bring Pakistan's legal provisions into line with international law and convention in these areas.

I turn to the area of religious persecution, beginning with the treatment of the Ahmadis. In 1952 the Ahmadis were declared not to be Muslims, because they reject the principle of jihad and they recognise an additional Prophet, Mirza Ghirlam Ahmad. This declaration resulted in a wave of destruction of Ahmadi property and their mosques. In 1974 they were "officially" declared non-Muslims by an act of parliament. Since then the systematic persecution of the Ahmadis was formalised in the 1984 penal code under sections 298B and 298C which forbade the Ahmadis from describing themselves as Muslims, from using any Islamic terminology to describe any of their buildings, from using the public call to prayer, and from propagating their faith.

Many Ahmadis have also suffered under the blasphemy law. Amnesty International estimated in 1995 that over 130 Ahmadis faced charges of blasphemy which carry a mandatory death penalty. As recently as September and October last year, police took no protective action against the fatwas which were issued, offering rewards to anyone killing human rights activists, journalists and religious personalities, including the head of the Ahmadiyya community.

I turn from Ahmadis to Christians. Despite their crucial vote in the establishment of Pakistan, the Christian minority began to face persecution in civil and political life as early as the 1950s. Article 20 of the 1973 constitution protects the freedom to profess religion and to manage a religious institution. It states:

"Subject to law, public order and morality, every citizen shall have the right to profess, practise and propagate his religion, and every religious denomination and every sect thereof shall have the right to establish, maintain and manage its religious institutions".

However, the right to change religion is not protected and apostates are particularly vulnerable to attack. Although the penal code does not list conversion from Islam to Christianity as an offence, a judge's decision may be made on the basis of his own interpretation of the constitution, which states,

"No law shall be repugnant to the teaching and requirement of Islam as set out in the holy quran and sunna, and all the existing law should be brought into conformity therewith".

The law and the culture which in recent years have been endorsed in Pakistan endanger individuals who dare to consider religions other than Islam. I mention one illustrative case. In June 1997 a 17 year-old girl, Saleema, and her pastor were arrested for allegedly converting Saleema's friend, Rahela, to Christianity. Both Saleema and her pastor, Salim, were tortured. Saleema was whipped 16 times while in detention. On 8th July 1997, after repeated attempts by family members to force Rahela to recant her Christian faith, she was killed by her brother, Altaf, who claimed that she had brought "dishonour" on her family.

I have tried to illustrate how the constitution and legal framework in Pakistan have changed since the original constitution, and how these changes have brought enormous suffering to many people. I have highlighted a few areas in which some legislative revision would greatly improve the plight of both women and religious minorities in Pakistan. I therefore ask the Government to capitalise on General Musharraf's apparent openness to change and to prevail upon him to ensure that the constitution of Pakistan is reformed to a healthier state for its people. If he does so, he will have made a valuable contribution towards the establishment of democratic values and policies as a basis for the eventual return of civilian rule. In doing so he would perform a great service to his people, to the Commonwealth and to the international community at large. We wish him well in so doing.

My Lords, I add my thanks to those that have already been expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, for initiating this debate. I warmly agree with his endorsement of the remarks that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, a week ago today when he said that we should suspend judgment on the coup, taking into consideration the abundant evidence of large-scale corruption within both of the political parties. It is indeed wicked for those in power to have enriched themselves and their cronies at the expense of the people. The Government of General Musharraf evidently had the support of the vast majority of the people of Pakistan when the first item on his agenda was to punish those who had stolen the country's money. Under Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan was sliding into bankruptcy, but his predecessor had also allowed her cronies, and especially her husband, to profit from their hold on the reins of government.

The establishment of the National Accountability Bureau, which has already been mentioned, and the Speedy Trial Courts, which were announced by General Musharraf at the first press conference he held on 24th November, were right and proper measures to deal with the cancer in the political system. Already some progress has been made in getting bank loan defaulters to pay up and that has helped the Economic Revival Plan, under which there has been something of a turn-around in economic conditions. The recovery of the bank loans has clawed back 8 billion rupees out of a total that is estimated to be outstanding of 240 billion rupees—that is some £3 billion—which are reported to have been illegally siphoned out of the banking system by political crooks and their cronies in the form of loans that were never going to be repaid.

The second main plank of General Musharraf's policy was to investigate the former Prime Minister. As has already been said, in that regard the law is taking its course. The Foreign Secretary has expressed concern that there should be no "show trials" and in a letter to my right honourable friend Menzies Campbell he stated that the handling of this process would provide a test of Pakistan's military in their commitment to democracy and the rule of law. That has been repeated this afternoon. Do the Government therefore agree that there has been no interference with the courts and that the proceedings against Nawaz Sharif and others are being dealt with strictly in accordance with the laws of Pakistan? Only today the full charges have been made against Mr Sharif and seven others in the so-called "plane conspiracy case"—they include the serious charge of murder against Mr Sharif—so there may be quite a lengthy trial. I understand that matters are proceeding in accordance with the normal rules of the courts in Pakistan and that the press and the public are freely admitted to the proceedings.

The need to allow the defence its full rights is one of the reasons why it is not possible to have a full timetable for the return to democracy. General Musharraf has committed himself to handing over to an elected government, but the trials of those accused of embezzling the wealth of Pakistan have to be completed first and the political system has to be cleansed of the kleptocracy to which reference has already been made.

At the same time, democracy needs to be rebuilt, starting at the grass roots. That process has already been started with the setting up of the electoral commission and the decision to hold district-level elections this year, as announced to a visiting delegation of US senators in Islamabad on 14th January. This is also in accordance with the General's undertaking to create a much more decentralised system in which decisions are taken at district level wherever possible and as close as they can be to the people.

Next, the Chief Executive undertook to try to settle outstanding issues with India, a task which has always eluded his predecessors. He has reiterated that he wants to resume talks based on an equitable solution. There is no doubt that if this could be achieved it would transform the relations between India and Pakistan and the whole atmosphere and development of the subcontinent. It would end the nuclear arms race and free for peaceful development the immense resources that are now wasted on excessive armed forces.

On the other hand, India has ruled out bilateral talks unless Islamabad desists from cross-border terrorism. That guerrillas do cross from Pakistani territory and into the Valley and Jammu, where they engage in gratuitous killings, is a certain fact. Indian forces have killed many of them and have found identification papers on them to show that they did come from Pakistan. But that does not prove that the state of Pakistan is involved in these activities. The only way of settling the matter beyond doubt would be by means of an investigation under international auspices, for which purpose it would be necessary to increase the United Nations monitoring force, UNMOGIP, on either side of the line of control and to persuade the Indians to allow it to operate on their side of the border. At the moment it operates only on the Pakistan side.

When General Sir Charles Guthrie visited Pakistan last week he said that Britain was willing to assist Pakistan and India to resume their dialogue and to resolve bilateral conflicts, but only if both countries wanted it. That has always been the problem. Your Lordships will know that as recently as 11th January India said that it would not resume bilateral talks as long as Pakistan is involved in cross-border terrorism. The Indians claim that they have publicly presented all the evidence for these allegations and for their assertion—for which I have seen no evidence—that Pakistan was involved in the hijacking of the Indian Airlines aeroplane. Can the Minister say whether the Foreign Office has seen any of the evidence? If so, will she place copies of it in the Library? It certainly has not appeared in the media.

There have also been counter-allegations of Indian-sponsored terrorism in Pakistan. An official at the High Commission in Islamabad was arrested yesterday in possession of an explosive device, and a bomb outrage in Karachi is now being laid at the door of the Indians, by some commentators at least. Perhaps Britain could help both countries by providing anti-terrorist experts to review the evidence and to publish a report so that at least outsiders may be able to evaluate the case. I know that we can do only a limited amount because the Indians are always so keen to uphold the principle that it is a bilateral dispute between themselves and the Pakistanis, in which no outsider has a role.

Finally, I should like to draw attention, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, to the Chief Executive's condemnation of intolerance and bigotry in his televised address to the nation on 17th October last. He urged scholars to curb those who were exploiting religion for vested interests and bringing a bad name to Islam. He said:

"Islam teaches tolerance, not hatred; universal brotherhood and not enmity; peace and not violence; progress and not bigotry".

In the new Pakistan, with a genuine system of democracy, that spirit of tolerance, so powerfully articulated originally by the Quaid-I-Azam when Pakistan first gained its independence—we heard earlier the powerful statement that he made—there will be no room for laws discriminating against minority groups. It would be enormously welcome if the Chief Executive repealed the iniquitous sections of the penal code which discriminate particularly against the Ahmadis, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said.

The government of Nawaz Sharif let loose extremists who relentlessly persecuted and prosecuted Ahmadis all over Pakistan, but the evil forces of bigotry that they unleashed had even more harmful consequences. Sectarian violence was spreading across Pakistan. An attack on a Shi'a mosque in Karachi, for instance, resulted in the deaths of nine worshippers—and the person charged with that offence proved to be the head of an extremist Sunni party. Pakistan badly needs a powerful law against hate speech and against incitement to acts of discrimination against members of a particular religion. I respectfully hope that the Chief Executive will consider that, as well as the repeal of the infamous Ordinance 20 and its successors.

Let us give Pakistan a breathing space to reform the law, to reconstruct true democracy and not a mechanism for rotating corrupt feudals masquerading as democrats, and to sweep away the cobwebs of corruption and nepotism. Why not go a little further and offer technical help to Pakistan, both in drafting laws to eliminate religious discrimination and in establishing fair and effective procedures in the National Accountability Bureau?

My Lords, as the House knows, the background to the creation of Pakistan was the feeling of a minority—that is to say the Muslim community in undivided India—that it was being oppressed. The reason, as Professor Akbar Ahmed, who is in the Gallery, has pointed out, was the revival of a particular kind of Hindu nationalism in the 1920s and the 1930s in British India. It was for that reason that the founders of Pakistan were determined that those who are now in the minority in the new state should not suffer from a similar feeling of oppression; hence the quote we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of the state.

Having said that, it is also true that Pakistan was created primarily for the Muslims of India. It is reasonable, therefore, that Islamic beliefs, values and traditions should influence law, policy and other measures in that state. But this should not exclude respect for the contributions of minorities. Indeed, it should make room for them. On the eve of the Wakeham commission report, perhaps it is pertinent that this is how the Church of England views its service to the nation and to the House. The Christian tradition, perhaps in its Anglican form, will of course be influential, but that should not be seen as in any way exclusive.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, that time should be given to the new government. At the same time, we need to ask questions. What is it that we are looking for in this time of grace afforded to General Musharraf? First, it is open and accountable government through democratic processes at every level, not only at the national level, and an independent judiciary. The higher judiciary has often saved Pakistan from the fate that has befallen countries like Afghanistan and Iran. Furthermore, the country needs impartial ombudsmen so that ordinary people have access to speedy justice.

Like other speakers, I welcome the desire of the new government to maintain an effective fiscal policy, and I welcome moves to tax both wealth and income above a certain threshold, in particular that of the feudal classes. However, I am concerned about indirect taxation—a blunt weapon that hits the rich and poor alike. I am concerned to see that, under pressure from the world financial institutions, Pakistan is now placing an emphasis on this area of taxation. It is important that indirect taxation should not harm the poor who are already under tremendous pressure in Pakistan.

Once again, I welcome the action against institutions and individuals who have been defaulting on their huge loans. However, this points to the need for a regulated banking system, an independent review of the lending policies of the scheduled banks, and a regular audit of defaulting loans and of the action taken by the banks, if any, in establishing a difference between legitimate banking charges—we call them "interest", but call them what you wish—and usury, the kind of charges that exploit the needy. The two are often confused in Pakistan.

We need equality of opportunity and access for all citizens to education, to public services and to employment. That is particularly true of the religious minorities, whether Christian, Ahmadis, Hindu or whoever. I welcome the Government's initiatives on the religious schools, the Madrassahs. There is a requirement that they should teach a wide range of subjects so that their pupils are prepared for contemporary life in this world.

I would support a return to the 1973 constitution in its original form. It was the best constitution that the country had, a constitution of consensus. All sides agreed. A return to that constitution would have implications for legislation that has flowed from amendments to it. That would be a desirable result, achieving some of the aims asked for by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.

A unified electoral system should be put in place. That would allow minorities to participate at every level of political life, as they did in the past. The present system of separate electorates reinforces a form of social apartheid which is highly undesirable when trying to build one nation. It alienates minority communities from their constituency representatives. I am sure that many noble Lords will appreciate the value of people feeling that they belong to a particular constituency.

I turn to the issue of equality before the law, about which the noble Baroness spoke. In certain cases under Shari'ah, the evidence of a Muslim woman is half that of a Muslim man. The evidence of a Christian man is also half that of a Muslim man while a Christian woman has no legal standing at all in the law in such cases. That is clearly an absurd situation which must be addressed. Women and minorities should be equal before the law. Of course, there should be respect for Shari'ah, the accumulated wisdom of legal experience in the Muslim world. However, for almost 200 years now, Muslim reformers themselves have been asking for reform of the Shari'ah so that it can address modern circumstances. I could cite a long list of distinguished reformers: Mohammed Abduh in Egypt; Jamaluddin Afghani and Mohammed Iqbal. They have been asking for a radical Iftihad—radical research into the sources of Islam so that a new legal consensus can be built. Indeed, the principle of movement and of development is native to the existing schools of law in Islam, whether they be Hanifite, Malikite or Shafi'i. Only one school does not have any principle of movement at all.

In my articles in The Times, I have often referred to the blasphemy law as profoundly un-Islamic and against the practice of the Prophet of Islam. It should be repealed. However, there must be effective legal provision for the prevention of incitement to religious hatred. There might even be a law against insulting the founders of the various religions, while at the same time—this is also an important point—maintaining the freedom to criticise religions and religious beliefs.

Let us encourage the rebuilding of Pakistan according to the plan left by Iqbal, by Jinnah and by the first Prime Minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, who was mentioned in an earlier contribution. However, none of this is achievable without a resolution of the Kashmir dispute. It is urgent to address how the international community could facilitate negotiations between India and Pakistan and, indeed, also include the Kashmiri people.

Long ago the poet-philosopher of Pakistan, Mohammed Iqbal, said:

"Thought of home has become a sadness without cause, sometimes an ache for beauty, sometimes an ardent desire for the unattainable. May it not be so".

My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, for initiating this debate. He has given us the opportunity to discuss one of the more critical areas of foreign policy today. At the outset, perhaps I may say that I love Pakistan and its people. That is because we are the same people. However, I must also say that I do not like a coup anywhere.

Noble Lords may not be aware that I have some personal experience of the current situation in Pakistan. On 12th October last year, on the very day of the military coup, I arrived in Islamabad representing this country as an ambassador for British business. So I had a unique, first-hand view of what took place during the first three days after the coup. I spent that time with the then acting UK Head of Mission, Greg Dorey, and his colleagues, at the British High Commission in Islamabad. I wish to commend them on their professionalism and courage in very difficult circumstances. That is not unusual. I have observed many of our overseas missions. They are doing outstanding work and we have every reason to take pride in the way our Foreign Office functions abroad. Perhaps I may request my noble friend the Minister to convey my appreciation to them.

During my visit last year to Karachi and Islamabad, it was my strong impression that most people in Pakistan were very unhappy about the political state, in particular the corruption. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said in this House on 12th January that,

"both political parties in that country were corrupt, incompetent, unpopular and highly damaging to the welfare of the people of Pakistan".—[Official Report, 12/1/00; col. 629.]

However, I cannot share his conclusion that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary was unwise to condemn the military coup. A careful reading of history, including that of Pakistan, will find a lot of support for the Foreign Secretary's statement that:

"There is no such thing as a good coup".

Surely, the answer to the problems of democracy is more democracy, not less democracy. If Britain, so widely recognised as the Mother of Parliaments, is seen to endorse the destruction of a democratic regime, it will send a sad message around the world. Anti-democratic forces, which threaten so many fragile democracies, particularly in developing countries, will be encouraged. This is why the Foreign Secretary's statement has been widely applauded by democratic and freedom-loving forces in the developing world.

My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? Our argument is that it was not a democracy. It was a kleptocracy which was ripping millions of rupees away from the public exchequer.

My Lords, yes, but is the answer a military coup? And what is the guarantee that the military men can solve those problems?

One of the primary reasons for the international esteem in which Britain is held is our commitment to the rule of law, human rights and representative government. This is something about which every British citizen should feel proud. Your Lordships will forgive a personal, and perhaps emotional, note when I say that this is why I became a citizen of this country nearly 25 years ago and why I am happy that I did.

Millions of people everywhere look to Britain as a source of inspiration as they struggle to fulfil their democratic aspirations. We should never sacrifice this perception. The fact that we in this House accept the primacy of another place because it is an elected body testifies to our own endorsement of democratic principles.

On 20th April last year, in a debate on India and Pakistan, your Lordships may recall that I said that both these societies are capable of sustaining democratic systems of government. I also said that the most welcome contribution Britain can make in that region is to support and encourage democracy. Since then, developments in the political environment of the sub-continent make me even more convinced of this.

There is another practical consideration that I would like to share with your Lordships. Pakistan's most urgent need today is for greater investment in its infrastructure. Given the abysmal rate of adult literacy—somewhere below 40 per cent—the expansion of education is a vital need. The country has one of the highest population growth rates in the region; about 2.7 per cent per year over the past decade. About 40 per cent of its population is currently below 15 years of age. Surely, all that suggests that social and economic development is a critical issue.

As we look across the experience of nations, there is little to give us confidence that military governments will address these priorities; they are usually preoccupied with increasing the size and firepower of the armed forces; and that, of course, creates another unhappy spill-over impact on regional development. Last month, I was in India and fortunate to meet the Prime Minister Vajpayee and his senior Cabinet colleagues. Their concern is that events across the border will compel India to increase its own defence expenditures at some cost to the national development process.

We now have, in Pakistan, the first known instance of nuclear weapons under direct control of the military. All other nuclear states have had the insulation of civilian control over the final decisions about their weapons. It is good that our foreign policy keeps these broader considerations in mind as it addresses that situation.

Let me say a word about corruption. The present regime in Pakistan, and even some people here, suggest that corruption was the downfall of previous Pakistan governments. Perhaps that is so. But there are two observations that I think are relevant. First, where is the evidence that dictatorships are less corrupt than democracies? Dictatorships may, in that infamous phrase,

"make the trains run on time".

But that they can transform or reduce corrupt politics into more honest politics is surely unproven. The answer to corruption is transparency, accountability and due process of law; to open up the system as much as possible rather than to constrict it.

My other observation is this: we must of course strongly condemn corruption wherever it exists, in Pakistan or elsewhere. It eats at the heart of any society, particularly a society that has few resources and great developmental demands. But as we do so, let us make sure that economically developed countries do not, inadvertently or otherwise, facilitate corruption in other regions.

I have avoided Kashmir and the Indo/Pakistan conflict because, as has been said, perhaps it is for another day. In conclusion, the decline of democracy does not contribute to the decline of tensions anywhere. I strongly endorse government policy in that it stands for encouraging the people of Pakistan to make their own choices through the democratic process.

My Lords, from debates in your Lordships' House and in another place, it is strikingly obvious just how many friends Pakistan has right across the political spectrum. For many years, one of the most consistent and reliable of those friends has been my noble friend Lord Weatherill. Anyone who has an interest in the affairs of Pakistan would do well to read his speech and attach proper weight to his remarks. The whole House is indebted to him for initiating today's debate.

I want to comment on two things: first, the military coup; and, secondly, the importance of creating a more tolerant, plural and socially just society in Pakistan which is better able to accommodate its minorities.

Just before Christmas, I had the opportunity to visit the small West African country of Benin. In 1990 its military dictator, Mathieu Kerekou, whom I met during my visit, became the first African military leader voluntarily to surrender power. He felt sufficiently confident about the stability of the country to call elections in which he was a presidential candidate. He lost those elections, but a peaceful transition to democratic government nevertheless took place. It is perhaps worth commenting that five years later he stood as an independent candidate and was elected by the people in open and free elections. There is a lesson there for General Musharraf.

Notwithstanding the deeply unsatisfactory nature of the government of Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan's friends would surely wish to see, as the noble Lord, Lord Paul, said, the creation of democratic government in Pakistan at the earliest opportunity. I hope that when the Minister replies she will be able to tell us what progress General Sir Charles Guthrie was able to make last week during discussions with General Musharraf. I should be interested to know in particular whether in those discussions there was any debate about outstanding military sales.

Echoing remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Paul, and others, we are aware of the military instability of the region and the problems of nuclear weapons. But some 80 outstanding licences are pending. I should be interested to know what the Government's policy is towards implementing the sales that will go with the granting of those licences. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was right last week to say that we should suspend judgment. So perhaps it is also wise for us to suspend sales, at least for the time being.

I am not naïve about the previous government. I support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. When the Government were elected in 1997, the turn-out was about 32 per cent. There were many allegations of vote rigging. Holding an election does not necessarily make a country truly democratic, especially when the party of government then seeks to subvert any legitimate opposition, interfere with the judicial process and stifle hostile comment in the media. Nawaz Sharif undoubtedly did all those things. He may also have been the principal author of the events which led to his undoing. If the allegations are proven that he gave orders refusing permission for an aircraft carrying General Musharraf to land in south Karachi, that is not the action of a true democrat. No democratically elected leader would seek to kill the head of the armed forces.

A good test of an administration's credentials is its human rights record. Sharif's flirting with Taliban-inspired Sharia law did not bode well. Paradoxically, as we have heard during the debate, it is General Musharraf who has invited the world to judge him by his treatment of minorities and by the yardstick of tolerance.

In that respect, many of us hope that the new government will repeal the blasphemy laws. I associate myself wholeheartedly with what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said. Since their introduction in 1986 as section 295C of the Pakistan penal code, the blasphemy laws have been used as a weapon against both the Ahmadi and the Christian minorities there. I have corresponded with the government of Pakistan about this matter. On two occasions I have led delegations to see ambassadors and ministers to press for reform of the laws. Last year, I heard first-hand here, at a meeting outside your Lordships' House, from a group of Christians in Pakistan who came to give evidence of their systematic persecution.

In 1990 the federal court determined that the death penalty should be imposed on those said to be in breach of the blasphemy laws. That is an open invitation to any fanatical group to bear false witness. As we know, the consequences can be fatal. At least two Christians—Naimat Ahmer and Manzoor Masih—have been killed by fanatics because of false blasphemy accusations. Even those Christians who have eventually been acquitted have had to flee the country because of the threat to their lives.

False accusations have, on occasion, sparked anti-Christian riots. On 6th February 1997, a mob of 30,000 rioters went on the rampage in the Punjab province, burning down homes, churches and shops belonging to Christians. The perpetrators of those events have never been brought to justice.

Blasphemy accusations are commonly used as a means of carrying out vendettas. In one case, Nelson Rahl, a stenographer at Rawalpindi general hospital, was arrested on 4th January 1997 and detained for allegedly burning some pages of the Holy Koran. He had been framed because of his refusal to participate in an embezzling scheme. Currently on bail, he and his family are in hiding because of threats to their lives.

Trials have frequently generated communal strife. On one famous occasion a mob erected a gallows outside a court where a blasphemy trial was taking place in an effort to intimidate the judicial authorities. Clearly, such actions and the existence of such laws impede the development of a more plural and tolerant society. Many of us hope for the early reform of those laws.

Later today, my noble friend Lord Sandwich will initiate a debate on contemporary slavery. Bonded labour continues to affect millions of people in Pakistan, India and Nepal. One submission to the United Nations estimates that some 20 million bonded labourers exist in Pakistan, of whom 8 million are children. In January 1999, Asma Jehangir, the UN special rapporteur for extrajudicial executions, estimated that there were 50,000 bonded labourers in southern Shindh alone. In a separate study, Human Rights Watch estimated that 1.2 million children were involved in carpet weaving in Pakistan and that many of them were bonded. In 1993 the ILO World Labour Report described the problem of debt bondage as being among the worst in the world.

Although legislation prohibiting bonded labour has been enacted in Pakistan, too little has been done to identify, release and rehabilitate labourers and prosecute those responsible for using bonded labourers. When the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, replies, I hope that she will tell us what progress is being made with the programme initiated by the European Commission in 1996 which pledged one million dollars towards the release of bonded labourers. By last year there had been no releases. I wonder how political developments in Pakistan have affected the programme, whether it will continue, and what progress the Minister expects in seeing the buying out of bonded labourers.

On those issues of human rights and social justice, General Musharraf has the opportunity to make useful progress. Many of us echo the remarks made during the debate about the links we all have with members of the Pakistan community in Britain. While I was in another place, my constituency chairman supported me loyally over many years. He had come from Pakistan, and he is one of the holiest, most resolute, devout and tolerant men I have ever met. He is the trustee of the local mosque, fully part of our society, and continues to have a great love of the country from which he sprang. People like him, who are representative of the best traditions of democracy from Pakistan, will wish for the day when democracy is created again in that country. I believe that if General Musharraf tackles the kind of questions outlined in our debate today, it will pave the way for the creation of democracy in Pakistan. Friends of Pakistan from across the political spectrum hope that it will not be too long delayed.

My Lords, I join other noble Lords, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, on initiating this important and timely debate.

My perspective is not, however, to enter the debate that other noble Lords have raised of how Pakistan might best be returned to democratic rule, nor on the justifiability of the coup. My perspective is how to reinforce and strengthen the institutions which are necessary now and which will enable the country, when it returns to democracy, to be, in the words of the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, Mr Peter Hain, writing in an article in the Guardian,

"a genuinely new democracy; one that provides stability and sound government for the future".

My concern in particular is how to strengthen and reinforce the institutions of the legal system in support of the rule of law, both now, during the present regime, and when democracy is restored. My interest—and one which I should explain, if not declare—is that I am co-chairman of t he Human Rights Institute of the International Bar Association. That association is the largest organisation of lawyers in the world. Through collective and individual membership, we can count 2½million lawyers in 183 countries.

The Human Rights Institute is a separate arm, with its own membership drawn from all over the world. Our objectives are to promote and protect the rule of law and human rights. We believe those are essential to stability, to a just and peaceful society, and indeed to prosperity because they provide the framework for orderly economic growth.

We pursue this aim partly through the traditional methods of trial observations, interventions and investigation of legal systems by international experts. We also believe that we have a special role to play through the richness of our resources of experienced lawyers in every part of the world, to help educate, to offer practical assistance, or procure practical assistance, to help build or reinforce structures which will support the rule of law.

It is in that connection that we have been working in Pakistan since 1997. In October of that year, a multinational mission went to study the workings of the legal system and to report on the rule of law and human rights. It held discussions in four main centres with Bar leaders, individual lawyers, representatives of government, human rights activists, judges, non-governmental organisations and the military.

The report, which was published a year later, following discussions on the draft with the Pakistani Government, constitutes a comprehensive critique of the state of justice and the legal system in Pakistan at the time. It also included a raft of recommendations for reform in relation to the legal profession. the judiciary, the criminal justice system, on gender and justice—I note with appreciation and admiration the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox—and the approach to the prevention of terrorism.

These were serious criticisms of the justice system showing an urgent need for reform; exclusion of millions of Pakistanis from effective access to advice and representation; an over-politicised legal profession; deep concerns about the approach of the executive to the independence of the judiciary and, indeed, to some extent of the judges themselves to their relations with the executive. The latter led to the extraordinary events of late 1997, when different divisions of the Supreme Court successively suspended and placed under restraint the Chief Justice and suspended and restored part of the constitution.

We have pursued some of the recommendations since and carried out follow-up visits. I visited Islamabad and Lahore last year to discuss the report with government, Bar leaders and the judiciary. In Lahore we held the first human rights conference ever, which attracted a great number of lawyers and others.

We have offered technical assistance. Next week there is to be a mission concerned with legal education and judicial activism. We have been engaged in a programme that is designed to reinforce the structures necessary for a stable legal system based firmly on the rule of law. I say "reinforce" because the basic structures are there. There is an able and strong-minded judiciary and a large legal profession which includes many highly competent advocates and lawyers. The basic structure is based on the English legal system. When I visit the courts they are reminiscent of English legal procedures and proceedings.

It is not surprising that the basic legal structures are there. As the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, said, the founder of Pakistan, Mr Jinnah, was a firm believer in justice and the rule of law. He qualified as a barrister at Lincoln's Inn in 1895 and practised as an advocate and magistrate in his early years. But he would have been appalled to see some of the subsequent developments in the relationship between the executive and judiciary, such as the incident shown on television (reliably reported to me) when a Cabinet Minister, supported by his colleagues, physically set out to attack the Chief Justice. There is much to do in terms of the legal system and the laws. We in the Human Rights Institute shall continue our work and offer any help that we can. We are encouraged by some of the developments in the field of human rights which the present regime appears to be pursuing.

But there are two other areas in which we have been involved where we suggest that Her Majesty's Government may have a further role to play. The first is the encouragement and support of exchanges between the Pakistani and British judiciaries. As noble Lords may be aware, there are a number of countries with which such exchanges take place. Those exchanges are valuable in helping to find solutions to common problems and supporting and maintaining the culture of independence and justice.

It was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, who first explored the possibility of such exchanges with the then Chief Justice of Pakistan in 1993. The first such exchange occurred in 1995 when senior Pakistani judges visited this country. The second has not taken place, in part as a result of the constitutional crisis and in part because of financial constraint. I have been able to speak to both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, and Lord Justice Potter of the Court of Appeal, who is now responsible for those exchanges. Both have authorised me to say to your Lordships that they remain committed to the idea of a judicial exchange.

Another programme in which we have been involved is designed to gain support and help from the English legal profession. We have procured an agreement between the English Bar and the Pakistani legal profession which is intended to provide technical help and assistance in training, building legal aid programmes, pro bono schemes and other such matters. In both cases, however, while the Government have been morally supportive of what is being done a little more is needed in the form of material assistance. Not much is required, because the greatest resource is the experience and time of lawyers and judges, which is freely given. We shall continue to give any assistance that is requested in those areas, but I ask the Government to consider doing more.

I quote part of a letter that I received from Lord Justice Potter:

"The small amount of funds necessary to support a programme in this respect would not only pay enormous dividends; it would also be a particularly appropriate demonstration of support for the judiciary at a time of constitutional upheaval".

I emphasise the last point. It is especially important at the moment that the judiciary in Pakistan does not feel beleaguered and isolated. There are particular pressures at a time like this. Judges need strength and support to play their part in upholding the rule of law as far as possible. That is no less true of the legal profession. Whatever is done now to support those structures can only help to build a stronger system ready for the return of democracy. I respectfully ask Her Majesty's Government to consider whether an enlightened and flexible approach to helping this process would now be consistent with still maintaining their position on the need for a return to democracy.

My Lords, I follow other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Weatherill for introducing a debate which has already proved to be remarkably thoughtful and, certainly as far as I am concerned, informative about the situation in Pakistan. There has been, perhaps less predictably, a high degree of unanimity about the attitude that Her Majesty's Government should take, with one notable exception.

I intervene briefly in the debate to express the hope, which was also expressed by my noble friend Lord Weatherill and other noble Lords, that we shall not exacerbate the situation in Pakistan by taking diplomatic, economic or any other measures against that country without considering fully what the consequences may be.

I should like to take a slightly different line from that which has been taken hitherto by concentrating on the dangers of getting it wrong. In a brief exchange in the other place on 2nd November, the right honourable gentleman the Foreign Secretary remonstrated with the Opposition spokesman and said that it would be wrong to give a signal that military coups are acceptable in certain circumstances. Whether, as the Foreign Secretary implies, all military coups are always unacceptable and there is no such thing as a good military coup is a matter of opinion. I hold a very different opinion from that held by the right honourable gentleman.

What is true is that military coups are sometimes understandable. If the elected government of a country prove to be corrupt, undemocratic and incompetent, as my noble friend Lord Weatherill said the sooner they are removed, the better. It would be best if that could be done by the normal democratic process. If that is not possible, as it certainly was not in Pakistan, surely it is better that there should be a temporary period of military government than the continuation of a situation in which the elected government produce nothing but misery and hardship, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, demonstrated in her admirable speech.

It is desirable that the democratic process should be restored as soon as possible. I shall be grateful if the Minister can provide any information about the validity of the Chief Executive's promise that democratic government will be restored as soon as possible. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and other noble Lords have suggested, we should at least give the military rulers a chance to put their country in order before contemplating draconian economic sanctions and bringing about Pakistan's diplomatic isolation.

There is also a practical matter to be considered. I refer to the possibility of increased regional instability. That is a matter which the Government to their credit now appear to have at the heart of their foreign policy. Pakistan is predominantly a Muslim country (97 per cent), as the design of its national flag symbolises. Pakistan has a high proportion of Islamic militants. It is a country with over half a million men under arms and the capacity to construct and deliver nuclear weapons. On its border is India with a reverse population: over 80 per cent Hindu and only 10 or 11 per cent Muslim. It has over a million men under arms. As the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, said, it has a long-running territorial dispute with Pakistan. These are key players in the stability of this region of central and southern Asia. We should do nothing that might damage the stability of that region which is already depressingly fragile.

In that context, let me presume to utter a word of caution about the growing tendency of what is called the international community to interfere in the affairs of sovereign states. Mr Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, seems nowadays to be advocating the abandonment of the traditional United Nations doctrine of non-interference, enshrined in Article 2 of the United Nations Charter, and replacing it with something that I can only call "the right to interfere". This new doctrine has already been seen in action in the Balkans and in south-east Asia and, from what one can see and hear, Her Majesty's Government seem to be strongly supportive of that new doctrine. The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, articulated it recently as follows:

"Ethnic and religious rivalries, territorial disputes, inadequate or failed efforts at reform, the abuse of human rights, and the dissolution of states can all lead to local and even regional instability and there remains the serious risk that such instability might spill over into the NATO area".

Instability seems to be the mantra, the key word.

As we contemplate the chronic instability in central and southern Asia, I conclude with another dangerous factor that we should bear in mind. It has not been mentioned. Pakistan does not belong to—it is not a member of—the International Missile Technology Control Regime. Pakistan, like India, has an active missile programme. It has recently flight-tested its GHAURI missile, an intermediate-range missile with a range of 1,500 kilometres. It has also tested a nuclear weapon and would be capable of producing one and firing it at short notice. Western intelligence reports suggest that in this programme Pakistan has had the strong support and assistance of the People's Republic of China. Those are important factors to bear in mind in conducting and formulating a foreign policy in this region.

Instability in the area is not like Kosovo or East Timor. We are dealing with countries which are, in military terms, almost regional superpowers. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Paul, said, generals are as a rule less likely to go to war than politicians. However, despite that, the sooner that nuclear weapons in Pakistan return to political control with the return of democratic government, the better. I do not ask the Government to say that military regimes are acceptable as a long-term form of government. I do, however, ask them not to be swayed by the demands of political correctness in their immediate reaction to the military coup so that they make the situation in that region worse rather than better.

My Lords, we all welcome the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, in introducing the debate. Like the noble Lord, I had the good fortune to hold a commission in the cavalry regiment in the old Indian Army. That regiment, the 6th Lancers, became part of the Pakistan army after Partition. I have the honour of being that regiment's representative in Britain.

It is now some three months since we received the news that the Pakistan Government had been turned out by an edict of the army led by General Pervaiz Musharraf. Most of us who know and have an affection for Pakistan instantly, if perhaps inwardly, felt a sense of relief. We were only too aware of the deep corruption of successive governments over too many years. Naturally, we do not encourage the overthrow of elected governments, albeit Sharif s majority in 1997 was on such a low turnout of the electorate, and there was good reason to imagine, as the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, pointed out, that there were some shenanigans during the election.

At that election, Pakistan was striving to find a government to undo the political corruption of the past years. The low turnout was influenced by the fear that both parties were almost equally corrupt. 'That fear turned out to be only too true. Almost immediately, Mr Sharif and his colleagues started to feed at the same trough as their predecessors. The reaction in the streets in Pakistan to the army's action told its own story. There was almost universal relief and rejoicing, and the grassroots support has continued. Since then the stock exchange index in Karachi has risen from about 1,130 to 1,700 points, an indication of the greater confidence investors have in the new administration.

I make these points because those with perhaps little understanding of Pakistan were quick to criticise the move by General Musharraf. Perhaps with more thought it might have been seen as an almost inevitable event when one takes into account the fact that the political and economic situations were at such a low ebb.

As we have heard, the aeroplane in which General Musharraf was travelling back from Sri Lanka was deliberately barred from several airports and was nearly out of fuel when it was enabled eventually to land only because of action taken by the army. I imagine that being so near a crash must concentrate the mind more than somewhat. Nevertheless, apart from the arrest of Mr Sharif and some of his close colleagues who will later go on trial, General Musharraf has refrained from martial law or any of the other extremes that we have come to fear after a military coup. Indeed, we understand that the courts and judiciary are functioning normally. There appears to be a free press. I have seen articles written in the newspapers which confirm that.

It is all too easy to condemn a military coup. The last thing we want to do is to isolate Pakistan while it is trying to formulate its future. We must wonder with some doubt—some noble Lords will have different thoughts here—whether the suspension from the Commonwealth was somewhat premature and a little hasty. One result is that in a country in dire economic circumstances, General Musharraf's first visit abroad has been not to London—it would have been a natural reaction for a member of the Commonwealth—but to China to which he will look for help. Would the Foreign Office consider—it might be difficult politically—inviting General Musharraf to this country? At that time it could ask him more about his intentions for the future. Meanwhile, General Musharraf has sought to de-escalate the military confrontation with India, as we have heard, and, it is hoped, to diminish yet another Pakistan-India war. I do not need to remind your Lordships that those two countries have a nuclear capability.

General Musharraf has stated clearly that he wants to return to democracy. He has said that the armed forces have no intention of staying in power any longer than is necessary to find the path to true democracy in Pakistan. He has thus started off well. But it would be foolish to expect that there can be an instant return to democracy in Islamabad. Equally, I believe that a precise timetable for such a return is premature. Indeed, I think that the only result would be a return to corruption. We must remember that the two opposition parties—we know that they have been less than pure—have yet to cleanse themselves.

We must be patient and allow the process to devolve. Among other factors, it is important to allow the new administration to distance itself from fundamentalism. There is a tendency among people to identify all Islamic states as being both militant and terrorist. Certainly, under Sharif there was a disturbing closeness with the Taliban. On the other hand, General Musharraf has made it clear that he wishes to return to the tenets laid down by Dr Jinnah, who was a firm and open supporter of freedom of religion and of the role of women in Pakistan.

Britain's relationship with Pakistan goes back over very many years, both as an independent country and, formerly, as part of the British Empire. Thus we must surely help Pakistan in its hour of need with sympathy and understanding. We must offer Pakistan continuing friendship. We must not act hastily just because democracy is close to our heart and there is not yet a programme in Islamabad for a return to the ballot box; rather we should be thankful that there was no bloodshed or violence.

I end by saying that those of us who have had the privilege of travelling and living in Pakistan have the fondest memories of friendship and tolerance. So I ask that we show Pakistan's citizens the same friendship and tolerance at this crucial time in its history.

My Lords, I regret that Britain originally appeared to be out on a limb in her policy towards Pakistan, an aberration likely to be long remembered. The military did not act irresponsibly or against the interests of the people of Pakistan, who responded with widespread relief and celebration, or those of her allies. The Commonwealth, at Durban's CHOGM, was also right not to take punitive action beyond temporary suspension.

The internal affairs of Pakistan and the related complexities of Afghanistan and Kashmir require a more resolute appreciation and calculated approach by external decision-makers. The systematic dismantling of democratic institutions, the engineering of absolute powers over legislators, the removal of constitutional presidential mechanisms to dismiss a government, the subversion of the judicial process, the attempted manipulation of the military, the intimidation of journalists, including forays on press freedom, and, finally, presiding over breath-taking nation-wide corruption by all except the army, sealed his fate. Nawaz Sharif clearly had a political death-wish.

General Musharraf'should be offered a conditional tenure of no more than two years to accomplish the following far-ranging agenda before a general election commitment: the election of an independent electoral commission; fresh demarcation of constituencies, including the equal participation of minorities; mechanisms to ensure an independent judiciary; freedom of press guarantees; the safeguarding of minority human rights; a reassessment of intelligence agencies' charters of duties; revamping of the tax regime; and, finally, the protection of international investment commitments. All this must be accomplished within a programme of poverty alleviation through increased expenditure in social and education sectors and with transparency and strict accountability.

In addition, Pakistan is embroiled in two unsettling external situations, which must also be addressed—that of Afghanistan and Kashmir. Afghanistan's civil war has destabilised the region, for which Pakistan must accept a considerable degree of responsibility. It can and must now provide solutions in its own national interest. Failure to do so could see Pakistan's original involvement seriously backfire.

Afghanistan offers sanctuary, training and financial support through smuggling for militants from Pakistan, Iran, central Asian republics and the Xinjiang province of China. Afghanistan now produces three times more opium than the rest of the world put together. The Taliban have an agenda to overthrow neighbouring regimes, including that of Pakistan. I do not need to remind the House that the recent Dagastan débâcle is but one example of the devastating effects of Taliban insurgency. Worryingly, already neo-Taliban elements have become a major influence in Baluchistan and North West frontier provinces, together with increasing influence outside the Pushtun belt to Punjab and Sind.

What has been Pakistan's role in all this? —the preaching and training of the Taliban's extreme interpretation of Islam by Pakistani mullahs in Afghan refugee camps, the setting up of a strongly anti-American political party in Pakistan, the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Islam—the JUI—which gained leverage under Benazir Bhutto, and the undeniable support by the Inter-Services Intelligence Agency—the ISI. The solution is for Britain and the United States to put pressure on Pakistan, together with Saudi Arabia, Iran and Uzbekistan to halt the supply of arms into Afghanistan and to curb drug exports. The Taliban would then negotiate an end to the war and deliver an immediate benefit by allowing Western interests, for example, to export central Asian oil and gas via Afghanistan and Pakistan, all of which is unrealistic without peace.

Finally, there is Kashmir. Pakistan's internationalisation and Islamisation of Kashmir is undermining Pakistan's interests and the Kashmiris' demand for self-determination. While the Kashmiris have a case to be answered, realistically, territorial integrity safeguards will never make for an acceptable solution to Pakistan and Muslim Kashmiris. I regret that the new regime in Pakistan has seemingly prioritised Kashmir, for two reasons. First, a large amount of essential internal state reorganisation must be implemented; and, secondly, an atmosphere conducive to successful negotiations with India will never be achieved by continued saber-rattling—this not withstanding the new nuclear threat, fanned by a hard-line Pakistan military and a Hindu fundamentalist Indian government. There has indeed been uncertainty as to who controls Pakistan's nuclear capability.

It is worth noting that the large majority of Pakistanis living in Britain are in fact of Kashmiri origin. This has enormous significance and, not surprisingly, even certain Ministers in the United Kingdom are deemed to have a jaundiced view of Islamabad as many of their constituents come from what is known as Azad or free Kashmir. Indeed, 31 new Labour constituencies are influenced by Kasmiri Pakistanis.

I have just one question for the Minister. Given the recent Lahore Declaration, affirmed by the June G8 communiqué of which the UK played a part and is a signatory, both accords acknowledging through the Simla Agreement that the Kashmir issue is to be resolved bilaterally between Pakistan and India, and given that the UN resolution, of which the UK was also a signatory, gave the Kashmiris the right to self-determination, will the Minister say today whether the Government support the successive accords or the UN resolution? The two are contradictory and therefore misleading and complicate a resolution.

In conclusion, the Chief of the Defence Staff has just returned from bilateral meetings, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. What is the assessment, and will this lead to the necessary pragmatic assistance programme, with sufficient time and resources to right the many underlying ill-judged policies on a strict timetable? What is all too often forgotten, and what must not be lost sight of at this critical juncture, is that democracy is a process—evolving and enduring—not just an election.

My Lords, I doubt whether many noble Lords would disagree with the description given by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, a week ago of the political parties in Pakistan. Of all the constructions made of the situation in Pakistan, I favour the one given by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. It is feudalism masquerading as democracy.

I have listened to the debate with a sense of unease, and it was only following the intervention of my noble friend Lord Paul that my unease lessened slightly. It seemed that while we were not approving of the coup, we were pretty close to understanding it and accepting it. I share the view that there is no such thing as a good coup, but, whether we like it or not, the Pakistani Government had been democratically elected, even though the election was flawed. However, as my noble friend Lord Desai stated, we should suspend judgment. In a sense the realpolitik is that judgment has to be suspended because there has been a coup.

I express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, for introducing the debate. He mentioned the tests that the new regime has to pass to restore democracy. They include demonstrating respect for the law and human rights.

The noble Lord, Lord Sandberg, quoted General Musharraf's claim that he wants to remain in power only long enough to introduce true democracy.

I should like to introduce what some noble Lords may feel is a narrow point, but which I believe is fundamental to democracy. I refer to the issue of trade union rights in Pakistan. Trade union rights involve human rights and the law. The government of Pakistan have ratified Conventions 87 and 98 of the International Labour Organisation. I have the privilege of being the vice-chairman of the governing body of that organisation. The Sharif administration attacked trade union rights in at least two ways: by passing anti-trade union legislation and by attacking the trade movement. He interfered with the banking union by denying membership to certain categories of staff. He completely suspended WAPDA, the power and water trade union, for two years. He not only suspended the organisation and its right to represent all its members, but he took away the ability of its members to contribute to it. He thereby, at a stroke, crippled the finances of the All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions, the democratic trade union centre.

When the coup occurred, one might have thought from the statements made by General Musharraf that action would urgently be taken to bring about normality and democracy and the legal process that had been violated by the Sharif government. I quote from a letter written by my good friend Kurshid Ahmed, the general secretary of the All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions, stating:

"We were expecting that Government of Pakistan would review the situation on the intervention of ILO",

which had condemned the suspension. The letter continues:

"On the contrary, it has further extended the restrictions placed upon the WAPDA workers through a Presidential Ordinance issued on 24th September, 1999 for another two years and also allowed the WAPDA management to terminate services of WAPDA workers without assigning any reason".

This kind of signal runs counter to the appreciation that there may be swift moves towards democracy. Our Government were right to condemn the coup, and it is important that they put pressure from all directions on the government of Pakistan. It may take time to introduce local election democracy and to build up a true democracy, but it would take no time at all for the government of Pakistan to remove the restrictions that have been placed on the trade unions and to conform to their binding obligations to the International Labour Organisation.

Independent trade union freedoms are fundamental to a true, free democracy. I go further and state that trade unions have a great part to play. They have a distinguished record and in the past decade have been a major player in bringing about democracy in Poland and South Africa. I ask, therefore, that the trade unionists of Pakistan receive no less support from the Government in all respects than the trade unionists in Poland and South Africa received from all sides of the House.

The test set out by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, could begin to be passed if the measures applied to the trade unions of Pakistan by the previous regime, but extended by General Musharraf, are removed at the earliest possible opportunity.

My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Weatherill for initiating this important debate on Pakistan, just as we are grateful to him for giving us such a lovely excuse to have a really jolly party last night in honour of his loving convenorship of the Cross-Benchers.

Noble Lords will be relieved to hear that I am not going to speak for anything like nine minutes. I have an interest to declare in that two of my sons are currently setting up an Internet start-up company, Ascot-Drummond, based in London and Pakistan. We therefore already have many friends in Pakistan and much goodwill towards her people.

We have heard so many good and meaty speeches today covering the situation in Pakistan from so many angles that there is very little for me to add. Although the new President of Pakistan, General Musharraf, has arrived there in rather an undemocratic way, the regime that he replaced, although democratically elected in the first place, had turned out to be not very democratic in practice, difficult to dislodge and gradually becoming more and more corrupt. General Musharraf has said that as soon as the country re-settles itself he will re-initiate democracy. Naturally, we are very anxious to see this happen. We are also anxious to see the lessening of tension towards Kashmir and other neighbours and a cessation of nuclear testing.

I should like to emphasise our close ties with Pakistan, both now and historically. We wish her and her new government well.

My Lords, I also should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, for introducing the debate. I pay tribute to him and his unique and special ability to address matters in an impartial and neutral way. He is very well respected in both Houses of Parliament. I always say that the noble Lord is living history. He has had enormous influence and impact on my political experiences in this House and is without doubt one of my greatest mentors.

I have listened with great interest to the speeches and should like to discuss a few of the concerns that have been addressed. The first issue is the imminent visit to the Indian sub-continent by the Foreign Minister, Keith Vaz, who is responsible for visa sections abroad. I understand that he will be visiting India and Bangladesh. However, unfortunately, he will not be visiting Pakistan. I express my concern about this matter, on behalf of over half a million British Pakistani Kashmiris and British businesses. The biggest problem in the world relating to entry clearance visas is in Islamabad. To alleviate these problems it is imperative that Mr Vaz visits Islamabad; otherwise, individuals and businesses from the British Pakistani Kashmiri community will be at a loss.

I am aware that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has seconded extra staff to cope with the long delays. My noble friend Baroness Symons has approved provision of extra entry clearance officers, who have achieved some progress. However, I understand that people are still queuing at midnight to apply for settlement visas; and they often have to wait for eight months before an interview is granted.

Britain and Pakistan have had a shared history of strong political and economic ties. I am most encouraged by the comments made by Sir Charles Guthrie, Chief of the Defence Staff. Following his recent visit to Pakistan, he was reported in the press as saying:

"We want to take Pakistan down a path that heads to democracy and peace and we are ready to help if the progress is maintained … Turning our back on Pakistan is simply not an option. The ties of history and friendship are simply too close."

In a recent article in the Guardian, which was referred to earlier, my right honourable friend the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Peter Hain, stated that,

"Britain still seeks to provide funding and other practical assistance for reforms in the civil service, the police and the judiciary and in the management of public and private enterprise. For example, we are prepared to fund expert help in a fair voter registration system".

I welcome those statements and should like to ask the Minister whether Her Majesty's Government would extend help to fund and organise courses here in the UK for potential parliamentarians in Pakistan, because the real problem, as has been demonstrated in today's debate, has been with Pakistan's politicians as well as its institutions.

The foreign affairs debate has again been referred to. I concur with the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in that debate, that in recent years Pakistan had become a dysfunctional and sham democracy—had in fact become a kleptocracy, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, earlier. Therefore, General Musharraf's action was clearly in Pakistan's national interest. The people of Pakistan have accepted and welcomed the removal of the previous government, and that is perhaps why there was no violence or bloodshed and why 80 per cent of the public supported the change. Not only should we suspend our judgment, as my noble friend Lord Desai suggested earlier, but right now we should be supporting Pakistan through this difficult time.

It must be appreciated that Pakistan is a difficult country to govern. There are real problems; for example, the continuous existence of the oppressive feudal landlord system; the culture of tax evasion—which has been mentioned earlier—corruption; favouritism; nepotism; and political and economic mismanagement. There are clear signs that General Musharraf is committed to addressing some of those issues. However, I hope that the administration will either bring charges against Mr Sharif, Senator Asif Zardari and others or release them as soon as possible.

I agree with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, regarding the rights of women and their quality of life. However, I am aware also that minorities have representation at local, provincial and national level, including a cabinet minister from a religious minority. I remind the House that, before Labour came to power, there were no Muslims in either the House of Lords or the House of Commons. I remind your Lordships that in France and Germany there are millions of Muslims but they still have no representation. That does not stack up the argument for Pakistan, but all I am saying is that it is a sad fact of life that the poor and the weak—Muslims or Christians—always suffer at the hands of the majority and the strong.

I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester that Pakistan should have laws preventing incitement to religious hatred. I believe that we should have similar laws in Great Britain too. As your Lordships are aware, this country does not have religious discrimination laws. I hope that those noble Lords who have spoken in support of changes in Pakistan will support me when I introduce a Private Member's Bill on religious discrimination.

Pakistan has a real chance of becoming a genuine democracy. I have spoken with General Pervaiz Musharraf and he has assured me that the armed forces have no intention of staying in charge any longer than absolutely necessary to pave the way for true democracy to flourish in Pakistan.

General Musharraf's Government have so far taken some positive steps: they have reduced Pakistan's military budget by 5 per cent and initiated appropriate steps towards achieving economic revival. That is reflected in the confidence which the investment community has shown in Pakistan's economy, resulting in a 20 per cent increase in the stock market since 1st January 2000.

The Government are also moving towards transparent accountability, depoliticised state institutions, an improvement in the law and order situation and devolution of power to grass roots level. General Musharraf has announced that there will be local and district elections this year. That will pave the way for true, genuine and lasting democracy in Pakistan. General Musharraf's appointment of Dr Akbar Ahmed in London and Dr Maleeha Lodi in Washington has been welcomed by the masses. They are both highly respected in the Pakistani community and in the western world.

On the issue of relations with India, General Musharraf has made positive moves; for example, he unilaterally implemented a military de-escalation on Pakistan's international borders with India. Pakistan would welcome unconditional, equitable and result-oriented dialogue with India to resolve all issues; especially the core issue of Jammu and Kashmir. It is imperative that we put pressure on India. The United Nations resolutions on Kashmir are valid. No bilateral agreement between India and Pakistan can supersede the United Nations resolutions, because the United Nations is the supreme legal body.

I accept that Pakistan is currently not a democracy. However, that should not prevent the implementation of the United Nations resolutions on Kashmir. Furthermore, India is not the great democracy it pretends to be. It has 700,000 soldiers committing gross human rights violations in Kashmir. India's Interior Minister, L. K. Advani, pursues fascist policies: he was responsible for the destruction and demolition of the Babri mosque and the slaughter of 2,000 innocent civilians. He continuously threatens to take Azad Kashmir, a beautiful heaven on earth where I was born.

Recently, when General Musharraf's envoy went across the globe to explain the situation in Pakistan, he was met by top politicians in Japan and America; in Washington, by the Assistant Secretary of State. However, we failed to produce a single politician to meet him. That policy of non-engagement at ministerial level has to change. I want to see more help and co-operation with Pakistan at the highest level. I understand and support Her Majesty's Government's foreign policy. However, I ask the Minister to understand the British Pakistani community and its expectations.

Finally, our foreign policy should be an ethical foreign policy based on moral values; that is, to help others who need our help rather than persecuting them. Pakistan is a poor country. It needs help and support, not isolation from the international community. That is why I am privileged to support the proposal moved by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill.

My Lords, I, too, add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. He matches his wisdom with his integrity, which is why so many of us take him so seriously. Pakistan is fortunate in having Peers of the calibre of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, and my noble friend Lord Sandberg so closely associated with it and so anxious to champion it in its time of need. It is perhaps one of the greatest pieces of fortune that a country may enjoy to have voices, such as those we have heard, in another country's Parliament, so determined to try to assist in every way that they can.

We have already heard a great deal in the debate—and there is no point in my adding to it—about the record of the government of Mr Sharif. One has to add to that the record of his predecessor, Benazir Bhutto. Both Governments did a great deal to erode democracy in Pakistan. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester pointed out, some of the most serious erosions of the constitution of Pakistan occurred with the acceptance of the 13th and 14th constitutional amendments. Those amendments literally swept away the right of people to express dissent, even in parliament itself, or to hold other religious beliefs, and they did so without a single hour of debate in the Pakistani parliament.

Even worse, or perhaps at least as bad, we now know that both Governments' elite ruling groups simply ripped off one of the poorest countries in the world. Its loyal and courageous people, to whom both the noble Lords, Lord Weatherill and Lord Sandberg, have paid tribute, have been the victims of their own government. That is a terrible epitaph to any government of a so-called democracy. I agree with all of that. I believe that that has been in every sense a tragedy for a fine people.

However, I do not agree with those who said that it was wrong of the Foreign Secretary to make it clear at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference that he believed that a coup to overthrow an elected government should not be accepted by us without protest. I remind noble Lords that the Commonwealth is based increasingly on the concept of a mutual recognition of human rights and of democratic institutions. I believe that it would be an extremely serious step if the Foreign Secretary had simply disregarded that basic foundation and had done so in the face of the attitudes of those, for example, such as the Foreign Secretary of Canada, Mr Roy Axworthy, who, on behalf of the Commonwealth Secretariat, led the mission that went to Pakistan to meet General Musharraf to discover what were his commitments for a return to democracy. If one flew in the face of the committee, chaired by a Minister from Zimbabwe, which was set up to look into the matter, and if one behaved simply as though exceptions could be made because one had every sympathy with the reasons for that, I believe that, again, one would be taking an extremely serious step.

I believe that it is very reasonable to say that we must take a position with regard to the overthrow of democratically-elected governments, even though the democracy itself may be flimsy and shaky. Then we should explain why in that particular case we believe that there may be reasons why we should nevertheless resume aid to that country and resume support of the kind outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith. I say that for one other reason which I believe to be important; that is, that we should not go back on those commitments but, rather, strengthen them.

That brings me to my first question to the Minister. Would it not be better if the Foreign Office, perhaps together with the Commonwealth Secretariat, began to develop a somewhat richer definition of democracy: one that embodies, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, the rule of law; one that embodies, as a number of other noble Lords said, the independence of the judiciary; and one that embodies the concept of accountability and transparency in government? I am not asking for a tome, but rather for a short paragraph which will make it much easier for governments such as our own to say, "This government have fallen short of the definition of democracy that the Commonwealth recognises". Quite frankly, to hang the idea of democracy simply on the process of elections on one day is a ludicrous misdefinition of a great institution.

I turn to two questions which I want to put to the Government. First, why did we suspend aid? The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked that question because, like me, he is troubled by the fact that we have suspended aid but have continued exports of arms. Suspending aid, at least for more than a few token days, seems to me exactly the wrong thing to do. Pakistan is a flimsy democracy, partly because she is a desperately poor country and most of her people are becoming not richer but poorer. She will never establish a proper democracy unless her people have something to look forward to other than hunger. The right reverend Prelate made that point very strongly and very impressively. If in a country taxes are not paid by the wealthy, that country cannot provide education to the poor. Therefore, that is a very strong reason why I believe our economic aid should continue.

Incidentally, I should like to see that economic aid, as soon as possible, linked to co-operative endeavours with India. Last year I visited the north-west desert which lies between Rajasthan and Pakistan—a desert which on the Indian side is beginning to bloom and where I believe there is scope for major economic development along the lines of the Negev Desert in Israel, if only there could be co-operation between the two governments and support from the international community.

On arms exports, again, I have a question for the Government. Is it the case that we still rest entirely upon the old wartime emergency legislation with regard to the decision on arms exports? As Sir Richard Scott pointed out the other day, we still have made no changes, despite the strong recommendations of his report. Four years on, that appears to me to be a little casual, to say the least. Therefore, I should like to ask, first, whether any proposals are being made more rigorously to control arms exports to Pakistan, among others, and, secondly, to ask the Government whether, in the escalating current situation, it might not be wise to suspend arms exports for the time being while resuming economic aid.

My final point relates to an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and a number of other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Paul. That is how we deal with a crucially insecure region of the world which is becoming rapidly more tense. Last year, following his election in India, Mr Vajpayee extended his hand considerably towards Pakistan with a view to de-escalating relations over Kashmir. Noble Lords will remember, for example, the establishment of a bus link between Pakistan and India, the decision by India to accept and agree to a natural gas contract, and various other extensions of friendship on, it must be said, the Indian side on this occasion. That was when Mr Sharif was the Prime Minister of Pakistan. I believe that the situation was made worse by the Lahore Declaration of February 1999. I believe that that was genuinely entered into by India. However, we now understand that the declaration was signed on the very same day as Mr Sharif gave the green light to what is known as the Kargil Incursion into Kashmir. The incursion was official and involved, among others, members of the Pakistani Army. It led to a great deal of distrust at a moment when it looked as though we might at long last gee some basis of trust over Kashmir. It is proper and right to ask Pakistan and India to resume their discussions. Indeed, I believe that it is vital for the world—otherwise, we may see an escalation into real danger in that region.

I conclude by asking the Government whether there is any truth in today's report in the Pakistan newspaper, Jang, that China has said that she will not allow any harm to come to Pakistan's security and national integrity, that she will not remain silent if Pakistan is made the target of aggression, but, perhaps more important, that she is willing to meet whatever defence needs Pakistan might have and, furthermore, that she reiterates Pakistan's position on Kashmir. I make no judgment about what China is alleged to have said. I state only that if that is true, as the Pakistani newspaper suggests, then we are into a much more dangerous period in the world's history than most of us would have believed even a week ago. Perhaps the Government can throw some light on that. Perhaps they can tell us what urgent steps they are taking to try to obtain the international community's support for a new attempt to resolve some of the terrible, long-lasting and increasingly dangerous problems of Kashmir.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, for securing this debate at such a critical time in Pakistan's turbulent history. As a number of noble Lords have said, south-east Asia and Pakistan in particular have continued to feature prominently in the world's consciousness over the past months. Pakistan is a pivotal country in the stability of south-east and central Asia and that stability is currently hanging in the balance.

From these Benches, we join with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, in calling upon the military to respect the safety and legal rights of those who were elected by the people of Pakistan. In particular, Pakistan must respect the rights of the ousted Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and pursue any genuine legal case through due process with a fair and open trial.

Likewise, we share the Government's desire to work closely with our colleagues in the Commonwealth to press for an early and credible timetable for the restoration of democracy to the people of Pakistan. We agree that the international community should not accord any legitimacy to the military regime or provide any signal that it is willing to condone the overthrow of a constitutional government.

Yet this debate has been characterised by wise counsel from all sides of the House on the merits and characteristics of democracy in Pakistan, and the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Chalfont and Lord Sandberg, were noteworthy in that respect. I too wish to sound a note of caution which echoes the excellent speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. I share with the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, the view that the international community must not be tempted to punish Pakistan disproportionately for that breach of democracy just because we feel we can, while larger and more powerful states are left unpunished for their violations because we feel we cannot.

Chechnya is a case in point. Although it is under consideration, after more than four months of war on its own citizens, Russia has not even been suspended from the Council of Europe, the very body which promotes the values of democracy and human rights in Europe. Of course, as this House well knows, not all elected leaders are democrats and not all generals are villains.

I make it absolutely clear that from these Benches, we do not condone or approve of the way in which the government of Pakistan was changed but there are certain matters of which we believe it is important that the Government take account and factor into their assistance to the people of Pakistan so that a truly democratic government, free from intolerance and corruption, can be elected.

The fact that the coup was bloodless and did not inspire widespread protest within Pakistan tells us what we already knew; that, in a worsening economic climate, Pakistan's previous elected government failed to provide transparent and good governance and thus lost the support and trust of those whom it represented.

Indeed, in its response to Pakistan's military coup, it is essential that the international community recognises what lies at the heart of Pakistan's political problems and does not compound them through its actions. Pakistan is a country that was created in the chaos of partition; nurtured in a cold climate of poverty and corruption; and torn, since birth, between conflicting cultures. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that Pakistan has been badly let down by successive governments, both civilian and military. Tragically for Pakistan, failures by both the Sharif and Bhutto governments have coloured perceptions of what democracy can accomplish in Pakistan. Two long periods of martial law in Pakistan have embedded the concept of military participation in politics and have inhibited the development of a stable, democratic, constitutional system.

So the challenge for the international community now lies in matching our goals for Pakistan's future with the tools that we have available. Those tools of persuasion are limited and we lack the calibrations of subtlety and balance for which the situation today in Pakistan calls. The tools of condemnation and isolation are too blunt and heavy for that country. They must be tempered by the tools of engagement and forbearance. To engage is not to condone. But to isolate may result in Pakistan's descent into further political and economic chaos which would cause ordinary Pakistanis, whose interests we purport to champion, to suffer the most.

Likewise, regional stability is at risk if we do not continue to engage with Pakistan on core issues of international concern, be they counter-narcotics, non-proliferation, law enforcement, regional peace and security and counter-terrorism. Our own actions towards Pakistan in the days ahead should be guided by the steps taken by the new authorities. In that context, General Musharraf's commitments to a democratic future, to resolution of the dispute over Kashmir and to restraint in nuclear proliferation are most welcome.

Of course we wish to see General Musharraf take practical steps to acknowledge that democratic governance is not an experiment; it is a right accorded to all people under the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. The sooner civilian, democratic rule is restored, the better. It is better for the ordinary people of Pakistan; better for Pakistan as a nation; and better for Pakistan's relations with her neighbours and the international community.

In that context, I wish to add to the questions put to the Minister by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify the precise purpose of those discussions between Sir Charles Guthrie and General Musharraf, given the recent speculation over arms sales to Pakistan. The Minister will be aware that the Foreign Office Minister of State said that,

"we will consider any licences that we have in for arms exports on their merits as we have done in the past but we will not support anything which is used for external aggression or internal oppression, not least over Pakistan's activities in Kashmir".

Given that the Government fruitlessly proclaimed the very same gestures in relation to East Timor, what confidence can we have that those conditions will be respected in Pakistan?

Will the Minister confirm that there are at least 80 applications for export licences pending and will she clarify the Government's policy on applications for arms sales to Pakistan? In the light of the Government's strong condemnation of the coup in October and November and their ethical dimension to foreign policy, will she confirm that it is government policy that arms sales will not be reviewed until democratic guarantees are in place? If not, will she explain how the Government intend to demonstrate to the military government of Pakistan that there cannot be business as usual between them and the rest of the world, as the Foreign Secretary demanded in October?

I must say that it is difficult to see how the ethical dimensions of foreign policy have been served, when the Government are quick to suspend all bilateral aid to the government of Pakistan and when the Secretary of State for International Development says that,

"obviously, we cannot provide development assistance to the military authorities in Pakistan",

and when the Foreign Secretary said:

"We will not be doing business with the military regime",

yet the Government's policy on applications for arms exports to Pakistan remains far from clear.

The Minister will be aware that in July, President Clinton, on the subject of Kashmir, said that he would take a personal interest in encouraging an expeditious resumption and intensification of those bilateral efforts to resolve all issues dividing India and Pakistan, including Kashmir, once the sanctity of the line of control has been fully restored.

Pakistan has interpreted that as an indication that America may be willing to play a mediation role in Kashmir, something which, as we have heard during this debate, India vehemently opposes. Again, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that Kashmir is also our problem. Britain's position has always been that we are willing to act as a broker for peace if both sides request it, but that the impetus for a just and lasting solution to the conflict and the final settlement which involves and reflects the views of the people of Kashmir remains firmly a matter for India and Pakistan. In view of that, will the Minister say whether the Government have sought clarification of President Clinton's statement?

The state of development in the country of Pakistan has been made extremely clear by noble Lords during this debate, not least by the right reverend Prelate who referred to the importance of a grace period.

General Musharraf has pledged to revive the economy and indeed we should assist. We should assist because 36 million people in Pakistan live in absolute poverty; over two-thirds of the Pakistan adult population is illiterate; 60 million people do not have access to health facilities; 67 million people are without safe drinking water, and 89 million people are deprived of basic sanitation facilities. That is why it is incumbent on this House, indeed this Government, to respond positively to programmes of assistance for the development of Pakistan.

In conclusion, democracy will not take root if it is grafted on to corrupt and bankrupt institutions. Economic growth in Pakistan cannot be sustained without substantial investment in human development. It is from that development that in due course we will get the sort of democratic security for the people of Pakistan that is so essential. A simple adherence to the concept of democracy without recognising the fundamental importance of building the institutions of good governance and effective development programmes will simply not work. That is why we need to be sensitive to these issues when considering this question today; we need to be firm yet persuasive; robust yet sensitive to the new government of Pakistan; and resolute yet encouraging as we pursue our goal of the restoration of democracy.

My Lords, this has been an interesting and high quality debate. I welcome the level of unanimity and understanding of some of the difficulties that in general has been expressed by so many noble Lords.

I wish now to conclude our deliberations on the Motion before us on recent developments in Pakistan. During last week's debate on the international situation, I also promised replies to the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and my noble friends Lord Desai and Lord Janner.

I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, for drawing our attention to the crucial issue of the future of Pakistan—crucial because Pakistan is undoubtedly at a crossroads. He and other noble Lords spoke of the military coup, economic and developmental challenges, tensions with India, and nuclear issues. At this early stage, I particularly want to thank my noble friend Lord Paul for his kind words of thanks to our staff in Islamabad who at present are facing such difficult times.

The British Government are watching developments with concern, but we are not yet ready to subscribe to the gospel of despair, as perhaps some believe we are. I can reassure my noble friend Lord Ahmed that we agree that Britain cannot and should not turn its back on Pakistan and its people. Pakistan is too important to isolate. That is why, despite our deep concern over the coup, the British Government will stay engaged. We have too much shared history and too many shared interests to do otherwise, as a number of noble Lords mentioned. In that context, as far as I am aware Ministers have never refused to meet any envoy sent by General Musharraf. I was surprised to hear mention of that.

The policy of staying engaged is why the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence agreed to the visit of Sir Charles Guthrie, Chief of the Defence Staff, to Pakistan on 13th January. He underlined to General Musharraf our concern at recent events in Pakistan and the necessity for him urgently to reassure the international community of his commitment to an early transition to democratic rule and to tackling tensions in the region, particularly with India.

To answer the questions of my noble friend Lord Alton and respond to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, I say straightaway that the issue of arms sales was not on the agenda. Our policy on arms export licensing, as clearly set out in response to a Question in another place, is that we consider export licence applications for Pakistan on a case-by-case basis against our national criteria and those in the EU Code of Conduct for Arms Exports. Applications for export licences can take some time to process, especially if the situation in the country concerned is fluid. The coup in Pakistan created many uncertainties and, in the circumstances, it is right for the Government to take the time necessary to assess the new regime's behaviour and intentions before deciding on outstanding export licence applications.

I shall try to respond to the questions in relation to bonded labour in my response to the debate of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. I shall write to noble Lords in the event that time defeats me.

My Lords, I apologise for intervening. On the last point, does that in effect mean that we will be suspending arms licences for Pakistan until such time as there is some assurance that Pakistan will be returning to a democracy, possibly on a timetable basis?

My Lords, as I said, we will look at each application on its merits on a case-by-case basis. Obviously some considerations will apply more acutely to some than others. That is the fullest answer I am in a position to give.

I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that I cannot but agree with what was said by my noble friend Lord Paul in his fine speech, my noble friend Lord Brett and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that there can be no such thing as a "good coup". We have made that clear from the outset. We are aware of the shortcomings of the previous government in Pakistan. We made no secret of concerns about their record on many issues: relations with India, economic reform and human rights. But they were elected and the Pakistani people had the right to challenge them through the ballot box.

Military intervention is an unacceptable response to dissatisfaction with an elected government. Coups can only hinder the evolution of the democratic process. An apathetic response to a coup in a country of Pakistan's size and importance—it is the sixth largest democracy in the world—would have sent a destabilising signal to other fragile democracies throughout the Commonwealth and the rest of the world. I compliment the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on an excellent speech. She raised an interesting point on the definition of "democracy" which merits proper and further consideration.

Pakistan is a proud country with a proud people. My noble friend Lord Desai rightly made reference to the bad luck to which it has been subject. But the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was right when he said that it has been badly let down too by successive leaders, both civilian and military. As a result, Pakistan continues to struggle with deep-seated political and economic problems, including widespread poverty, as many noble Lords mentioned. Those trying circumstances help to explain the popular acceptance within the country of the coup to which the noble Lords, Lord Weatherill and Lord Sandberg, and my noble friend Lord Ahmed referred.

We welcome General Musharraf's pledges to address those problems. But I beg to challenge the conclusion of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, that the military should work to rebuild and restore democracy only after it has solved them. It is clear from previous experience in Pakistan and elsewhere that the military cannot be expected to see this process through on its own. In the long term, it is only through public consent, rooted in a strong responsive democratic process, that those issues can be addressed. We urge the present regime to begin work on the transition to democracy immediately, in parallel with the wider agenda. It cannot expect us to give it a blank cheque.

Since the end of the Cold War, the trend is undeniable. The world is moving in the direction of elected democratic government, and of professional armies under civilian control. We want to help to ensure that Pakistan is not left behind.

Democracy in Pakistan has suffered a setback. But we should not give up on the principle; nor should we lose hope that democracy in Pakistan can and will be rebuilt and restored, perhaps in an even healthier state than before. The Pakistani people deserve a new and better democracy—a democracy which is fair, responsive and transparent; a democracy which can deliver stability and national unity; a democracy which can bring security and prosperity to all Pakistanis, rather than a privileged few; a democracy strong enough to ensure that this military intervention is the last.

I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that General Musharraf has promised an early transition to a stronger democracy, as was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, and other speakers. The British Government welcome this. We want to see him succeed. It is now up to him to convince us that he is taking steps in pursuit of this end. I should say to all noble Lords that we are ready to listen, engage and provide practical help as long as we see real and sustained progress. This approach applies equally to our policy on government-to-government developmental aid.

The Commonwealth is also committed to the same approach through the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group mechanism. We have no illusions about the size of the challenge facing General Musharraf. But that does not mean that benchmarks for progress cannot be set. If a realistic and publicly-announced timetable is drawn up, and this is demonstrated to be working, the British Government will respond constructively.

However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, rebuilding democracy is not only about what happens on election day. It also means restoring public trust in the organs of the state and the system of checks and balances on which all democracies, including our own, depend. In this context we cannot ignore the accumulated problems posed by poor economic management, corruption, weak rule of law, a "winner takes all" political culture and a poor human rights environment. We hope and expect that General Musharraf will be looking at these issues in parallel.

My noble friends Lord Desai and Lord Paul, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester, all placed proper emphasis on the economic issues with which Pakistan is challenged. Without public trust in the management of the economy, any rebuilt political and institutional structure will have an uphill struggle for credibility. Economic reform is necessary to bring prosperity and to benefit the poor, but it can also encourage fairer and more transparent administration. Economic reforms are not just about the right to do business; they are also about the way in which business is done. It is in the interests of all to enshrine and enforce obligations to pay wages, taxes and debts. I agree with what has been said by many noble Lords in this regard.

Corruption has extended its powerful tentacles into all areas of national life in Pakistan. My noble friend Lord Desai gave us some graphic examples of this in his powerful speech. Other speakers also commented on it. This hurts the weak, curtails efficiency, checks economic development and sharpens the public's sense of alienation from the government.

Acting to stamp out corruption and encourage disinterested and transparent administration would benefit all Pakistanis. This process should apply equally to all sectors of society. Once those in authority are seen to respect the rule of law, it should become easier to demand that the public also do so. The law should uphold the rights of the weak against the strong. But, in parallel, there is a need for justice to be faster, firmer and fairer. I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Goldsmith for his helpful account of the work of the International Bar Association in this field. We wish to look very carefully at his suggestions in relation to taking these issues further.

We also welcome the emphasis placed by my noble friend Lord Paul and other noble Lords on the importance of the rule of law generally, and the judicial process. That applies most particularly to the excellent speech made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester. The tradition of "winner takes all" should and can be broken. For democracy to work better, a government should be able to take and respond to criticism and deal with their opponents in a balanced way. Political intimidation has no place.

In the immediate future, any trial of the deposed Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif must be fair and open. I cannot but agree with the comments made in this regard by my noble friend Lord Desai, and the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Moynihan. A show trial to settle old scores would strike a sour note. In answer to the specific question of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I can tell him that we have a hope and an aspiration that there will be no improper interference with the courts or with Mr Sharif's trial. We are watching closely the process of the trial, but our jury is still out.

Our dialogue on human rights with the previous government was wide ranging. We raised frankly our concerns over the position of women (Hudood Ordinances—honour killings), the treatment of religious and ethnic minorities (Christians, Ahmadis and Shias) and trade unions, as well as press freedom. Indeed, specific mention was made of the issue regarding the editor of the Friday Times. We welcome the commitments made by General Musharraf which were rightly highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, in her sensitive speech. We also agree with the sentiments made in this regard by many other noble Lords.

However, General Musharraf has to respect fully the guarantees set out in the Pakistani constitution. We look to him to ensure that they are implemented. But with that constitution formally suspended, the climate is uncertain. We shall be monitoring the situation closely. It is hard for us to continue our pressure for the repeal of the laws, such as the blasphemy laws and the Hudood Ordinances, in the vacuum that currently exists. I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Sandberg, that we do not believe that the teachings of Islam or the people of Pakistan are anti-Western or that they embrace violence. There is a history of good relations between Pakistan and the UK, exemplified by the positive role of people of Pakistani origin in modern Britain.

As I said earlier, Pakistan does not exist in a vacuum. I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, in particular for his pungent and well-informed analysis of the challenges facing the region. Britain is committed to working for peace, stability and prosperity throughout south Asia. A Pakistan which is at peace with itself and its neighbours is a crucial element in this equation. We should be under no illusion: the situation in south Asia is worrying. A number of my noble friends were right to express disquiet about the summer's conflict in the Kargil sector of the Line of Control, especially as it came so soon after nuclear testing by both Pakistan and India. The recent hijacking of an Indian Airlines aircraft has further increased tensions.

We have urged General Musharraf to renounce the option of military aggression over Kashmir and to make early moves towards reducing tensions with India. We have also asked that Pakistan co-operate fully with international efforts to combat the scourge of terrorism. We remain deeply concerned about Kashmir, both as a potential flashpoint and for the sake of the Kashmiri people. Our position is well known: we call for India and Pakistan to reach a just and lasting settlement that reflects the views of the Kashmiri people and offers them the best hope of peace and security. We have reiterated our calls for Pakistan and India to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and address the root causes of the differences between them.

On the issue of Kashmir, as I have already said, the British Government's position is very well known. We condemn terrorist attacks and human rights abuses alike. We stand ready to offer our good offices in any negotiation, but only if this is requested by all parties.

I have not yet seen the reports of General Musharraf's visit to China quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. If she will permit, I shall reply to her in writing.

To sum up, we want the best for Pakistan and its people. We firmly believe that that means democracy—a strong and resilient democracy that can guarantee political and economic security for its citizens, and work for peace in the region. We welcome the commitments that General Musharraf has given to work to that end, but urge him to reassure us with a time frame. If we see progress, we are ready to help. Pakistan is too important to give up on.

My Lords, this has been a very useful debate. In the last Session it was suggested that we might do away with Wednesday's debates in order to devote our time more frequently to looking at the Bills that come before us. I hope that today's debate and the debate last Wednesday demonstrate how very important these general debates are.

I should like to take the opportunity to thank all noble Lords who have participated. In particular, I thank my noble friend Lord Ahmed for his over-generous comments; the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester—my personal bishop, as I am in his diocese—for his contribution; and the Minister for her comments.

I take issue with the noble Baroness on only one matter. If General Musharraf's were a purely military regime, I would not support it. But, as I sought to point out, it is not a military regime. It is seeking a government of all the talents. As I understand it, there is only one military cabinet minister, apart from General Musharraf himself. So it is not a purely military regime.

I thank the noble Baroness very much for her comments and for the helpful way in which she dealt with the subject. I pay tribute also to the noble Baroness for speaking in the next debate. As one who, in a past incarnation, had to sit on the Front Bench throughout the day, I know how tempting it is to put one's feet up on the table. But that is not a tradition we have in your Lordships' House.

In concluding what has been a valuable debate, I would not wish it to be thought that in being pro-Pakistani, I am anti-Indian. I am certainly not. I served in the Arakan campaigns with the Jat (Hindu) squadron of my regiment. I have an equally high regard, respect and great affection for India and its people. I have only one remaining ambition, and I hope it may be vouchsafed: to see reconciliation between India and Pakistan.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in another place. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, I would like to make a Statement on the Government's decisions on the report of the Independent Commission on Policing in Northern Ireland, known as the Patten Report after its chairman, Chris Patten.

"Of all the issues that have divided society in Northern Ireland, policing is probably the most controversial. In the last 30 years the Royal Ulster Constabulary has faced demands completely unlike those faced by any other force in the United Kingdom or elsewhere in the developed world. I would like to place on record the Government's deep admiration for the courage, resilience and professionalism with which the RUC has met these challenges. The accounts I have heard of personal tragedy, pain and loss in the RUC family are profoundly moving and humbling. Three hundred and two officers have been killed, and many thousands injured. We all owe the RUC a huge debt of gratitude. The George Cross is a fitting acknowledgement of their sacrifice.

"But in rising to the challenge, the RUC has inevitably, if unfairly, become identified more with one side of the community than the other. It finds it hard to recruit from the nationalist community and—with 88 per cent of its members Protestant and only 8 per cent Catholic—is not representative of all sides of the community.

"This is not a desirable state of affairs. The RUC itself is forward-looking and accepts the need for change. It is eager to police a normal society in a normal professional way, but it is held back by the burden of history.

"The talks which led to the Good Friday agreement addressed but did not resolve these problems. Instead, Chris Patten and his colleagues were asked to design arrangements for,

'a police service that can enjoy widespread support from, and is seen to be an integral part of, the community as a whole.'

"The Patten Commission rose to this challenge and I pay tribute to them. Their report covers, among other things, composition, training, culture, ethos and symbols. My right honourable friend the Member for Redcar accepted the report in principle, and launched a period of consultation about the details. Since my own appointment, I have met all the interested parties and police groups and have listened carefully to what they had to say.

"The decisions which I am announcing today will be reflected in legislation which we will bring forward later in this Session. In reaching them, I have been driven by, and have tried to keep in balance, three distinct but interdependent considerations: representativeness; effectiveness; and respect for the sacrifices of the past. I say 'interdependent', because only a police service that is accepted and draws members from both traditions and is therefore accepted across the community can hope to be fully effective. And it is only by recognising the sacrifices of the past that we can move forward together to meet the challenges of the future. I am determined that the police in Northern Ireland should be modern, representative and effective, and no longer the fulcrum of antagonistic debate.

"However, Patten also points out that the implementation of some recommendations will,

'depend to a greater or lesser degree on how the security situation develops'

and that judgments will need to be made on how and when they should be introduced. That is advice which the Government will, rightly, keep firmly in mind as we take this process forward.

"Patten rightly places much emphasis on human rights. The Chief Constable and the new policing board together will be made responsible for developing and implementing a comprehensive programme of action— including an audit to ensure full compliance with human rights requirements. We also accept a new police oath, as proposed by Patten, which will be taken by all new recruits to the police service. I do not believe it appropriate for already attested officers to take the new oath, which would in any case raise significant legal difficulties. All officers will, however, receive human rights training, and will be required to behave in accordance with a code of ethics. This code will be provided for in legislation, and will, like the new oath, emphasise the priority to be given to human rights.

"The Government accept Patten's recommendation for the creation of a new policing board, composed, as the report recommends, to replace the current police authority. The new policing board will be responsible for securing the maintenance of an efficient and effective police service and holding the Chief Constable and the police service to account.

"I am sure the House will wish to join with me in paying tribute to the work of the police authority over the last 30 years. Many have served with distinction on the authority and were prepared to come forward even when there was a direct terrorist threat against them. Two members of the authority were murdered by terrorists. The contribution of the authority, members and staff, will not be forgotten.

"The report recommends clarifying the roles of the Secretary of State, the Chief Constable and the policing board. The broad thrust of the recommendations is that the policing board should play a more developed role—setting objectives, priorities and performance targets while leaving operational control and direction of the police firmly in the Chief Constable's hands.

"I entirely agree with the report that the new policing board,

"'should be empowered and equipped to scrutinise the performance of the police effectively'".

I therefore accept the recommendations and will introduce legislation accordingly, subject to the Chief Constable continuing to answer to me on all matters involving national security and the work of relevant agencies.

"Patten proposed the creation of district policing partnership boards to provide an element of local accountability. He envisaged that they should have a primarily consultative role with an ability to monitor police delivery against an agreed local plan, and I endorse this. He also proposed an additional community safety role, with powers to purchase services on top of normal policing. This latter activity is currently a subject being considered by the criminal justice review. Until decisions are taken on this review, which will be published shortly, I do not intend to extend their function in this way. It will be better, in any case, to concentrate initially on building up relationships at the local level in what I propose to call district policing partnerships. I also intend to consider further the arrangements proposed for Belfast where I am not satisfied that it would be right to have four separate partnerships.

"Progress of the style of policing and the size of the police service will be critically dependent on the Chief Constable's assessment of the security threat and the public order situation. There will be no question of rushing forward with changes in the absence of a stable security environment. Subject to that overall proviso, in line with the report the Chief Constable has decided to reorganise the police service into district commands based on district council areas and geared towards policing in partnership with the community. District commanders will have much higher levels of devolved authority under the overall command of the Chief Constable. The Chief Constable intends that this structural reorganisation will be under way by November this year.

"The Chief Constable will also reorganise police headquarters to produce a slimmer structure. Headquarters will in future take a more strategic approach to management and Special Branch and CID will both be retained and placed under a single assistant chief constable, as the Chief Constable believes is desirable, when the security situation permits.

"The Government accept Patten's recommendations on the future size of the police service—that is, a regular complement of 7,500 full-time officers— provided, as the report says, that the security situation does not deteriorate significantly. We accept Patten's recommendation for the enlargement of the part-time reserve and the discontinuation of the full-time reserve—again, subject to the security situation.

"The severance arrangements to enable serving police officers, whether regular or reservist, to leave the police service will be generous and sympathetic. The Government are committed to finding the necessary resources. Negotiations with the police staff associations are currently in progress. I hope that these discussions will help all sides to agree arrangements which will address the concern which officers understandably have about their future.

"I attach particular importance to Patten's recommendations for action to transform the composition of the police service, which are essential to gaining widespread acceptability. I endorse the proposal for 50/50 recruitment of Protestants and Catholics from a pool of candidates all of whom—I stress—will have qualified on merit. We propose that the requirement for this special measure should be kept under review on a triennial basis, with rigorous safeguards to ensure that the, rightly, challenging targets for recruitment do not diminish the standard required of recruits. There will be no question whatsoever of ex-terrorists joining the service.

"Our aim is to develop a police service which is both effective and accepted throughout the community. This aim, as Patten recognises, also clearly bears on the name and symbols of the RUC.

"The issue here is not whether the name of the RUC is wrong or something not to be proud of. I understand exactly why serving and former officers, their families and indeed widows are proud of the RUC and its name. The issue is whether a change in name, underlining a new start, is a necessary and indispensable part of attracting balance in recruits. Of course, it is not the only barrier to recruitment. There has been at times disgraceful intimidation of nationalists who wished to join the RUC. But a change of name was, in Patten's view, essential, and I agree.

"That change is needed to signal the new beginning which will, in particular, be symbolised by the arrival in the new training environment of the first recruits entering through the new independent procedures and selected on the new balanced basis. That point will come in the autumn of next year. At that point too, I will therefore bring into force the new title, which will be the Police Service of Northern Ireland, a name which I believe is preferable to that proposed by Patten.

"At the same time, a service badge incorporating this title will be introduced, after the new policing board has had a chance to address the issue. In this context, the RUC will wish to consider how best permanently to record the award to it of the George Cross last autumn. And, finally, existing police memorials will remain as they are, and the colour of the uniform will not change.

"The Government also accept Patten's important recommendation for IT improvements to put the police in Northern Ireland at the forefront of communications and information technology, and for police training. I am also delighted to tell the House that we have accepted the case for a new police college, and appropriate resources will be provided. These are in addition to a range of other forward-looking recommendations on practical policing issues, which I will not detain the House by detailing here, which we will also be implementing.

"Finally, Patten recommends the appointment of an oversight commissioner to monitor the implementation of those changes agreed by the Government. This appointment will not in any way cut across the responsibilities of either the new policing board or the Chief Constable, and the accountability which I and my colleagues have to this House on policing issues will not diminish as a result. The oversight commissioner will help create a first-rate police service for the future.

"The implementation of these changes will entail a major and challenging programme of work for the Government, the Chief Constable, the police authority (and, in due course, the policing board) but, most of all, for police officers themselves. It is not an overnight event but a process of change which will extend over several years. I am confident that the police will meet the challenge of change positively and with commitment.

"For those in the unionist community who have fears, I urge them to accept the need for significant change to create a police service in which all can feel they belong and with which all can identify. To nationalists, who have for so long withheld their support from the police in Northern Ireland, I would ask them to reflect on the transformation that is planned and to reconsider their position. It is now time for them to support this programme of change; unambiguously to support the police; and to encourage young men and women from their community to join the police. The prize is a modern, effective police service drawing support and strength from all parts of the community. It is within our grasp. The proposals I have announced today should enable us to achieve it."

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State in another place.

Before going further, I should like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who is in his place, for all the work that he has done and for his communication with us in this House over the past few years. The Northern Ireland problem is not over and it is sad that the Government do not see fit to have a territorial Minister in your Lordships' House.

I should like also to pay a serious and great tribute to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, GC, for the wonderful work that it has done over the past 30 years. It has protected us not only at home in Northern Ireland but in the Kingdom as a whole from the terrible outrages of the most sophisticated terrorism that the world has yet known. It has done a wonderful job and we should never forget it. I should point out—I hope the Minister agrees—that, while the Patten Report is a professional piece of work, it totally fails to pay adequate tribute to the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

We welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has listened to representations and is not implementing Patten en bloc and unedited. However, there are a number of areas where we disagree with the Government's approach. The Secretary of State, while accepting the need for a name change, has put back the change of name by approximately one year. Does the Minister accept that politically it will make no difference? Does she further accept that a survey of the Police Federation found that a change of name for the police force would have little impact on recruitment, would find little favour with the nationalist community but would cause considerable offence in the Protestant community?

As regards recruitment, does not the Minister agree that the ratio of Protestant and Catholic recruits would change overnight if the SDLP and Sinn Fein were to encourage their constituents and the nationalist community as a whole to join the police force? I suggest that the name of the RUC is not a deterrent to recruitment. It is well understood, and was mentioned by the Secretary of State in his Statement, that the deterrent to the nationalist community joining the RUC is nothing other than intimidation by the IRA and Sinn Fein. It is worth noting that the IRA has no intention whatever of changing its name. We on these Benches believe that a compromise solution should be found to allow the highly respected name Royal Ulster Constabulary, GC, to remain.

The Secretary of State refers to measures which are security sensitive. Under this heading, I must ask the Government for an undertaking that the police force in Northern Ireland will always be maintained and equipped at a level to allow it to combat both the threat of terrorism—which has not by any means gone away; there has not been any decommissioning yet from any terrorist group—and the rapidly increasing level of violent non-terrorist crime and disorder which is currently taking place. I think your Lordships know to what I am referring.

Does not the Minister agree that one of the objectives of Patten was to take the politics out of Northern Ireland policing once and for all? Surely making one of the first jobs of the new policing board that of agreeing the design of the new cap badge—which I understand is the Secretary of State's intention—is throwing politics into that boardroom before the board has yet sat.

Surely setting up the district policing partnership boards, which are likely to have terrorists among their numbers—let us not mess about with words; that is what will happen—is a recipe for disaster and will maintain the politics of the past in the police at local level. We welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has thought better of allowing rates to be raised in order to employ what would have been vigilantes.

Finally, despite these few criticisms of a huge report which will do a number of great things—and it is worth saying that much of the report was lifted from the Chief Constable's own review—I wish to make it clear that on these Benches we share the Government's objective of changing the policing environment. I hope that the Minister can agree that the only way to achieve that is for the terrorists on all sides to sign up to decommissioning.

Everyone, including the Royal Ulster Constabulary, recognises that there must be changes. We all share the goal of building a police force that is genuinely representative of the whole community.

My Lords, in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State in another place earlier today, we on these Benches broadly support the Government's intention to implement most of the proposals made in the Patten Report.

The report was an integral part of the Good Friday Agreement and, significantly, its proposals, taken together, are to be seen as a consistent and integrated programme to bring about the changes it perceived as necessary.

I am sure that the Minister will readily agree that effecting those changes will not be easy. First, there is the problem of timing: the momentum gathered from the formation of the Executive must be maintained, but without jeopardising the police function in Northern Ireland. Liberal Democrats reject those who call for a disbanding of all present arrangements, but we recognise the need for fundamental change of the kind that Patten proposes.

Secondly, there are the enormous human resource problems associated with the recruitment, retention and severance of the future force. Police forces across the United Kingdom have experienced great difficulty in attracting applicants from a variety of cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Although less diverse, Northern Ireland is not unique in this respect—although the task is monumental if the proportion of nearly 90 per cent recruitment from only one side of the population is to be brought into a better balance. As Patten states, it will require concentrated and sustained appeals from both sides of the community to encourage much wider Catholic participation in the police service. Rigid 50/50 quotas introduced at this stage may be counter-productive. I ask the Government to look again at that particular issue.

Confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the police will be greatly enhanced by the provisions being made for greater local accountability and engagement. Of course, how this is introduced is fraught with difficulties. Great care must be taken to prevent any usurpation by paramilitary organisations. I am assured that in his Statement the Secretary of State showed that he is fully seized of these difficulties.

But these difficulties cannot be used to delay developments designed to foster a widespread degree of accountability and community ownership of the police. By the same token, the proposed independent commission on policing will need quickly to establish a close working relationship with local authorities and community-based organisations. Indeed, one of the great advantages that Northern Ireland enjoys is the strength of its largely non-sectarian voluntary sector.

There are other reasons for cautious optimism. I am sure that the Minister will concur that the RUC is one of the most efficient forces in the UK, having had some of the hardest tasks to tackle. It is fully capable of adapting to the changes recommended in Patten and now largely endorsed by the Government. Introducing the skills and competencies that are called for, shifting the focus towards community and neighbourhood policing and emphasising the concern for human rights are considerable challenges, but, again, they are not unique to Northern Ireland. Police forces in all the western democracies are having to face these and similar challenges. In Sir Ronnie Flanagan, it has a chief constable fully equipped to provide the leadership to bring about a transformation that will retain the best of the old while addressing the imperatives of the new.

In endorsing the agenda outlined by the Secretary of State, we also endorse his acknowledgement of the dedication, courage and resourcefulness displayed by most members of the RUC and not least to those who were injured or murdered in the course of their duties. Nothing detracts from that tribute in saying that the situation now needs to move on if more normal, peaceful conditions are to be allowed to develop.

Symbol and rhetoric perhaps play a larger role in the life of Northern Ireland than elsewhere in the UK. They are the outward and visible signs of the communal divide that has existed for far too long. They should not, of course, be exorcised, even if that were possible, but they do need to be placed in the proper perspective of a wider, inclusive sense of citizenship, which I believe the steps announced by the Government today will help to achieve.

My Lords, I begin by joining the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, in his tribute to my noble friend Lord Dubs. All I can say to the noble Lord is that the department for which my noble friend was responsible is, of course, the department which is now—to his satisfaction and I know to the satisfaction of the whole House—part of the devolution settlement for Northern Ireland. However, I join with the noble Lord in paying tribute to my noble friend and I know that his work and commitment are widely respected right across the community.

I should also like to join both the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, in paying tribute both to the Chief Constable and members of the RUC for the contribution and sacrifice they have made over the past 30 years. I agree—as I know my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has agreed—that, on reflection, perhaps the Patten Report pays an ineffective and inadequate tribute to their role and work.

A number of questions have been raised, but those questions have been asked in the context of an overall agreement with the main thrust of the Government's policy in this area. I welcome that most warmly. I believe that it is extremely important that we move ahead together on this issue.

I shall now turn to some of the particular issues that have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, asked about the 50:50 recruitment policy. Patten said that change in this area is critical. I shall quote from the report:

"We take the view that … real community policing is impossible if the composition of the police service bears little relationship to the composition of the community as a whole".

We accept that this approach is not without difficulties and we will review this special measure on a triennial basis in order to maintain rigorous safeguards. Again, it is quite clear that the proportion of Catholic officers would more than double within four years and quadruple within 10. At this point perhaps I should make it absolutely clear that we believe that the future for those who will serve in the police service in Northern Ireland will be a better one if we achieve our objective in terms of recruitment.

I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that IRA intimidation is a feature and a cause of Catholic under-representation. However, while I do not think that they are mutually exclusive, another factor to be taken into account is the lack of identification with the RUC within the nationalist community. As my right honourable friend made clear in his Statement in the other place, the Government are calling on nationalists who have long withheld true support for the police service to encourage young men and women from their community now to join the police.

The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, raised the issue of vetting people who will become involved. His specific point related to those who would be serving on the local organisations. Perhaps I may assure him that not only will we continue to maintain strict security safeguards, but we will continue vetting recruits to the police service.

The Government recognise the issue of timing. As the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, pointed out, I accept that change cannot take place overnight. That is quite clear. However, we wish to move forward as quickly as possible.

As regards the issue of the change of name, following a survey from PANI, we believe that the Catholic community would support a renamed police service. Furthermore, in that survey the Catholic community revealed that they wanted equal recruitment, a factor that also received wide support within the Protestant community. A question was also raised about the need to judge the timing for the proposed change of name. As my right honourable friend said in his Statement, the change is needed to signal the new beginning. For that reason we believe that, with the first recruits entering through the new recruitment procedures and selected on the new balanced basis, autumn of next year would be the appropriate time to undertake the change.

An extremely difficult issue relates to symbols, badges and the respect that is rightly due to the history and contribution of the RUC. The question has been raised as to whether it is appropriate to give the task of considering this issue to the new policing board. However difficult this may be, the Government believe that it is important to move ahead with support. Therefore it is essential that a consensus is achieved by the people of Northern Ireland, and in particular those on the policing boards who will need to take the project forward.

I hope that I have answered the points that have been raised. If I have failed to cover any issues, I shall write promptly.

My Lords, convention requires that my contribution should mainly take the form of questions. However, I feel somewhat reluctant to interrogate the Minister, for whom I have great respect—just as I respect and, I am sure, does the whole House, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, whom I am glad to see is in his place in support of his colleague in this difficult task. I am also reassured by the presence on the Front Bench of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General who has a good deal of experience of the problems in Northern Ireland.

It has been said that there is nothing novel about today's events. As an old hand, I believe this to be merely a kind of re-run of many similar statements and events over the past 30 years, stretching back to 1969. There is nothing terribly new about the matter. However, despite my reservations about questioning the noble Baroness, will she concede that various side issues have been employed in the Patten Report—reflected to some extent in today's Statement by the Secretary of State—to conceal the true objective; namely, neutralising the Royal Ulster Constabulary as an effective counter-terrorist force? After all, that was the reason why the Patten Report was foreshadowed in the Good Friday agreement. At that time the matter was included in that glorious paragraph headed, "Reconciliation". I shall not be tempted to go further on that.

Is the Minister aware that the agreement was and will continue to be a blue-print for British withdrawal? We should remember that only last week Mr Adams announced that Irish unity—that is, complete British withdrawal—would be achieved before 2016. He chose that date because it is the anniversary of the Easter Rising.

I am reluctant to ask the Minister the next question because it may be difficult to answer. Can she confirm that British planners, not necessarily in the Cabinet, originally aimed for a withdrawal date of 2023, but that the timetable is shrinking rapidly? The principle of consent originally looked convincing, but it was greatly eroded by falsehoods and deceptions which influenced the outcome of the last referendum. We can take it for granted that all the same techniques will be wheeled out and used in any future test of opinion. I fear that we are on a slippery slope and there is no stopping place.

Finally, should anyone doubt the existence of that master plan, the proof lies in the acceleration of concessions to all the terrorist groups—Protestant and Roman Catholic, Protestant and Republican—concessions, mark you, on behalf of the law-abiding people of all religions, but no reciprocity whatever for many of the terrorist groups. It also lies in the planned fudge on decommissioning which is shortly to be unveiled; for example, we can predict with a fair degree of certainty the use of the phrase "putting weapons beyond use". Beyond use for how long and for what purpose? We can assume only that that will ensure that they become available when British restraint has been eliminated, as is currently being planned.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, asked a range of questions and I shall try to answer them as quickly as possible. The Government will not leave the people in Northern Ireland or in the United Kingdom as a whole unprotected from terrorism. The Statement makes it clear that, for example, progress on the size of the police service will be critically dependent on the Chief Constable's assessment of the security threat and the public order issue.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State made absolutely clear our commitment to the implementation in full of all parts of the Belfast agreement. Therefore, I cannot possibly agree with the noble Lord that the real issue, which he claims is hidden, of neutralising the effective anti-terrorist role of the RUC is a valid point of view.

Decommissioning is required under the Good Friday agreement and the Government want to see the implementation of all areas. The Patten Report also points out that the implementation of some recommendations will, as is mentioned in the Statement,

"depend to a greater or lesser degree on how the security situation develops".

In conclusion, we believe that the situation on the streets of Northern Ireland for the men and women of the police service will be safer if the whole community feels supportive and with ownership of the police service.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, not least for her assurance that none of the Patten reforms will be implemented until after 1st May, which is the terminal date for the handing in of terrorist weapons.

On the difficult and sensitive issue of symbols and the name of the RUC, I regret that so intelligent and normally sensitive a man as Chris Patten made such recommendations. I also regret that the Government have felt obliged to accept them.

Is not the real reason for changing the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary not that if we retained it we should fail to attract Catholic and Republican recruits to the constabulary, but because the word "Royal" indicates an allegiance to this country, this Crown, this Parliament and this Government? Is it not simply because Sinn Fein will not accept it? It is the bone in its throat and unfortunately, in my view, we have agreed to go along with it.

My Lords, I begin by making clear to my noble friend that the Patten Report is not tied to other aspects of the Good Friday agreement such as decommissioning. Changes in policing need to be considered in their own right. In that context, some of the recommendations of the Patten Report were already being implemented by the Chief Constable in Northern Ireland prior to the publication of the report. The report contains a range of recommendations, many of which deal with issues that are good policing practice. We believe that the proposals will strengthen the role of the police.

My noble friend passionately raised the point of the name change. If we are to achieve peace and stability in Northern Ireland, it will be dependent on mutual respect for the opinions of both traditions within the community. That can be the only way in which we can move forward.

My Lords, will the Minister accept that if there ever had been such a plan as that adumbrated by my noble friend Lord Molyneaux of Killead, it was successfully concealed from me during some five years as Secretary of State and nine years as a Law Officer? However, that may have been because those responsible for it hoped to confide it to someone more likely to be in sympathy with it.

Will the Minister also accept that I welcome in the response to the Patten Report the retention of a unified police service for the whole of Northern Ireland rather than the fragmented service which had been bruited and argued for in some quarters? I equally welcome the retention of a special branch within it. That is absolutely essential to the continuance of the RUC's ability to counter terrorism in Northern Ireland. I also welcome the fact that the police will not have to coexist with locally recruited bands of irregulars, at least for the present, and I hope that they never will.

I particularly welcome the properly generous tone of the language in which the Secretary of State pays a well deserved tribute to the members of the RUC, 302 of whom have died with some 9,000 injured. That generosity and warmth of tone was, as the Minister fairly recognised, sadly and inappropriately missing from the Patten Report; something which occasioned much hurt.

Finally, I welcome the recognition in the Statement that nationalists should support the police service in Northern Ireland. I also welcome what has been said about the desirability of their being encouraged to do so by their political representatives. Perhaps the Minister will allow me to add a gloss to that: it would be an enormous help and long overdue if leaders of the Roman Catholic Church were to indicate that it would be an entirely proper service for good members of their flock.

The Government know that members of the RUC, including Roman Catholics and their dependants, have a burning pride in the name of the RUC. The force has carried the name throughout the protracted period of valiant service, properly recognised now by the George Cross. If so prominent a Roman Catholic leader as Monseigneur Dennis Faul has recommended that the name of the RUC should continue in some amalgamated form—a recommendation which attracted instant condemnation from Sinn Fein, as the noble Lord, Lord Shore, will not be surprised to hear—I ask the Minister this question. Would it not be more compassionate and wiser, if the RUC is really greater than its name, for the Government to adopt that solution rather than to dismiss the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and send it to some unworthy discard pile where it does not deserve to lie?

My Lords, I welcome the support from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. While many people may have been deceived on many occasions in the past, I cannot believe that anyone would have got that kind of plan and scheme past him during his distinguished period of office.

On the issue of the name, we are sympathetic to both sides of the argument but have been persuaded, after considerable and careful thought, that the name is an obstacle to change. The RUC does not belong solely to those who serve in it, however gallant and distinguished that service has been—and it has. It belongs, as a public service without parallel in these islands, to all the people of Northern Ireland whom the police exist to serve and protect. We believe that the name should command the respect of all sections of the community.

My Lords, I am grateful for the comments made by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. The House will not be surprised if I give my support to the Statement by the Secretary of State today. Many members of the RUC who served bravely and steadfastly, in the most difficult circumstances, deserve to have some assurances about their personal futures. Some are liable to lose their jobs.

I ask my noble friend to give an assurance that the Government will give sympathetic and generous treatment to those members of the RUC who may have to lose their jobs as a result of the changes. I ask that they be given adequate training to prepare them for careers outside the RUC and that the Government consider possible opportunities for RUC officers to serve in other police forces in Britain where there are recruiting difficulties, such as in London.

My Lords, I can assure my noble friend Lord Dubs that discussions have started. The Prime Minister and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State have assured all concerned that arrangements will be generous and sympathetic. It is too early to say when the packages will be agreed, but discussions are already taking place with my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

Detailed work by the Police Rehabilitation and Retraining Trust and the Training and Employment Agency and LEDU will all offer assistance and advice and we will explore all opportunities to offer people the chance of moving to other police services.

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords, I believe it is the turn of the Cross-Benches.

My Lords, there are two issues I wish to mention. The Patten report and the Government mention the speed of implementation being governed by how the security situation develops. The yardstick for gauging the security situation seems to mean two entirely different things to different people. On the one hand, to most people who live outside Northern Ireland it means the level of violence and the number of terrorist incidents as portrayed on the news. To those of us who live in the Province, that is only part of the story. At present there is continued violence and intimidation on the same scale as prior to the cease-fire, instigated by those who are not on cease-fire and either instigated or previously set up by those who are on cease-fire.

Can the Minister give a reassurance that the Government will take fully into account not only the security situation as it hits the headlines, but also the level of organised crime, before they implement the measures, especially cutting the force by half?

The second issue is the name and the badge change. For many reasons, I do not support what is proposed; I am entirely against it. The Government say that it will make the force more acceptable in nationalist areas and encourage recruiting. I feel they are being a little economic with the facts. The Statement says that the RUC,

"finds it hard to recruit from the nationalist community … with 88 per cent of its members Protestant and only 8 per cent Catholic".

That is only part of the story. Your Lordships should be aware that the percentage of nationalists who came forward to be selected in the last so-called competition was over 20 per cent. The number of calls for assistance from the nationalist areas rocketed to 24 per cent from hard-line Newry, 22.7 per cent in Waterside and 12 per cent in Woodburn and others. I do not believe that the Government have justified the change of name. They should make more public the facts as they are and the facts that the police produce.

My Lords, I hope I am able to give the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, the assurance he seeks. As my right honourable friend said,

"Progress of the style of policing and the size of the police service will be critically dependent on the Chief Constable's assessment of the security threat",

and all threats, including the level of organised crime and the public order situation. There will be no question of rushing forward with changes in the absence of a stable security environment.

I note the noble Viscount's point regarding recruitment. We must work to raise the level of representation in order to take forward the peace process that we all support.

My Lords, I remind the House that no more than 20 minutes is permitted for discussion on Statements after the Front Bench interventions. We must therefore move on.

rose to call attention to the case for action, bilaterally, and through inter-governmental organisations, to end bonded labour and all other contemporary forms of slavery; and to move for Papers.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is an honour to introduce a debate on bonded labour and contemporary forms of slavery. I acknowledge the support I have received from my Cross-Bench colleagues. I speak as a council member of Anti-Slavery International, to whom I am indebted for many of the stat. sties, but I shall also draw on experience gained with other organisations.

Slavery is hardly a new subject to the House. The very name of Wilberforce is evidence of continuity in this and another place. I pay tribute to my noble and learned friend and to his forebears for the campaigns of the past, which we shall continue. But in our mobile society, the new slavery has some hidden but no less hideous manifestations.

I shall concentrate on the Indian sub-continent, if only to vary the prevalent image that we have of slavery in sub-Saharan Africa. A few weeks ago heard a bonded labourer from Maharashtra, Keshav Nankar, tell his story. He described how his father had removed him from school to make him work for his landlord, to whom he owed a debt. For years he toiled in the fields and received one meal a day, but the debt was never paid. Like his father, he was utterly dependent and destined to remain in bondage for life. When he tried to earn extra income elsewhere he was assaulted, abused and returned to the landlord. It was only when he joined an association started by a Mr and Mrs Vivek Pandit in 1983 to help bonded labourers that Keshav was able to break free and assert his rights under Indian and international law. The Pandits are the latest of a long line of recipients of the Anti-Slavery Award who have successfully campaigned against various forms of ignorance, abuse and oppression and secured the release of thousands of bonded labourers. While many countries have long ago passed legislation to outlaw slavery, the victims, by themselves, rarely have redress. It is often only a test case or a sustained campaign by their peers that finally secures their freedom, with, if possible, a rehabilitation programme which will secure their income in future.

I highlight bonded labour today as one of the extreme forms of contemporary slavery. But slavery comes in many disguises. Others will mention child labour, the trafficking of women, domestic migrant labour and the more traditional slavery which persists in West Africa. I should emphasise that Mr Nankar's is an average case. It is possible to imagine the more severe and inhuman treatment which many labourers, house servants and child workers receive simply because, as security for a loan, they have become a tradable commodity.

It is estimated by the UN Working Group on Slavery that there are over 20 million bonded labourers, most of whom are in the Indian subcontinent. In India alone there are at least 12 million (or about 6 per cent of all agricultural labourers), most of whom are dalits and adivasis. According to Human Rights Watch last year, the true figure may be nearer 40 million. Of those, the Indian Government had at the last count (the end of March 1998) identified and rehabilitated only 240,000. As we heard earlier today from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in Pakistan there may be 20 million, of whom 8 million are children. One survey showed that 51 per cent of farmers had taken out loans, in nine out of 10 cases from their own landlords. Seventy-five per cent of labourers at brick kilns are bonded. A study of child labour in the carpet industry found that nine out of 10 families were in debt. Many of the 1.2 million children involved in carpet-weaving in Pakistan are bonded.

At times it seems as though the evils of feudalism and the caste system are so endemic in society that they will never change. Recently, Sir Leon Brittan, now the noble Lord, Lord Brittan, in responding to the notion of an ethical foreign policy, said that today's Good Samaritans could respond only within their "circle of obligation". Presumably, that means that one can campaign against slavery only if one lives in a city like Liverpool or Bristol. We cannot pretend to fight every battle, whether in politics, diplomacy or international law, yet history shows that where clearly defined justice coincides with organised resistance and the determination of the people, oppression and immoral practices can be eroded; indeed, they are being broken down every day.

This debate gives me the opportunity to report on a visit that I paid to Nepal only two weeks ago sponsored by Anti-Slavery International and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. The visit was organised by an impressive Nepalese human rights charity called INSEC founded only 10 years ago at the outset of Nepal's parliamentary democracy. With Swami Agnivesh, a veteran Indian campaigner on bonded labour, Dr Kevin Bales of the University of Surrey and two experts from Pakistan and Japan, I called on Nepal's political leaders to reinforce the need for legislation already identified by those Nepalese who were committed to a fairer and more democratic society.

In India, case law has been a helpful stimulus to change. A prominent decision in the Supreme Court by Justice Bhagwati in 1984 on behalf of bonded labourers in Haryana was a historic landmark in the campaign led by the Bonded Liberation Front. It is likely that a similar case brought before the Nepalese Supreme Court will have a catalytic effect. It is well known in Nepal and elsewhere that corruption pervades the political and economic system. The currents of international trade and investment, which are sometimes held up as liberating forces in a developing country, can have the opposite effect: they may reinforce a corrupt business interest which already has a tight monopoly of influence and employment rather than any responsibility to redistribute wealth.

Unwittingly, as consumers we often subscribe to a society in which bonded labourers such as child carpet-weavers and gem polishers who work in dangerous conditions are merely kept in their place. This system continues in Nepal in violation of the UN Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery 1956 to which Nepal is a signatory. This and the Slavery Convention 1926 were ratified in 1963 but there is no specific legislation on bonded labour in Nepal. Even the statutory minimum wage under the Labour Act 1992—which is another parallel issue—does not cover agriculture. Despite our efforts, Nepal has not ratified ILO Convention No. 29 on forced labour which includes an explicit ban on debt bondage. Even when Nepal has its own legislation on bonded labour the problem, as so often, will be its implementation. It will depend on education and public awareness of the existing law and the ability of individuals and small groups to resist landlords and vested interests, who in many cases maintain law and order and may even be its representatives.

Foreign governments and investors in developing countries like Nepal are rightly interested in the success of the democratic process which now depends on empowering informal sectors of civil society as much as, and alongside, the formal political system. As the noble Lord, Lord Paul, said earlier when speaking of Pakistan and India, it requires transparency, accountability and the due process of law. I believe that that applies also to Nepal.

During our visit to Nepal the new Prime Minister, Mr Bhattarai, undertook to appoint a commission on bonded labour which would report within two and a half months, after which the government would themselves sponsor a Bill. That was genuine progress. The Opposition Leader Madhav Kumar Nepal told us that his party had already condemned bonded labour and its members were committed to its removal. The Speaker, the Chairman of the National Assembly and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court all gave us their personal reassurance that legislation, drafts of which were already available through the human rights charity INSEC and its lawyers, would be enacted as soon as possible. I give the example of Nepal because it is a country with a genuine political will to abolish the kamaiya system and other forms of bonded labour which afflict over 100,000 families who live mainly in the south-western Tarai and many others elsewhere under the more widespread haliya system.

This brings me to the role of outside governments, in particular our own. I shall try briefly to outline our national responsibility, although I hope that others will ask more detailed questions. First, we have an obligation to ensure that modern forms of slavery do not occur in the UK and involve our own citizens. The Minister will be aware of legislation such as Part II of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 and some of the immigration rules which in theory cover UK citizens who are involved in the international trafficking of persons in forced employment, such as prostitution or domestic servitude. I should like to ask the Minister whether the success of this legislation has been regularly monitored by the Home Office, and with what results?

Secondly, Her Majesty's Government also need to ratify ILO Convention 182 eliminating the worst forms of child labour adopted in June 1999. We have no right to talk of an ethical foreign policy unless we are prepared to ratify those conventions. The convention prohibits all forms of child slavery, including bonded labour as well as forced recruitment of child soldiers and the use of children for prostitution or pornography. Is there any reason for delay in the ratification process? Will the Government also press the Government of Nepal to ratify the ILO Convention 29, which I have mentioned?

Does the Minister agree that the UK could do more through the UN system; and that the issue needs to be addressed more directly within the anti-poverty strategies of donors? Does the noble Baroness support, therefore, as part of the UN's current review of human rights the fundamental reform of the present working group on contemporary forms of slavery—it has done valuable work but has perhaps fulfilled its work—and, better still, the replacement with a special rapporteur of the Human Rights Commission?

Thirdly, using Nepal as an example I should like to press the Minister on the role of the Department for International Development in removing bonded labour. The noble Baroness will know that the Secretary of State is concerned about the issue and that the elimination of poverty is high on the agenda. But adapting the DfID programme is a painfully slow process. I know that a new office was set up last April, and that many more staff have been recruited, but after conversations with the ambassador and DfID representatives in Kathmandu, I am not convinced that we are adequately supporting the active participants in the democratic process.

My main message to the Government is this. Please take advantage of the consensus which now exists between the political parties on the issue of bonded labour. It is an ideal time for Her Majesty's Government, with their historic role in the region, to identify the causes of poverty in Nepal and to become associated with the forces of change. As DfID knows, this has as much relevance to good governance at national level as to poverty alleviation on the ground.

One of the priorities in Nepal and similar countries is the need for comprehensive regional surveys which, as the noble Lord, Lord Brett, will know, can identify bonded labourers and help to establish government rehabilitation programmes—perhaps under ILO auspices. It is important to remember that those responsible for keeping people in debt bondage must be charged and prosecuted under domestic law. It cannot be right, as has happened in some countries, that sums of money are made available to groups which themselves claim benefits for acts of so-called liberation of their own employees.

NGOs today, like INSEC in Nepal, are valuable vehicles of democratic change. More and more they are not just human rights or development agencies but a means of encouraging governments through popular participation. I urge the Government to maintain their present support for civil society which is also a powerful diplomatic tool.

In conclusion, everyone knows how much this Government, encouraged by Churches and non-governmental organisations, have already devoted to the gradual cancellation of the official debts of the poorest countries—a main plank in their efforts to end poverty. It seems logical to pay equal attention to the plight of the very poorest people and to practical ways of relieving their debt and their freedom in the face of one of the most vicious and enduring forms of injustice the world has seen.

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, on arranging the debate. When I was in West Africa last year, I was not infrequently told that there was no slavery here, but there was over the border, in another country. However, a closer look at labour practices shows that these cruel forms o f exploitation are not only found in faraway places.

First, I should like to acknowledge the work of the most long-established of all the international organisations, the ILO. It was probably the first tripartite organisation, drawing on the experience of workers' organisations as well as of employers and governments, as my noble friend Lord Brett may say, with his great experience. The ILO's 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work is supported by core labour standards, as well as various conventions, the implementation of which would eliminate the most prevalent current form of slavery—bonded labour—so comprehensively described in the sub-continent by the noble Earl. Implementation is, of course, the key word. Can the Minister tell us more about the Government's strategy for supporting the implementation of the core labour standards in respect of bonded labour? What prospect is there of European Union co-operation in the process?

The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, referred to the ILO Convention on the Worst Forms of Child Labour. I hope that we are on the way to ratifying it. However, to come closer to Europe, trafficking in women and children—it seems to appear wherever economic breakdown has propelled vulnerable people into illusory promises of work abroad—is, sadly, now found in many Balkan countries. When I had the honour to lead the UK delegation at the previous United Nations conference on women in 1995, one of the unanimously agreed parts of the platform we negotiated, signed up to by all governments, was to strengthen existing legislation and develop various other measures, including working with non-governmental organisations, to eliminate trafficking. That was not an easy task. But, five years on, can the Minister say how the Government have taken part in that united aim, in particular in relation to the new International Criminal Court?

Finally, over the years there have been instances in the UK of people brought in with special status as domestic employees of foreign nationals, a small number of whom were kept in conditions of slavery here in London from which they were too frightened to leave because of the insecurity of their entry status. When I was departmentally responsible for the issue several distressing cases came to light. However, the issue was not addressed until this Government changed the system to allow those domestic workers to change their employer without fear of deportation or of being handed back to him. They also made interim arrangements to safeguard the position of people who were admitted under the previous regime. In that, I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton—he is not in his place—in pressing for action to remedy the problem. I have met many victims. I am sure that this House will agree that it is an example of independent pressure from the Cross Benches at its best; and it is an example of a responsive government.

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl on initiating this debate on some of the most brutal forms of man's inhumanity to man. I shall focus on two areas where I have first-hand experience: Burma and Sudan. There are many excellent reports on Burma from human rights organisations, but sometimes individual stories speak most eloquently. In our visits to the Karen and Karenni people, we meet many men and women who give compelling, detailed accounts of their experiences of forced labour, often in situations so brutal that many die. I have time for only two examples.

First, We Zen Nyo, aged 25 from Tomalay village, Shadaw township, told us:

"I was driven out of my village because the Burmese had burnt all the village's rice and crops and destroyed everything. I and some other villagers tried to return to our village. However, we were arrested by Burmese troops and forced to become porters. This happened in 1998. We were forced to carry 35 kilograms of rice for the soldiers. During my time as a porter, I witnessed one old man being killed because he was too weak to carry the load assigned to him. We were made to work harder than animals".

Secondly, Abdullah, a 30 year-old Muslim mullah from Hlaing Bwe, described systematic oppression of Muslims and frequent interrogations by the SPDC regime. He told us:

"I was arrested for failing to report for portering and forced to porter ammunition, rice and beans. There was little food given to porters and any who were too weak to work or walk were killed beside the road and their bodies left there. I counted 29 porters killed during my period of forced service".

I could give many more such examples. Perhaps I may therefore ask the Minister whether the Government will press the SPDC to open up all of Burma to human rights monitors and humanitarian aid workers. In her answer to a similar question on Monday of this week, she implied that security problems are a legitimate reason for denial of access to certain areas. But these are precisely the areas where the SPDC regime is perpetrating its worst, most systematic atrocities, especially against the ethnic minorities. There are organisations which are prepared to take certain risks to reach people in need, my own organisation Christian Solidarity Worldwide included. I hope that the Government will not support the SPDC in a cover-up of its heinous policies under the guise of security concerns. Instead, I ask the Government to do all they can to press the SPDC to allow access to all its citizens, for their humanitarian needs to be met, and for their fundamental human rights to be respected, including the right not to be subjected to forced or slave labour and porterage.

I turn to Sudan. Some forms of slavery have been endemic in much of Africa since time immemorial. But slavery in Sudan escalated in 1994 when the Islamist National Islamic Front—the NIF—encouraged Arab tribesmen in the borderlands between north and south Sudan to fight a jihad against the African people in the south. They armed the Arabs with Kalashnikov automatic rifles and provided tanks, horses and camels. The local African Dinka tribes could not defend themselves with traditional spears against such sophisticated attacks and the era of massive slave raids began.

We first encountered the effects of the raids in May 1995, visiting Nyamlell in Bahr-El-Ghazal—one of the areas designated as a "no go" region by the NIF for Operation Lifeline Sudan and other aid organisations. We found the township totally destroyed—with 82 men killed; 282 women and children taken as slaves; every building and all crops burnt; cattle stolen or killed. We met survivors and relatives of women and children who had been taken as slaves. We have returned many times to this area and others in the slave raid regions. We have been present when raids have been taking place all around us. We have walked through villages still burning in the aftermath, among the corpses of those who could not escape.

I offer one personal story. Abuk Keer is a young blind mother. When she heard the slave raiders advancing on her village, with pounding of horses' hooves and the shooting of guns, she tried to escape with her two children. Blind, she stumbled and fell. They were captured and taken north. She was abused on the way and abandoned, because, being blind, she was no use. But her children were taken on into slavery. When I met her, she was desperate. She said:

"I shall die. In Africa, if you are blind, your children are your eyes. I have lost my children and I cannot live".

There are peaceable Arab traders who come south to trade and graze their cattle in the dry season. Since the escalation of slave raids, they have agreed with the local Dinka communities to try to locate and to bring back women and children who have been enslaved. They charge a price as they cannot abduct the slaves from their owners. But many of the African communities have lost everything in the raids and have nothing with which to buy the freedom of their relatives. Abuk Keer was in this predicament. We gave her the money to redeem her children. With great excitement her brother came in from the bush; her mother prepared food and he went north. A few months later, we met a very happy Abuk Keer, reunited with her son and daughter. She said ecstatically:

"I'm so happy to have my children back, that I could dance, except I can't dance, because I am blind … but that doesn't matter, because we are together again as a family".

We have since met many hundreds of women and children who have been enslaved, rescued and returned to their families. We have helped local communities who have lost everything in the raids, by giving them resources to buy back their loved ones from slavery. For this we have been criticised—by those who have not been with us and who have not seen what we have seen.

The government of Sudan—the NIF—condemn us, denying that there is slavery; but there is enough evidence from other and diverse sources to enable the United Nations to include slavery as part of its general indictment of the NIF regime. David Hoile, in the publications of the pro-NIF organisation, the British Sudanese Public Affairs Council, which are distributed widely, including to many of your Lordships, attacks us virulently and me personally. Others condemn our policy of redeeming those who have been enslaved.

My Lords, if you had been with us, I suggest that you would believe that slavery exists in Sudan today; and I even dare to believe that you might not condemn us for helping to rescue those slaves who can be freed. If you had seen the evidence, such as African women with half-Arab babies fathered by their masters, or boys able to speak Arabic better than their native Dinka language, often with scars such as Achilles tendons cut so that they could not run away, you might feel that we were not doing such a bad thing when we help to enable them to be reunited with their families, in freedom.

It is said that we encourage the slave raids. That is not true. They would occur anyway as part of the NIF's policy of jihad. It is said that our intervention pushes up the price of slaves. That is not true. The price has gone down from an average per slave of five head of cattle to three. Is it not terrible way to talk like this at the turn of the new millennium; to have to say the words, "The price of freedom of a woman or a child in Sudan today is, on average, three head of cattle"?

Of course, the redemption of slaves is not the answer to the problem of slavery in Sudan today. It is only first aid. The urgent priority is for slavery to be abolished and for everyone currently enslaved to be freed. It is urgent, because for many it is already too late. On my last visit, talking to the Arab traders who brought back over 500 slaves, they told us that many other slaves had been sold to other owners in the north and then sold abroad, never to be traced and rescued. Therefore, will the Government please press the NIF regime to open all of Sudan to human rights monitors so that a slave-tracing programme can be undertaken as a matter of great urgency?

It is outrageous to have to talk in these terms at the beginning of this century. Can the Government, in the land where the name of William Wilberforce is now legendary—how good to see that name appearing on the list of Speakers today—please take a lead and do everything possible to prevail on the NIF regime to put an end to this abhorrent practice of the slave raids and to free all those currently enslaved? It is a great tragedy that this debate today is necessary. I hope that it will not be in vain.

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for giving us an opportunity to debate this subject. I have lived in the Bristol area since 1941. Bristol is not proud of its association with the slave trade. Indeed, on one occasion I went to the city archivist to try to obtain material. It was like trying to open an oyster without any kind of tool. There was great reluctance even to acknowledge that the slave trade went on.

We need to remember that because on Sunday there was a programme on the BBC about the dispute in the Pennsylvanian anthracite field and the formation of the union there. It showed photographs of little boys aged 11, 12 and 13—the breaker boys—who sorted out the anthracite from the stone, slate and so on.

In our own country, when people, even young children, were working a 60 hour week, we were told this nonsense that the working week could not be cut because all the profit on the goods was made in the last few hours. We should remember that situation and, when we tell other people how to run their affairs, take care that these matters are not brought up so that we are accused of neo-colonialism. For example, on telling other people that they should not burn fossil fuels if they can avoid it, they may say: you have raised a very good standard of living over the years by doing it yourselves and now you are telling us to lay off. We should approach the matter with a certain amount of humility. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has given some very good illustrations and detail.

My interest in the Sudanese situation was such that an all-party group was formed a year or two ago and I was elected vice-chairman. I had a 100 per cent attendance record because that was the only meeting that took place. Towards the end of the meeting I was indelicate enough to ask who was supporting the British Sudanese Public Affairs Council. It turned out to be a PR front, funded by the Sudanese Government. They and the embassy here engage in a bombardment of literature giving their point of view. I am afraid that a good deal of the material is very questionable. I do not know who is advising them on public relations, but they ought to get the sack, because recently they have questioned the integrity, decency and honesty of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. The situation is so bizarre that one wonders what on earth is going on. The noble Baroness has been upbraided for her work with Christian groups.

I welcome the presence of two right reverend Prelates. The visit by the Primate to the Sudan was a seminal event for the Christian communities there and raised morale tremendously. We welcome the interest being shown by the Bishops' Bench.

There is not just the question of humanity towards other people. Christians have a very great vested interest. On 1st December 1997, at col. 1224 of the Official Report, I quoted the UN rapporteur on human rights in the Sudan saying that the persecution of Christians was thriving throughout the globe and that Christians were now the most persecuted group in the world. We should remember that fact and do what we can to help our brothers and sisters abroad. He said:

"In February 1996 there has been an alarming increase in the number of reports of slavery, servitude, the slave trade and forced labour. I regret the total lack of interest shown by the competent Sudanese authorities."

I have concentrated on the Sudan particularly because of my interest in it. In addition to addressing ethical foreign policies, we should also think about ethical economic policies. People who are conscience-stricken can invest in ethical funds and not in dubious funds, for example, tobacco. In the Sudan, investment from European countries and businesses has enabled a thousand-mile pipeline to be built from the south of Sudan to a port on the Red Sea in order to exploit the oil in the south, which is a cause of the civil war. This exploitation of the riches of the southern Christian and animist area is funding the government of the Sudan in the north. One of the uses to which the first tranche of revenues was put was the purchase of armaments and tanks in order to prosecute the civil war more effectively.

We should do as much as possible to influence the situation. Can the Minister assure us that the Government are seized of this problem, not only in the Sudan but in other parts of the world, and are prepared to work with our partners in other countries to resolve the situation as soon as possible?

My Lords, I add my voice to the gratitude already expressed by noble Lords that the debate is taking place at all.

I remind myself that Article 4 of the Declaration on Human Rights guarantees that:

"No-one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms."

In 1926 the League of Nations had defined slavery as being:

"The status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised."

In 1956 the United Nations added a supplementary convention that included

"institutions and practices similar to slavery".

These were described as debt bondage, serfdom, servile marriage and child labour. All governments that subscribe to that convention are under an obligation to take remedial action against these practices.

There were good and bad slave owners, but it was slavery that was condemned, not just a misuse of powers. We have heard examples of flagrant abuses against human rights, whereby many hundreds and thousands of people are held against their will or in slavery. Some practices can appear at first sight to be benevolent, but they may be more insidious because they lead to such an erosion of human dignity and denial of self-determination that they become forms of contemporary slavery. I shall give some examples.

An agent offers to help with a pressing debt by arranging a loan. Only later does it appear that the loan comes with a repayment plan with binding force over the person's future earnings.

A parent has a number of children to feed and takes up the offer of a place in another family for a child, believing it is a way for that child to be fed, housed and educated, but the child experiences physical and often sexual abuse as a slave of the family.

An illegal immigrant accepts the offer of a place to stay and work, and is then held there by the threat or fear of exposure.

A migrant worker agrees to travel to another province or country in order to work. He then discovers he is expected to work unpaid on the basis that the cost of transport and accommodation must be covered. How can he ever get out of that situation? Some of these situations exist not just in other parts of the world but also here. Sometimes whole communities can be affected.

I remember sitting under the meeting tree with a group of village elders in El Salvador who were agonising over the future of the village. In a situation of need they had been assisted through a heifer project conducted by Christian Aid. Each family had been given a pregnant heifer and was able to produce a surplus of food and to sell it in the market. For the first time, they realised how working together could benefit a community and, in doing so, they were able to resist the approaches of a large company that had been buying up the land around the village in order to plant coffee. Then there was a grave suspicion that that company had flooded the market with cheap food, which meant that the surplus that the village provided was no longer sufficient or could be bought. What were they to do? They were promised work and their children were promised education, but they knew that the processing plant and access to the markets for the coffee were in the hands of the company. Their self-determination would be lost, their land and their traditional way of life would be gone and they would be at the mercy of the company. Was that a price worth paying?

But the debate calls not only for a repetition of the ills of society or evidence of corrupt and exploitative practices. It is to call attention to the case for action. Therefore, I ask Her Majesty's Government to press urgently for a permanent treaty-monitoring committee to be established in the way that has now been set up for the most recently adopted United Nations human rights instruments. Currently the only way of monitoring is through the reports made largely by NGOs to the annual meeting of the United Nations Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery, which then reports to the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. A permanent monitoring committee, or at the least the appointment of a special rapporteur, would discourage the persisting patterns of slavery-like practices.

One of the most powerful ways of combating such practices is by reducing the vulnerability, poverty and powerlessness of those most likely to be caught up in slavery. An effective legal framework and access to justice for all citizens should be universally available. Education, not only in marketing skills, but also in human rights and citizenship should be encouraged. Community development could give confidence and the ability to press for self-determination. Credit unions and small loan facilities prevent the decline into irreversible debt. New agricultural methods and co-operative ventures in processing and marketing make the most of resources. In that area, the debate which follows this one on the creation of sustainable livelihoods as the spearhead of the Government's anti-poverty strategy, will be extremely valuable.

With Her Majesty's Government's promise of the release of debt for the poorer countries, the time seems to be right for pressure to be brought to bear on the governments of those countries to put into effect measures to relieve the worst of the poverty within them. Again, a proper monitoring system, possibly with the aid of NGOs working with vulnerable groups, will be needed.

The particular case of child labour has already been mentioned. I am not convinced that the answer to that problem lies in sanctions, boycotts or trade restrictions. Instead, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will continue to support child protection measures, including compulsory education and limited working hours. I plead also for ways to be found to encourage the sale in this country of fairly traded goods, particularly those which include a profit sharing scheme for employees and give assurances about the welfare of any children employed in them.

Until recently I carried responsibility for the work of the Methodist Church in our overseas relationships, both through the Missionary Society and the Methodist Relief and Development Fund. I am aware of the immense amount of work taking place through hundreds of local partnerships. That work is extremely valuable, but it must be of limited effect unless unscrupulous operators can be prevented from taking advantage of the vulnerable. There are contemporary forms of slavery today, but the worst slave master of all is that of basic human need which is beyond the means of the individual to satisfy. It is that which opens people to exploitation, and its alleviation must be the work of us all.

My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will not find my speech unnecessary. I rise to support strongly the various suggestions that have been made for coping with the problem of slavery in the world. This is a wonderful debate. In my mind I mark it alpha beta: alpha for the quality of the speeches and for the—in many cases—heroic altruism so often described; and beta for the impact which may or may not occur. Therefore, I shall press the gifted Minister extremely hard to try to give us some impression that something will happen; that something will be done.

We have these high quality debates, we go away and we all feel better and say, "Oh yes, our debates are the best in the world". But our debate last week on international affairs was hardly mentioned in the press. Someone could do something about that. Therefore, I make the humble suggestion that someone, perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, should ask for an interview with the Minister following the debate, to insist at close quarters that something actually be done.

I am such a humble admirer of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that I can hardly speak for admiration. I go to a prayer group and we pray for her, because she is usually delivering medical supplies in some dangerous area of the world. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, is of course the son of ray old friend Lord Hinchingbrooke, who would have been proud of him tonight. Lord Hinchingbrooke made one mistake in his life—I still refer to him by that name—in deciding to leave this House, of which he was already an ornament, and go elsewhere.

There are wonderful people speaking in this debate. I am only rather surprised—although not terribly surprised—to find that in the List of Speakers the last on the list, apart from the Front Bench representatives, is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. I hope that there is nothing symbolic in that, if we have reached the point where we put last the descendant of the great Wilberforce. Perhaps someone will explain why he was put last, long after people such as myself who know nothing whatever about this issue compared to him.

We are discussing the problem of slavery. My qualifications are brief, although I am probably the only person here who ever met Lord Kitchener of Khartoum. It is always great to boast about something, but one could always find someone who says, "Oh yes, I knew Kitchener". However, it is not awfully likely because I met him 90 years ago and there are not many noble Lords here who would have been going strong at that time. I was a small boy at a great garden party given at Osterley Park by my grandmother, Lady Jersey. The great man came across to me, leant over and said, "And who are you, my little man?" I said. "I'm the grandson of grandma"—that flummoxed him, a t any rate. Otherwise, apart from that episode, for his many achievements he was deservedly known as Kitchener of Khartoum. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, agrees with me that I have had little connection with the country for which she has done so much.

What will be the answer to the problem? We have been given a horrifying picture of what is happening in the world, but how much can the people of this island do about it? We can make these speeches, but can we in Britain do all that much? At the end of the war, my political hero President de Valera made a speech in Ireland explaining the Irish mentality, which ended as follows, "We must try to do what one small country can do to bind the wounds of suffering humanity". This is a much larger country than Ireland, although Ireland has been extremely prosperous lately.

What can Britain do? That is what we shall hear tonight. I do not expect too much. If I were the Minister, in a way I should be rather sorry that so many suggestions have been made, yet in a way she might be glad because she could lose us by going into the detail. I have described her as the most skilful debater of our time, and I am afraid that she may befuddle us with her debating skills tonight. It all comes back to this: is anything going to happen; are we going to do more? Perhaps I may express it in the plainest possible way: will the noble Baroness be able to tell us whether this Government—this revered Labour Government—are doing anything more than was done by their predecessors?

My Lords, I have listened to the earlier speeches with horror and concern—horror at the stories which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and others have told; and horror and concern at my own inadequacy to speak in this debate. I had thought that it was a debate more about child labour, and I confess to being not an expert on slavery or exploitation. My only solution can be to be very brief.

I have one piece of evidence and information which I should like to place on the record. I refer to the official UNICEF statistics in 1998 which reported that the number of trafficked children who were being taken across into Gabon and were intercepted at the Benin border rose from 117 in 1995 to 802 in 1997. Most of those children were being taken as domestic workers, some to work for market traders as cheap labour. Thirty-seven per cent of the families who sent those children said that they could not earn enough to satisfy the essential needs of their families, and that was why they were sending away a child. Many of the children were maltreated and one or two died of hardship on the journey.

I shall not weary the House by repeating the concerns which other noble Lords have expressed. However, in the context of my intention to talk about the more modest problems of child labour, I should like to raise two caveats about our being too patronising or too inclined to interfere inappropriately in the affairs of other countries.

First, it seems to me that if we—one of the richest countries in the world—are going to criticise for their human rights record other countries which often are very poor, we should do well first to set our own house in order. I believe that that point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe.

My second point is that I believe that, when looking at other countries' human rights records, we should be very careful to take into account the cultural norms of their society and the economic and social problems under which they labour. It has to be said that sometimes those problems are caused by trading patterns which we, the western countries, have laid down, and by economic constrictions that we have placed upon them.

I shall relate very briefly a personal anecdote. For 35 years I was chairman of a group of tea estates in Malawi. I remember one day walking into the office with the manager. I saw a little boy cutting grass and said, "Hey, why have we got young children working here?" The manager said to the lad in Chinyanga, "Why are you working here? Why aren't you in school?" The boy looked up with a great big grin spread across his face and said, "I would much rather be doing this than be in school". Of course, I immediately made a rule that no children should be employed during school hours. However, it was explained to me that if a child in Malawi was left an orphan, as there is no kind of benefits network the custom was that he was taken in either by his neighbours or by the extended family. However, the child was expected to contribute to family expenses. That issue concerns a lesser evil in that the child had a home and family, albeit he was expected to do some work and earn a living.

I go even further. I believe that appropriate work for teenage children for a reasonable number of hours, which does not interfere with their education, can be most beneficial. Indeed, I had that experience when growing up during the war. I used to spend half of every holiday working on a farm. I have to say that I am extremely grateful for that experience and would, if I had my life again, want to have it that way.

I return for a moment to Africa. The population growth in sub-Saharan Africa has caused the social and economic problems that we see today. In Malawi, which I know very well, the average age of the population is 14, and food production is no longer adequate to feed that population. The only solution is job creation. That point has been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, and by others. However, who wants to invest in Malawi? Here I am trespassing on the next debate. It seems to me that one of the most essential tools we have for preventing the exploitation of children through child labour is to enable the grown-ups to be able to earn enough to support their families. In order to do that, we must help them to create sustainable livelihoods for themselves. As the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, said—I may get this wrong but I shall try to quote correctly—the worst slave master in the world is need.

Finally, I turn to the question of putting our own house in order. How do we have the crust to criticise desperately poor people in Benin for doing the only thing they know to make ends meet, while we in this country—one of the richest in the world—have accepted for decades a standard of children's homes in which children are abused and which are an international disgrace; while we accept that 20 per cent of our children grow up in homes without a father and 40 per cent in homes where they are in recognisable poverty? I could go on, but I shall end by asking whether our indignation about the infringements of human rights in other countries would bear more weight if we put our own house in order.

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Earl for introducing this debate, and I hope to respond to one or two of the points that he made. I am also moved by the words of the previous speaker—the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne.

It is easy to say that child labour is in some way better than no labour at all for children. That is not a view I share. Much of the child labour in the world is in jobs which did not exist 50 years ago. It is not true that carpet-making by children is historically endemic in Bangladesh, Nepal or India. It has become an imported form of child labour in substitution for adults.

However, whether the issue is child labour, slavery or bonded labour, four things are required for a country and for an international community to be able to resolve the problem. They are, first, a good legal framework, both nationally and internationally; secondly, good and effective policing of that; thirdly, resources—taking children out of jobs in India if there is no school available to educate them is not the answer; therefore, there must be education together with the removal of children from work; and, fourthly, and most important of all, political will. The state of Kerala in India seems to have achieved more in respect of education of children than the other 27 states around them. That has to do with political will.

I should like to deal with the three countries named by noble Lords; that is, Nepal, Sudan and Burma. I add a fourth, for which I believe we have a major responsibility; namely, Swaziland. I, too, have visited Nepal. I believe that there is political will there, and it existed with the previous government. All governments in Nepal are several shades to the left, to put it mildly, of new Labour, old Labour or any party in Europe that does not have "communist" in its name. Nepal has the political will, but it does not have the resources. Indeed, I believe that I can forecast that Nepal will eradicate child labour before India, Bangladesh or Pakistan. That is because, first, there are only 100,000 child labourers in the carpet industry and all those are in Kathmandu. Secondly, the employers of that industry have decided that the premium in the Frankfurt carpet market for being able to prove that no children are employed will give them a commercial edge over Pakistan, Bangladesh and India. The fact that there are only 100,000 such labourers makes it an easier problem to eradicate than in much larger countries. There is a very good, determined, employer-led, child labour eradication programme in that country.

The noble Earl made the point that Nepal has not ratified ILO Conventions 29 and 108. On previous occasions, I have declared my interest as the vice-chairman of the governing body of the ILO. The good news is that Nepal does not have to do that because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, said, there is the ILO declaration on fundamental principles of rights at work adopted at the 1998 International Labour Conference. That now places on all member states of the ILO—which is every member stale of the UN and every member state that is reasonable in this world apart from North Korea—an obligation, irrespective of whether they have ratified the conventions, to honour the principles of the four core labour standards; that is, freedom of association and collective bargaining, eradication of child labour, eradication of forced labour and eradication of discrimination.

For the first time this year, the ILO will have a global report—and this will happen every year— on one of those four standards. So we shall have a spotlight on the world to see whether or not it is improving. Similarly, governments will have to respond to the ILO. Employers' associations and trade unions in those countries and, through them, NGOs will have the opportunity to make observations as to whether a government are being economical with the truth as to what the position is.

I believe that the Minister will support—perhaps she will confirm this— the idea of taking that declaration of the ILO and embedding it as UN-wide policy. That can be done at Geneva 2000, which is the social summit plus five to be held in Geneva in June. It would mean that that automatically applies to the World Bank and the IMF which accept that child labour and slavery are wrong but are not too sure about some of the other core labour standards. There is also the General Assembly Millenn um in the latter part of this year which is to deal with poverty eradication. Again, it seems to me that that declaration could be embedded or reinforced there.

I say that because those rights are enabling rights. They do not impose on a member state a minimum wage or a cost. But .any country should be able to allow its people to belong to trade unions and ensure that people are not discriminated against nor endure forced labour.

I know that the Secretary of State for International Development visited Nepal last year. I strongly support the present Government. What they and the DfID have done in the area of overseas development assistance is nothing less than magnificent. I have only one difference of vim which was mentioned earlier. I believe that had we taken a soft line on child labour 100 years ago, I am sure that the predecessor of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, would have met the argument that economic circumstances were such that children up chimneys was something that perhaps could be eradicated simply by education of parents and the employing of chimney sweeps. My view is that it is not done that way. It is done by setting targets, as have been set for primary education by 2015, and by the kind of sensitive bilateral policies that the current Government, through DfTD, are applying.

I believe that I can say with some certainty that the wish of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that the British Government should ratify Convention 182 on exploitative forms of child labour may be granted because I know that the TUC and the CBI have been consulted by the Government in the past few days on the ratification of that particular convention. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that that will be put into place very quickly. The United States has announced the ratification of it which, in itself, is something of a rarity as the United States does not ratify many conventions because of the federal nature of that country.

I turn now to Burma. I shall not regale your Lordships with horror stories similar to those told to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, which are reflected in this report. This is the report of the commission of inquiry which cost 0.5 million dollars. Three world-class jurists looked at what happened in Burma. It is a horror story. I agree with those who say that the way through the problem is by assistance and persuasion and that, normally, sanctions are not helpful. But there are exceptions and situations in which sanctions are the only way forward, and I believe that Burma is such a case.

I agree that the regime in Sudan is terrible. But I become slightly unnerved when we seem to be posing Christianity versus Islam. I am sure that it is not intended but sometimes it sounds like that. The truth is that the Koran outlawed slavery in 1400, which is 400 years before the predecessor of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, was able to achieve the same in this country. But, of course, there can be corruption of any dogma or belief. That is the problem, not the belief itself.

Finally, I turn to Swaziland. The Swazi national council, which is an hereditary council, and the king have passed an administrative order which says that the village heads in Swaziland will have the right, with fine or eviction as the penalty, to demand unpaid labour from Swazi villagers. That was passed in the last six months. It will be the cause of a complaint at the ILO. But as Swaziland is an area where the British have a traditional influence, I hope that we shall use our good offices with the king and government of Swaziland to seek the repeal of that particular legislation which is a 21st century form of slavery.

My Lords, the great advantage of being so low on the List of Speakers is that I have been able to listen to a number of very impressive and moving speeches before making my own. It is quite clear after the speeches we have heard, and no one can be left in any doubt, that bonded labour exists on a very large scale and is quite simply a form of slavery.

Perhaps I may quote a very wise French expert in this field who said:

"Slavery has not been ended, it has simply been modernised".

That is a chilling reminder of the fact that "modernise" does not always mean "improve". But it is surely the case that, although many of the classic forms of slavery—chattel slavery—may have receded somewhat, they have not been abolished; they still exist; and we must continue to fight them. But the modern form that has arisen from economic circumstances is that system of bonded labour, the existence and severity of which is not understood generally in the world. People tend to think of bonded labour rather in the same way as they think of the minimum wage or working conditions and not as something which is analogous to servitude or slavery. But, of course, in many ways, it is even worse than chattel slavery. In the case of chattel slavery, there is an owner. He feels that he is responsible for the welfare and, at any rate, the feeding of his slaves. As the noble Baroness said, there have been some good slave owners. But in the case of the landlord, as he is called, in relation to bonded labour, he has no such responsibility. He is simply concerned to get his money and after that he can and almost invariably always does leave his creditor in complete destitution.

In addition, it is true that it is more difficult to get rid of bonded labour than it is even chattel servitude. In the case of chattel servitude, you strike off the chains and the man is free. But in the case of bonded labour, you are up against a whole series, a whole complex, of economic and political considerations. You cannot just throw the child or the man out on the street. You have to provide a system of good employment, schools for the children and some system of land reform so that people can earn a living. Bonded labour certainly is servitude and in many ways it is worse. The more we can make it known to the outside world as such, the better.

I shall not expand on individual instances. I do not have the experience to do so. Everything that needs to be said on this matter has been said by the noble Earl and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I want to expand on two particular aspects of the matter.

The first relates to human rights. Whatever can be said of the much-maligned 20th century, and much has been said, surely one of the very good things—and I am surprised that nobody has commented on it—is that it has been the century, or the half century at any rate, of human rights and the development of human rights as a movement, internationally and nationally. Of course, that was consequent upon the Nazi atrocities but, nevertheless, it took its roots from that and has brought to people's consciousness a whole new world of human rights and obligations.

As we were reminded by the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, the instruments of human rights all mention and include liberation from slavery and servitude as one of the important human rights to be preserved. The Universal Declaration, the covenants of 1966, the European Convention on Human Rights and others all include slavery and servitude.

It is a great advantage for those advocating the abolition of slavery to have it brought under the umbrella of human rights; but there are also disadvantages. All other human rights are subject to reservations and some derogations in specific circumstances. They tend to be discussed in a political atmosphere in which questions of western values are raised; divisions between north and south. It is said that those rights are not capable of being introduced and spread to other parts of the world, whereas the right to be free from slavery and servitude is an absolute value; it is not one for which exceptions exist. All the relevant instruments forbid any derogation from that right; it is absolute.

In international law it is what is called "jus cogens". It is recognised as absolute and not subject to derogation. Even the International Court of Justice in a case in Barcelona recognised slavery as being of jus cogens.

I am sure the Government agree that in all contexts in which human rights generally are raised, any issue connected with slavery should be separately presented with its own facts and supporting legal arguments, and not simply subsumed into a general human rights presentation. That that is necessary can be illustrated from a number of examples; I give just one. It has often been the case that in Commonwealth conferences of ministers and lawyers human rights are raised for discussion. They are in general form and seldom contain a specific reference to slavery.

The Bangalore principles—probably well known to your Lordships—were agreed in 1998 after 10 years of discussion in previous conferences. It was a case of judicial colloquium, not a meeting of ministers. It resulted in the formulation of the Bangalore principles which are well-known and influential throughout the world. They were formulated in 23 paragraphs which refer to different kinds of human rights—apartheid, women's rights, freedom of expression, freedom from discrimination— in comprehensive language. But there is not one reference to slavery or the deprivation of liberty. That is no reflection on the people who framed those paragraphs. They thought that slavery was a thing apart; that it does not enter into the general field of human rights. For slavery to be put in a category by itself as an absolute right and not simply mixed up with different and less grave abuses would be an advantage both in public relations and in negotiations.

I want to say a few words about enforcement and monitoring. Much has been said already and I shall not take up a great deal of time. It is worth remembering that there is an enormous apparatus of legal constructs prohibiting slavery and servitude. I believe 300 international instruments deal with it. Many states have passed legislation. Recently a working group of the United Nations—Anti-Slavery International—in which I am proud to declare an interest, submitted a paper showing what those mechanisms amounted to. That paper consisted of 92 pages of laws, covenants and conventions.

So there is no lack of legal foundation. What is lacking is the organisation for monitoring and checking. In the time available I cannot go into detail. I associate myself with what was said by other speakers. There is a great need to improve the situation. I hope the noble Baroness will give some indication that she is going to consider it.

The noble Earl, Lord Longford, asked what we can do. But we are a great influence in the world. What we say matters a great deal. We must concentrate on the United Nations machinery which at present is defective and depends on staffing of the working groups. There are no powers working upwards to the Commission on Human Rights. The machinery takes years to go through and must be improved, either by a special rapporteur or any other means.

I have exceeded my time and conclude by joining with others in thanking my noble friend Lord Sandwich for introducing the debate. Where would this House be without his devotion and experience in these matters?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for giving us the opportunity to consider what can be done to eliminate the practice of bonded labour and other forms of contemporary slavery. Many noble Lords highlighted the issues, about which there is no dispute. Once in a while we have a debate in this House where there is no disagreement whatever. It is a delight to hear so many noble Lords expressing their concern.

The worst form of slavery affects those who are least able to fend for themselves. Children are the most vulnerable group. It falls on all civilised nations to say that we shall never compromise on the well-being of children.

The issues affecting children are not difficult to identify. But before we touch on that subject, it is important to acknowledge the important work being done in this field by the Save the Children Fund and Anti-Slavery International among the many organisations that not only express their concern, but demonstrate in a practical way how to confront such issues.

Enslavement of children and young people takes many forms, including selling of children to work for others and in effect severing family ties; bonded labour, paying off their own or their families' debts; trafficking of children within or between countries for work for which they are then not paid. That is often under false pretences where they and their families are assured that children will do light work and be educated, whereas in fact they work within the sex industry or other forms of work such as domestic labourers, in industry or agriculture. Many child soldiers are forcibly conscripted into armies.

The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is right when he says that we should be aware of cultural norms in other countries. Its common practice worldwide for employers to give employees salary advances, and that should not necessarily be considered as bonded labour. It becomes bonded labour when there is no realistic prospect of paying off the debt.

In Pakistan's football industry, many families take advances from employers and then work to pay them back. However, the amounts are relatively small and can be paid back. None of the 428 families interviewed in the Save the Children Fund's research project in 1997 said that they were bound to their employers for ever. By contrast, many families migrate from the Thar desert of Pakistan to other parts of the Sindh Province for agricultural work. Their wages are so low that many families are unable to pay back loans, even with all members working, and they are effectively bonded labourers.

Experience in Nepal, which was explained earlier, shows that even where people have been released from debt bondage when their debts have been paid off through government or NGO programmes, many have taken up new debts within months because they are too poor to survive otherwise. Bonded labour therefore needs two key types of action—enactment and enforcement of law and skills training; and the provision of employment opportunities for business development so that livelihoods are secure and families do not have to send one or more members into bonded labour; for example, through community development work focusing on natural resource protection, livestock and credit within the Thar desert of Pakistan. Save the Children Fund's partner organisation, Thardeep, has helped reduce the flow of families migrating for work and getting involved in bonded labour elsewhere in the Sindh district of Pakistan.

I turn now to the trafficking of women and children into conditions of slavery. The 1999 report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography drew attention to the trafficking of children in the south-east Asia region. The Special Rapporteur found that all six countries in the south-east Asian peninsula—China, Cambodia, Myanmar, Vietnam, Thailand and Laos—have been affected by such trafficking.

Anti-Slavery International has condemned the trafficking of children to the United Arab Emirates to be used as child jockeys in camel races. The trafficking of children is an increasingly global problem. The children, who are often as young as six years old, are sold by their parents or relatives, taken on false pretences or, in some cases, actually kidnapped.

The boys are often underfed and subjected to crash diets before a race so that they will be as light as possible. Some children have reported that they have been beaten while working as camel jockeys, and others have been seriously injured during races. It is illegal in the United Arab Emirates to use camel jockeys under the age of 14 or weighing less than seven stone. But, despite this law, there is evidence that the practice continues.

In August 1999, Gulf News reported that a four year-old camel jockey was found abandoned and close to death in the desert of the United Arab Emirates. The report of the US Department of State on Human Rights recently stated that,

"a significant number of camel jockeys are children under the United Arab Emirates' minimum employment age. Relevant labour laws often are not enforced".

Can the Minister tell the House whether the Minister of State, Peter Hain, MP, raised this issue during his visit to the United Arab Emirates last year? Can the Minister also give us details on how many people have been punished for either trafficking or employing under-age camel jockeys since the ban was imposed by the UAE in 1993? I understand that the statistical information may not be immediately available—even if she has the right folder this time—but I would appreciate it if the Minister could write to me on the issue.

I have not the least doubt that Gulf states are concerned about the use of young children. We must back them in ensuring that their laws are not flouted.

Perhaps I may briefly mention the problem of Trokosi, which is a form of slavery that has been practised by the inhabitants of the south-east Volta region of Ghana for many centuries. The practice deems it customary to send girls as young as seven to live in shrines with priests, as reparation for sins committed by a family member. Although the girl herself did not commit a crime, she works all day in the priest's field and provides the other services of a wife, including sex and child rearing.

Although a law was passed in September 1998 prohibiting anyone from being sent into ritual slavery, no shrine or priest has ever been prosecuted. International Needs Ghana estimates that there are at least 1,800 women and girls still subjected to this form of slavery in Ghana today. Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example. Mercy Senahe is 23 years old and has had four children who were born in the Avakpe Shrine in Ghana's Volta region. She spent 12 years in the shrine until she was released by International Needs Ghana, and is now training as a dressmaker. She says:

"I was sent to the shrine when I was nine years old because my grandmother stole a pair of earrings. I was made to work from dusk to dawn in the fields and when I came home there was no food for me to eat. When I was eleven, the priest made his first attempt to sleep with me. I refused and was beaten mercilessly. The other girls in the shrine told that it was going to keep on happening and if I refused I would be beaten to death and so the next time he tried I gave in. The suffering was too much so I tried to escape to my parents but they would not accept me and sent me hack to the shrine. I couldn't understand how my parents could be so wicked".

Bonded labour is specifically outlawed in India under the 1976 bonded labour system. Nothing much has been said about that by other noble Lords. What we need is a commitment on child slavery, which is covered by Article 32 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and, I understand, ratified by all but two countries—the USA and Somalia—and which states that children have the right to protection from economic exploitation. We must pursue this particular issue vigorously with the governments who have signed the convention. Governments have a duty to all children and young people to end both slavery and other forms of harmful work. Other key international instruments include a number of conventions that have already been mentioned.

On trade policy we need to ensure that British businesses operating internationally are not sourcing products through their own lengthy supply chains made with bonded child or adult labour, or involving other forms of labour abuses.

I am aware that my time is rushing by, but perhaps I may endorse the plea that was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. It is a scandal that we have entered the 21st century and bonded labour and other contemporary forms of slavery have not been eradicated. The UN Secretary-General is right to remind us that now,

"is not a time for complacency in the fight against slavery. but a time for action".

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is still in his place because I, for one, can assure him that I never knew Kitchener of Khartoum and I believe that the same can be said for the Minister who is to respond to the debate this evening. However, in the same spirit of affection and respect for what he said, I also congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, on tabling this debate. I have had the privilege now for a number of years of congratulating him on introducing important debates, and tonight is no exception. It has allowed us to spotlight the barbaric practice of slavery.

Although this inhumane and repellent practice is outlawed by a substantial body of international law—a point well made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce—it is a widespread and persistent horror, which we have not yet eradicated in the 21st century. The word "slavery" covers a variety of egregious human rights violations. In addition to traditional slavery and the slave trade, tonight we have heard that such abuses include the sale of children, child prostitution, exploitation of child labour—and, indeed, there is the use of children in armed conflicts which has not, I believe, been mentioned—debt bondage, forced labour and the trafficking and enslavement of women and children.

According to Anti-Slavery International, to whose work I should like pay tribute, bonded labour or debt bondage is the most widely used method of enslaving people today. It has existed for hundreds of years and still continues to affect millions of people. Although it is specifically prohibited under Article 1 of the 1956 UN Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade and Institutions and Practices similar to slavery, in its 1999 report the UN Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery noted that some 20 million men, women and children are still held in debt bondage and that the issue has not been effectively addressed at the international level.

In the light of the UN working group's conclusion, I should like to ask the Minister what action the Government are taking in accordance with the recommendation of Anti-Slavery International to work bilaterally and through the International Labour Office to help countries where bonded labour is still practised, to carry out detailed regional surveys to identify and rehabilitate bonded labourers?

Projects to combat the trap of poverty and to stop people being caught in debt bondage should be complemented by a commitment to implement laws which ensure that individuals who use bonded labour are charged and prosecuted. Can the Minister say what action the Government are taking at international level to urge all governments to ensure that they implement such legislation and to ensure that they monitor the number of people prosecuted for using bonded labour?

I should like to say a few words about trafficking in human life. This is a truly global plague, the victims of which can find themselves in London or Paris, as well as Laos or the Philippines. Traffickers deny that all persons are born free and equal in dignity and rights, as stated in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. They deny their victims the most basic rights: freedom of movement, freedom of association, and, all too frequently, one of the most fundamental freedoms—the freedom to have a childhood.

Trafficking involves a vicious cycle in which victims are forced, lured or tricked into leaving their home countries, shuffled across one or more international borders and enslaved, with human rights violations occurring at every step of the way, their hopes and fears preyed upon and their hopes ultimately shattered.

It is to be hoped that globalisation will ensure that there are fewer dark corners in the world in which the perpetrators of this evil crime can hide. New technologies of communication are creating a world in which information flows more and more freely. As in all cases of slavery, human rights workers can no longer be prevented from bringing information out of oppressive countries, because they do not have to carry it physically across the border. This is one of the contexts in which our national response can be formulated. I look forward to hearing the Minister describe what policies the Government are pursuing in that respect.

A number of noble Lords focused on the trafficking of women and children and sexual slavery. The trafficking of women and children into different forms of slavery, including domestic and sexual slavery, is one of the most reprehensible and appalling forms of slavery. Therefore I ask what action is being taken to ensure that the victims of trafficking do not suffer and that those who are responsible are punished, for these women do not represent an illicit migration problem; they represent a human rights violation.

In this respect, the resolution condemning sexual trafficking passed by the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE last July, which urges participating states to punish traffickers and which raises public awareness of the crime of trafficking, is most welcome. What priority are the Government giving to the need to combat this pernicious and odious form of slavery, which has become one of the fastest- growing criminal enterprises in the world, given that an estimated 1 million or 2 million women and girls are trafficked annually around the world, usually for the purpose of forced labour, domestic servitude or sexual exploitation?

In the short time available, I turn to child labour. Although the exploitation of innocents for personal and monetary gain must be regarded as one of the most invidious forms of evil that we confront today, the ILO in its good work on this subject recently estimated that 100 million children are today abused for their labour. As we all know, children are especially vulnerable to human rights violations. The noble Lord, Lord Brett, made some very important suggestions which deserve further consideration.

In that context, can the Minister bring the House up to date with the Government's position on the ratification of ILO Convention 182, on the worst forms of child labour? I understand that the Government have continued to indicate a willingness to ratify that convention, which was adopted unanimously at the ILO convention in June 1999. I may be wrong, but I think that the reason for the hesitation is that it would mean that boys, and indeed girls, could no longer volunteer for the army at 16. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond with good news for the House this evening.

My noble friend Lady Cox has moved to a higher status for the winding-up stage of the debate; she is now sitting on the Woolsack. But that in no way minimises the respect that I and the House have for the expertise that she brings to these debates. I pay tribute once again to my noble friend who, through her organisation, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, has freed more than 1,200 slaves in the Sudan. We have heard from her again and note that there are still tens of thousands of people enslaved in the Sudan. Although Sudanese law prohibits slavery, the Government have done little to stop it.

I say to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that if it were not for the constant publicity, hard work and diligence of my noble friend Lady Cox, and of many others 'who have spoken in this debate and who work so assiduously on the subject, many of these issues would go by the board. It is important to hold these debates, even with such a small attendance and so little immediate press interest, to continue to pressure, to continue to raise these issues, to continue to make sure that on all sides of the House, in a non-partisan way, we work to resolve many of the appalling problems that we have heard about and that we are discussing this evening, because they are challenges to governments of all political complexions.

In that context, I would simply focus finally on the vitally important message that the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, gave this evening, that international action to address slavery will not be successful unless it tackles its root causes. Poverty feeds abusive labour practice. Poverty and the exploitation of desperation are at the heart of bonded labour. Poverty particularly affects women and is often at the heart of the exploitation of women. The poverty of parents is at the heart of the decision to sell their children. The victims of slavery-like abuses are generally from the poorest, the most vulnerable, social groups. The cancer of slavery is a symptom of the malignancy of poverty, and the two must be treated together.

There will always be those who are steeped in avarice, who are willing to exploit the vulnerable and the desperate, and in the process to rob their victims of their money, their livelihood and, most importantly, their dignity, and to live parasitically off the helpless. This will become more difficult when the war against underlying poverty, which gives rise to such practices in the first place, is won.

My Lords, I, too, am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for opening this debate so eloquently, and to other noble Lords who have spoken in it.

I wish to respond straight away to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, because he asked what we are going to do. I thank him for his flattering comments, but can only say that I shall try to bring clarity, and try very hard not to befuddle. The noble Earl's erudition and acute mind would not in any event fall prey to any blandishments made by me.

As to the position on the list of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, I remind the noble Earl that the best wine is often left to last. May I add what a privilege it is for me to respond to a debate on this issue in which the noble and learned Lord has taken part. History has perhaps in this House come full circle.

I am pleased to say that there is a huge similarity between the views expressed and those of Her Majesty's Government. I join the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, in saying what a pleasure it is to see that that is so in a debate on such important issues. Let me, then, be quite clear about the Government's view. Bonded labour comes in many guises. But, whatever the terms, it is a form of slavery. It contravenes human rights. It is unacceptable to Her Majesty's Government, as it is clearly unacceptable to the speakers in this debate.

I agree that alleviating the plight of those trapped in such labour practices must be a priority for Britain and the international community, although the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, was right to remind us of the importance of understanding the cultural norms that may be of influence.

Few would disagree that the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade represents one of the most significant human rights achievements. Regrettably, the forefather of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, did not, two centuries ago, put an end to the practice of slavery. As many speakers have said, slavery is no longer regulated or clearly defined, but instead exists in a range of different, sometimes hidden, ways that make it difficult to tackle.

We do not look for legal instruments alone. Practices such as slavery are outlawed by international law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the European Convention on Human Rights; the Slavery Convention, as amended; and the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery. Ratification of those instruments demonstrates the commitment of states to address such abuses. We must now rightly focus on the practical implementation of these standards as a way to achieve real change.

Let me outline what Britain is doing. First, we are addressing this issue in international fora such as the UN and the International Labour Organisation (ILO), and with our European partners. Many noble Lords have made mention of this. In our bilateral relationships we strongly support the efforts of certain countries to eliminate abusive labour practices. We are providing practical help to tackle the poverty which breeds such practices. The elimination of poverty and the fulfilment of human rights are comprehensively linked. A number of speakers have echoed that thought tonight. Many of the worst instances of bonded labour are found in poorer countries.

The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Brett, to mention a few, have spoken of the Indian subcontinent. In Nepal and India bonded labour has been outlawed in national laws, but we are aware that enforcement of the laws varies at grass-roots level. In Nepal, the British Embassy and DfID office in Kathmandu are involved in helping the Nepalese to address this issue. Earlier this month a workshop was held in Kathmandu, funded by the British Embassy, which involved Anti-Slavery International and Nepalese NGOs. The workshop concluded that new legislation was needed. The Nepalese Prime Minister has said that he would consider this favourably. We are actively working with NGOs in Nepal to identify further projects which we can support.

Britain is the second largest bilateral aid donor to Nepal. Our programme for 1998–99 was worth £16 million. The programme is poverty focused and seeks to promote good governance, human development and rural livelihoods. It also aims to build pressure for change through better awareness and more empowered communities.

In India we are supporting the Government of Andhra Pradesh in their efforts to address this issue and we are helping them to tackle the poverty that breeds labour abuses. We have provided £2.75 million over the period 1998–99 to 2000–01 for the work in India of the International Labour Organisation's international programme for the elimination of child labour. This has strong focus on issues such as bonded labour and other forms of forced labour.

We believe that the chances of success are greater when governments have an appropriate regulatory and monitoring capacity; when civil society is fully vigilant; when the private sector is fully involved; and when the work of international organisations is co-ordinated. These are principles on which our approach is based. However, we also recognise, with concern and regret, that not all governments are committed to tackling this abuse. The worst of governments use slavery as a political tool to enforce social exclusion, marginalisation and poverty.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and others have said, forced labour is one of a large number of human rights violations in Burma. A report by the ILO in 1998 highlighted the use of forced labour in Burma and made three recommendations for the regime to implement. Sadly, so far, it has not done so. We shall work with partners to co-ordinate further action in the ILO based on the Burmese regime's response to the ILO recommendations to stop forced labour. This will be discussed at the governing body meeting of the ILO this March. I a m happy to give noble Lords that assurance.

Her Majesty's Government have been assiduous in maintaining pressure on the Burmese Government to improve their dire human rights position. We also supported the renewal of the EU common position on measures against Burma in October for a further six months. We look forward to discussion with partners about what further measures we might take. We shall support any which are practical and effective.

We support a variety of projects in Burma promoting human rights, democracy and poverty eradication. These are carried out through local civilian organisations and NGOs. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for all the good work that she has done in these areas. We shall continue to support NGOs where appropriate, but we must bear in mind that some parts of Burma are not accessible to such groups, largely because of civil unrest due to the regime's continued oppression of ethnic minorities. Many have suggested that greater measures can be taken. I turn to the comments ma de by the noble Baroness in relation to Sudan.

We are concerned about continuing reports of abductions and abuses of human rights in Sudan. In April last year the United Nations Commission on Human Rights passed a resolution which called on the government of Sudan to investigate reports of abduction. As a result the government of Sudan have established a committee for the eradication of abduction for women and children. We have been encouraged by the committee's work so far conducted in co-operation with UNICEF and Save the Children. On 8th December the presidents of Sudan and Uganda agreed on principles of good relations between the two countries. This includes a commitment to locate people who have been abducted and to return them.

Many have suggested trade boycotts as the answer to abusive labour practices. However, Her Majesty's Government believe that restricting trade is likely to lead to lower, not higher labour standards. The ILO has noted that sanctions can endanger rather than protect child workers by causing them to be dismissed from work and left to fend for themselves on the street, turning to more exploitative and harmful work. We cannot reduce poverty without economic growth which must also be sustainable and environmentally responsible. The poorest countries need more trade opportunities to reduce poverty, not less.

I turn to the work under way in various international fora and reply to the request made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and other noble Lords in relation to this issue. The United Nations Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery is an important body, bringing together human rights experts, intergovernmental organisations, governments and NGOs. However, it may suffer from a lack of profile within the United Nations human rights system. I am pleased to tell the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that the human rights system is being addressed. We believe that its replacement by a special rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights would increase the subject's profile. The rapporteur could also make country visits and take up individual cases. Creating a special rapporteur would be linked to a wider exercise of reviewing the UN's human rights mechanisms.

In the International Labour Organisation we are actively supporting the Director General's efforts to make the ILO more relevant, focusing on job creation and employability rather than the more traditional agenda of labour market regulation. We have welcomed his clear strategic objectives for the organisation and his plans for restructuring the secretariat and improving programme delivery. The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, asked us about those standards. We continue to co-operate closely with the EU in international fora and on bilateral programmes. The EU has taken the lead in measures against forced labour in Burma and in highlighting concerns about slavery in Sudan.

I am also delighted to assure the noble Lords, Lord Brett and Lord Moynihan, that through DfID Britain is providing technical assistance to the ILO to encourage ratification of the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and to assist governments to develop national implementation plans. Work has also been undertaken to identify further ways DfID can support the implementation of core labour standards.

We continue to encourage advocacy and action in civil society organisations (NGOs and trade unions) and to encourage socially responsible business practice within the private sector. I give some examples. The DTI/DfID ethical trading initiative, which is worth £530,000, encourages British importers to adopt codes of practice and to take a constructive role in helping their overseas suppliers ensure that, where unacceptable labour practices are found, they will work together to find a solution.

The FCO has set up a global citizenship unit. The work of the unit includes liaising with missions abroad to help them assist UK business in adopting a responsible attitude on the ground, taking account of human rights, labour standards and the environment.

The noble Lord, Lord Brett, raised the issue of Swaziland. In Swaziland we have given support to encourage democratic reform and have pressed the government of Swaziland to meet their human rights commitments. If the noble Lord will permit, I will write to him in relation to the more specific issues that he raised in that regard.

A particular focus of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and DfID is to put an end to abusive child labour practices, including bonded labour and slavery. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, together with many other noble Lords, rightly emphasised the need to be assiduous when looking at this issue. At the International Labour Conference in Geneva in June 1999, the UK, along with the other 174 ILO member states, adopted a new convention to prohibit and eliminate the worst forms of child labour.

We welcome this new convention. We hope that it will prioritise national and international efforts to eradicate the exploitation of children. The International Labour Organisation is now campaigning for ratification and implementation of the convention by all ILO member states. We fully support its efforts.

I am pleased to inform the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that we have announced the UK's intention to ratify both the ILO Convention 182 and Convention 138, which set a general minimum age for child labour, and aim to do so before the end of February. I hope that will be a welcome answer also to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan.

We have made clear that exploitative child labour is unacceptable. Child labour robs its victims of their right to childhood. A number of noble Lords have echoed that sentiment. It robs them of their right to education and their right to be protected from harm. In too many cases it also robs them of their right to grow up in a family environment. We are pursuing a range of practical initiatives to address all harmful child labour issues.

DfID provided considerable support to the ILO in the preparation and approval of the ILO convention on the worst forms of child labour in 1999 and continues to work with the ILO, national governments and NGOs to implement the convention. In 1998–99, the Department for International Development contributed 1 million US dollars to the ILO's international programme for the elimination of child labour. This programme has a strong focus on child slavery, bonded labour and other similar forms of child labour.

The Department for International Development has also provided funding for IPEC country programmes. I have mentioned already the support that we have given to India in this regard. Over the period 1997 to 1999, there was £160,000 for the IPEC programme in south east Asia, and technical assistance to the ILO programme for children working in the mining industry in Tanzania.

DfID is also providing £750,000 over the period 1997 to 2000 for a Save the Children Fund-run programme to tackle child labour in Pakistan. This is being run in conjunction with other organisations such as the International Labour Organisation and includes measures to tackle child bonded labour. We are providing in addition £4.3 million for a basic education programme in Bangladesh, targeting hard to reach urban children involved in exploitative and hazardous work.

Finally, in relation to children, perhaps I may turn to the issue rightly raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, in relation to under-age camel jockeys. The United Arab Emirates authorities assured officials of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Her Majesty's Embassy at Abu Dhabi in August 1999 that they are enforcing the existing legislation banning jockeys under the age of 15 and that they will prosecute offenders. The noble Lord asked me a number of specific questions, to which I do not have the answers. If he will permit me, I shall write to him. I am tempted to remind the noble Lord that today I do have my brief with me.

The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned the commitments made at the United Nations Conference on Women in Beijing five years ago. I can reassure the noble Baroness that we are working closely with the UN on the convention against transnational crime, which includes the protocol on the trafficking of women and children. The UN convention should be ready for adoption by the end of 2000.

The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, also asked about our work with NGOs. Our work on child labour demonstrates that we support the work of NGOs such as Anti-Slavery International and Save the Children Fund. The UK has also been a significant donor to UNICEF through our voluntary and core contributions, some £13 million in 1999, and through many individual country-based collaborative projects. DfID is planning to co-operate with UNICEF to take forward a common programme of work in the area of child labour and juvenile justice. We are in regular contact with these and other organisations active in this field and are working to strengthen co-operation, both at the practical level and on policy issues.

Bonded labour and all other forms of slavery are categorically condemned by the international community. In almost all countries such practices are also prohibited under national law, yet the abuse persists and continues to distort millions of lives. We need to tackle the underlying causes of abuse. We have talked today about the many horrific forms of abusive labour in many parts of the world. What all have in common is that the victims are the poor and the weak; people without power or resources, and often without a say. Women and children are particularly vulnerable.

We recognise that we cannot tackle labour abuse in isolation; we must also tackle the poverty, ignorance and social exclusion which breed abuse. As I hope I have set out, this is very much the approach which the Government are pursuing, both in our bilateral activities and in our work with international organisations.

My Lords, the minutes are few. I wish I could say to everyone individually how much I have appreciated the contributions they have made, which were based on preparation and experience—in many cases exactly the kind of experience that we now need. We heard from the Minister some very encouraging remarks about what the Government are doing. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, said that we should not let them off the hook. The Minister will know that, at the moment, there is a sustained campaign by Anti-Slavery International targeted specifically at bonded labour. That fits in with what the Government are doing. But we do not want them to forget about it and we shall be calling, if not on the Minister, on one of her colleagues.

Once again, may I thank all noble Lords for what has been said this evening. I am sorry that I have not had time to mention everyone, not even my noble and learned friend. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to promote the creation of sustainable livelihoods as the spearhead of their anti-poverty strategy in the less developed countries.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am glad that we have the opportunity tonight to discuss this extremely important topic as set down in my Question. I am also pleased that a number of noble Lords have indicated their intention to speak. The House will appreciate their wide range of knowledge and experience along with their different and interesting perspectives.

I believe that the concept of sustainable livelihood creation is a valuable and relatively new organising paradigm for dealing with the scourge of world poverty. And a scourge it certainly is: up to 1.5 billion people inadequately fed and housed; subject to disease and early mortality; low on life chances and high on insecurity. That is a description of life for approaching one-third of the people who share this earth, living on one dollar a day or less. That is life for half the people who live in sub-Saharan Africa. Furthermore, that describes not only relative poverty, as we have come to define the pockets of unacceptable deprivation and exclusion within our own affluent society, but absolute, grinding poverty, hunger and illness. One hundred and sixty million children are malnourished, 110 million children are out of school and hundreds of millions of women are disproportionately poor and at risk.

The challenge for those of us in the industrialised countries is not dissimilar to the challenge faced around 150 years ago by the middle and upper classes in this country. They had to combine rapidly accelerating prosperity, exciting new technologies, new buoyancy and optimism for the future with the devastating knowledge that a substantial minority of their fellow citizens were shut out and condemned to living on the margin.

We now have what Charles Dickens, who in his novels brought so brilliantly to life the cold statistics of Henry Mayhew's depiction of the London poor, what he might have called "A Tale of Two Worlds": one world of choice, of growing freedom, of greater health and longevity with expanding personal horizons; another world of bare survival. We have one world of the information rich and another of the information poor; one world of escalating obesity and another of endemic hunger.

In the end, conscience and common sense brought about one nation here—and in other European countries—so that nowadays such exceptional islands of exclusion in Britain disproportionately offend us. But out there today in that other world that I have been describing lie oceans of poverty which are lapping at our good fortune and threatening to engulf us. So even if conscience and common humanity are not spurs to action, I do not believe that any prudent leadership in the developed countries can afford to ignore the potential threat of the dispossessed in terms of migration and refugees, epidemics and disease, environmental degradation, conflict over limited resources and all the insecurity and instability that results from the division of one world into two.

Hence, we have put in place policies for development in the first world, and that is where the concept of sustainable livelihoods comes in. To quote the Department for International Development's own admirable guidance notes:

"The sustainable livelihood concept puts people at the centre of development".

That means development as if people mattered, not people as abstracted sociological and economic masses, but as individuals and communities in all their rich variety. For, as Mayhew showed so many years ago in his study of the London poor, the beginning of wisdom is to recognise that everyone has and does something—nobody has nothing. Skills are to be found among the least educated. Coping mechanisms are revealed among those most subject to strain. There are strengths among the weakest and glimpses of hope in the gloom. When it comes to reducing poverty—and I believe this to be one of the great insights of sustainable livelihoods— people are as much the opportunity as they are normally described as being the problem.

Perhaps I may give this working definition of sustainable livelihoods developed from the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987, substantially modified by Robert Chambers and Gordon Conway in 1992 and again refined in recent years:

"A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets and activities required for a means of living.

"A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not undermining the natural resource base".

Key to that definition and at the centre of Caroline Ashley and Diana Carney of the Overseas Development Institute's recent overview for DfID of a sustainable livelihood framework is the notion of an inventory of livelihood assets. What does that mean? That inventory is human capital, natural capital, financial capital, social and physical capital, starting from a bottom-up perspective with people's community strengths and personal potential, not top-down, with the views of Washington or London economists of their generalised needs. Notable, too, is the commitment to the integration of social and environmental factors and the idea of inter-generational equity.

I must say that this is what has attracted me personally to the sustainable livelihood approach. Originally my interest was spurred by Gordon Conway, now president of the Rockefeller Foundation, when, as a director and now as an adviser to Rio Tinto, I was helping the company to identify a proper definition of its responsibilities towards the communities around the world where it operates. Subsequently, I have also been engaged, as chairman of the World Business Council's Committee on Social Responsibility and chairman of the International Chamber of Commerce Environment Commission, in trying to promote constructive partnerships on the part of the private sector with government, NGOs and local communities in fostering sustainable development. I should also declare that I am honoured to serve on the council of ODI, which has done considerable work in this area.

On the one hand, third world development is clearly helped and poverty to some extent reduced by the prosperity that comes from trade and investment. Human well-being, human health and human rights have all been shown to benefit from growing prosperity in general. But in the particular many are left behind—the poor whom we are discussing tonight. What is now needed is a conscious effort and global macro-policy changes to discriminate towards the poor and thus in their favour.

Business and the private sector have a part to play, both on the macro and the micro level, and in my view that potential for business to contribute is enhanced by the sustainable livelihood approach. That is because it moves the agenda away from the relief of poverty as a stated objective—something that businessmen tend to feel should be the concern of governments and charities—to the development of capacities and capabilities where they can more readily identify what they as businesses can contribute to local partnerships through training and the transfer of skills and technologies, through sub-contracting, sourcing locally and other specific programmes for socio-economic development.

However, business is only one piece of the jigsaw. What the integrating approach of sustainable livelihoods demands is to empower the poor so that they put themselves at the creative centre of broad-based partnerships for poverty reduction and eradication. Participation is an end and not just a means. This demands profound changes of culture and process on the part of all those involved: change on the part of donors, international agencies, recipient governments, foundations and NGOs. Change is demanded on the part of all the social partners.

Certain UN institutions, with the encouragement of Kofi Annan, notably UNDP whose adviser, Dr Singh, is attending the debate tonight, and certain governments—the British Government through DfID and also the Dutch Government—have been leaders in promulgating this new approach. They have asked the questions and examined the experience which can convert it from a paradigm into a process. For that, they are to be congratulated. The Rockefeller Foundation has enshrined sustainable livelihoods in its new mission statement and it, too, should be congratulated.

In conclusion, I have two questions for the Minister. First, knowing of her own commitment to this new way of thinking, what are DfID and Her Majesty's Government doing to promulgate the sustainable livelihood approach within the European Union and more widely to concert such policies with other countries? Secondly, how can the Government make development assistance, whether financial or technical, work better at the local community or sub-national level? Do they agree that the training of local leadership is the key element, particularly informing effective local partnerships for environmentally sustainable socio-economic development?

I look forward to the Minister's reply, but in the mean time I look forward with great interest to the contribution of other noble Lords.

My Lords, it is a privilege to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, for having introduced the subject. As debates go, we have had a good day because all have been concerned with important issues. I agree with the noble Lord about the importance of this issue.

By and large, the poor are women, children and old people in rural areas. Of course there are the urban poor, but most poor people are in rural areas. After 50 years of development thinking, we are at last stumbling on the right idea. Development should be about people, and unless we start with the people we will get it wrong. A number of development policies in the 30 years after the Second World War were wrong. Whatever their intentions, they were much too top-heavy. They were interested in hardware and they wasted a lot of money. They did not touch the lives of the poor.

The noble Lord, Lord Holme, gave a definition of "sustainable livelihoods", but I understand it to mean something that the people can organise for themselves. They will use local resources, but sometimes they are brought in from other villages, regions or countries. However, by and large, it is down to the self-organisation of the poor. The poor people in developing countries are careful with resources. They recycle everything; they waste nothing. The way in which people in urban slums in Bombay, for instance, use space and resources is fantastic. They get value out of everything they have.

Our first duty is to understand how poor people live and organise their lives. Arbitrary poverty lines miss out the fact that those below the line still live—and live with dignity. The responsibility of policy makers and thinkers is, first, to understand and observe how the poor live. They live in an imaginative way. They manage their lives well. And they are good managers of time, transport and resources. Governments should be told not to make life difficult for the poor. The negative is much more important than the positive. There should be attempts to dissuade governments from pursuing misguided policies which harm the poor. If there is time I shall give examples.

Secondly, governments should try to build up enabling institutions; not give money for, say, micro-credit, the improvement of sanitation or the provision of clean water. They should make sure that local schools are functioning day after day and that both girls and boys attend. They should encourage girls to go to school. Such simple, small actions are not expensive. The important point is not the amount of money we give, but how it is deployed and where it is targeted. In that, the experts are the people. Consultants are often hired, but they know little about how the poor live. We must have schemes, perhaps with assistance from this Government or others, in which the people are consulted and participate. They must be able to help in constructing their own sustainable livelihoods.

We have little knowledge of the resources to which such people have access and their capacity to create things from what we might consider to be waste. I remember walking along a narrow, crowded pavement in Bombay and seeing a woman sitting perfectly relaxed, cooking. She had dignity as she cooked. She was sitting on the pavement and had a little stove. She was cooking and managing her life and no one was disturbing her. There was a dignity to it because she was managing wonderfully. I do not believe that I could manage living on the pavements of Bombay.

Finally, many governments have succeeded in abandoning bad policies. The point is to make them abandon micro-top-down policies and take up the participatory mechanism in which the poor construct their own lives. We should not get in the way.

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, for introducing the debate tonight. One of the aspects which strikes anyone who has been involved with development for a long time is the fact that we must go on learning. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Desai, explained so clearly.

There is a real challenge to the industrialised countries—not only for governments to help but also for businesses to be involved. I have the privilege not only of serving as chairman of Unilever's External Affairs and Corporate Relations Committee, but also of being a member of a number of NGOs linked into a great deal of corporate social responsibility work, such as that done by Rio Tinto and many other large companies which are beginning to forget the big schemes and work with communities.

We in the United Kingdom are particularly blessed with our non-governmental organisations. They are both innovative and imaginative. One of the key things many are now trying to do is to stimulate non-governmental organisations in the developing world. That is the essential of having programmes which will meet the needs of local communities. It is no good our having bright ideas which may work but which are put into a village. By all means we should share the ideas, but let the village come up with its own solutions. They are far more likely to last and to bring an improvement in livelihoods.

We also have an important new opportunity as, through the Internet, we open up communications across the world. Although it may seem a far cry to talk of this at the moment, when fewer than 1 per cent of all Internet users are in Africa, it is an area of communication with which we should already be helping, whether it be to create in a community a centre which is not only the primary healthcare point of contact but also a learning centre. Perhaps it has one telephone line, one tap and a source of electricity provided by generator, but at least it gives the opportunity to download from satellite communications (or in some other way) the very learning which the rural communities so often lack. Without that learning they do not have even the first chance of developing a sustainable livelihood. I speak of the world space satellites of my own company, Freeplay, with its wind-up radios. They can bring that kind of education to communities; and, with it, people can then begin to use other skills.

I happen to be president of the British Executive Service Overseas, which sends rather older volunteers than VSO to many communities to stimulate particularly small, medium and micro enterprises. In doing that, BESO is sharing knowledge. The people involved are frequently retired from major companies and, in their active life after the age of 55 or 60, want to give to the developing world. We are well supported by DfID. We have our own new structure to implement. But we can share the knowledge which we have painfully and expensively developed with people who have basic learning, to help them to develop their own businesses and enterprises.

I believe that by partnerships between the public and private sectors, which the Department for International Development continues to try to foster, we can save much of the invention time that the developed world has experienced in the past century. We will not be able to give everything away, but we will be able to share skills. We badly need to pay more attention to that.

I turn briefly to some examples. We know that agriculture needs to be developed in practically every country to feed the growing numbers of people. But agriculture may be simple, as in Bangladesh where, as a result of an irrigation scheme to improve the quantity of rice grown, fish were introduced into the paddyfields, because they did not eat the rice. Those fish bring protein to the village. With the benefits from the sale of the fish, the women of the village bought chickens, sold eggs and gradually began to get into livestock, eventually to raise money to build clinics and schools and to employ trained people to help them to combat the diseases which so often beset mothers and children in rural areas.

Send a Cow is another British NGO much involved in agriculture and nutrition, when the Bishop in Uganda sought help from a West Country farmer. The first 32 Friesians sent to Uganda (and many more to other countries) have given to women-headed households a real chance to have a sustainable livelihood, which they have never had before.

There are many other examples, but whether it be in the work of AMREF fighting AIDS and malaria in Africa or any of the other marvellous NGOs, we know that to work with the village to produce a change in the outcomes of people's lives is the most fruitful way to proceed. It is not something that attracts the newspapers because it is good news. It is not something that often attracts the Chancellor, although I believe he thinks that if there were better sustainable livelihoods, we would have more success. I have seen that to be the truth all over Asia, Africa and the rest of the world. I hope that the department will continue to make the creation of sustainable livelihoods an absolutely key part of its development policy. DfID has excellent people and good ideas. I hope that it will continue to allow the NGOs to join local NGOs to develop such projects to the hilt.

My Lords, I am full of admiration for the manner in which the noble Lord, Lord Holme, introduced this Unstarred Question. It is quite clear from what he said that it is for him a matter of heart, hands and head brought together effectively. It is also humbling to follow someone like the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, who has played such an important part on the world stage on the subject of development.

I very much hope that this short debate will provide the Government with an opportunity to give us some good news. It is two years since the White Paper Eliminating World Poverty encouraged us to believe that government thinking and planning were contained in targets that were both obtainable but also ambitious. Rightly, the White Paper stressed that economic growth was absolutely critical for sustainable development, but that all of that had to be achieved by policies and programmes which integrated the poor themselves in the revitalisation of production.

In this context, I have two questions to put to the Government, each preceded by an example. The first example and question derives from the policies outlined in the White Paper about the establishment of macro-economic stability and assisting with asset redistribution and legislative reform which, for example, gives women farmers equal access to land and markets.

Against that background, I draw the attention of the Government to Phyllis March, a dairy farmer in Jamaica who can no longer sell the milk that her cows produce. In August 1999 her cooler was overflowing and she had to throw away 1,000 litres of fresh milk. She is not the only farmer who has difficulties selling produce in that part of the world. In Jamaica today, subsidised European milk powder replaces locally produced milk as the input into the Jamaican dairy industry. While hundreds of thousands of dollars of aid are still being spent to support the Jamaican dairy industry, the EU spends 4 million euros in export subsidies, thus undermining the effects of the financial aid.

Jamaica is not an isolated case. Many farmers in dozens of developing countries have to compete with subsidised products from the European Union. Other examples include Italian tomato concentrate that undermines local tomato processing in Senegal and the dumping of surplus pig meat in the Czech Republic.

The common agricultural policy of the EU thus disrupts growth and opportunities in the agriculture of the developing countries. In addition, many developing countries have opened their markets and reduced support for their own farmers as part of the conditions attached to IMF and World Bank loans. What part are the Government playing to influence EU export subsidies which damage rather than enhance agricultural enterprises in developing countries? What kind of accountability can be exercised over the IMF and the World Bank?

My second example and question derives from the White Paper's declared intention to provide lines of credit and expertise to establish small businesses in developing countries. The Diocese and County of Durham has a well established link with the Kingdom of Lesotho. One of the ways in which we have provided aid is through a micro-enterprise project in Maseru which aims to help those who are not normally accepted by conventional funding organisations to obtain funding to start their own businesses. Frankly, it is one of the most difficult ventures that we have ever started. We have made lots of mistakes and had many failures. It is difficult to keep track of a highly mobile population when it has a bit of money in its hands. It is also difficult for those people to make the best use of training and to absorb what we can offer when perhaps they lack many of the basic skills.

But we have had sufficient success to make us persevere. Where such small businesses take off, they make a real difference; they create wealth, employment and needed products. Examples include battery-charging businesses, propane gas outlets, poultry enterprises, and one business run by a lady who makes dresses by copying materials and patterns that she finds in magazines. She employs a sales person to go into the countryside. She has more customers than she can handle and sells what are believed to be the latest fashions.

The question that arises from that example is: what economic aid can the Government provide, totally consonant with their White Paper aspirations, to encourage small business enterprises in the developing world? We are all aware that there is no blueprint for poverty eradication—certainly one that is applicable to all countries—but it is clear that policies must include empowerment to overcome powerlessness, redistribution to overcome inequality, and effective global governance to overcome the adverse effects of globalisation.

The poor need to own the development process. Solutions lie in increasing people's participation in decision-making and strengthening the capabilities of the poor to achieve sustainable livelihoods. I look forward to the Government's response to these questions and to the intentions expressed in their White Paper becoming a reality in practice.

My Lords, I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Holme, has raised the issue of creating sustainable livelihoods in poorer countries; and I appreciated his eloquence on the subject.

It is a timely Question: the Department for International Development is currently preparing its target strategy papers. I shall refer to the recently published consultation document, Better Health for Poor People, as an example of target setting and strategic planning to help create sustainable livelihoods.

I must declare an interest as I work as a consultant to health and education programmes in less developed countries and countries in transition, mainly in the former Soviet Union. Those programmes are funded by DfID among other donor agencies, such as the EC.

I shall give examples from my own experience, and that of colleagues working in poorer societies, to illustrate some of the barriers and opportunities which exist in the effort to create sustainable livelihoods. Your Lordships will recall that the challenge of development was addressed by the DfID in the 1997 White Paper which made a commitment to the elimination of poverty,

through support for international sustainable development targets and policies.

The elimination of poverty in poorer countries is not, of course, a new concept. Since a Ministry of Overseas Development was created in 1964, successive governments have grappled with ways of tackling poverty. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, was highly respected both in the United Kingdom and abroad for her commitment and energy in that area.

I am not talking about crisis intervention in response to disasters, important thought that is. I am focusing on the need to be strategic and to help people to help themselves. Poverty is not romantic. It is not dignified, although, as my noble friend Lord Desai said, some poor people do maintain dignity. Poverty means misery, degradation, lack of opportunity, ill health and often early and painful death, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said earlier.

Tackling poverty is difficult for many reasons. It cannot be done by what Clare Short has criticised as "dollops of charity" It requires a strategic approach in collaboration with other donor countries and aid organisations. It requires negotiations with countries seeking aid and a commitment from their governments to eliminate poverty. There are poor people in non-poor countries, such as parts of South America, and there are rich people in poor countries. I know of countries where corruption at a national and local level has benefited a small section of the population to the detriment of the poor. In some other countries, the top 20 per cent of the population do not need aid. They may well need technical assistance to improve internal structures and systems, for example, in healthcare. Very poor countries, however, may need long term financial support from donors to support systems and structures which will help to eliminate poverty.

We have to ensure that aid benefits the poor and does not get stuck in hierarchical ladders of bureaucracy. Direct work through non-governmental organisations or community organisations at a local level can sometimes avoid that. And government policies and commitments across ministries both in donor countries and in countries receiving aid must be emphasised. Value for money is important. Those of us who have worked in the field of international development for some years could give many examples of programmes which have not succeeded in their intentions either because they were ill-conceived or poorly implemented.

I should like to give an example of the planned approach, which is important, by drawing on the DfID consultation paper on health. The paper has clear development strategies. First, it is made clear that the DfID will not be the only player in setting and implementing strategies. It will communicate and collaborate with such organisations as the WHO and UNICEF. There will be a commitment to strengthening systems in poorer countries through public and private ownership; commitment to targets; involving private sector organisations; and setting priorities.

Health is only one strategy, but an important one. It is obvious that poor health may engender poverty and that poverty may engender ill health. In any society health strategy also highlights issues which are important: gender differences; the need for accurate statistics, effective management, and the setting of targets.

In my experience, there are factors which contribute to successful aid programmes. First, there is the imperative to assess real needs. Then there is the imperative of planning against targets and objectives, checking plans with local stakeholders for feasibility, establishing local steering committees drawn from communities, involving values systems and religious groups, informing and collaborating with other donors, and, most of all perhaps, by reviewing and monitoring what is going on.

Of course, there are barriers such as lack of internal government commitment, interpersonal rivalries, language and cultural issues, and difficult infrastructures and chaotic systems. We need to anticipate these, as well as being realistic about opportunities. We need to work with what is there rather than imposing a pre-conceived package of aid. Importantly, we must learn from failure as well as success.

I believe that the new DfID strategy papers recognise this and that the commitment to poverty elimination, through international development targets, does have a planned and focused basis. I know that your Lordships will follow progress with interest. I would ask my noble friend the Minister how monitoring strategies will be carried out.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Holme for introducing the debate and for the manner in which he did so. One of the key questions arising from the debate is the future of agriculture in the developing countries. I want to make two points which may seem somewhat controversial. First, one of the main contributions to solving the problems we are discussing lies with the development of genetically modified crops and their rapid application. Secondly, the contribution that can be made in that way is, however, imperilled by the increasing monopoly powers of a small number of multinational companies.

On my first point, what I shall say is very much based not only on a number of articles in Nature but on the excellent, detailed and meticulous report of the Nuffield Council on Bio-ethics, which contains the most exhaustive examination of the issues involved with genetically modified crops. There may well be risks to biodiversity. They have not been proved despite a large number of field trials, but they are possible. We certainly need more field trials and each case will have to be judged separately. However, in the balance of potential risks against potential benefits, the benefits hugely outweigh the risks, particularly in the developing world.

Let us consider for a moment the scope of the benefits. I shall name only some. The technology can enhance the resistance of plants to pests and disease. It is likely that it will be able to fix nitrogen in the roots of plants, thereby avoiding the use of fertilisers. It can reduce the use of chemicals, thereby reducing the pollution of groundwater. It is likely that it will be possible to engineer crops which are resistant to drought, heat and cold and can grow in arid regions of the world where nothing grows now. It can help with the fight against hunger and disease. Only recently, we had a very notable example of that; namely, the success of a Swiss scientist in transplanting the vitamin A gene into rice plants. It also seems possible that heavy doses of iron could be transplanted into rice plants.

Much has been written about this technology in Nature. It potentially means that the lives of millions of children can be saved and that help that can be provided for the 3.7 billion women who suffer from anaemia as a result of iron deficiency. If in the West or in the developed world there is concern about the risk of damage to biodiversity, which has not yet been proved, that may seem irrelevant to some extent in the developing world where the new technology is needed now.

What, indeed, is the alternative? The green revolution is running out of steam. In the 1970s, cereal production rose by about 3 per cent a year. In the period between 1983 and 1993, it rose by 1.3 per cent a year. The only ways in which by conventional means one is likely to achieve higher yields is through the use of more fertilisers, marginal land and more irrigation, all of which have disadvantages, even if the fertilisers could be afforded by local farmers. There is competition for scarce urban water resources, and already water tables are falling.

The advantage of the GM technology was cited by Florence Wambugu, who is director of a leading institute in Nairobi concerned with the application of agro-biotechnology. She made the point that it can provide a "packaged technology in the seed" which ensures the technical benefits to farmers without changing local cultural practices. However, there is a snag: much of the technology is controlled by a relatively small number of multinational agro-businesses. Most of their development crops are aimed at the developed world because that is where the profit is to be made, and not all of their activities in the developing world are beneficial.

I am in favour of free trade, but one of the more justified protests in Seattle concerned the destruction of local property rights, laws, customs, communities and activities, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, stated, provide a sustainable livelihood and protect the environment.

The patent laws are being extended. They endanger the benefits enjoyed by local communities because there are patents over plants, genes, particular forms of treatment, and seeds. We have to accept the need for patents because innovation is not possible without them, bearing in mind the vast sums that have to be invested. The extension of patents in the field of knowledge has brought clear dangers. The balance appears to have shifted in favour of monopolies and has often led to a limitation of innovation and dissemination of knowledge, particularly in American universities, which depend on sponsorship. This is highly relevant to the developing world, to the future of agriculture, and to the issue of poverty. For example, the patents over seed have led to protests by half a million Indian farmers.

I conclude with two propositions. We do need the new technology. Anyone who discusses this issue should read the report on bio-ethics by the Nuffield Council, because if they are not prejudiced in their views I defy anyone to read that meticulous report and then avoid the conclusion that a vital contribution to the issues of this debate can be made by genetically modified crops. The benefits of this new technology can be limited, frustrated or even imperilled by the growing monopoly of a few companies.

We should look again at the agreement on the trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights. It is critical that governments provide incentives to multinational companies to direct more of their research and development at the needs of the developing world.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, for initiating the debate and for highlighting the inextricable links between poverty elimination and sustainable development. Development cannot be sustained unless poverty is eradicated, and it is unconscionable that 1.3 billion people—nearly a quarter of the world's population—live in absolute poverty.

Government commitment has been demonstrated by the fact that the international development portfolio has for the first time been given Cabinet status, and that is making a huge difference to getting these issues on the agenda of the Cabinet and the nation.

I declare an interest as chair of an organisation that is committed to sustainable development, Voluntary Service Overseas. I am fully aware of the practical ways in which the Secretary of State and DfID are avidly pursuing this aim.

I should like to deal with two areas of immense concern, HIV and education, and encourage the Government to make even greater efforts on the debt crisis, which is central to success in these areas.

HIV is a major threat to livelihoods and inevitably to development in many parts of Africa and, increasingly, Asia. HIV makes more difference to families' ability to look after themselves than any amount of investment or development projects. Ninety-five per cent of all people with HIV are in developing countries and it is spreading fastest in the poorest countries. It means loss of breadwinners and a huge increase in the number of dependants per breadwinner.

I welcome the British Government's commitment to fight HIV, including the recent announcement by the Prime Minister of £23 million additional funding, which—I am pleased to say—includes £1.2 million to VSO. HIV is so pervasive, it is import ant that it is not treated just as a medical issue. It should be integrated into every business activity and every development project.

In VSO, the approach is to provide a variety of professionals to work specifically with organisations working on HIV. But VSO also trains all of its 350 skilled volunteers in southern Africa—who are involved in all aspects of development—to promote a sensible approach to AIDS in their place of work. I should encourage such an approach being integrated into all development activities funded by DfID or through investment by British companies.

The statistics show us just how crucial that is: there are 1,500 new infections per day in South Africa; life expectancy is falling from 60 towards 40 in many countries in southern Africa; AIDS affects around 25 per cent of Zimbabwean adults, resulting in huge numbers of orphans; and in Zambia, development indicators are worse than 20 years ago.

I turn to my second point: education. Improved education levels are a prerequisite to giving poorer people the opportunity, as others have said, to earn their own living. The nature of all employment is such that those with more education produce and earn more. I welcome the adoption of the DAC targets by DfID, but investment and aid to education are still not high enough. I urge still greater international support, possibly linked to debt relief, for the provision of quality educational opportunities at all levels, but especially for basic education.

I linked my points about education to debt relief. The debt crisis undermines investment in national infrastructure and production, as well as social services, including education. I welcome the steps that the Government have taken to lead the way on that issue—it seems to be a real alliance of government and people. But what more can Government do to push the international community along more quickly? Many of Britain's closest economic partners are dragging their feet. There is more rhetoric from the USA, for example, than action and not even much rhetoric from Japan or Germany.

We must recognise the potential and risks of globalisation and do all we can to ensure that the poorest are included and not further marginalised. We must ensure, for example, that trade liberalisation really works for the benefit of countries such as Bangladesh, which have benefited so much from a supportive trading environment.

We must shape our vision from international legislative environments down to micro action in individual communities. I welcome the contribution of civil society groups, including the rich and skilled involvement of British-based NGOs, in doing so. I welcome DfID's work on socially responsible business. We need this House and the Government to give a higher profile to those efforts and to encourage consumers and high street stores to do the same.

My Lords, I too am most grateful to my former noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham for initiating a debate on the Question, which simultaneously hits three nails: sustainability, and poverty of both nations and people within nations, on the head. Sustainable livelihoods are the heart of the matter. Too often steps taken by the World Bank to help the economies of less developed countries have served to throw people out of work, thus following the inexorable path of free trade, which is to make the poorer countries, or people within those countries, poorer, and the rich, richer.

So much of the problem arises from arrogance. We believe that we know best. There are those who will say, not always for the purest of motives but none the less wholeheartedly, that we have no business at all telling less developed countries what to do. But that is a principle taken to idiotic extremes. If I see my neighbour drowning, am I not to come to his rescue? Should the Good Samaritan have defended the right of the traveller to lie bleeding in the ditch, unmolested by do-gooders? The question answers itself.

None the less, it raises another question which involves the necessity of our consulting the victim as to what treatment is likely to suit him. That question was raised in its most bitter form at Seattle by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade of St. Lucia:

"How can we be expected to come here, to this WTO that was supposed to be the epitome of democracy, to put the seal of approval on a declaration that has been developed by Green Room procedures to which we have had no access; to discussions in corridors to which only the economic power blocs are privy; to texts from which are expunged every vestige of the concept of development with no sensitivity to the plight of the poorest and the smallest among us? No, we cannot!"

It is not only that we believe that the Cartesian economics make us arrogantly sure that we know best; it is that we even believe we know what is best biologically. In a major work coming out of the American National Academy of Sciences, The Lost Crops of Africa, we are reminded of the food crops which have fed Africa for ages—sorghum, millet, teff and others—and which are now neglected because they do not fit in with the pattern of international trade. And we would surrender those traditional foodstuffs for genetically-modified crops, chiefly benefiting multi-national corporations and rich farmers. I pay tribute to what the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, said about the drawbacks to the way in which genetically-modified crops are being promoted at the moment.

This is the right time for debate. In the ensuing two weeks we shall be coming up to the summit at Montreal. It is good news that we are sending a Minister. It is even better news that we learn—and I hope that this will be confirmed this evening—that the Government seem likely to take a sensitive line which will separate the hard-nosed monetarist bullies from those sensible enough to try to find a way through the problems and help the poor.

It was Gandhi who told us that in every action we take we should always look at the effect we have on the poorest man we can imagine. But that is not only a matter which affects the poor; it affects all of us. The benefits of globalisation are not confined to making fortunes on the Internet; they also include bringing us to understand that we must "all hang together if we are not to hang separately."

On behalf of the Green Party, I wish the Minister well at Montreal. I hope that he fares well and I hope that he does good. Let us hope that we look back on this first quarter of a year of the 21st century as the moment when an uncertain flame lit at Seattle became a blaze at Montreal so that that unfortunate capital does not go down to history only as the place where:

Stowed away in a Montreal lumber-room

the Discobolus turneth his face to the wall,

Where beauty crieth in an attic

And no man regardeth.

O God! O Montreal!"

At Montreal it is important that the cry of the poor is regarded and our Government have their part to play. I hope to heaven that they will play that party fully.

My Lords, perhaps I may join the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, in his remarks in opening this debate. Indeed, I share the views of many of those who have spoken this evening who have made it clear that there is no one strategy and no one solution to the problem of sustainable incomes.

I hope that nothing that I say this evening may be taken as critical of those who have spoken in the debate. However, I take the view that perhaps of greater importance than aspiration and good wishes is how aspiration is translated into action. There is no shortage of concern or compassion. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that if the rhetoric of good intentions could fill empty bellies, the impoverished children of less developed countries would suffer from obesity.

I give a quick example of how the homily of content is not being carried through.

The House will know that for many months there have been negotiations between the European Union and South Africa over a comprehensive trade and development agreement. Agreement was finally reached in March of this year and signed up to in October, but there was still further haggling. It was agreed that the main part of the trade deal would begin on 1st January.

It has not. Why not? Because Italy and Greece refused to ratify unless South Africa stopped using the terms "ouzo" and "grappa", of which it produces minuscule quantities. The situation is that nobody knows what should happen. Although the Greek and Italian representatives signed the agreement in October, the agreement cannot come into being. The European Union is in chaos because it does not know what will happen now.

That is naked self-interest. It seems to me that we must do something about that. I know that Ministers were extremely supportive in trying to bring about an agreement. I ask the Government two questions. First, when will Her Majesty's Government ratify the agreement? What plans do they have and what is the timetable for ratification? Secondly, what are Ministers actively doing to end the impasse and to find a way forward? There is no point in using fine-sounding words, as was done at the Berlin conference after Mandela was released and at the Cardiff summit, if nothing then happens. The whole of the European Union should hang its head in shame at that behaviour.

The noble Lord, Lord Taverne, went down the road of GM crops. I want to go in the opposite direction and deal with organic produce. My attention was drawn to an item on "The Food Programme" on Radio 4 last week about organic crops. I am very grateful to the programme both for transmitting the item and for letting me have a copy of the tape. I must quickly enter the caveat that if there are errors in my summary, that is my fault. The conclusions I draw are mine and not that of the programme. I believe that it did us a tremendous service in drawing attention to the fact that there is an immense interest in organic foods. It is a vastly growing market.

Importers would like to import organic produce from Africa but there is a severe difficulty in obtaining certification.

One reason for that is the cost. The Soil Association, which is Britain's leading certification organisation, charges £250 per day for a specialist to visit farms, plus the cost of travel. That may add up over a period of time because, paradoxically, small farmers can farm over large acreages. It may add up to many thousands of pounds and the certification must take place annually. It is prohibitive, except for very large farms which can bear the cost and where the cost of certification does not add up to much when the customer buys the produce in the shop.

One of the representatives from—and it is reasonable to name it since I have no interest—Marks and Spencer said that it would be happy to accept local certification if it were carried out to the same standard as exists in this country. I do not want to use that dreaded word "harmonisation", which I hope has disappeared from our vocabularies, but every single country in the European Union has its own certification system, as indeed does the United States. I certainly do not suggest that we should try to achieve common agreement among the states of the European Union so that there is one simple certification system which everybody would accept. That would simply lead us down the road of prevarication.

I do not expect a definitive answer this evening from the Minister, but I hope that the Government will look at finding a way of helping to train people locally for the certification of organic produce. That is one way in which we can help with development for the poorest of farmers. If we believe what we say, that trade is more important than simply giving money and if we really believe that the prime objective of aid and development is that people should become independent and self-sufficient and able to look after themselves, then it is necessary to take every step possible to help them to develop different markets.

This has been an important debate. I hope the points I raised, especially in relation to organic produce and certification, will be considered. We heard many examples this evening of how the poor and dispossessed need our assistance, and not just in words.

My Lords, I add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham for introducing this debate. Let me say clearly that if he and the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey, are able to persuade business to take a real interest in the plight of the developing world, that will be a major achievement. In the end, if one-third of the world is increasingly poor and desperate for any kind of economic future, the role of business itself will be at risk in the medium and long term and it is in its interest to involve and commit itself to sustainable livelihoods.

Over the past 10 years there has been a change in the pattern of poverty in the world. But, as my noble friend and others said, there is not much difference in the proportion. It is estimated that the proportion of those living on less than one dollar a day declined from 28 per cent in 1988 to around 24 per cent in 1998—not much change over a decade. What has altered is the pattern regionally, in the sense that we have seen some improvement in east Asia, despite the recent problems; a little improvement in south Asia; a very small improvement in Latin America; no improvement at all in Africa; and tragically—a lesson we should learn—the emergence of real poverty in central and eastern Europe on a scale that has not been seen for a long time. Quite bluntly, we in the West have not handled the transition well and those areas have not responded to our mismanagement.

The second point I want to make—one made by the noble Lords, Lord Desai and Lord Hughes, and my noble friend Lord Taverne—is that there now is a symmetry of language and system between the poor one-third of the world and the better-off two-thirds. By that I mean that our systems increasingly reject the ability of the developing countries to deal with their poverty.

The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, mentioned the problem of the certification and approval of goods, which has become increasingly sophisticated because of consumer organisations in the western world. That is a good thing in itself, but difficult for the third world to meet.

Another example follows on directly from what the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey said; that is, that it is vital to identify non-governmental organisations in the developing countries. That is absolutely right. But one of the great problems they face—I should perhaps declare an interest because I have been involved with an Indian organisation called Seva Mandir which tried to develop afforestation in Rajasthan and the development of small improvements among the tribal villages, some of the poorest people in the world—is that they cannot begin to meet the requirements of foundations and charities in the rest of the world for the small sums they need to do their work. We are talking of tens of thousands of pounds at the most. The requirements that are laid upon them to meet the application's criteria are such that they would have to hire somebody to do that job, and they are not in a position to do that. In the central and eastern European region, similarly, the extraordinarily complex requirements laid upon them by PHARE, TACIS and other aid agencies of the European Union are so complex that many local NGOs simply give up before getting to the end of the process.

I want to flag up briefly three issues. One is the environmental issue because, as was said in DfID's excellent work, sustainable livelihoods do not necessarily include the issue of environmental sustainability. In that context, it is important to say that environmental sustainability is part of the battle against poverty. The gradual spread of housing into wholly unsuitable areas—swamps, edges of mountains, desperate, tiny villages clinging on to wholly unsuitable terrain—is beginning to create what are described today as "unnatural disasters" on the sort of scale that we have seen in Venezuela, Honduras, Brazil and elsewhere. They are created, partly, by the sheer pressure of demand and density in unsuitable areas. Therefore, one cannot exclude the environmental factor; neither can one exclude the nature of governance itself.

A great deal of aid is simply wasted by governments run by élites who do not care about the poor, or who do not actually see their way to actually trying to improve their lives. Of course, one further aspect of bad governance arises in situations where what one ends up with are people fighting for power in some of the most pathetically impoverished parts of the world. Indeed, Angola, Mozambique, Zaire and many other parts spell for Africa a tragic destiny, where most of the money gets spent on arms and not on economic development.

I should like to refer for a few moments to the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Taverne. I have in mind one special aspect regarding what he said in relation to biodiversity. I have with me a magazine or, if you like, a leaflet called Kuarup. Rather amazingly, it is produced by the Xingu tribes of the Matto Grosso, one of the most remote parts of the world. They have a number of plants that are grown in the rainforest that have immense and exciting medical qualities. Those plants are now being licensed and patented by multinational companies, although they could be described as "gifts of God" and not the products of such companies. The battle among such Indian tribes to try to patent plants with which they have worked for centuries against the pressure of huge multinational companies is one of a very small David against a very powerful Goliath. One knows what the outcome will be.

I conclude by thanking DfID because I believe that it has already had a very great impact in terms of the new attitudes of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and other organisations which are beginning to put poverty at the centre of their considerations. I very much hope that it will continue with its work. Above all, I hope that it will get the great organisations of the world to listen to what we now call "the stakeholders", those whom the noble Lord, Lord Desai, called, more attractively to my mind, "the people" who live in these countries.

My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, for the characteristically capable and dedicated way in which he introduced his Unstarred Question tonight. I trust that the Government will pay due attention to all the important points that the noble Lord made, as he has a deep understanding of this extremely complex and sensitive subject.

In the short time available to me this evening, I should like to make a few observations and ask the Minister some questions. As I said, the subject is a sensitive one because, as the noble Lords, Lord Holme and Lord Desai said, it involves people—a growing number of people living on the very edge of survival. Promoting sustainable livelihoods has proved to be both difficult and complicated. There are no easy answers to the problems faced by these people. They constitute a majority of the people on this earth at the turn of the new millennium.

Anyone reading DfID's last departmental report could easily be lulled into a false sense of security. The report is magnificently produced; indeed, it is bulging with good intentions and apparent British successes in support of international development. However, I am not sure that it either reflects reality or that it focuses on some of the principal issues underlying the Question put so ably by the noble Lord. Nor am I sure that it even describes what is happening with a major part of the tax revenues raised in this country that should be dedicated to development assistance. I refer, of course, to the fact that more and more of our assistance is ceded to Brussels, with the results that we heard about from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and which were so rightly described by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. Unfortunately, we have less and less say today over the direction of an ever larger part of the assistance that we provide.

Furthermore, a greater proportion of the budget over which the Government do have control is being allocated to causes which are more often extolled on the soap boxes of Hyde Park than in the fora attended by those whose professional life has been dedicated to the issues fundamental to attaining the sustainable livelihoods of the disadvantaged. I refer, of course, to the portion of the assistance budget that goes on matters relating to good governance and civil society.

I would urge the Government to pay particular attention to the long-term implications of the Question raised by the noble Lord. There are some tremendously exciting and new initiatives taking place in the development field that will no doubt lead towards long-term sustainable solutions to the issue raised in the Question. At this late hour I shall take only one example, and ask what the Government are doing to assist in the development of the recently announced breakthrough in rice breeding, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne. As your Lordships will know, rice is the staple crop of approximately two thirds of the world's population, especially those living at the edge of subsistence.

Vitamin A deficiency causes possibly 2 million deaths each year among children under five years old whose family livelihoods are clearly unsustainable. The rice breeding discovery is a result of a sustained effort, led on the funding side by such institutions as the Rockefeller Foundation, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme, mentioned, following the great developments of the so-called green revolution of the 1960s and 1970s. This breakthrough introduces into traditional rice varieties genes that are converted into vitamin A in the body.

I would like to ask the noble Baroness whether there is a proper balance in the allocation of funds, and sufficient attention to such initiatives, as in the support given by DfID to the soap box policies. I specifically draw her attention to this matter, as, despite the valiant efforts of the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Robert May, many are saying that not enough is being done by the Government's assistance programme.

These are very serious issues relating to the GM question, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. They could put at risk unnecessarily the effectiveness of the new "golden rice" to which I have just referred to.

Finally, why has the NGOs' care support from DfID been squeezed? We in the democratic, free world have a responsibility here. After all, as Bernard Shaw said, "Liberty means responsibility."

Our distinguished former Minister, my noble friend Lady Chalker rightly stressed the importance of innovation. The innovation and thinking the unthinkable, which is the hallmark or the NGO sector, are essential, but, sadly, they are being curtailed at a time when we should be searching for ever more new solutions as an alternative to old, tried answers which have yet to crack the problem.

Why is so much attention being given to the headline-grabbing issue of debt forgiveness? As we have heard this evening from most noble Lords, no amount of debt forgiveness in itself will improve the chances of a sustainable livelihood for those at the bottom of the pile.

My Lords, I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, in the whole area of sustainable livelihoods and thank him for bringing this important issue to the attention of the House this evening.

This is not the first time the noble Lord and I have participated in a discussion on sustainable livelihoods. We both attended the meeting organised by the Rockefeller Foundation in Bellagio, Italy, last September on the theme "From Extreme Poverty to Sustainable Livelihoods." It seems to me that we are now developing a very good partnership.

As we often see when we discuss development issues in the House, the debate has been characterised by in-depth knowledge, a great deal of consensus and commitment from all sides of the House.

I shall endeavour to cover the points which have been raised but I undertake to write to any noble Lords whose points I have not been able to address in detail. I know that all noble Lords who have participated in the debate are aware of the Government's commitment to the international development targets, including a reduction by one-half in the proportion of people living in absolute poverty by 2015.

In 1990 some 1.3 billion people, or almost a quarter of the world's population, were living on less than a dollar a day. Some 70 per cent of these were women. I agree with my noble friend Lord Desai that poverty has a female face. Achieving the target will require that some 1 billion people are lifted over the poverty line by 2015. We believe that that is achievable, but only with the full commitment of governments, the private sector, civil society and development agencies.

My noble friend Lady Massey spoke of some of the target strategy papers which DfID has recently produced. I assure my noble friend that DfID is also developing a performance reporting and monitoring system which will allow us to track progress against each target strategy paper. A recently produced strategy paper concerned economic well-being. It sets out how the target for poverty reduction might be achieved by the international community as a whole and also sets out the role that DfID can play. The document makes clear that the challenge will be met only through economic growth, improved income distribution and a reduction in the vulnerability of national economies and poor people to physical and economic shocks. In addition, countries need to develop strong foundations of governance and institutions with transparency and low levels of corruption. That point was powerfully made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. However, the core message of the paper is that the livelihoods of poor people must be at the centre of any strategy for poverty reduction.

We see the creation of sustainable livelihoods as a key element in helping to reduce poverty. Over the past two years we have worked with development agencies in the UK and overseas to develop and apply the livelihoods approach to development. We are working with partners to create sustainable livelihoods in almost 20 countries and we have committed £193 million to livelihoods programmes over the past nine months.

Our approach to the creation of sustainable livelihoods comprises a set of principles based on our knowledge of what works. It represents a different way of thinking about the priorities for development and it puts people at the centre of development. People, rather than the resources they use or the governments that serve them, are the priority concern. Poor people themselves must participate in identifying and addressing their livelihood priorities.

As well as being people-centred, the approach is holistic. The livelihoods concept is also dynamic. It recognises that poor people simultaneously undertake a range of different activities and seek to achieve a range of livelihood outcomes. These will evolve over time and the approach seeks to reflect this dynamism. I agree with my noble friend Lord Desai on the need to recognise the ways in which the poor live and organise themselves.

The livelihoods approach also links policy level and community level activities. We seek to draw lessons from the local level and bring these to the forefront of development policy. The creation of sustainable livelihoods also requires that the public and private sectors work together—a point made powerfully by a number of noble Lords.

Finally, if poverty is to be eliminated, livelihoods must be sustainable. There are four key dimensions to sustainable development and to sustainability: economic, institutional, social and environmental. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that we cannot ignore the environmental element.

In support of these principles, DfID, in consultation with a range of partners, has developed an analytical framework to help us to understand the livelihoods of the poor. However, we do not see livelihoods as a fixed concept. It is an evolving approach that offers a practical way forward. We are continually building on experience and bringing together good practice.

One of the strengths of the livelihoods approach is the way in which it helps to achieve practical outcomes. In India and Bangladesh, for example, DfID-supported programmes have achieved direct and significant improvements to the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of poor people. Incomes have increased, household food security improved, vulnerability to shocks reduced, primary school enrolment increased and environmental degradation reversed. We have also seen in some instances the status of women enhanced.

These programmes are being expanded to work with many more poor people. However, many challenges remain. Perhaps the most important of these is ensuring that the voices of the poor are able to influence policy change, nationally and internationally.

The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, raised the questions of training and of local leadership. Participation is one of the core principles underlying the sustainable livelihoods approach. The DfID has developed programmes with the full participation of local stakeholders. One of the principles of the approach is that it builds on people's strengths; in particular it assists in the development of human and social capital. Training and development of local communities are important elements in forming effective local partnerships.

The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, spoke of the importance of working with NGOs. I entirely agree with her. One of the key and core strategies in terms of the DfID approach is a need to work in partnership. We are working with international agencies, including the World Bank and United Nations agencies. We feel that we need a co-ordinated approach which considers the impact of all global policies on poor people, particularly in the areas of trade, investment, financial regulation, the environment and debt.

The noble Lord, Lord Holme, also asked specifically about what the Government are doing to promulgate a sustainable livelihoods approach within the European Union. We have been working with the European Commission on sustainable rural livelihoods. The latest draft of its rural development strategy places livelihood improvements for the rural poor as its principal objective. We are helping the Commission to convert the strategy into actual programmes for several developing countries.

I can assure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham that we are seeking to influence European Union policy and practice in other areas. We have developed an institutional strategy paper which sets out the reforms that we see as being required at European Union level. I shall happily send the right reverend Prelate a copy of that paper.

In addition to working with our international partners, the private sector also has a vital role to play, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Holme, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. We recognise the important role that companies are playing as they take their corporate responsibilities more seriously. We are already working in a number of ways with the private sector to create sustainable livelihoods. Our country programme seeks to promote the growth of small, medium and micro-enterprises, another point raised by the right reverend Prelate. In addition, we are about to launch a number of competitive challenge funds. Again, I shall write to the right reverend Prelate with more information on that area.

I turn to other points that have been raised. My noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside mentioned the EU-South Africa trade deal. The United Kingdom strongly supports the EU's trade development and co-operation agreement with South Africa. This fulfils the EU's post-apartheid commitment to help build a stable and prosperous South Africa. We are urging Italy and Greece to work with the European Commission and South Africa to find a sensible way forward instead of trying to reverse the application of the agreement.

The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, raised the matter of the biosafety protocol negotiations at the Montreal conference. The Government are strongly committed to securing a successful outcome to those negotiations. We see one of the main benefits of the protocol for developing countries as being the provision of channels for financial and technical assistance to help them build capacities for the safe use and development of GMOs. DfID is ready to help developing countries ensure that GMOs are used appropriately and effectively to bring real benefits to poor people and to provide sustainable livelihoods. We feel that it is important to assist developing countries themselves to ensure that they have the capacity to do so. That was one of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne.

As regards organic foods, a matter raised by my noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside, perhaps I may say that, on his point of certification, it may be that the certification process itself proves to be an excessive barrier to developing country producers when trying to access organic markets. If that is the case, DfID would be willing to consider funding the initial transaction costs of establishing local capacities for certification through training and accreditation schemes. Again, should my noble friend like more detail, I shall be happy to have a meeting or to write to him.

The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, also spoke of plant sciences and research. Substantial amounts of DfID research funds are directed to the plant sciences and crop protection research programmes, plus funding and collaborative work with the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines and associated international centres in India and Bangladesh. Again, should the noble Baroness require further details on those points, I shall be happy to supply them.

I should like to make a few further points. As regards HIV and Aids, an issue raised by my noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, I agree that special endeavour is needed in recognition of the magnitude of HIV and Aids. We are already integrating elements of HIV/Aids in our projects in Africa, for example, a project in Mozambique. I do not have time to go into the questions raised on education, but again, in Jamaica, we have linked debt relief to education through the Commonwealth debt initiative.

In conclusion, the sustainable livelihoods approach puts people at the centre of development. It focuses on the priorities of the poor and builds on their strengths and opportunities. It seeks to achieve practical outcomes for poor people. That is why DfID is at the forefront of applying the sustainable livelihoods approach. It represents a real means of achieving international development targets.