asked Her Majesty's Government:

What they will report to the United Nations Beijing + 5 conference on reforming the system for elections in the United Kingdom to secure for women an equal part in political power.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving me the immediate opportunity to report to the House on the UN Special Assembly on the Status of Women, from which I returned this morning. I was pleased to be able to describe considerable progress in the United Kingdom since the 1995 Beijing conference. Copies of the report, Equality in Practice, published by the Women's Unit with the Cabinet Office, the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development, together with my statement to the general assembly, will be placed in the Library.

On the specific issue of women's political representation, I was able to report that a record number of women had been elected to the House of Commons in 1997. In the new Northern Ireland Assembly only 13 per cent of the Members are women, but in the Scottish Parliament the percentage is 37 per cent and in the Welsh Assembly 40 per cent.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Perhaps I may ask what lessons she would draw from the elections in Wales and Scotland and, indeed, from the fact that throughout the world the top 10 national legislatures in terms of women's representation are those that have proportional representation, or a form of it, as their means of election. Perhaps I may further ask the Minister whether the Women's Unit will look specifically at the question of women's representation because so far it has not focused particularly on that as a part of its work. Finally, why was no local government representation allowed to be part of the UK delegation to New York for the Beijing + 5 conference when we are trying to encourage women councillors and representation of women at a local level where services impinge especially on them?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments on proportional representation. She will probably be aware that so far as concerns the Labour Party, specific methods were approved and adopted on the election of Members of the Scottish Parliament and Members of the Welsh Assembly with the twinning of constituencies, which led to a large number of women being elected. Perhaps I may point out that 57 per cent of the Labour Members of the Welsh Assembly are women and 50 per cent of Labour MSPs are women. Therefore, methods other than proportional representation can achieve greater representation of the kind that she described.

As to trying to encourage women to become involved in public life, the Cabinet Office and the Women's Unit are conducting a series of workshops all around the country. One is being held tomorrow, for example, in Salford. I shall attend one in Devon next week precisely with the aim of encouraging women to become involved in local activity and then possibly proceed to elected office.

On the question of local government representation, I am sure that the noble Baroness will understand that many groups were and are involved in the implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action, and many of them have an interest in following that up. Quite frankly, it was impractical to include everyone who wished to attend. I am sure that the noble Baroness will be aware that the Women's National Commission, for example, was well represented and that there were representatives from the devolved institutions.

My Lords, perhaps I may suggest to the Minister that encouraging a woman to go forward for political office is surely not the same as saying that she is being denied political power. Does the noble Baroness accept that some of us are rather mystified as to how and in what way women today are being denied political power in the way that the Question suggests?

My Lords, sotto voce from behind me someone says, "Not on this Front Bench"! I simply repeat that it is of course important to encourage people in an informal way to become engaged. That is the point of the exercise that I and various of my colleagues are conducting in order to bring women forward at local level to take part in public life. The noble Baroness will know that: there are targets. The Government have, for example, proposed a target for women to fill 50 per cent of public appointments within certain aspects of public life. In the health service, for example, that target has already reached 48 per cent. Therefore, I believe that opportunities exist and we all need to do everything we can to encourage people to take them up.

My Lords, I declare an interest. I was on the advisory council to the United Nations Secretary-General for the first Beijing conference. Perhaps I may ask the Leader of the House two questions after congratulating her on what she has just told us. First, as she is now looking at the matter of appointments, could she consider the substantial under-representation on appointments boards of women from ethnic minorities in this country? Secondly, I congratulate her on the Government's first tentative steps on the road to PR. May I remind her that Scandinavia has long had an outstanding record on women's representation in its national parliaments, partly for that reason.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her questions and, of course, for her authoritative perspective on the continuing process under the Beijing Platform for Action. Naturally, she is right when she says that there is a particular need to encourage women from ethnic minority communities to take part in public life. As I am sure she is aware, the political parties are engaged in trying to encourage such involvement. I believe that under our system it is more likely that that encouragement, and, it is hoped, success, will come from the type of action that I have described in relation to general appointments and general electoral processes through the party political machinery. I know, for example, that the Labour Party has a particular programme in action to take that forward in relation to ethnic minority women.

My Lords, can the Minister tell us what is being done by Her Majesty's Government to promote the rights of women overseas?

My Lords, a most useful part of the presentation to the UN General Assembly, which I described, entitled Equality in Practice, was to try to align those actions taken by the Government, NGOs and other voluntary organisations in this country with our development programme overseas. I am sure that if the noble Baroness has the opportunity to look at that publication, she will see, for example, that some of the specific proposals regarding education and women's economic development, both in the UK and in specific countries in the developing world, show a pattern of collaboration and partnership. That is precisely the way in which the UN hopes that development will take place.

The UK can congratulate itself on a good record in this area over successive years and under successive administrations. In that regard, I particularly commend the work of my noble friend Lady Amos, who is sitting beside me on the Front Bench. The noble Baroness chaired the collective committee between the Department for International Development and the Women's Unit in the Cabinet Office on precisely aligning such policies within the UN. She was able to give a positive report to the United Nations conference on the progress we are making overseas.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

What is their assessment of the performance to date of the European Central Bank.

My Lords, the primary objective of the European Central Bank is to maintain price stability in the euro area, defined as an annual increase of below 2 per cent in the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices (HICP). In April 2000, euro area Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices stood at 1.9 per cent.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, perhaps I may point out that my Question asks what the Government think of the performance of the European Bank and not just for the statistics he mentioned. Surely it is time for the Government to come off the fence about their attitude to the European Central Bank and the euro, so that this country can know far more clearly where the Government stand on these key issues. Does the Minister agree that, if we had been in euro 11 from the start, our inflation rate would probably be higher than it now is; our central bank interest rate would be nearer 4.5 per cent than 6.5 per cent, and our currency in export terms would be 10 to 15 per cent lower? Is that a fair assessment? Does the Minister think that that would be a good achievement?

My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord does not like factual answers to his Questions. I should have thought it was obvious from the Answer I gave that the Government have always supported the European Central Bank in its primary objectives. We did so at the meetings at which the European Central Bank was set up. Our assessment is the factual one that it has been achieving that primary objective. He is asking me to speculate on matters which are not the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. I am surprised that he should do so.

My Lords, perhaps I may revert to the Question on the Order Paper. Whatever the assessment of the Government on the work of the ECB, is it not irrelevant in the sense that, while we are outside the eurozone, there is nothing we can do about it? Would it not be better if the Government at least gave an indication of when we might expect a referendum to let the public decide?

My Lords, in a Statement made by the Chancellor in October 1997, the Government made clear that the decision on whether or not to enter the euro is primarily an economic one and would be based on economic considerations. It is unlikely that there will be a stable resolution of those economic considerations during this Parliament.

My Lords, perhaps I should make clear that I did not consult my noble friend before asking this Question. Bearing in mind the effects that the decisions of the European Central Bank can have upon the economy of each of the European countries which have the euro as their currency, can the Minister make clear to whom the bank is answerable and responsible?

My Lords, the European Central Bank was set up with the agreement of the 11 European countries in the eurozone. There is a Council of Finance Ministers of those 11 countries. The relationship between the European Central Bank, the 11 Finance Ministers and their governments is well established.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is unfair to criticise the European Central Bank and that it deserves congratulation? Can he confirm that no other central hank in history has had to cope with 11 different governments, all with differing views, and with trying to keep one interest rate? Is it not amazing that the EC B has not done even worse than it has?

My Lords, I neither congratulate the European Central Bank nor condemn it for what it has done.

My Lords, the Minister mentioned the Finance Ministers in the 11 eurozone countries. What are the relations between those 11 Ministers and the Ministers of those countries which are within the European Union but not in the eurozone? There have been recent reports of differences of opinion. Are those reports correct?

My Lords, the Ministers of the 11 countries in the eurozone have regularly met together since the euro was first established. The finance Ministers of the 15 countries in the European Union meet together in ECOFIN, as they have done since and before the euro was established. I am not aware of any general disagreements between them. If the noble Lord has a specific question in that regard, perhaps he will put it to me.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Bank of England is a member of the European system of central banks and that we can make our contribution through that institution?

My Lords, yes. We can and do make our views known through the European system of central banks.

My Lords, does the Minister agree with Mr Prodi's statement in Denmark that it is not possible for a country to withdraw from the European single currency, or with his statement in the Spectator that it is possible for a country to withdraw from the single currency?

My Lords, I was aware of the statement of Mr Prodi that it was possible to withdraw. I was slightly surprised when I read it. It has always been our understanding that was an irreversible decision to enter the European single currency.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there are constitutional issues involved in whether or not we enter the euro, as well as financial and economic ones? Also, can he say whether we are converging towards the five tests for entry or diverging from them?

My Lords, we have always recognised that the joining of monetary policy in the European single currency is a pooling of sovereignty. That is clearly a constitutional issue. As to the changes in the adherence to the live economic conditions, the Government will make an assessment of that in due course. It is not appropriate to do so at the moment.

My Lords, why did the Minister kick a relevant question of my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry into touch?

My Lords, I am not very good at sporting metaphors. I do not understand the question.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, we recognise that the strong pound and low prices have severely reduced sheep producers' incomes. However, since the early autumn prices have recovered substantially and are now 5 per cent above the level of 12 months ago. The more significant and sustained increase in returns depends on all elements of the food supply chain working together to respond effectively to consumer demand. The support system needs reform to reduce reliance on subsidy and to make the sector more market oriented. Our implementation of the rural development regulations will also help to strengthen marketing and collaborative approaches.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but is she aware that it is estimated that farmers' incomes this year are dropping by £50 per week? Unless the Government lift the ban on sending our mutton carcasses to Europe within the next few months, we are in for a had period in the autumn when sheep farmers will be selling their produce.

My Lords, I appreciate the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, about farmers' incomes. Sheep farmers in particular have had an extremely difficult time. There is not a ban as such on the export of whole carcasses. The problem is that, since the BSE-related legislation on specified risk material, spinal cord must be removed from sheep over 12 months old. Splitting carcasses to remove the spinal cord is not acceptable to customers in France, which was our main market for mutton. We have managed to negotiate arrangements with France for whole, unspoilt ewe carcasses to be sent direct to listed cutting plants in France under official controls. The spinal cord is then removed under France's regime, which is similar to our own. But the industry has made representations that the requirement for consignments to be sent direct to premises creates difficulty for the trade and we therefore proposed to France a system of export in sealed compartments or cages within vehicles so that deliveries can be made en route.

My Lords, I am interested in what my noble friend said, but is she aware that in Gwynedd and Anglesey, for example, the sheep industry is in considerable difficulties? In particular, the wool industry is in great difficulty at present. Can the Minister say how hard the Government are working to help that area to get out of those difficulties?

My Lords, it is in recognition of the problems in the sheep industry that there has been support for that sector in each of the packages of aid announced by this Government, most recently in the £22 million agrimonetary compensation and the £60 million for the hill livestock compensation allowances, which support hill farmers, a great deal of which goes to those involved in sheep production.

I understand my noble friend's point in relation to the difficulties in the wool market. Prices there have recovered slightly compared with last year. The board's price indicator at mid-February stood at 70p per kilogram compared with 62p per kilogram in 1999. But my noble friend will be aware that wool is not an agricultural product. It is not supported through the CAP. The wool guarantee was terminated in 1993 and therefore the mechanisms to support the wool trade in times of difficulty, such as it is experiencing at the moment, are simply not there to implement.

My Lords, if wool is not an agricultural product, can the Minister tell us what it is?

My Lords, I am trying to restrain myself from saying that it is what you get when you fleece a sheep.

Agricultural products are listed in Annexe I to the Treaty of Rome. Wool is not included in Annexe 1 to the Treaty of Rome, ergo it is not an agricultural product.

My Lords, further to the Minister's response, the only people getting fleeced at the moment, sadly, are our sheep farmers, whose situation is extremely serious.

Can the Minister respond to the announcement of the £50 million cut in the sheep premium? Also, how quickly will the Government respond to the study being examined by the Scottish Agricultural College which is to be presented to the EU Commission in June?

My Lords, the rate of sheep premium is set in relation to the levels available and will be lower this year than it has been in the past as a reflection of higher levels and prices on the Continent and the strong pound-euro exchange rate. I shall certainly read the report from the Scottish Agricultural College and consider what action to take. But the noble Baroness should be careful of commenting on reductions in support to the sheep industry, given the record of her government.

Oh!

My Lords, I know that noble Lords opposite do not like to be reminded of the facts in terms of support for hill livestock and compensation allowances, which were reduced by the previous government; but if it is fact, it is fact.

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords, I may be wrong, but I do not believe anybody from this side has asked a question of my noble friend on this point. Perhaps we could hear the noble Lord, Lord Haskel.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, spoke about the export of sheep. Would it be straying too far from the Question if I asked my noble friend whether she can tell us what the Government are doing to help the export of beef?

My Lords, this is another sector that is experiencing difficulties. As my noble friend will be aware, the Prime Minister asked my colleague Joyce Quin to take a lead in this area. Following the lifting of the export ban to everywhere in Europe, apart from France, which is now completely isolated in this respect—I see that noble Lords opposite are not interested—both Malta and Ghana have lifted the ban on the export of British beef. I should have thought that noble Lords opposite would be pleased to support that development.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they have any plans to promote a reduction in the proportion of children from independent schools who are admitted to United Kingdom universities.

The Government are committed to widening participation in higher education. The university funding system has been changed to give additional support for those students who are likely to need it most. We are financing summer schools to encourage young people to raise their sights, and we are supporting a variety of schemes to improve access to higher education. We want all young people with the potential to benefit from higher education to be admitted to university, whatever their background.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. However, does she agree with me that, in general, it is an infringement of academic freedom for the Government to interfere in university admissions? I say this particularly because every university in the country has said that it wants to admit able pupils of every class and from every school and has given great attention to widening the entry process. Therefore, why make the universities responsible for the weaknesses of a state education system?

My Lords, the Government have been working with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and with the top research universities for some time to widen participation in universities. Our agenda is the same. I believe that it is accepted by many of my former colleagues in the CVCP that this is a challenge to all of us. There is no question of interference. The Government are perfectly well aware that admissions policies, their detail and how they are implemented are matters for the universities. Indeed, it was your Lordships' House—I remember the occasion well—that, rightly, made it absolutely clear that the details of the way in which students are admitted to universities is a matter for those universities. However, in the interest of promoting equal opportunities, it is perfectly right and appropriate that governments should provide incentives and encouragement to universities to deal with access problems.

My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister agree with me, and confirm, that 65 per cent of all students who gain three As at A-level come from the state sector and only 35 per cent from the independent sector, whereas figures for entry to Oxford are 53 per cent and 47 per cent respectively?

My Lords, I can confirm the figures just given by my noble friend. Indeed, they have been widely available in the public domain over the past few days. I applaud the work that Professor Colin Lucas, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford, is undertaking in order to widen participation. In a report produced by the University of Oxford last year, it was made clear that this was a problem and one which the university wished to crack. The Government will continue to work with Professor Lucas and his colleagues in attempting to widen participation.

My Lords, Section 6813) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 forbids the Secretary of State to fund institutions on the basis of the "criteria" that they use for "the admission of students". In the light of the description of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of admission procedures at Magdalen College in Oxford as a "scandal", can the Minister say whether it is the Government's intention to reform the law in order to use funding to reward or punish universities?

No, my Lords.

My Lords, is the Minister not aware of the inconsistency of the Government's stance on this particular issue? If the Government are genuinely anxious to widen participation and to reduce the access barriers to our top universities, why have they pursued a policy of imposing tuition fees and abolishing maintenance grants? And why do they now seem to be acquiescing in plans for top-up fees?

My Lords, perhaps I may begin with the point about top-up fees. The Government are not acquiescing. We have made the position absolutely clear; indeed, we legislated and took reserve powers to make it impossible for universities to charge top-up fees. We also made it clear that, if they did so, we would reduce their grants.

On the noble Baroness's wider point, I should point out to her—I am surprised that she is unaware of this—that there has been no reduction in the number of applicants and, indeed, in the number of students going to university from lower-income groups as a result of the changes in the student support regime and the introduction of tuition fees. Tuition fees are not paid by over one-third of young people; indeed, they pay no fees whatever. When the threshold is raised next year, that figure will rise to 40 per cent.

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree—

My Lords, does my noble friend agree—

Order!

My Lords, I should remind the House that the time limit of 30 minutes for Questions has now expired.

My Lords, I wish to ask this question. It is a point of order. Is it in order to have premature interventions from the Front Bench which prevent Back-Bench Members of this House having a say on a vitally important Question?

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

Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Earl of Carnarvon and the Lord Bridges set down for today shall each be limited to two hours.(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)

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

Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Transport Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

• Clauses 1 to 27,
• Schedules 1 and 2,
• Clauses 28 to 30,
• Schedule 3,
• Clauses 31 to 33,
• Schedule 4,
• Clause 34,
• Schedule 5,
• Clauses 35 to 60,
• Schedule 6,
• Clause 61,
• Schedule 7,
• Clauses 62 to 89,
• Schedule 8,
• Clauses 90 to 94,
• Schedule 9,
• Clauses 95 to 141,
• Schedule 10,
• Clauses 142 to 149,
• Schedule 11,
• Clauses 150 to 179,
• Schedule 12,
• Clauses 180 to 187,
• Schedule 13,
• Clauses 188 to 192,
• Schedule 14,
• Clauses 193 to 199,
• Schedule 15,
• Clauses 200 to 203,
• Schedule 16,
• Clause 204,
• Schedule 17,
• Clause 205,
• Schedule 18,
• Clause 206,
• Schedule 19,
• Clause 207,
• Schedule 20,
• Clause 208,
• Schedule 21.
• Clauses 209 to 215,
• Schedule 22,
• Clauses 216 and 217,
• Schedule 23,
• Clauses 218 and 219,
• Schedule 24,
• Clauses 220 to 227,
• Schedule 25,
• Clauses 228 to 236,
• Schedule 26,
• Clauses 237 and 238,
• Schedule 27,
• Clause 239,
• Schedule 28,
• Clauses 240 to 242,
• Schedule 29,
• Clauses 243 to 247,
• Schedule 30,
• Clauses 248 to 253.-(Lord Whitty.)

rose to call attention to the case for additional housing in London and the South East and the Government's proposals for achieving their targets; and to move for Papers.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, has decided to make his maiden speech in today's debate. His experience as an Oxford City councillor, both in housing and in planning, will be extremely valuable and no doubt noble Lords will take a great deal of interest in what he has to say.

This debate on housing involves everyone in the country, not only those in the South East and in London. I must declare my interest, which is a non-pecuniary one, as chairman of SERPLAN—until it is disbanded in April of next year and its responsibilities transferred to the Mayor of London and two regional assemblies.

I have been involved in planning for housing for nearly 50 years. It is a very emotive issue. I fervently believe that every individual or family should have a home, a house or a flat. Those of us who fought in wars mostly thought at anxious moments of our homes, as well as our loved ones. "The Englishman's home is his castle" is not a fantasy. It is as true today as it has always been. That is why local and central government have done their best to provide a level of housing provision which can be achieved in London and the South East in the next 16 years.

We must ensure that everyone has the opportunity of a decent home. That is what I said in your Lordships' House on 15th December last year. That debate followed the publication of the Crow report. Since then the Government have published their proposals for future development in the South East. It is SERPLAN's response to those that I shall speak about today.

The Government have retained a good deal of the vision of the local authorities, their approach to achieving a more sustainable pattern of development and promoting urban renaissance, but I fear that the Government have disregarded the wider policy framework proposed by SERPLAN. Sustainable development cannot be achieved by the land use planning system acting alone. It is critically important that all decision-makers contribute to the process. Urban renaissance, for example, requires a coordinated approach by all relevant agencies. This was visible when some noble Lords, members of the All-Party London Group, visited Tower Hamlets a few weeks ago and were able to see for themselves the impressive Stepney Ocean Estate and the work of the Asian-led housing association, LABO.

Public transport will only become a realistic alternative to excessive use of the private car through large-scale private investment. The role of individuals and organisations therefore needs to be clear, as does the relationship between the different strategies and delivery mechanisms operating within the region.

SERPLAN has set out in some detail the expected contribution of these other bodies and mechanisms, including central government, and called for new mechanisms where these were needed. This approach is consistent with the concept of spatial strategies developing throughout Europe and reflected in guidance given by the Government.

The Government's consultation document, Proposed Changes, is stronger in the presentation of good intentions than in setting out the means and policies whereby these are to be implemented. The Government have failed to give local authorities the necessary powers, particularly in relation to housing type and tenure issues and the whole question of affordability. Similarly, in relation to wider housing issues, the Government have not acknowledged that existing mechanisms are inadequate to deliver the urban component of housing provision on the scale required.

I know that many people living in the South East fear that excessive development will affect their lives and ruin the countryside which they love. Housing provision is a subject which is too often considered in isolation. It must be seen as part of an integrated, spatial planning approach and considered alongside, and in close relation to, economic issues, employment and transport.

The Government's specific policy, as set out in Proposed Changes, for the overall level of housing provision in the South East is that,

"Housing should be provided at the annual average rate of 23,000 dwellings in London and 43,000 dwellings in the rest of the South East".

No specific rationale is offered, either in Proposed Changes or in the accompanying housing technical note, for the lievel of housing provision proposed for the rest of the South East (ROSE). The Government argue that it should be possible to provide more housing, with proportionately less impact on land and other resources. The Government believe that ROSE can provide 43,000 dwellings per annum between 1996 and 2016.

The approach to housing provision for ROSE put forward by SERPLAN was based on "plan, monitor and manage". To summarise—the proposal was to plan for a supply side baseline level of provision with the strategic authorities demonstrating how they would increase this in line with a higher indicative range; to monitor key housing trends; and to manage additional housing provision through the development plan system. SERPLAN's approach was based on "managing up" to a total level of housing provision.

The level of housing provision proposed by the Government for ROSE does not recognise he real practical difficulties in achieving these targets. Some 43,000 dwellings per annum is an annual average relating to the period from 1996. We are already well into that period. The most recent available information indicates that additional housing since 1996 has been running at around 39,000 dwellings a year. The new regional guidance is unlikely to be put in place before 2001. Following publication in its final form, additional housing provision cannot be increased to the proposed level quickly. Even with speedy reviews, revised development plan policies will take some time to put in place. This means that the real scope for increasing housing provision through the plan-led process will be post-2006.

One important aspect of housing provision is affordable housing and the Government have suggested a target of not less than 40 per cent. SERPLAN's recent work has indicated that only 20–25 per cent of planning completions are affordable. SERPLAN supports the Government's target for affordable housing but in order to achieve it it will continue to press the Government strongly for increased power over size, type and tenure—an important issue which I stressed in my speech on 15th December last year.

Local authorities in both London and the South East are concerned about additional housing in parts of the South East without jobs being available to sustain the population, and such housing being occupied by long-distance commuters.

I know that local government wish to engage in constructive dialogue with central government on the future provision of housing in the South East. I look forward to hearing noble Lords' views and the Government's response at the end of the debate. I beg to move for Papers.

My Lords—

Order!

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, for raising this urgent and persistent problem and, in passing, giving me the chance to make my maiden speech.

Housing, and planning and transport with which it is inevitably intertwined, has been a particular interest of mine—as the noble Earl was kind enough to point out—since I was an Oxford City councillor serving on the housing and planning committees. I was elected to that council in 1972 just before the noble Earl became chairman of Hampshire County Council and just as house prices in the South East were really taking off for the first time. I remember that well because I had struggled to buy a small terraced house in east Oxford for £8,500, with a salary at that time in my new job of £2,500.

It was a good salary and it was certainly a very interesting job. I was a research assistant and speech writer; "chocolate soldier" as we were called because we were paid by the Joseph Rowntree Trust, to which we on these Benches owe a great deal. My boss at that time is my now noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. One of my first tasks was to help him with a speech on housing and transport. A generation later, at the peak of yet another house price boom in south-east England, I thought that I would start by taking a look back at what we said then:

"At the end of June 1972. the typical modern house in London and the South-East was selling at £11.000. Only six months earlier its price was £8,800. Fifteen years before it could be bought for £2,500.

"The problem in London"—

the speech went on—

"is particularly acute. It is already hard to retain teachers for London schools or probation officers for London courts because when they want families they can find nowhere adequate to live. If we can provide housing of varied standards and prices near to the areas where people work, we are not only preserving our cities, we are also relieving some of the transport problems. If part of our problem stems from mass daily travel, part of the solution is to reduce the need for it".

It was a radical speech. It called for a system of compulsory purchase by local authorities to force owners to release land which the country needed for housing. We saw our planning system then as the key protector of land use against immensely strong market uses, which have never been properly tamed. If left alone, they would produce,

"one great sprawl, neither city nor country, neither field nor place, where life without a car is impossible, yet roads and parking space will take up two-thirds of the area of these non-cities."

Well, we have moved a good deal down that dismal road already in the South East since 1972.

We are no more likely to solve the housing problems of the South East by greenfield private development than we are to cure traffic congestion by building more motorways. We cannot trust market forces to produce the right housing balance for society in this richest and most congested corner of England where land supply is tight and demand can be almost infinite. No, if one is serious about keeping vital services going in London, or Oxford, or Horsham, or our villages by giving nurses, policemen, teachers or bus drivers some chance of a decent home that they can afford, one has to be firm and tough, year in and year out, using the planning system quite deliberately in conjunction with higher grant rates to housing associations. I very much agree with the noble Earl that we must target new developments throughout London and the South East strongly towards affordable housing. This will help key workers who would expect to buy but are now priced out of the market near their work, and also the many people who—let us never forget this—will always need homes to rent long term because their incomes are too low or too uncertain for a mortgage.

The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions issued two important housing papers in March and April: the new Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 and the housing Green Paper. Both contain plenty of sound sense. But on the key point of affordable housing, what do they say, what will they do, and when will they do it?

The Green Paper talks about,

"assessing and delivering an appropriate amount of new affordable housing, a significant proportion of which becomes available through the operation of planning policies".

It points out that,

"insufficient amounts of new affordable housing have been developed in areas of acute housing pressure"

and that,

"in areas of high demand there tend to be higher than average levels of overcrowding and use of temporary accommodation".

Finally, on page 71, we learn:

"in London and many southern urban and rural areas, high demand for housing coupled with high house prices has placed acute pressure on the social housing stock".

That is all very worthy, but it hardly starts to recognise the scale and urgency of the problem.

I am delighted to hear from the noble Earl that the Government are moving towards a target of 40 per cent affordable housing in new developments in the South East. If so, it is certainly rapid movement since last year when we were told that PPG3 was a statement of policy rather than a guidance manual. Now, on page 74 of the Green Paper, we are promised good practice guidance next year on helping local authorities secure appropriate affordable housing within new developments and improved arrangements for finding out what is going on. I am bound to say that when one reads these documents one gets the feeling that the DETR is moving ahead about as fast as traffic on the M25 on a Friday night.

The shortage of affordable housing is acute throughout south-east England. I would argue that in the present situation of extreme housing shortage we should have a general presumption that for at least the next five years at least half of each new development on greenfield sites in south-east England should be affordable housing. That 50 per cent target should not be eroded by the so-called planning gains and Section 106 agreements invented by the last government. After all, these are basically just ways of selling planning permissions to the highest bidder.

A maiden speech is not the place to discuss all the changes in planning and taxation which are essential to transform access to affordable housing both to rent and buy. It is the place, I hope, to point out that the developers have gobbled up green fields for a generation but housing need in London and the South East is just as acute today as it was 30 years ago. Housing, planning and transport policy in London and the South East will be a hard test of "joined-up government". Is it just a slogan, or will it really work on the ground?

Although we are life Peers, other maiden speakers have talked about their fathers. We heard that the noble Lord, Lord Powell of Bayswater, is a hereditary civil servant. My noble friend Lord Greaves produced a policeman's whistle. Luckily, the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, spared us the butcher's cleaver on Monday. My father was a diplomat. I do not really know what the tools of a diplomat's trade are—perhaps a bagful of foreign languages in his case. He was very proud to be the first boy from his local school ever to get into Oxford. That was possible even in the had old days before the Chancellor of the Exchequer appointed himself admissions tutor of Magdalen.

I thank the officers and staff of the House, who have been universally kind and helpful to me both before and after my introduction. It is heartening to see so many old friends here. For example, six of us in the latest list of new Peers are old comrades from the SDP—three on these Benches and three on the Benches opposite. I look forward to working with them and with all noble Lords, wherever they sit, in the interests of the whole House.

My Lords, on behalf of the whole House I should like to congratulate—

Order!

My Lords, on two occasions this afternoon the conventions of the House have been gravely abused. The time has come for a halt. I suggest that we pay courtesy to the noble Baroness paying tribute to the maiden speaker by listening to her speech.

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, on his very passionate and informative maiden speech. It was a pleasure to listen to someone with whom I hope to work very closely.

For the benefit of your Lordships who are not informed about the noble Lord, I should like to give a brief résumé of his background. He has an extensive reputation, being economic adviser to several foreign countries as well as having been a special adviser to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead—"a chocolate soldier", as we have learnt. The noble Lord has an independent company, which he set up a number of years ago, and is an ardent campaigner in Lambeth. I look forward to working with him and to hearing him speak on many occasions. He certainly has not lost the skills that he used in speechwriting for others, as he demonstrated in his eloquent speech this afternoon.

My Lords, before my noble friend continues, after her very appropriate and well-earned tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, I should like to remind Members of your Lordships' House that when a maiden speaker rises to speak, and during the tribute to the maiden speaker, no one should enter or leave the Chamber. Perhaps I may explain that I did not intervene because I think that it is nerve-racking for a maiden speaker to have noble Lords calling "Order" as he or she rises. I hope that in future all noble Lords will observe the conventions. I apologise to my noble friend Lady Uddin for intervening, and, as the Whip, assure her that none of the time that I have spent will be taken from her speaking time.

My Lords, I am delighted about that. I feel slightly relieved by my noble friend's intervention.

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Carriarvor, for initiating this timely debate. It gives us an opportunity to contribute to the first comprehensive review of housing for 23 years. I am delighted to have this opportunity proudly to discuss this within the context of the Green Paper, Quality and Choice: A decent home for all.

I welcome the statement in the report that,

"People who are decently housed have a stronger sense of security and place. Decent housing strengthens communities and provides a better setting in which to raise families. It improves health and educational achievement and provides a long-term asset that can he passed on to future generations".

If it is the view that proper housing can begin the soul of a community, does not the rationale for the decay of inner cities over decades become plainly obvious?

I last spoke on housing during the discussion on the English House Condition Survey for 1996, when I drew your Lordships' attention to the plight of housing issues in our borough of Tower Hamlets. As a resident of long standing in the borough—some 27 years—I do not share some of the rosy pictures painted by the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon. I shall explain why.

During the debate I explained the desperate shortage of housing for the local community. I also spoke about the devastating impact of embracing race to deploy housing policy, particularly under the Liberal administration in Tower Hamlets in the 1980s. I believe that at that time the issue of additional housing—or simply housing as a serious political discussion—was not firmly on the Government's agenda.

There has of course been a significant change, and the recognition of addressing the need for increased investment in housing is now a central part of all the regeneration initiatives. The release of capital receipts by the Government represented the first substantial increase in investment in housing in decades. There is much still to be done, but housing now has a greater prominence in the political agenda and there is a growing awareness—as evidenced by the Green Paper—of the importance of good housing as the basis of a civilised, decent society.

It has been recognised that access to housing is crucial to addressing the growing "residualisation" of large sections of the population within cities such as London, in particular within areas such as Tower Hamlets. The Green Paper specifically acknowledges the need to find ways to reform the process of allocating social housing.

Equally important is the need to create greater opportunities for affordable home ownership in areas where land values and housing costs are prohibitive. My own back yard of Wapping is a prime example. On one side of the street are houses which are in desperate need of modernisation; on the other side are family houses which cost up to £300,000 to buy or £300 per week to rent. I regret to say that there is apartheid in the community due to decades of poor planning. The division between rich and poor is blatant.

In my area of Tower Hamlets there is still an acute shortage of good quality, affordable accommodation, and a desperate shortage of large dwellings. There remains also an overwhelming demand for accommodation from the council and local housing associations. As stated before, it is simply not possible to meet the demand. I believe that, to a certain extent, the opportunity to do the right thing in social housing was essentially missed during the days of building the Docklands dream town.

The housing needs of Tower Hamlets are well researched and frequently cited. They include: 16,000 households which are in need of a home from the council; double the London average of overcrowded families; 70 per cent of its population on low income or dependent on benefits while the remainder earn on average £600 per week; and a faster-than-average growing population of young people. Within this picture of multiple deprivation there are large areas of more severe disadvantage—such as Spitalfields ward, where unemployment is the highest in London. This is despite huge amounts of investment in the area. In close proximity there is disparity in the amount of luxury private developments in Docklands and on the City fringe.

This is a clear example of poor planning and bad management of resources over a long period. Of course, the area must attract a new population to the borough, but the cost has been that it has failed to address the existing needs and demands of many in the local community, thereby creating ghettoization.

Thus the need for good quality, affordable housing is growing at the same time as the polarisation of rich and poor accentuates. We need to find ways in which to increase the supply of rented accommodation of the appropriate size and type. Those who have experienced facing the wrath of the private sector and the private landlord in my area will tell you that the new rules for housing benefit are likely to have a dramatic impact on the quality of housing provision available to their families.

We also need to find ways in which to retain within our cities, especially London, families in low-paid employment with aspirations to home ownership. This is another concern of the Government's housing Green Paper, particularly in relation to key public sector workers. I should like to see the key workers scheme extended to our talented young professionals to enable them to remain in the area where they were born. This would act as a catalyst to other young people in the area. In our area we are desperate for our successful young people, our role models, to be able to work and to remain living in the local area. That would assist and contribute to the development of our community.

The new strategy must also consider ensuring that housing associations sell properties at a reasonable cost to their tenants. I believe that the DIYSO scheme is worth re-examination in this regard.

I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to some recent initiatives in Tower Hamlets. I believe that many small and large housing associations in Tower Hamlets have been leaders and have inspired many initiatives throughout Britain. I should like to pay tribute to the individuals involved.

From the outside one may observe that, within the past decade, the local council has successfully regenerated a significant number of estates—not, I hesitate to add, because it was willing, but because it was compelled by pressure from the community and the commitment of its leaders, who had the foresight to realise that large amounts of social housing would be required by the population.

Some of the good examples have been achieved through the Estate Action and Single Regeneration Budget programmes—although a cursory walk around the borough would demonstrate the need for much more. Again, it needs to be stated that the parts which most require attention are populated by the Bangladeshi community. The question that needs to be asked—and must be asked—is why the most deprived areas remain the poorest. I should like to see any further resources targeted for additional housing for areas of prolific need.

During the days of my involvement in the community work arena, many of us argued with authorities that simply improving bricks and bollards is not enough to build the fabric of a confident society, a point recognised in the Green Paper. It is necessary to address the soul of the community, as demonstrated by last Sunday's programme "Soul of Britain". Therefore I was pleased to host a meeting last Monday of an initiative supported by the Housing Corporation Faith in Regeneration, which is a project to be undertaken in conjunction with the Social Exclusion Unit and which is to examine good practice in taking into account the faiths of a community in the provision of housing and other regeneration schemes. This is a welcome trend.

In my area, the aims of many of the housing associations have, in essence, acted to fill the gaps created during the dark days of nearly 20 years of Conservatism, when housing policies were essentially discrirninatory. During that period, much of our good land was put into the hands of outsiders, who had no commitment to enhancing good social housing or to the participation of, particularly, the Bangladeshi community in any decision-making process, thus leading to the huge deficit in both adequate housing and leadership which is prevalent today.

How have we fared since coming to power? In simple terms, we have in our approach maintained the status quo, with the same people running the local show-—with not a single quango—in housing or otherwise, and led by members of the local community. Leadership in housing and regeneration is critical to the development of a sustainable community. If the new housing policy is to address sustainable development, I should like to see the development of clauses to ensure local leadership in the delivery of all newly proposed boards and funding mechanisms.

With its partner, the Housing Corporation, the council is trying to link housing with wider regeneration initiatives. Tower Hamlets was one of the first councils to set up a "local labour in construction" scheme to ensure that 20 per cent of the work on Estate Action programmes in the borough went to local people. I should like to see this extended to management and leadership as well.

The council has also set up an innovative arm's-length company to deliver the Stepney SRB programme; it was recently declared a Pathfinder authority in the New Deal for Communities initiative; in addition, the council has assisted in attracting more than £100 million-worth of private and public sector funding through the setting up of local housing companies in Poplar and Bethnal Green.

Here again, I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to the unacceptable levels of lack of participation in the decision-making process. I do not want to see the same "Hobson's Choice" continuing year on year. To address social exclusion, we must begin to accept that the community must take the lead in the provision of its services.

In conclusion, additional housing is critical if we are to achieve sustainable and confident communities. In places like Tower Hamlets these needs must be accompanied by intelligent responses to assisting the empowerment of the people themselves, facilitating leadership and confidence. I do not want to see choices in housing available to people on the same basis that education is available to our community; namely, that there is no choice.

My Lords, I follow on with congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott. I do not know whether it was his experiences on Oxford City Council that enabled him to withstand the diversion of various Lords a-swirling but he certainly dealt with it with extreme aplomb. That will be a very valuable asset in this House. I congratulate him on the content of his speech. I am sure we look forward to hearing from him in the future.

Housing is, of course, one of the most emotive of subjects, as has already been said, particularly in London and the South East of England where there are enormous pressures.

I know more about London than I know about the South East, so I shall concentrate my short remarks o n that area. Perhaps the housing pressures in London are easier to diagnose than to resolve. Some of those pressures and difficulties have been outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, who comes from a different part of London from myself, and there are differences in every area.

The housing pressures are brought about for a number of reasons. The first pressure is the high property values that are now prevalent in London. In the Daily Telegraph recently there was an article which was headed "Is property becoming unaffordable?' There is something to be said for that observation. A lot of the property in central and west London is now well beyond the reach of anybody on a reasonable salary. Therefore, a lot of the property is now in the hands of investment companies. A lot of the property is in the hands of companies which are buying it for the purposes of letting it to their overseas staff or buying it so they do not have to use hotels. That property, on an international market, is now virtually inaccessible to anybody who is on a normal London salary. Therefore, a vast slice of property has been removed in that way.

The corollary, of course, to that is that the improvement in that property is vast. We have all been aware that over the years the standard of property in London has deteriorated. But the investment of money within it has now raised the standards beyond the normal reach of most people.

We are therefore driving away people in the middle income bracket, who are unable to live within London. My son has recently invested what must be his every last penny for the next 150 years in buying a small property. It is a major investment that young people are having to make and is well beyond many of them.

It is not only the purchase of property which is becoming impossible for people on middle incomes and young people; it is also the renting of property. We are again in a very high rented market, and we are also seeing within the statutory sector, under the Rent Act provisions, people who are statutory tenants finding that rents are being raised well beyond what they expect and can afford.

The improvement of property affects many areas. There is pressure on property in one area which then begins to affect the adjacent area and there is then a rolling programme of what one could call "the Notting Hill syndrome". There is a move to gentrification. People who can afford property in that area move back, but then people who were previously able to afford that property have to go elsewhere. This again puts pressure on the available property and the affordability of that property.

As we have discussed, people on lower incomes, of course, rely very heavily on affordable housing. As I am well aware, most local authorities can provide affordable social housing, but that is on a variety of tenures. It is very difficult to be able to provide that housing in London now. There are fewer and fewer available sites for housing.

We talk rather glibly about brownfield sites. In many cases now brownfield sites are a good investment. But then we return to the problem of the unaffordability of such property. If the state cannot afford a site then it cannot afford to provide property at a reasonable value and it will not do so. That then puts pressure on us.

There is also the difficulty of who is moving into social housing. Is it the homeless? Of course. But we do not want all our estates made up of people who do not know each other. One of the big problems in the past with social housing has been that very often vast areas of London were cleared for redevelopment. What happens then? People from the waiting list, people off the homeless list and asylum seekers are put into that redevelopment, not one of whom knows each other. There is no community. There was no community from the start. So in big developments great care should be taken with regard to how the tenures are sorted out in order to try and build a community from the outset. But the sites must be available before building can begin.

The general increase in London's population is caused, first, by the immigration of people who come to work here, and, secondly, greater pressure is caused by people who come because London is attractive. It is a mecca to which people come to live and it must now be a great disappointment because when they arrive it is so difficult to find somewhere to live.

I do not bandy figures around very often because I usually get them wrong, but I think the increase in the population of London between 1983 and 1991 was at a rate of about 16,000 a year. Between 1991 and 1998 it was 42,000. It does not take very long to rack up the sort of figures that SERPLAN talks about as the requirement for new properties when you work on that basis.

What do we do about it? It is easy to stand here and explain the problems, but what are we going to do about it?

I understand that VAT is still charged on brownfield sites and is not charged on greenfield sites. Not only is it charged on brownfield sites but it is also charged on anything that is developed on brownfield sites. This seems to me to be a nonsense. It must be one area that needs looking at. The encouragement must be, of course, to develop within the city if we can. But that also increases once again the value and the cost of property.In the public sector, local authorities, local health authorities and private developers must work together. We are clearly well past the days when local authorities can work on their own. They need to work in co-operation and co-ordination with others. By doing that they will achieve the mixed tenure about which I spoke.

To include a percentage of affordable housing in each development is not easy. We tried it in Kensington and Chelsea. We said that a certain proportion of every site had to consist of affordable housing. But land costs made that almost impossible to deliver. We have achieved that on some sites, but we have to accept that we will have to provide it elsewhere on others. The "elsewhere" is the problem. It is very difficult in London.

I think that probably even more emotive than issues regarding the green belt are issues regarding the provision of housing. As I said in opening—and I agree with much of what has already been said—housing is probably the one security that people need. To have a secure home is an essential. Not everybody has a secure home. It is becoming less and less easy to have a secure home. I think that central London will be the worse for it. If we cannot resolve some of these problems, we will be left with an investment city. I do not think that anybody really wants that. I do not think that housing should be traded, if I can put it that way. We need to find a way to resolve the problems of housing, but property values at the moment are making life extremely difficult.

My Lords, my childhood home was a small privately rented house. It had been rented by my grandparents before my parents took it over. The rent was small. Indeed it was so small that when my father asked for some repairs to be done the landlord suggested that he bought the house, which he did in the 1950s for £900. For all its inadequacies—and there were many—it was our home. That was as true when we rented it as when we bought it. It was in that house that my parents created our family. It was in that house that we loved each other and fought each other, welcomed our wider family and community. We prayed together and we broke bread together around the table. That is where we grew up to be the people we became. It was a house, but it was much more: it was a home. It was there for us, offering us security, as, along with so many others in those years after the war, we struggled to make ends meet and to keep the family alive.

I am president of the Churches National Housing Coalition. We support the National Housing Federation campaign with its wonderful slogan, "Our homes our future". In the South East the NHF has produced an important report on housing needs in the region to the year 2016. That report is called Who needs Housing? Of course the people need housing. They need homes in which they can fulfil their vocations in marriage and family, work and leisure, politics and religion. That reality is the basis for the moral and spiritual dimension of this issue, which is that if we leave people without homes or living in homes which are not fit for their human dignity, we are offending the fundamental moral principles of God's goodness to us all.

We have a particular kind of housing crisis in the South East. It is borne of economic growth and development. The fact is that London and the South East is the motor driving our national economy and shaping our future. History—and indeed experience around the world—tell us that people will gather where there is economic opportunity. If people gather, they will need housing. History also tells us that we would be foolish to bury our heads in the sand and pretend that that is not the case, or leave it to market forces to sort out. We need a strategy for dealing with growth in London and the South East.

The NHF report points out that while there are significant numbers of people who are doing extremely well—and we have heard about some of them this afternoon—in the region, there are also many people on average or below average incomes. It is they who are feeling the crisis in our housing policy. The crisis is one of cost. As others have said, we do not have sufficient affordable housing in the region. If you want to buy a house in Surrey this year, you will need a lot of money. In the year to March 2000 the price of a small three-bedroom semi-detached house in Guildford rose by 22.5 per cent. You would be fortunate in the summer of this year to buy such a house for anything less than £160,000. To afford such a house you would probably be a double-income family, taking on a large mortgage, possibly supported by inherited or family wealth. Many people just cannot afford this.

If you then look at the rented and social sector of housing, the news is equally bad. Affording the rents of social housing—either local authority or independent social landlord housing—is very difficult for those on low or modest incomes, many of whom do not qualify for housing benefit. The average rent in Surrey for social housing is approximately £50 per week higher than in the private rented sector.

The NHF report suggests that we shall need at least 360,000 social houses with affordable rents by the year 2016. People in local government have suggested to me that it is important that we set percentage targets for affordable housing in the region and that the provision of social housing is crucial to achieving that target. We must also bear in mind that many local authorities still have large accumulated reserves from council house sales. We need to know what the intentions of the Government are with regard to investing those in the housing needs for the region.

The issue is about people. The issue is about teachers and nurses, people in public service, police and those serving the social needs of the community, those who run our transport systems and who service us in many ways. It is they who, if they are not already adequately housed, are struggling to meet the cost demands of all sorts of housing in our region. I know of people in our churches with children who are in despair because they cannot afford the housing costs in Surrey. I am certain that that is true in many other parts of the region as well.

There have been many and various estimates of what the actual housing need is. Many of them talk in terms of 800,000 or more houses. No doubt there will be considerable debate around such figures. I suggest that it is not enough to approach this challenge simply by thinking in terms of finding brownfield sites and building houses on them. Yes, indeed, we need to use our precious land appropriately. But houses are homes for people. People have many needs if their lives are to have security and hope. Good schools and churches, community facilities, leisure opportunities, transport and a clean environment, local shops and services are necessary. When we build houses, we are either building community or destroying it.

One of the features of life for people in the South East is stress. Huge demands are made on people and families to meet the challenges of growth and development. If we do not build houses with a view to building homes and communities, we shall simply be adding to that stress. Building houses on brown field sites solves nothing if we do not address what homes should mean for people in their humanity.

I came to Surrey over five years ago from South Yorkshire. I observed one thing in common between the derelict sites of South Yorkshire and the wealthy estates in some parts of Surrey. It was not that both had inadequate street lighting. It was also that none had any community facilities, except possibly golf courses. There were no shops, no schools, no places of meeting, no financial services. There were just houses with people locked in them.

If we are to have the levels of development in the South East such as have been talked about in this House today, then we must not make those mistakes. As we develop housing in our region, we need a mixed economy of housing and the issue of affordability must be addressed. But we need to ensure also that when we build houses, we build homes. I believe that in building homes, we are building communities for our future where people care for one another. Only by such means can we begin to meet the moral and spiritual demands of this issue.

We must not allow this matter to sink into a political argument about numbers. We must address the issue of what housing means and begin to do something about it at this moment of development.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Carnarvon for allowing us the opportunity to debate this most fundamental of issues today. I declare my interest as a commercial and residential landlord in London.

There is a chronic shortage of temporary and permanent accommodation for single people in London. The system is silted up from top to bottom. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has drawn attention, as have previous speakers, to the high rents in London. I want to concentrate on that special area.

There is a shelter for young homeless people in Berwick Street. Five years ago, young people who were homeless were allowed to stay for a maximum of 10 days before moving on to more appropriate accommodation. Last year, one young person was there for more than 150 days. That is 10 times more than the architect had in mind when he built the place.

Moreover, many young people are being put into inappropriate bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Elderly single homeless people are being put into supported accommodation and are staying there and staying there. Therefore, no new people are able to use that very important facility because the people there are not moving on.

There is a street shelter for 15 to 16 to 25 year-olds in Soho. Young people are allowed into their rooms on their own only at ten o'clock at night. Some of those young people are extremely troubled and the staff do not wish them to harm themselves. Each room is shared with one other occupant. During their time in the hostel, they will have very little time for any privacy.

There is a great mix of young people. The short-term homeless are either at risk of permanent homelessness or they have been on the streets for a few nights. Even so, some have had experience of being in a psychiatric hospital, residential care home or prison before coming onto the streets. Others are asylum seekers who were previously happy until they faced that traumatic experience of war.

For example, I saw one young asylum seeker working at her homework the other day. Another resident said to her, "What are you doing that for? What is the point of doing that? I have never studied and I do not see the point of it". That hostel is designed as a clearing house and it should be used for that purpose. There should be accommodation to which those young people can move.

Young people at risk are being put in Bamp;Bs. They are being put into bed and breakfasts in Earls Court. It may be the intention that they are there only for a month but there have been cases when they have been there for eight months. The accommodation is overcrowded and filthy. There is inadequate security and a high level of theft by other residents. Young people who may have been in residential care or prison are staying there. They are given £40 a week from which they are supposed to pay for take-aways. It must be a great temptation to return to crime.

Facilities for older single homeless people are extremely valuable. Many older homeless people have low-level mental health needs which go unrecognized by the statutory authorities. There is a single homeless project providing 500 beds in London which has available a psychiatric nurse who can advise on appropriate treatment for those people. But if beds are not made vacant, then the new people who need that help will not receive it.

I recognise that planning for housing in London is now the mayor's responsibility. Will the Minister undertake to convey my concern and that of other noble Lords about the need for low-cost rented accommodation in London?

My other concern is a strategic one. Some time ago, I lived for 16 to 18 months by a housing estate—one of the largest housing estates in Europe—in south London. I have worked with young people from housing estates, organising activities and excursions for them on several occasions over periods of three weeks or so.

There is now £19 billion of repairs needed to be made to social housing. How did we come to that pass? What is to prevent us from returning to it? We need to bear in mind the figures produced by the Rowntree report on social exclusion. The problem is worsening. Between 1995 and 1998, the numbers on very low incomes rose from 4.3 million to 5 million. So the poorest of the poor are becoming poorer.

Primary school children are becoming increasingly polarised in schools with very high numbers on free school meals compared with schools where few of the pupils are on free school meals. So child poverty seems to have become increasingly polarised in particular primary schools. Society is changing. It may be that we cannot now talk of the privileged few but we have the affluent majority, the privileged many. The danger is that the experience of politicians and the public will diverge greatly from those who are socially excluded. The very welcome policies now being put in place will not be seen through to completion. The general public will not demand that; they are busy with their own business. The socially excluded are in a minority. Many do not vote. Many vote only one way and so perhaps their vote is disregarded. Fewer and fewer politicians come from working-class areas. That was an issue raised earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin. As I said, it reflects the way in which society is changing.

While it is good that people are better off and can expect more from life than they did in the past, we must have regard to the side effects of that affluence. The experience of the underprivileged is less well represented. At the moment we are living in an exceptional time. After many years of a Conservative administration we now have a Labour government. The Chancellor has a large war chest. However, what will happen when the economy takes a downward turn? What will happen when the expected reaction against the many positive interventions currently being made by this Government takes place?

How can we sustain these improvements? Can we achieve an all-party and national consensus that those who are socially excluded should receive the help they need? I make that point in this debate because if the excluded do not receive the help they need, I am concerned that the low-rent, social housing we are discussing today will, over time, degenerate. Even if that housing is well designed—which was not the case in the past—if people are neglected, their communities tend to degenerate and their homes degenerate along with them. I agree with the right reverend Prelate when he pointed out that it is not enough to have merely bricks and mortar; communities and stable homes are also of vital importance. I am concerned that we may lose touch with the grass-roots experience of people living in sink estates.

My father had an answer to the problem of how to sustain the momentum. He would recall the absentee landlords of Ireland in the 19th century—my forebears. They lived away from Ireland during the famine. They would send over a few pennies to support the starving farmers. My father would say that if those landlords had spent more time on their estates, perhaps they would have paid more attention to the needs of their tenant farmers. My father worked in Toynbee Hall and brought that experience to bear on his opinions, like the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, who also has important experience of working with the socially excluded. My father would say that we must ensure that we acquaint ourselves personally with those on the margins and that we must understand their experience of daily life.

recall once being taken by four or five primary school children to watch their home being demolished. They had lived in a tower block on a Deptford housing estate. The blocks were destroyed because of their poor architecture, but we must be careful that we do not make even more mistakes which could lead to a similar experience in 20 years' time from now.

My Lords, it is a joy and a pleasure to speak once again in a debate on housing. We have too few of them. We are indebted to the noble Earl for having been successful, lucky and fortunate in securing the time. In the life of a Parliament, time is the most important commodity. Sadly, however, the House is not as full as it has been on other occasions when debating different topics.

We have heard several powerful speeches and I should like to congratulate all contributors. Speakers have brought their own experiences to bear on their contributions and we have some powerful lessons to learn from them.

My experience lies in having been a Member of Parliament for the constituency of Edmonton. For 10 years, the "flavour of the month" at constituency surgeries was housing problems. Although issues regarding education and pensions were often raised, concerns somehow always returned to housing. My successor, Andy Love, who is a first-class constituency Member of Parliament, last week told me that housing continues to be the primary reason why his constituents come to see him. Without wanting to cause offence to anyone, I would say simply that unless one sits in an M P's surgery every two weeks or perhaps even more frequently, listening—I did it not because I had to, but because I wanted to—to the accounts of lives made wretched as a result of poor housing, one cannot understand the problems.

Many of the problems concerned council housing, some concerned private sector housing, but also many problems stemmed from having no housing at all. That certainly was the case in the 1970s. Perhaps it is a little different today. Having heard such stories, I would sometimes cry as I left my constituency. As I have said, many people led truly wretched lives.

I now have the pleasure of living in Loughton, a place not unfamiliar to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, who well knows that it is a completely different place from Edmonton. Nevertheless, even in a place like Loughton, there are pockets where the housing provision is wretched.

The noble Earl has provided the House with an opportunity to assist the Government. I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Whitty and his ministerial colleagues that they would be doing the nation a service if they sought to raise up in the political agenda the need for more and better housing. I do not want to make a political point here, because that would not get us anywhere. However, I sense that there is within the Government a commitment to do something about housing, a commitment perhaps driven more by the points covered so well by the right reverend Prelate, who said that we should not become bogged down in political dogma or statistics. It is people who matter.

I am not competent to argue the exact figures; those who want to do that are entitled so to do. I look upon the question of housing provision as a matter of giving ordinary people—poor people—a better opportunity to lead a good life.

The opening statement in the document produced by the Government entitled Quality and Choice: A decent home for all says:

"Our aim is to offer everyone the opportunity of a decent home and so promote social cohesion, well-being and self-dependence. This Green Paper sets out our strategy for housing covering housing policies and links with our broader social agenda in England and Housing Benefit in Great Britain".

I do not believe that there is any Member of this House who would not want to see that become a reality one day. Those who, like myself almost 40 years ago, have been leaders in a London borough realise that however hard we struggle this will always be a problem.

In my view, what is needed is political will. It would not be impossible for the Government to spend twice as much money as they do now on subvention to the Housing Corporation and to ensure that that money is spent more effectively than it has been in the past. Nothing need stop that except for political will. Any issue can be prioritised and raised in importance.

I am not criticising this Government or any other administration for deciding to keep housing at its present level in the political agenda. When I was active in local politics, the issues were housing, education, pensions, transport, hospitals and the health service. We should not forget that housing remained at the top of the list of social needs. Furthermore, we should remember that this is National Housing Week, during which an attempt is being made to focus on the problems we face.

I should like to congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister on, in effect, sticking his neck out and producing a set of targets for housing. I repeat that I am not competent to comment on whether those targets are right or wrong, but it is right that we should set specific aims to focus on and strive for. I read in today's newspapers that certain councils have objected to the fact that they are being asked to extend their provision; one region has been asked to build 162,000 units, but it wants only 146,000. Quite frankly, although I respect the fact that individual regions have studied the problems and know what they are talking about—I respect, too, the professionals who are involved in housing—the precise figures do not turn me on at all.

When I was active in this sphere, the great aim was to move people out of the slums and into decent homes. The panacea of the day was the tower block. If my memory serves me correctly, it was possible to produce twice the density of housing by using tower blocks rather than semi-detached houses, which could yield only 70 to 80 habitable rooms per acre. I recall an occasion when a tower block was opened by my late and very good friend Bob Mellish, then Minister for Housing. The tenants cried. They were overjoyed that they were going to be given their own flats—perhaps on the 17th floor of Angell House in Edmonton. They would pay the rent, whatever it was; those tenants were happy that they were going to get a place of their own. I have seen times when tenants have been angry: sometimes at the behaviour of other tenants but, in the main, at the lack of planning for the community in which they lived. We can learn from those times.

The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, talked with a great deal of passion and common sense. She hit a nail on the head when she said that people want to be involved; they want to participate in the management or the ownership of where they live.

I have statistics from Shelter which show that at the end of March this year the average cost of a house in the capital was £163,317, an increase of 23 per cent on the same period in 1999. The average weekly private rent for a two-bedroom property in London is £285. I found that hard to believe, but I have to believe those figures.

I realise that wages and salaries have changed, but I talk about those ordinary people—young couples starting out without a hand-out, such as a home inherited from a deceased parent or grandparent—for whom the enormity of the gap is daunting. The greatest aid they could receive from the Government, besides money, is a sense that the Government want to solve the problem. It is a matter of political will, and I hope very much that they will do it.

In the period 1992 to 1999, the funding available to registered social landlords to provide affordable housing was halved. Registered social landlords (RSLs) built fewer than 3,200 new homes in the capital. That is a derisory figure and is a result of the fact that the money made available to them was cut in half. I hope that my noble friend Lord Whitty can tell us the good news that he intends to double the present figure. I cannot see him shake his head. Yes, I can, but it is going the wrong way: he is confirming that he cannot say that, even if he might want to say it!

As noble Lords may know, I am the chairman of a body called the United Kingdom Co-operative Council. We think that co-operative housing has a great deal to offer in terms of a solution, by providing the opportunity for tenant management which is meaningful; namely, people having a say not only in the kind of house they occupy but the kind of community in which they live. I should like to see that extended.

Looking at what the Government are trying to do, I see in the Green Paper a reference to,

"tackling cowboy builders and increasing confidence in the industry amongst consumers by developing a Quality Mark scheme".

We have gone beyond the point where we were clearing hundreds of thousands of slums; we are now in the position of trying to improve both the quality of housing and the quality of life of the people living in it. I certainly applaud the Government's intention to try to give value for money in a great many of the things they are trying to do in housing. It is an enormous task but a worthy one for a Labour Government to tackle, and I wish the Minister well.

My Lords, I warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Oakeshott on his excellent maiden speech. As a councillor for many years, the point touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton—namely, the heartbreak of casework, of people with housing problems—will resonate with him. The passion which he brings to this subject and which he has shown this afternoon is a result of that experience.

It is particularly welcome that we have someone with housing and planning expertise joining us on these Benches at a time when my noble friend Lady Hamwee will inevitably be somewhat involved in dealing with these issues on the GLA.

I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, for introducing this debate. Given his immense expertise and experience both on SERPLAN and on Hampshire County Council, I would have some trepidation in trying to wind up a debate introduced by him.

I am very heartened by the contributions to the debate. I was slightly nervous, given its title, that we might have a regional, parochial debate about how people did not want housing in the South East and that it could go anywhere else. The debate has not turned out to be anything like that.

The Government must take on board the comments made that this is a case for a robust regional policy. While the South East remains the economic magnet of this country, its housing problems, and increasingly those of adjoining areas will magnify. The areas of the North will simply be places to leave. In such a scenario, housing policy will never cope.

Housing policy follows jobs; it should follow jobs. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford pointed to the need also for well-planned communities where people wish to live in the housing provided.

Providing a decent infrastructure is the responsibility of government. This Government have clearly said that they wish to devolve more responsibility for assessing housing need, and planning how to meet that need, to local authorities. That is welcome and all very well; but the macro environment that drives demand, or the lack of it, has to remain the responsibility of the Government. One has only to look at such issues as investment in regional airports, train links, and all sorts of infrastructure, to see why there are areas of this country where housing, far from being unaffordable as it is in London, can barely be given away.

The sort of pilot that the Government are running in the North West and the North East to allow the social housing grant to contribute to wider regeneration of an area is a start but a rather back-to-front one because many other requirements have not yet been met.

Many speakers have touched on the lessons from the past—of post-war council houses built as ghettos on their own, and swathes of large executive homes on the edges of towns and villages, also built on their own, leaving city centres abandoned. The lesson we have learned from that is that mixed housing is very important.

There is, however, a very marked reluctance on the part of the private sector to become involved in a mixed housing economy. Any requirement to include social housing—the noble Lady, Baroness Hanham, touched on these points—it often tries to avoid. If that is not possible such housing will tend to be put in the most sunless corner of the site or the area nearest the road so as not to affect the sale of private houses. If mixed housing developments are designed so as to "ghettoise" the social housing, nothing will be gained in terms of community.

Many speakers have said that the additional homes we should be building must be affordable. The Government have still not given a definition of affordability. This not only applies to the rented sector; it also means what is affordable for people trying to purchase houses.

Will the Minister confirm the figure cited by the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, that there is a target of 40 per cent? My noble friend Lord Oakeshott pointed out that, to the best of his knowledge, the target is substantially lower.

Many people do want to get onto the housing ladder and buy their own home. The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, pointed out the value of schemes like the DIYSO scheme, which has enabled people to start on the ladder. Shared ownership is one way to lessen the divide between the rented sector and the purchased sector.

How can we make better use of brownfield sites? That is another issue which has been widely debated. How much progress have the Government made with the scheme mentioned in Planning for the Communities of the Future, which they published in February 1998? Their stated intention was to set up, as a high priority, a national land use database, with the aim of establishing which brownfield sites could be recycled. Are the Government content with the speed at which brownfield sites are being recycled?

Solutions to many of the questions raised in the debate were well presented in the excellent report by the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, Towards an Urban Renaissance. I do not believe that we have debated the report. Not to do so would be a loss to this House. Through the use of satellite pictures, the report shows the extent of housing sprawl across the country. It shows, more graphically than any other means I can think of, the reason why we need to contain housing. It also spells out brilliantly how we might begin to revive our cities and large towns by creating places that are desirable to live in.

Perhaps I may quote from the recommendations in the report, which come under the heading, "Sustaining the Renaissance"—and we have not yet arrived at renaissance. The report states:

"A balanced national economy will allow for more even distribution of economic opportunity and income within cities, between cities and between regions. Key social indicators, such as educational achievement, health, crime and poverty, will have improved".

Many noble Lords touched on the point that housing is not a subject unto itself and that we must move away from the point where housing is considered simply in land use terms, divorced from other issues.

The recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, on how to achieve a desirable urban environment in which to live and bring up children are not a pipe-dream. But such schemes require adequate investment. They require a planning system that can be imaginative and responsive to the needs of communities, rather than one that is driven by the fear of appeals. If local authorities are free to deliver housing that is fit for the 21st century, they must be free to negotiate the kind of planning gains, in consultation with their communities following exercises such as Planning for Real, which can produce a community response on the kind of housing and development that people want to see. Local authorities need to be able to assemble land for development, using compulsory purchase orders that do not rely solely on the economic case. They need to be able to present the wider case. They need also to be able to remove greenfield sites from development plans it they are able to look again at brownfield sites. Local authorities can do a huge amount, but only if they are free to deliver.

Finally, I have to say from these Benches how thoroughly disappointing the Green Paper was in finding no new resources to address the chronic lack of affordable housing. We agree that the freeing up of councils' capital receipts is an extremely good step forward. Encouraging stock transfer as a means of bringing in private investment is another way in which some goals can be achieved. Nevertheless, the Government should not begin to imagine that a substantial amount of affordable housing can be delivered, or that the huge backlog of repairs for social rented housing and sub-standard housing can be addressed in the absence of any new resources. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister to say whether in the foreseeable future some of the Government's "war chest" is likely to be redirected towards affordable housing.

My Lords, first, I must declare an interest as a farmer and landowner in the county of Essex, where the possibility of land coming up for development is an ever-present reality.

This House must be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, for once again focusing our attention on the issue of development in the South East. This a vexing and thorny issue and will undoubtedly continue to be a matter of controversy for the foreseeable future, and even beyond. There is presently a serious difference of opinion between the Secretary of State, who has overall responsibility for strategic planning matters in the region, and many of the local authorities which are responsible for implementation. The noble Earl has unparalleled expertise and experience in dealing with the subject.

It is a pleasure also to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, who is yet another Member with long and intimate experience of local government. When I first came to this House, local government was not strongly represented. I am glad that in the intervening years that matter has been put right.

The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, began his remarks with a discussion of a report published in 1972. I was struck by how immensely familiar the content of the report was. Indeed, if it were merely redated, it could have been written today. If one thought that that was all that had happened, one might become rather depressed and assume that society had learnt nothing in the intervening years.

In fact, many local authorities across the region have had very successful development plans, and those plans have produced communities. I well remember when, in Essex, we were opening a major education project every 10 days in order to provide school facilities for the new communities that were coming onstream. In the same period, shopping centres and libraries were being built, and other services, such as the police and the fire services, were being expanded, together with the necessary communications infrastructure.

It is true that, in those days, estate development tended to comprise only one type of housing. However, if we look at more recent projects, we see good, integrated estate development going on—required by planning authorities. So we do not have cause for absolute gloom, although the problems are always with us. I do not think that we shall find a solution today. I sympathise with the Minister to the extent that we might be able to have exactly the same debate in 2015!

In the past, we have seen huge investment in regional expenditure and strategy in an attempt to attract housing and employment to other parts of the country. That has been successful to a degree. However, what it has not done is reduce the "honey-pot" effect of the South East. The South East is the engine that pulls the national train—and I am bound to say that we cannot afford to stop that engine.

The background to this debate has been exposed to public discussion for many months. As we have heard, SERPLAN, the South East's regional planning body, representing all the south-eastern planning authorities, published its report in anticipation of new planning guidance from the Government. The report was examined in detail by government-appointed inspectors during May and June last year. Their examination was followed by a controversial report from the inspectors which this House debated on a Motion introduced by the noble Earl in November last year. Now, six months later, we have the opportunity, again on a Motion tabled by the noble Earl, to debate the Government's conclusions and recommendations, which were announced in March.

It comes as no surprise that the Government have satisfied very few members of local government, whose views had already been voiced through the original SERPLAN report; nor have the Government brought immense pleasure to the communities in the region because this is an extremely sensitive matter. Public expectations are intimately involved, and there is a very real concern about maintaining the quality of life in the region as a whole. One could have an argument as to whether it is possible to satisfy the community in this matter; personally, I doubt whether it is. It has always been my experience of life that the most passionate objectors to phase three of a development are those who move in during phase two.

I draw attention to three particular points. First, the Government are depending on achieving a high proportion of their development on brownfield sites in order to reduce the land-take in other areas and justify what are perceived to be very high allocations. Even disregarding the question of whether this faster building rate they are targeting is actually achievable, they have done nothing until now to create a real incentive to encourage such urban brownfield regeneration.

We have heard again today about the difficulties that result from the fact that new houses do not have VAT attached to them while repairs and renovations to existing buildings do. In effect, that is a 17.5 per cent financial disincentive against urban renewal and redevelopment in inner-city areas. The case has been argued in this House on other occasions, and I thought that the principle had been accepted. However, the Government have still not found it possible to do anything. It remains the fact, however, that for so long as these matters are ignored, there will continue to be pressure for greenfield sites to be allocated for development because they can provide cheaper housing, they are generally easier to develop, and they can be brought forward more quickly.

If the Government are really serious about this matter, they could perhaps even go further than the VAT question and create specific regimes of taxation for brownfield developments to provide real incentives for developers to overcome the hurdles of land reclamation costs with all the high risks than can be involved. That is hugely important in this region where we have about 30 per cent of the national population, but only about 7 per cent of the national supply of brown field land.

My second point concerns the practicality of confirming the house building targets for the next five years only. I accept that one can never be certain about the housing market. The only thing one has to say about the existing level of the housing market is that it would not be at that level if people could not afford it. It is people who make house prices what they are, and one has to supply housing within that. As the opportunities for small in-fill sites across the region have disappeared under relentless pressure over the years, increasingly one is looking for large new developments.

Finally, I come to the matter of social housing—it is vital for the development of a proper community—and to the question of affordable housing. I was depressed to hear the matter of Section 106 agreements being described as "bribes" to the planning authority to obtain planning permission. The fact of the matter is that Section 106 agreements on large developments can make a really major contribution to the availability of social housing at no cost to the authority at all because, in effect, the cost is loaded on to the rest of the development. The virtue of Section 106 agreements is that they retain in the community that generates the demand the benefits, such as social housing, which also go with development.

We have had a good debate. The right reverend Prelate touched a chord with me when he began by saying that homes are more than houses. He is, of course, absolutely correct, but one cannot have a home at all if one does not have a house.

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, for initiating this debate. I think that the range of opinions expressed has indicated its importance. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott—whether he is writing his own speeches, or delivering the speeches he has written I should say—for it is not everybody who can find a text from 1972 and recycle it; I know that I could not. His knowledge of housing, and many other areas, will bring lucidity and calm in the face of what amounted to robustness in your Lordships' House as he rose to speak. I appreciate that he has experienced robustness of different sorts at various stages in his career., so I expect he can put up with that.

Things have moved on considerably since we debated this issue on 15th December, again at the instigation of the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon. We are in the middle of consulting on our proposed changes to the draft regional planning guidance for the South East, one of the first to be prepared under this Government's new process. Therefore, we are at a delicate but important stage.

Stepping back from the RPG, it was opportune for my noble friend Lady Uddin and the right reverend Prelate in particular, to remind us of the importance of housing, as it covers every aspect of our yes, our security, our life chances, our health and the nature of the communities in which we live. The Government's vision on housing is guided by central principles of sustainability, economically and physically, and also as socialists. It is the spatial dimension of that approach to housing that is reflected in the regional planning guidance. As the noble Lord implied, I think we share this vision largely with SERPLAN and the Regional Planning Conference for the South East. It is a vision that is based very firmly on the principles of sustainable development.

The social aspect of housing was emphasised by my noble friend Lady Uddin, who made particular reference to the situation in Tower Hamlets. But throughout the South East and London enormous problems still remain in relation to housing of various descriptions. There are deep social problems Those problems have not improved hugely over the past 20 years. Therefore, one of the key issues is housing for the future. There are those who say that the figures that even SERPLAN, Professor Crow and the Government are producing means concreting over the South East. That is not the case. It is not the Government or SERPLAN that are putting pressure on the South East. The economic pressure is there; the demographic pressure is there; the pressure of migration is there already. The important question is how we manage it.

The housing needs in the South East outside London derive, in very large part, from the needs of the people who are already in the region as well as these additional pressures. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said, there are very serious external pressures on the housing market within London, much of them international. They affect the prices and the whole nature of property development so that almost every property in London is now described as a luxury flat and is beyond the reach of many middle-income families. She is absolutely right. That has its knock-on effect down the property market, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, indicated, when we come to look at the relatively poor provision of accommodation for young single people in our capital.

In the context of SERPLAN, we have proposed an annual increase of 43,000 homes outside London and 23,000 inside Greater London. The regional guidance process that we have adopted leads to an agreed regional target for net additional dwellings SERPLAN's estimate, which was subject to public consultation and examination, was reassessed by the panel chaired by Professor Crow. We agree that a figure above SERPLAN's estimate is necessary but not as high as that suggested by Professor Crow. In implementing the new approach we have proposed an annual rate of growth for ongoing development. That will be reviewed at least every five years but sooner if there are signs of major over- or under-provision. We have also had to consider in this context how the provision should be distributed across the South East. We are not satisfied that a pro rata housing distribution based on SERPLAN's proposals is appropriate, which is why we have not put forward such a distribution in our proposed changes, Instead, we have put forward an illustrative distribution and invited comment on how it can better reflect the spatial strategy. I hope that SERPLAN will be able to respond positively to that dimension of our proposals.

I turn to the situation in London itself. The adoption of a planned, monitored and managed approach with the provision of 23,000 additional dwellings per year in London is very much in line with what the London Planning Advisory Committee believed could be achieved. As the noble Earl indicated, in view of the new local government structure in London we shall need to give careful consideration to the views of the mayor. It is very important that the social housing dimension of the mayor's planning responsibilities is co-ordinated with that of the London Boroughs, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, implied, to see how the overall level of provision should be distributed and delivered within London. The mayor will want to keep under regular review both the housing requirement and the capacity to meet it.

The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton pointed to the problems in the area of social housing and called for additional resources. We have provided no less than £5 billion. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, regarded that as not real money, but those funds were not previously available for this purpose and are now being deployed on a priority basis for the improvement of the housing stock, principally local authority housing.

With regard to brownfield land, we strongly support the strategy of SERPLAN for an urban renaissance that focuses development on existing urban areas and brownfield sites throughout the region. We have set a recycling target of 60 per cent which is underpinned by our new policy guidance PPG3. I accept that there are problems in connection with recycling land in the South East and elsewhere, but we believe that there is substantial land available. As to the urban parts of the South East and London itself, the Urban Task Force has set a number of objectives which will be turned into a White Paper later in the year. We have also recently published a draft strategy for neighbourhood renewal. All of this has a bearing on how we mobilise the brownfield sites that are already available.

The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked whether the database on brownfield sites had worked. I can assure the noble Baroness that the results of our first survey have been published. The survey represents an audit as of two years ago of land available for recycling, and that will be updated next year.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, asked about VAT in relation to brownfield sites. Regrettably, that is a matter for the Chancellor, not me. Nevertheless, the Chancellor has said that, where appropriate, he will consider the use of economic measures to underpin urban policy. That is where the matter lies at present. A number of proposals have been put forward for changing the VAT regime and perhaps equalising the rate. The Chancellor will be looking at these and other suggestions in the fiscal field by the task force headed by the noble Lord, Lord Rogers.

Research shows that often local authorities underestimate urban capacity in their areas. That tends to reinforce existing restrictive planning policy rather than contribute to urban renaissance. Part of that issue is density. In the South East we have been building at some of the lowest densities in the whole country. On the one hand, many say that land is so precious that we cannot build on it as many houses as we need; on the other hand, local authorities and developers make little attempt to build more economically and provide lower density housing, let alone affordable or social housing. This means that to meet housing requirements one uses far more land than is necessary.

We need to plan for a wider range of housing, more smaller units and less lavish provision for the car in residential layouts. We also need to look at more sustainable patterns of development and movement. This is not a call for what some refer to as town planning; on the contrary, it is a call for an urban renaissance and more efficient use of land in town, suburb and country. Many local authorities are beginning to heed that call in a very creative way in both the South East and London. In the case of the latter local authorities have led the way on the basis of the work of the London Planning Advisory Committee. We place even greater emphasis than SERPLAN on better urban design and layout. As the right reverend Prelate indicated, it is very important that in the urban renaissance we regard housing as provision for the totality of the community, not simply the physical provision of housing and housing sites. In the urban renaissance we need to provide for the wider community. There is a clear element of design and build in this. Recently we published further guidance on this matter in the document By Design—Urban Design in the Planning System: Towards Better Practice. The noble Earl and others expressed concern about the difficulties in implementing the broadly-agreed strategy, in particular the mechanisms available to local authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, rightly, that there had been much good practice in local authorities in past decades in providing effective and often affordable housing. We seek to strengthen the ability of local authorities to achieve a more balanced housing provision in their areas. Some of the main delivery mechanisms range from new measures to ensure that there is affordable housing—I shall mention those in a moment—to possible new CPO powers and financial incentives. Those matters are being examined at national level in the context of overall policy. It is unrealistic to expect them to be reflected in a particular RPG, but they are being addressed.

As the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, said, we have recently published revised guidance on housing in PPG3. In addition, we have recently produced a White Paper on housing which provides a way forward, despite the disappointment expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. As to that, I have already addressed the issue of resources. We are also looking at how compulsory purchase powers can assist regeneration initiatives. We are using some of the £5 billion referred to earlier in particular to regenerate areas of local authority housing, and the forthcoming urban White Paper will clarify policy and other mechanisms to achieve an urban renaissance. In parallel, in July we shall announce a 10-year transport strategy and, later in the year, a rural White Paper which will be important milestones in the delivery of RPG. In particular, we are putting forward proposals in the South East for a new strategic partnership in the Thames Gateway area. We believe that that is an important contribution to the attempt to deal with pressures in the South East.

As to affordable housing, I hear the concerns of noble Lords on all sides about the problem of delivering the appropriate proportion of affordable housing. There are already very robust provisions in planning policy which allow local authorities to seek affordable housing as part of residential developments on suitable sites. That is an important tool which is available to local authorities. The proposed changes will emphasise the need for local authorities to undertake a rigorous assessment of housing need to ensure that sufficient affordable homes are provided.

There is a case for more flexibility in planning for affordable housing in parts of the South East, and PPG3 and the housing Green Paper provide a lead on this. For the purposes of planning policy, while definitions in this area can be fuzzy, affordable housing is low-cost market and subsidised housing that is available to people who cannot afford to rent or buy houses that are generally available on the open market. That definition is deliberately wide in order that local circumstances can be met. Local authorities are able to seek an element of such housing to be provided on all sites of 25 dwellings or one hectare or more. Thresholds are lower in inner London and, exceptionally, may be lower elsewhere.

The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked whether there was a 40 per cent target for the whole of the South East. In line with our general approach, an overall affordable housing target is considered inappropriate. Nevertheless, an indicator has been included in the Government's proposals that an annual average of 18,000 to 19,000 houses be provided within the total figure for the South East outside London. However, in order to contribute to that, specific targets should be made locally. Broadly for the period as a whole, the figures add up to those mentioned by the right reverend Prelate. However, as I said, as part of that requirement we want local authorities to make an assessment of their local housing needs and their ability to provide affordable housing.

Of course, it is true that questions of balance arise between the regions in this respect and the south-east region is under particular pressure. It is not so true, as is often alleged, and as, I believe, may have been implied by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that the problems in the South East relate to those of low economic performance in the other regions of England. The migration from the rest of the South East is net outwards from all other regions except London. The migratory pressure on the South East comes almost exclusively from London. The movement from regions outside London into the rest of the South East and, indeed, even into London itself is relatively small.

However, it is important that the new regional instruments in each of the regions address the pressure on housing as well as they do on the rest of infrastructure. Therefore, I agree totally with the noble Baroness that these matters must be considered together by all regions so that a compatible approach can be produced across the board.

Perhaps I may return to the SERPLAN figures. I hope that we shall be able to consider this matter maturely and reach a cross-institutional and cross-party consensus on what is a most important issue for the whole of the South East, including London. We hope that SERPLAN will consider the implications of simply reverting to its original numbers. I believe that to do so would be to ignore part of the process that has taken place since those figures were produced and put at risk some of the key elements of the economy of the South East and London. In particular, it would not address the problem of the lack of suitable housing for those who already live or need to work in the South East, in particular those examples referred to in the debate, such as teachers, nurses and so on. We can make more effective use of urban and brownfield land in meeting those targets.

However, I agree totally with the noble Earl that the vision for the South East can be achieved only through a co-ordinated partnership. The Government's proposals for the South East set out clear guidance to local authorities on preparing development. They also identify a number of mechanisms which, between us, we can bring into play on this matter. For our part, the Secretary of State will give serious consideration to comments which we shall receive shortly on an official basis from SERPLAN, including comments on the housing figures, before we decide finally whether to make further changes to the RPG.

We want to resolve the problems of pressure on the housing market and the social consequences that they create. I can assure my noble friend Lord Graham that we give a high priority to housing improvements and housing policy generally. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is not literally accurate in saying that the arguments and the situation at present are precisely the same as they were in 1972. I do not believe that they are. For some people the situation is better; for some, it is worse. However, there are elements of continuity. With all due respect to the noble Lord, I certainly hope that he is wrong when he says that we shall be having the same debate (at least, I hope that he and I will not be having the same debate) in the year 2015, although my noble friend Lord Graham may well be!

As a government, we are committed to tackling the housing problem. We are committed to putting in place effective and consensual planning arrangements region by region. Probably the first in which we have encountered problems is in many respects the most difficult. However, we hope that we can resolve the issues between ourselves, SERPLAN, the local authorities and the other key players in the South East.

Again, I thank the noble Earl for initiating this debate and thank all other noble Lords who have contributed.

My Lords, I believe that the debate began at 3.7 p.m. Therefore, I have approximately 90 seconds in which to reply. I believe that it produced a very important message to both SERPLAN and the Government: that strategic planning for housing is about not only numbers but, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford said, it is about homes. He changed the word "houses" to "homes", and I thoroughly agree with and underline what he said. "Homes" mean community facilities, transportation, leisure and affordability.

With regard to affordability, the point was made—again, I underline this—that that means affordability for renting and for buying. I referred to the five-bedroomed houses in Tower Hamlets, built by the Asian housing association, which rent at £85 per week. When I visited Tower Hamlets I was struck by figures which seemed to me quite incredible. The average earned wage in that area is £600 per week, but one-third of the ratepayers of Tower Hamlets have a yearly income of under £10,000. That is an incredible diversity.

I believe that this has been a useful debate. I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.

rose to call attention to the long-term problems caused by coastal erosion; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the subject on which we now embark is no less contentious and difficult than that which we have just been debating. However, it is a good deal less well known. My motive in tabling the Motion is to try to draw public attention to the consequences of coastal erosion and to invite the Government to review some of their current arrangements for policy-making.

In order to understand this whole topic, one must begin with a brief account of the cause of the increase in coastal erosion which is taking place. The underlying cause of the growing problem is, of course, the increase in global warming. The Government have done much good work on this topic during their period of office, having undertaken a major publicity campaign to make the extent of global warming better known and having taken some difficult and rather controversial decisions to implement the agreements made at the Rio conference.

I have no quarrel with their actions on global warming. However, I suggest that the record on coastal erosion is somewhat less satisfactory. Erosion of our coastline is by no means a new phenomenon. The last time the matter was considered seriously by government was in 1905 when a Royal Commission was set up. It reported six years later. Things were evidently more leisurely in those days. The chairman was Lord Ashby of St Legers and the writer, Sir Rider Haggard, was one of its members.

The commission did much to establish a proper understanding of the main processes involved, particularly the way in which beaches are created. It explained that while beach material may be moved along the coastline and reshaped, that material provides the best protection against erosion. Therefore, the material should not be removed or lost. Interestingly, the commission concluded that in the previous century more land had been gained through accretion and drainage than by erosion. That is not something that we could say today. There has been a big and lasting change in the situation.

The outbreak of the First World War and the years of social and economic difficulty which followed diverted attention to more urgent issues and nothing was done. It is of particular regret that nothing was done to implement the recommendation that responsibility for all coastline issues should be concentrated in a single department. There is now good reason to regret that failure of political processes two generations ago. Coastal erosion is now a major problem for many regions of this country, particularly on the east and south coasts where the beaches and cliffs are made of soft and historically recent sedimentary deposits.

It is calculated that because of global warming, the sea level around our shores can be expected to rise by about half a metre over the next century. That reflects what is happening globally. The estimate is a gradual rise of between 40 and 50 centimetres per year by the year 2100. To that, unfortunately, must be added the continued steady sinking of the shoreline of eastern England, estimated to be a small amount of perhaps 2 millimetres annually as the underlying rocks adjust gradually to the thawing of the heavy layer of ice which used to cover north-west Britain in pre-historic times.

It is interesting that the deglaciation which took place in the 7th millennium BC is still having major consequences on our climate and the level of coastal erosion. The next deglaciation of the polar icecaps will also affect us. We can only speculate about what it will do. But it appears, for example, that the melting of the Greenland icecap may cause a diversion of the Gulf Stream in a northerly direction through the Denmark Strait and between Greenland and Iceland, turning its warm waters away from the west coast of Scotland towards Spitsbergen, the Barents Sea, Franz Josef Land and points east.

I venture to mention that because while the nature and extent of coastal erosion is uncertain in many respects, there is no doubt about its importance to us as a nation living as we do in a densely-populated group of islands surrounded by strong tidal currents washing vigorously against a soft coastline. Of our neighbours in Europe, only the Netherlands and Belgium have a greater density of population. We all know how seriously the Dutch take their coastal defences. It is my plea that we should do likewise.

I wish to make a specific suggestion that the Government should take steps to inform local authorities of the need to avoid construction of houses or factories in areas particularly at risk. It seems, for example, that the Thames Barrier will be unable to control serious occasional floods in London, even if the barrier and the embankment are, increased in height. I have seen predictions that parts of London close to the Thames can expect such floods to occur regularly in the next century. I suggest that the DETR should make it a priority to inform local authorities concerned of the areas most likely to be affected and for local plans to be revised to avoid new construction there.

I should also like to draw attention to the publicity given in East Anglia where I live to the Government's evident desire to promote a new, high-technology electronic science park in a Fen between Cambridge and Huntingdon. As much of that area is below sea level and perhaps 35 miles from the Wash, that seems a little imprudent. Perhaps I may also remind the noble Baroness of the loss of the baggage train of King John containing all his portable values and current cash resources in that very area in October 1216. I suggest it would he mistaken to make such an important investment in that vulnerable area, at least until all the necessary improvements have been made to the coastal defences. We hear a great deal about joined-up thinking, but I think we would want to avoid joined-up swimming.

I turn to the organisation of the Government's work in this field. Traditionally, the Minister of Agriculture has been responsible for drainage and sea defences, and that is the case today. Policy advice on all-important technical aspects is provided by the Environment Agency which in turn derives expert knowledge from the Government's hydraulics research institute at Wallingford known as HR Wallingford, an expert group of international reputation.

Local knowledge is provided by the flood defence committees (FDCs) whose members are appointed partly by the Ministry of Agriculture and partly by county councils. Sector plans are drawn up by the FDCs. Their operations are funded by county councils and the rate support grant. It is, of course, the Treasury in Whitehall which controls the rate support grant. I do not believe that that is the ideal arrangement in the present circumstances. I must presume that Whitehall outlines the maximum spending limits, the spending envelope, and that that is the determining factor which shapes both the nature of expert advice as well as the decision of the local defence committee.

To illustrate what happens, I propose to quote from recent events in the area in which I live. My home is in a village in east Suffolk which lies on the estuary of the Alde and Ore, a single river which changes its name, confusingly, in mid-course. Rising in central Suffolk, it follows an easterly course until it reaches Aldeburgh where it meets a shingle bank dividing river and sea, perhaps only 30 metres wide. Here it turns south through 90 degrees and runs parallel to the sea for about 10 miles being separated from the sea by the substantial shingle spit of Orford Ness.

My home is 16 feet above sea level and some way from the river. We are in no danger of early immersion and I own no property beyond my home and garden, but I have a grandstand view of what is happening. A plan is being prepared for future management of the estuary. The Environment Agency appointed a firm of reputable consultants called Posford Duvivier, which worked in association with HR Wallingford. The terms of reference for that work were drawn so as to fall within MAFF funding guidelines. It is thus not surprising that a large area of land was held to be impossible to defend and was included in a special category called "Managed Retreat". That concept means that the existing earth embankments will not be reinforced or maintained and will be allowed to succumb to tidal action in the hope that each successive tidal flow will leave behind a sediment, thus encouraging fresh plant growth and recreating a self-sustaining grazing marsh. That is the hope. There have, indeed, been some places on the east coast. where the plan has worked. But it is not yet clear whether that will work on Orford Ness where Lantern Marshes were for centuries a grazing marsh for animals.

First indications are unclear, but it is feared that the increased tidal currents will scour the plants still living on the marsh leaving behind a new, large, unusable mudflat of interest only to passing wading birds. Having inspected the site recently, I am inclined to suspend judgment for a while, but many of my neighbours suspect that the whole concept of managed retreat in this environment is unsound. It seems that the financial envelope within which the consultants operated did not permit them to consider seriously the option of a tidal barrier at the entrance to the estuary. I certainly think that that should have been looked a t as we are told that the tidal flow in our estuary may increase in volume by as much as 40 per cent and in velocity by as much as 50 per cent. A tidal barrier would have tackled that problem at source.

Under current policy we shall lose some 5,000 acres of cultivated land if irrigated land made unusable through the entry of salt water into the aquifer is taken into account. This is a matter of some importance locally. It is an area which previously had been much dedicated to animal husbandry but, since the effects of the common agricultural policy, the animals have largely gone. The inventive local farmers have turned to light land irrigated from the aquifer on which they grow market garden crops and irrigated sugar beet. This will all stop once the salt gets into the aquifer and the water would not be able to be used for irrigation.

There is also the question of financial loss and insurance. House insurance does not normally cover damage caused by flood but prudent householders can generally obtain it for an extra charge. Let us take a common example. An elderly couple who decide to move to a coastal district on retirement may calculate that the rate of erosion they observe happening will not affect their home during their lifetimes. But if the sea accelerates its advance to, say, the one metre per year which is happening on the coast between Aldeburgh and Southwold, the family I postulate, would not be able to obtain or continue flood insurance cover when the sea approached their property. The property would become unsaleable in those circumstances. Such situations cause much human tragedy and one hears of families having to move into tents or trailers.

The House of Commons Select Committee, which reported on July 1988, recommended,

"a robust financial mechanism for the reimbursement of property holders whose assets are sacrificed for the wider benefit of the community".

I believe that was well put.

The Government reply says that,

"transferring these responsibilities to the public sector would be expensive and difficult to justify".

Sniff! But surely it is difficult to justify doing nothing. In that regard I have a small practical suggestion to offer. Could not the Government examine a scheme like that in the United States, which has a national flood insurance scheme organised and underwritten by the federal government. That would not be unlike the underwriting in the last resort of the damage caused by riots in the City of London, which our Government already do after the breakdown of law and order. The two situations seem fairly analogous. In my book, the Government have a responsibility to protect our citizens and their homes and property from coastal erosion. After all, it is not something they can undertake by themselves.

Underlying all that, my main anxiety concerns the Government's administrative arrangements. It does not make much sense to me that a predetermined sum of money is fixed before an estimate is made of the damage which would be suffered if no protection is put in place. What we lack on coastal defence arrangements is a proper threat analysis, followed by an examination of what feasible defences might cost and what the value of lost property may amount to. That approach is not unlike that recommended by the Agriculture Committee in the other place. The Government's considered reply indicates a strong preference for the status quo. I urge them to reconsider this whole question. What is happening on our river suggests that the current system is not working and needs proper re-examination.

The Government's dilemma is, in a curious way, rather well summed-up in a poem by a 17th century writer, Andrew Marvell, in his poem called "The character of Holland". Marvell was a Cambridge scholar who succeeded Milton as Cromwell's Latin secretary. He knew Holland well and his poem contained the following six lines:

"Therefore necessity, that first made Kings,

Something like Government among them brings.

For as with pygmees who best kills the Crane [a large bird]

Among the hungry he that treasures Grain,

Among the blind the one-eyed blinkard reigns,

So rules among the drowned he that draines".

Paraphrasing Marvell's message in our own times, I believe it means this. If we live on an island, we must take care to defend it. Otherwise our successors at the end of the century may find that they live on an island of a very different shape. They may even lack the terrain on which their legs may stand.

This is one of those long-term problems which tend to be pushed to one side by other urgent tasks, and there are always plenty of them. But I hope that this Government, with their strong majority and sense of purpose, can address it in the way that it deserves. If they can do that, our successors will be grateful and know to whom to give the credit.

I look forward to hearing the other speakers on this subject. It is a pleasure to know that we are to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord. Lord Hunt of Chesterton, and I shall listen with great attention to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, says in reply for the Government. We know how seriously she prepares for these occasions. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for introducing this timely debate. This gives me the opportunity to make my maiden speech on a topic that could hardly be more important for this House; namely, the future of our coasts and of the endangered communities which reside there. My great-grandfather built a home in Seagrove Bay, Isle of Wight, on clay foundations. It slipped into the sea 40 years later. I am sure that the new Baron Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, whose home is nearby, will be more fortunate.

My training as an engineer, specialising in hydrodynamics, led on to a career in universities, industry and consulting. I worked on practical and research problems concerned with the environment, meteorology and climate. Indeed, our current research at University College touches on the polar questions just raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges.

I developed an interest in coastal problems and sea level rise when, for five and a half years, I was responsible for climate change research at the Hadley Centre, which is part of the Meteorological Office. Also, as chief executive of a trading fund agency of the Ministry of Defence, I oversaw more than 30 contracts with departments and agencies of government. I concluded that government can deal efficiently with complex problems through well-constructed, devolved arrangements between responsible agencies, provided that the overall objectives are clear, as again the noble Lord. Lord Bridges, explained.

I should like to raise a few points about how government and other responsible organisations can best manage the effects of climate change on coastal erosion. It is, I believe, a custom that a maiden speech is not controversial. Therefore, it is fortunate that in this country global warming is an accepted fact. That is not the case in some other countries.

International research has concluded that, as a result of human emissions of greenhouse gases, averages of ground-level air temperature will rise between 2 and 3 degrees Celsius over the next 100 years. That will produce average rises in sea level of between 0.3 and 0.5 metres over that time—again, figures which have just been mentioned. One hopes that the efforts of the international community, in which the UK plays a leading role, will be successful in reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. But even then the sea level will continue to rise for around another 100 years.

Another consequence of climate change is the likelihood of increasing floods driven by high winds and bigger ocean waves reaching our coast. The forecasting of coastal floods are now generally reliable, thanks to the computer models developed by the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory and the Meteorological Office. They enable warnings to be given up to five days in advance in some situations. They are used in the operation of the Thames Barrier and for flood warnings to communities. Such forecasts and warning procedures are essential, but are complementary to the long-term measures that have to be introduced for managing these coastal areas over the next 100 years. They will be expensive and may involve communities in considerable upheaval. The Government have a particular responsibility to explain those developments and to ensure that appropriate investigations and basic research are undertaken now to ensure that the right decisions are taken.

I was interested to read that in 1998 the agriculture committee and the speakers in the following debate in the other place all agreed about the progressive worsening of coastal flooding problems and that climate change would further exacerbate them. They and the Government agreed that flexible approaches are needed, with "hard" engineering solutions in some areas, but "adaptive" solutions in others to allow for controlled flooding of salt marshes and to develop the agriculture and landscape appropriately. It may even be possible to develop new economic activities, such as fishing and tourism from rising sea levels and warming sea temperatures, as some coastal areas return to the forms they had hundreds of years ago. Some historians have noted that there was as much employment in East Anglia before the Fens were drained as afterwards.

That brings me to the first of my three points. Choice of appropriate technical, economic and ecological long-term solutions are, at this stage of our knowledge, quite uncertain. Despite the recent advances in the subject based on the contributions of the great Victorian giants of hydrodynamics, Lord Kelvin, who was a Member of this House, and Sir George Gabriel Stokes, who was MP for Cambridge University in the other place, there are still major uncertainties in how large waves and currents interact in coastal waters. In geology there are uncertainties about how coastal sediments will move as the sea level rises. Engineering predictions can be at fault. There have been recent examples of sea defence works that have damaged the local environment and deterred tourism.

Not surprisingly, local communities now want to know more about those and all other environmental developments, what to expect and with what confidence technical solutions are being proposed. So it is essential that there be no further reduction in the research budget of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The research results from its work should be widely published as they become available. Indeed, the Royal Society made that point in recent submissions to the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser.

Next, as the agriculture committee indicates, there should be international comparisons, and I would add collaboration, in dealing with these problems. As chief executive of the Meteorological Office, I was the UK representative at the World Meteorological Organisation, which is the United Nations technical agency responsible not only for meteorology and climatology, but also for the practical aspects of flooding and water resources.

However, despite the huge economic and social importance of operational hydrology, as the subject is called, that activity within that organisation receives about 20 per cent of the funds received for meteorology. Within that organisation and in Whitehall I called attention to that anomalous situation, which is based on the misguided distinction of meteorology being international and hydrology being national because flooding and water movement are local factors, whereas winds blow across continents.

The fact is that coastal problems and rising sea levels are huge international problems. Our European neighbours in the Netherlands have much to tell us. Their research from practical experience is second to none, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, mentioned. I believe that the UK's work on coastal problems should be developed in an international context. Meteorology greatly benefits from regular international comparisons in which, incidentally, the Meteorological Office does very well. Hydrology should move in the same direction.

My last point concerns the matter of leadership in this area. I welcome the emerging consensus that the Environment Agency should be more emphatic in its technical and administrative roles for coastal and flooding problems. Therefore, it would be natural if it became the lead agency for representing the UK at the World Meteorological Organisation in operational hydrological matters, and contributing to the costs of those international activities. Currently, that position is held by the excellent research establishment, the Institute of Hydrology, but it cannot provide the requisite funding.

I should like to thank the House of Lords' Library for help with background material. I thank your Lordships for your patient attention to these important technical and administrative issues. I hope that I may be able to return to them in later debates.

My Lords, it falls to me, on behalf of the whole House, to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, to our counsels and to congratulate him on his most expert and thoughtful maiden speech. He comes to us as a Fellow of the Royal Society and currently professor in climate modelling at University College, London. I am not sure whether he will thank me for reporting that he was educated at Westminster School and at what I, as a Cambridge man, venture to call the better half of Oxbridge. Why is it not called "Camford"? That would afford us a certain amount of concealment from the attacks of Gordon Brown and others.

The noble Lord achieved his PhD at Warwick and after a short spell with the Central Electricity Research Laboratories, became a fellow of Cambridge University, senior research fellow at Trinity, and lecturer, reader and professor in fluid mechanics. Then he graced various American universities as visiting professor at Colorado, Arizona, Stamford and perhaps others.

The noble Lord had a spell as an entrepreneur with the Cambridge Environmental Research Consultants Limited and amidst all that he found time to be leader of the Labour group on Cambridge County Council. His most controversial sounding job to date was with the European Research Community on flow turbulence and combustion. Otherwise, there is not a quiver of argumentation. I hope that he will find time to come to the House frequently when such matters are discussed and to make a contribution. I regret only that, as a fellow Cambridge man, I may have to enter a note of dissent, if he will allow that.

I apologise to my noble friend Lord Bridges for sitting within a spear-thrust of him. Although I welcome much of what he said, I am afraid that in my principal contribution I shall bear witness to the fact that independents cannot be depended upon. I am glad that he has raised this issue because it comes at an important time for discussion of a particular example of coastal erosion which is dear to my heart and, I know, it is dear to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon.

It is a good subject for us to discuss because we have no constituency interest to bias our judgment: we have no concern for short-term party political pleadings: and there are no narrow ideological lobbies, I hope, to bombard us with partisan briefs. We are free to write our own speeches.

However, with all that non-party introduction there is still scope for strong differences of judgment as to what may be done. In the specific case that I shall bring before your Lordships, I find myself at odds with other noble Lords who represent powerful quangos such as the National Trust, English Nature, the Sussex Downs Conservation Board and sundry others. Against those Goliaths, I stand alone with the Birling Gap Cliff Protection Association. As chairman since 1997, I have no interest to declare beyond supporting local people and tourists in defending homes, jobs and widely-valued amenities.

I propose to focus attention on that specific example, where erosion threatens the total destruction of a picturesque, vigorous and thriving community. As the sea continues its remorseless advance by an average of about two feet per year, their plight acutely dramatises the conflict between affording a community protection, or standing idly by while the sea claims half a dozen cottage homes, a hotel, a coffee shop, a bar and restaurant, plus a large car park which is available for those who tramp over the Downs but want to have the car standing by to get them home.

Birling Gap is in East Sussex. It lies between Beachy Head and the Seven Sisters. It is the only dip in the towering cliffs between Eastbourne and the Cuckmere valley that allows access to the beach for bathing, picnicking and so on. Unlike the higher, more durable chalk cliffs on either side, Birling Gap is formed of chalk with a softer combe deposit on top, filling a dry river valley. For all its charm and amenities, that fatal geology brings two disadvantages. First, combe rock erodes far more rapidly than chalk, and, secondly, alas, it is apparently of acute scientific interest to a new species in my experience known as "geomorphologists". I believe that we shall hear more on that subject from the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone.

An early initiative of the Birling Gap Cliff Protection Association was to test support for the continuance of the facilities by raising a local petition that called for action to halt the erosion. Without any wide publicity, over 56,000 visitors have signed up. A second initiative was to join Wealden Council in funding a study by the internationally respected coastal engineering consultants, Posford Duvivier, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Bridges. Posford Duvivier's favourable report on the practicality and effectiveness of a 30-yard revetment to protect the threatened properties was obstructed by local officials until last autumn when a change in the Wealden Council led to the recommendation for planning consent.

At once the combined forces of reaction pressed for an inspector's inquiry which is to be held at Alfriston in July. Inevitably, it will be an unequal contest. Against a handful of local residents, including the noble Lord, Lord Howie, who will defend the amenities enjoyed by some 250,000 widely-scattered tourists each year, there will be pitted the big battalions of well-funded quangos such as the National Trust, English Nature, the Sussex Downs Conservation Board, plus their armies of full-time officials, backed by lawyers and assorted experts.

Of course, I acknowledge that there are two sides to the problems of coastal protection, but one test is that if the bureaucratic institutional forces ranged against us had a strong case for the "managed retreat", which in their papers is brutally called the "do nothing" policy, why have they repeatedly resorted to official obfuscation and even, in my view, chicanery?

Thus un-elected Wealden district officials revealed their own partisanship by trying to keep from elected councillors a legal counsel's opinion on the liability of land owners, not the council, to protect private property from predictable hazards. Similarly, officials at the Sussex Downs Conservation Board commissioned what I regard as a disreputable survey, based on 60 interviews against almost 60,000 petitioners in my little corner, which they quote endlessly as evidence of public opposition to cliff protection. Alas, I have to tell noble Lords that local National Trust officials obligingly expressed their support for this blatant misrepresentation.

Finally—in a much longer catalogue of official shenanigans—a local trust official tried privately to besmirch the professional integrity of Posford Duvivier as parti pris and not to be depended upon, because it dared to report that a low level barrier, or revetment, could protect the buildings at Birling Gap from the advancing sea. In the same spirit, I am afraid that the legal advisers to the National Trust went on for many long months resisting the lessons of Scarborough versus Holbeck Hall that they had a measured duty of care to undertake protection where damage was predictable and defence was both possible and affordable.

I must put on record the fact that both Martin Drury and his predecessor as Director-General of the National Trust have always shown courtesy and consideration. However, I suspect that, as with other powerful and unaccountable quangos, we are faced with what academics have come to analyse as "capture" by campaigning officials.

In similar style, these dedicated, self-absorbed experts—like their scientific colleagues who do not shrink from experimentation on human beings and foetuses—have only one use for Birling Gap; namely, as a free, natural laboratory. Their myopic interest— in layman's terms—is periodically to lake a day by the sea in order to peer into their instruments and study the processes of erosion for any light that they might conceivably cast on the history and geology of that area. In the mean while, the houses above are collapsing. We might almost admire such single-minded devotion to research—real or hypothetical—if it were not for the cost in human sacrifice imposed on innocent neighbours who seek only the peaceful enjoyment of their homes, employment and amenities.

Most recently, the National Trust raised the spectre of global warming as rendering all coastal defences ineffective. The trust implies that it dare not yield on Birling Gap for fear of creating a precedent for elsewhere and what one of its officials calls "armouring the coast" of our island.

Evidence that the science of climate change is less than conclusive is suggested by the fact that Professor Stephen Schneider, a leading US apostle of global warming, was predicting global freezing in the 1970s with a new ice age in prospect. I fear that I must draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others to a particular quotation from Professor Schneider in 1989, when he said:

"To capture the public's imagination … we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic stalements, and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest".

Early projections of CO2 emissions and global warming implied the need for such a degree of reduction in greenhouse gases as would inevitably drastically reduce production, employment and GNP. One good effect of that was to galvanise increasing scientific research. As knowledge has improved, predictions of catastrophe from the 1980s have somewhat receded. I believe that our best considered response should not be to resort to Stalinist long-term comprehensive plans and prohibitions, but to encourage local, flexible adaptation, exactly as proposed by my Birling Gap Cliff Protection Association.

In direct opposition to the negative bias of scientists, my association defends a more human cause with deep historic roots. These go back at least to the 18th century when the local preoccupation was with smuggling and unwelcome French immigrants. Thomas Paine, symbolically the author of The Rights of Man, was an exciseman at Birling Gap. When the original coastguard cottages fell into the sea, the present seven cottages were built inland, around 1890. The end one has already been demolished for safety, leaving No. 2 perched a few yards from the cliff edge.

I conclude with two specific questions for the Minister. First, does she believe that remote, speculative pretensions of science should invariably take absolute precedence over the proven, immediate threat to the property, freedom and amenities of private individuals? Secondly, might the Human Rights Act 1998, which will shortly come into effect, have some bearing on the right of individuals to protect their own property against the avoidable ravages of coastal erosion?

My Lords, I should like, first, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for giving me the opportunity to take part in this very important debate. Perhaps I may follow that by saying what a privilege it is to be able to take part in the same debate as such a distinguished expert as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, who made his maiden speech this afternoon. I certainly look forward to hearing many more of his speeches. Without any doubt, there is growing concern throughout England about the state of our coastlines and about the erosion of coastlines both in cliff areas and on flat coastlines where there is a risk of flooding of marshes, and so on. There is a growing number of reported incidents and problems, which increase the difficulties for local authorities on the coasts—not least at Birling Gap. I have to say that I had the privilege of visiting Birling Gap to see what all the fuss was about. What has happened there is most interesting. There is now a cliff of perhaps 25 to 30 feet between the end of the valley and the beginning of the beach. During my visit, there was ladder that one could climb up and down; indeed, it may still be there. The valley went right down to the beach when the houses there were built and one could, I assume, walk down it in Victorian times. That is the degree of erosion that has taken place.

I confess that I dabbled in geomorphology in my youth. The Seven Sisters are a classic example of what is now happening a little further on at Birling Gap. As noble Lords will recall, the Seven Sisters consist of seven what one might call "female-shaped" cliff tops, with valleys between them. Those valleys end at the cliff top. At some time in the geological/geomorphological past, those valleys would also have ended on the beach. That is the extent to which coastal erosion takes place and, indeed, is a very good example of it.

However, despite that, we have had perhaps 1,000 or 2,000 years of relative stability geologically/geomorphologically in this country. The sea level has been more or less static; the climate has been more or less equable and has not been subject to huge changes during that time; and there have not been many changes to the land mass, other than those which take place regularly and gradually year by year, and those which have been created by the activities of man—for example, the reclamation of the Fens, parts of east Yorkshire, and so on.

As I say, there has been a long period of relative stability which has coincided with the development of the densely populated, civilised society in which we now live. This may now be coming to an end. That is the danger which now faces us. We may face a period of much greater instability. In geomorphological terms, the events that matter in terms of changes to the surface and configuration of the earth, the coastline and the land are not necessarily those that take place slowly year after year. The changes that really matter are the catastrophic ones which occur as a result of often dramatic changes in climate or other changes. Those catastrophic changes have created most of the landscape which we now enjoy. The danger is that we may now be entering a period when catastrophic changes occur far more frequently than in the past 1,000 or 2,000 years.

I now refer to the past million years, give or take a year or two—the period which people call the "Ice Age" in popular terms. Geologists may refer to it as the Quaternary or Pleistocene period. Many people do not understand that we are still in that period. There have been huge changes during the past million years. There have been several onsets of glaciation and several periods in which there has been a build-up and an extension of the ice out from the polar areas and in the main mountain masses. Several times during the past million years the ice has melted away altogether. Inevitably at those times, the sea level must have been much higher than it is now. Those periods are referred to as the "interglacial periods" in the jargon.

We face the danger of entering an interglacial period in which the ice which exists on large parts of the earth's surface, particularly in the polar regions, may disappear altogether. That is the real danger that we face. It will not happen next year and probably not in the next hundred years, but it may happen in the next few hundred years if we are not careful. These processes take on a momentum of their own once they get going. The human race may now trigger such a process which will gain such momentum that we shall not be able to stop it. If that happens, we shall not face the 12 or 15-inch rise in mean sea level—I apologise to the House; I do not understand centimetres; I still think in inches—which is now forecast, probably reliably, for the next 50 years; we shall face a rise measured in feet or perhaps even in yards. That would have disastrous implications.

I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, said that we cannot stop the current rise in sea levels and that they will continue to rise. However, for the sake of future generations and our coastline, we must do everything possible to prevent catastrophic events occurring. Those catastrophic events would occur if there were a significant melt of the continental ice, particularly the Antarctic ice and the Greenland ice. If that occurred, we would be in serious trouble. At present, some people say that that process has already started; others say that it has not. You read the statements of one expert and hire the next! The present situation is alarming enough, but the potential for calamity is huge unless we stop the continuing increase in the amount of so-called "greenhouse" gases that are emitted into our atmosphere.

The problems in this country in this regard have been well set out by previous speakers. I refer to the rise in sea level and the differential effect of the country's tilt, in that the North West is tilting upwards while the South East is tilting downwards a little. I refer in particular to the effect of manmade structures. It is now clear—this was mentioned in the report of the Agriculture Select Committee in another place—that the effect of manmade structures on coastal erosion is even less understood than that of the natural processes that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned.

A continuous belt of our coastline between Durham and Dorset is in a permanent state of difficulty with regard to erosion, or at least local authorities and other agencies which are responsible for it face that difficulty. The rest of the coastline may not experience such uninterrupted erosion, but there are nevertheless great difficulties in many places. In my part of the country, the North West, the Lancashire coast south of Southport, Morecambe Bay and the Dee estuary at Chester are just three areas which are experiencing problems in this regard at the moment.

In preparing my speech, I consulted a number of my political colleagues in different parts of the country. I consulted colleagues in east Yorkshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, Kent, Sussex and in other places. I was interested to note that they made similar points. They were almost unanimous in their views. First, there is continued concern at the division of the legal responsibility for coastal erosion and flooding. That point was also brought out in the House of Commons Select Committee report. Coastal erosion and flooding are two sides of the same coin. Erosion causes flooding and flooding causes erosion. They simply cannot be considered separately. The development of shoreline management plans and other measures introduced by the Government have improved the situation. However, there is still a basic problem in terms of the legal framework.

Secondly, a distinction is drawn between urban coasts and rural coasts. My colleague in another place, the MP for Torbay, Adrian Sanders, raised that matter some time ago in an Adjournment debate. Much of the activity of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to counter coastal erosion is concentrated on rural coasts. Coastal resorts, which depend on their beaches to attract tourists, and depend on them for their economic survival, do not necessarily receive the same treatment.

There is much concern about finance. Again, I recognise that in the past 18 months progress has been made and that this year the budget has been increased for the first time for some years. However, small district councils face severe problems. A colleague of mine on Lewes District Council in Sussex reports that of the revenue budget of £8 million a year, £1 million is allocated to repayment of debt and other charges on capital projects connected with coastal work. That is a huge imposition on a small district council. That figure takes into account the grants that the council received for that work.

There is a widespread belief that there are still too many different authorities looking into this matter. This is the case at both national and regional level. An extraordinary number of bodies is involved; MAFF has an overall strategic responsibility. The Environment Agency has an increasing and, in my view, correct involvement. However, many other agencies, particularly at local level, are also involved. I refer to local drainage committees, local coastal committees and others. Progress is being made. The high targets which were announced by the Government last November will help. However, there is a generally held view that the Government do not attach sufficient seriousness to this matter or accord it a high enough priority.

There clearly must be an overriding national strategy. However, it is absolutely clear that the right solution in every case cannot be determined nationally. There clearly must be local democratic input, but somebody, somewhere, must strike the balance. What the affected residents want may not be what is in the general community interest. The Agriculture Select Committee identified the region as the level at which a crucial co-ordination and strategic overview should take place. The Government have side-stepped that. It seems fairly obvious to us on these Benches that the regional level is probably the right level for coastal work, because it provides a sufficiently large span of the coast for the assessment of a project's effects further along the coast. There certainly will be effects.

We on these Benches are strongly in favour of the development of elected regional government within England, and it seems to us that, in the medium term, elected regional government is the answer to the strategic overview and the carrying out of major projects on the coast. In the mean time, people will no doubt muddle through.

I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for introducing the debate. With other noble Lords, I look forward to hearing further contributions.

My Lords, I. too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for the opportunity to discuss this important subject, which is clearly causing much anxiety and concern. I also add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, on his expert contribution. I am particularly pleased that he was here today in order to quell any doubts about the reality of climate change, even if the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, does not believe in it.

I should declare an interest, as chairman of English Nature. We take part in advising on coastal management where important geological sites and processes, and wildlife habitats are involved. Nevertheless, I shall not comment on the specific cases raised by noble Lords, particularly that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, since, as he said, the case of Birling Gap is about to be the subject of a planning inquiry. I simply hope that the House will detect from my remarks today, first, that I disagree with him, and, secondly, that his case does not stand up.

I should like to come at the issue from a slightly different direction. The coast makes the UK very special. We are an island and we have nationally and internationally important geological features on our coasts, some of a type that make them a world heritage site. We are also renowned for our landscape coasts: wild Cornwall; the Welsh coast; Lancashire, which has been mentioned, where Morecambe Bay is a delightful spot; and of course the Yorkshire coast.

We are also famous for the wildlife interests of our coast: the seabird cliffs; the sand dunes and the many plants and invertebrates that depend on them; the softer coasts such as Norfolk and Suffolk, which are particularly important for migratory waders, ducks and geese; and the inter-tidal and coastal grazing marshes. If we consider what the UK is important for in biodiversity terms, we see that we are a sort of "ginormous" pit-stop for migratory species flying both north and south, a sort of refuelling centre for alien species, without which they would not survive.

Therefore, it is not surprising that it is a mark of its importance for geology, landscape and wildlife that much of the remaining undeveloped coast of the UK is designated as nationally or internationally important for those interests. In many cases that depends on habitats, species and features of geological interest being allowed to move and respond naturally to the powers of the sea. Cliffs need to be allowed to erode, because that creates a variety of habitats upon which important species depend. Indeed, erosion is a fundamental principle for maintaining important geological exposures or the geomorphological processes on which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is not too keen. To reduce this to the point of absurdity, as an example, the White Cliffs of Dover would be the "green cliffs of Dover" if they were not in a process of erosion.

There is huge pressure on the coast, for a variety of reasons: leisure development; the expansion of our ports; shipping; dredging and aggregates-winning; and housing and other built development. All of those matters are increasing the pressure on habitats and geological sites.

For centuries the major pressure on our coast has been the sea itself. We have shown considerable ingenuity in the way in which we have constructed coastal defences, defended crumbling cliffs and, indeed, often reclaimed coastal processes, and particularly salt marshes, for agriculture and development. The Wash is a prime example. I live virtually in the middle of England, at the point the Wash would reach if it were still a natural estuarine system. Bedford-by-the-Sea may yet be a reality, because we are living on borrowed land in many cases, and the sea is still inexorably there.

We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, that there are two additional factors—the sinking of the east coast and the rise in sea level as a result of indubitable climate change, and its impact on increased storminess and flooding. In the face of all that, we must reassess the processes that we have adopted in the past of built and hard defences. I have come to the conclusion that they are not necessarily the answer. There are four reasons why we need to reassess them.

First, we cannot simply continue to build ever-bigger and higher defences to stop the sea. That way madness lies, both economically and visually.

Secondly, we could, of course, try building our defences slightly further back, but there are problems with that as well. Some of our most sensitive wildlife sites, because of a process of coastal squeeze, where the sea comes into a new defended spot, means that we lose both inter-tidal habitats, including salt marsh, and coastal grazing. That means that the very important stop-off point that we provide for migratory species would simply disappear.

The third reason why we must reassess the hard defences is that we cannot be like Canute. We kid ourselves if we think that by building hard defences, we tame the sea. The sea does not go away; the tide just comes in somewhere else. Hard defences often interfere with powerful natural processes which are in themselves useful; for example, if we build defences, the natural charging of beaches is interfered with and beaches disappear, causing erosion problems elsewhere on the coast. Erosion does not stop; it simply tends to move around.

The final reason why we must reassess the process of building hard coastal defences is economic. They are expensive and in many cases are not the most cost-effective option for the protection of property. It may be more cost-effective for us as a nation to let non-distinctive built structures and general farmland simply go. It is wrong to spend more and more on short-term hard defences, which will eventually again be defeated by the sea, rather than investing now in more sustainable long-term solutions.

What are the ways forward? We have already heard about shoreline management plans, which are indeed the first step. They consider land use, the human and built environment and the natural environment, and they lead to coastal defence strategies that are particular to each length of coastline. They raise a number of options, the first of which is the much reviled "do nothing" option. It is the appropriate option where physical processes and economics, or the importance of geological or conservation interests, make that the sensible way forward. But in those circumstances, where there may be considerable human inconvenience, there is a need for careful exposition of the processes and the economic arguments that led to the decision. It raises a very difficult question for a government in terms of how we handle the question of incentives or compensation. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will want to address that matter. I do not believe that we are in a position to compensate from the public purse every property owner in all circumstances. So the "do nothing" option is one that we cannot avoid in many places.

The second option that can be identified by these coastal defence strategies is to develop a series of soft defences; to go back to a much more natural process of defending our coasts; to use coastal habitats and natural features in a more sustainable way; to harness dunes, shingle ridges, salt marshes and mud flats which act as natural energy-absorbing barriers; to allow cliffs to erode and provide fresh material to form new habitats, which in turn protect low-lying land.

This is often a much cheaper solution; for example, the Environment Agency estimates that on average coast defences which have an 80-metre width of salt marsh fronting an eroding coast cost about £400 per metre; without that 80- metre width of salt marsh, without that soft, natural defence, the estimate rockets up to £5,000 per metre.

A third option that the coastal defence strategies have identified is the technique of managed retreat; the managed realignment of defences. Examples of this are already being tried on our east coast to ascertain whether that is a viable proposition for the future. Basically, managed retreat tries to tackle the problem of coastal squeeze and habitat loss as the sea comes inland against hard defences. We want to try to avoid that by recreating a series of the same coastal habitats further inland so that there is a natural succession of coastal habitats, often up river valleys.

This would involve a fairly large scale re-engineering of the face of parts of our coast, but it is probably one of the most cost-effective ways forward. It would involve, for example, conversion of agricultural land to coastal habitats. Indeed, MAFF is already involved in a payments scheme to enable that to happen. I do not think that it is entirely out of order in the present agricultural setting to believe that managing coastal habitats for coastal defence may be as valid an alternative activity for farmers and for land use as the current uneconomic and environmentally damaging use of some of that coastal land, which has often been only recently reclaimed from the sea. So let us see farmers managing realignment as part of their income stream in diversified rural holdings.

Another option that we need to tackle as part of the coastal defence strategy is to get our estuaries into more natural shape; to foster the occurrence within our estuaries of large areas of gradually rising ground, where tides can expand and contract safely and act as a natural pressure valve which will allow built structures elsewhere on the coast to be safe.

Last but not least—and a point which has already been mentioned—we should learn the lessons of the past. We should not be building on eroding coasts; we need greater integration between shoreline management plans and land-use planning. English Nature, of which I am the chairman, is delighted to be involved with MAFF, the Environment Agency, landowners, conservation groups and local authorities in a project (which is funded by the European Union through LIFE programme money) called "Living with the Sea". It is exploring on a pilot basis the fundamental rethinking necessary with regard to what lands can be protected, and how they can best be protected in sustainable and natural ways by working not against dynamic coastal processes, but with them.

My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for initiating the debate. I was interested to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. There seems to be an enormous claim among those in the Chamber at the moment to have gone to Cambridge. I did.

I am afraid that I shall be parochial. This is not because I have not listened carefully to what the previous speaker said—I agree absolutely with the noble Baroness, particularly in regard to the north Norfolk coast—but because I wish to bring two particular problems to the attention of the House. They are typical of a wider problem that is found everywhere else.

I live about six miles south of the north Norfolk coast, 92 feet above sea level—so I have a year or two yet to go—and the highest point in Norfolk, which is some 350 feet, is between me and the coast. It is said that if you stand there and face east, no land is higher than you until you get to the Urals. That gives one some idea of how flat that part of Europe is all the way across the Baltic states.

I saw a nice photograph of a Minister visiting North Norfolk. I am sorry that that Minister is not responding to the debate today, but I am glad that the Minister of Agriculture is responding instead. I had hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, would have replied, but two replies running would have been too much for him.

It depends on what one means by "long-term". I was a member of the coastal defence commit tee of the Erpingham RDC. This was before the last local government reorganisation, or the one before that, or whatever. The problems are exactly the same now. We had a small amount of sea defence work to carry out; we then had a couple of urban district councils in our middle; and when we got clear of the urban district councils, my goodness, it was done by the Ministry of Agriculture. Until the local government reorganisation and the coming into being of the North Norfolk District Council the co-ordination along that part of the north Norfolk coast was haphazard.

But even now the new North Norfolk District Council runs only from Weybourne to Bacton. From Weybourne to Wells in a westerly direction it is the Ministry of Agriculture again that is responsible.

Since 1996, a points system has been worked out for the allocation of money for sea defences. This points system militates very strongly against small rural coastal communities. To get points under the system, one either has to have a large urban area or, even better, a disaster. Then one can get some money. I am afraid that we are among the four most disadvantaged areas, which I understand are West Dorset, Holderness, Waveney and north Norfolk.

There are two specific areas of the North Norfolk District Council coastline to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. They are very important and they illustrate what the noble Baroness said. The first area is Happisburgh. I was warned that if used the words "Happisburgh" and "flooding" it would halve the value of properties in the village. That is absolutely true. The values of properties there have plummeted because of the so-called danger. I should like to make it absolutely clear to anyone who thinks that that is true that the village is all right. We are not talking about the village but a few outlying farmsteads—we do not want them flooded either— and farmland.

The important thing about Happisburgh is that it is the back door to the Broads. It is possible that if there was a flood at Happisburgh the whole of the Broads area—the whole of the national park—could become saline overnight. It has happened before; it will happen again. For that reason alone the sea defences there must be looked into. I am not saying that we want hard sea defences.

As has been referred to, work has been carried out further along the coast at Bacton using large pieces of Sweden, which were brought over in boats and dropped in the water. I think it has worked quite well: it has improved the lobster and crab fishing and it seems to defend the coast. That is the kind of thing we should be looking at, not at hard defences. Incidentally, that was the result of co-operation between the Environment Agency and the district council, which work very well together.

To give the House some idea of the situation at Happisburgh, one farmer in the past eight years has lost 40 metres of land over a length of more than 700 metres. If I work that out correctly, that is 2.48 hectares over that period of time.

When you are playing "brownie points" you are not allowed to take 100 per cent of the value of land because you have to take into account the CAP money that the farmer receives, so when a cost-benefit analysis is carried out a figure of only 40 per cent of the value is allowed.

A little saline flooding is bad because it takes years to recover, but if land has eroded it has gone altogether. I say to the Minister that discussions are urgently needed in that particular area because so many people are affected. It is not just about houses; it is about the back door of the Broads.

When I was a member of the Cley district council in the old days the problems were the same. They have not changed at all. We still have a lot of bulldozers pushing up the bank every time the tide pushes it down. However, we have a slight advantage there, which I shall controversially call the birds and the bees or people. I support the birds and the bees because Cley is one of the Natura 2000 sites. In other words, it is one of the sites which this country has selected under the EC biodiversity directive, which unfortunately I have not brought to this House. I believe that we shall be discussing the Select Committee's report on that directive in about three weeks' time. I hope that by then the Ministry of Agriculture will have answered our questions and will have responded to them. It has not yet done so because, I am told, it is busy doing something to do with the countryside.

The suggestion at Cley is that the sea should take its natural course. As long as the salt marshes remain roughly the same size, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, the salt marshes, marshes and wading bird areas should be taken further up the river. That is an obligation under the Natura 2000. We should then let the sea take its course. I do not know exactly what is happening at the moment. Perhaps the Government will clarify the position because I am not at all clear. I understand that the concept has been agreed by the local authorities. I believe that the matter is now with the Government and I would love an answer to that question.

There are two general questions I should particularly like to ask. The first is the question asked 25 or 35 years ago by the Royal Commission. Is it not time that we had one authority to look after our sea defences? At the moment it is not just a problem of cutting up the cake; it is a question of how big a cake there is anyway.

Secondly, the Environment Agency, which is, after all, a quango, is not responsible to anyone as far as I can see. I think the Environment Agency is doing a very, very good job in our part of the world and I make no criticism, but is it accountable to anyone and, if so, to whom?

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this subject. Like him, I share a love of the Suffolk coast and often visit Southwold which the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, would describe as protected, whereas the area to the north and to the south, at Dunwich, has already fallen into the sea. It is a part of the world of which I am extremely fond.

I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, for a superb maiden speech. It showed an extremely sound knowledge of the topic and the width and breadth of knowledge that he will bring to this House. We welcome him most warmly and look forward to his participation in debates, not only on this sort of topic but many others.

There is something especially horrible about watching someone's home disappear over a cliff. It challenges all the basic certainties of life. It is even more devastating when one imagines lying in bed listening to the storm and feeling the ground shake as 50 foot waves pound the cliffs in their perennial attempts to get at you-double glazing, central heating, fitted carpets and all. No one is secure.

Hitherto the problem has affected small numbers of people and relatively few coastal areas. The honourable Member, Elliot Morley, who is with us at the moment, in another place on 24th June 1998 said:

"Responsibility for the protection of the land against erosion or encroachment by the sea rests with the maritime district councils".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/6/98; col. 1147.]

In the same debate the MP for Torbay, referred to earlier by other noble Lords, pointed out, at col. 1144:

"MAFF has policy responsibility in England for flood defence and coastal protection … to reduce the risk to people and to the developed and natural environment from flooding and coastal erosion".

Effectively, as a result, government have been distanced from the responsibility. Nobody, as other noble Lords have pointed out, has overall responsibility.

Now that the climate change has been officially recognised to the extent of having its own levy, this distance will be even more difficult to maintain. Areas subject to erosion are losing bigger chunks of land, for example, Beachy Head. The number of areas affected is growing as sea levels rise by between four and six millimetres a year and the autumn storms increase in frequency and ferocity. The knock-on effects of the actions of any one local authority is increasingly affecting neighbouring districts.

The evidence is well documented in Hansard. I need only cite the debate on 24th February 1999 in another place when Alan Hurst MP stated that,

"the barriers on the lower Thames are being closed much more often nowadays".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/2/99; col. 328.]

Derek Wyatt spoke of the Thames Barrier and of its effect on Sheerness. Claire Curtis-Thomas pointed out that a new development in Southport had exacerbated problems in Hightown.

The time is coming when government will have to play a bigger part in either managing the effects of climate change or in adjudicating between district councils.

So far I have spoken in terms mainly of the impact of coastal erosion on buildings, but it has much wider effects. I am sure ramblers could specify how many miles of coastal paths are lost each year and testify to the difficulties of finding alternative routes. Farmers lose grazing and arable land, and sometimes animals, every year. Fishermen lose spawning areas as underwater currents are changed when hundreds of tons of rock and clay redesign the contours of the seabed. Seaside towns lose stretches of sandy beach and have to pay for wiring off dangerous areas or erecting warning signs. Wildlife is caught unawares and is crushed or drowned in sizeable numbers. In fact, I cannot find a single beneficial result of coastal erosion although I acknowledge that some of our soft cliff faces provide, according to English Nature, homes for at least 11 rare species of bees and wasps.

As climate change worsens, our problems too are greater and we shall have to find new ways of tackling them and adopt new attitudes to managing their impact on our society.

The 1998 Commons Agriculture Select Committee report was well received in that place and the debate contains much helpful data. At the moment in its policy role the ministry encourages local authorities to develop shoreline management plans and provides grants for coastal protection schemes. These grants are awarded under the Coast Protection Act 1949 for between 35 per cent and 75 per cent of the total scheme cost. In comparison, awards for flood defence work carried out by the Department of the Environment under the Water Resources Act 1991 vary according to the region and location of the rivers from 15 per cent to 65 per cent, and for tidal waters from 35 per cent to 85 per cent.

If the flood defence work is done under the Land Drainage Act 1991 by district councils or the internal drainage boards, the grants are cut to a flat rate of 25 per cent for rivers and 45 per cent for tidal waters. As circumstances have changed quite dramatically over the last three to four years, will the Minister indicate whether the Government are looking at these rates with a view to standardising and improving them?

I have been surprised—I suspect like others—at the cost of some defence works. In the debate of 24th June 1998 the Member for Torbay quoted the example of a cliff fall that had destroyed an access path to Redgate beach and rendered sections of the cliff unstable. The cost of repairs was estimated at £350,000, compared with a standard spending assessment for coastal protection in Torbay of £14,000. More recently, a MAFF news release of 26th May announced a grant of £900,000 towards a total cost of £2.6 million for the reconstruction of existing tidal defences over a distance of about 2.5 kilometres or just over a quarter of a mile on the River Severn.

The granting of these sums is done according to a scoring system, mentioned by Mr Elliot Morley in the other place on 24th June 1998. The priorities of this scoring system works thus, in descending order:

"flood warning; urban coastal and tidal defences; … urban flood defences and environmental assets of international importance; rural coastal and tidal defences, existing rural flood defences and drainage works, and environmental assets or national significance; and new rural flood defence works, and environmental assets of local significance.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/6/98; col. 1149.]

In the same debate the Secretary of State stated that these priorities would apply in exactly the same way for rural and urban areas. Nonetheless, urban areas are clearly higher up the priority list. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us how much money and what average percentage total funding has been granted under each of those five headings in each of the last three years.

As we move forward into this era of rising tides, more severe storms, higher rainfall during autumn and winter and longer periods of drought in spring and summer, we have to anticipate that coastal erosion, estuary damage and river flooding will become more frequent and more extreme. Certain of the consequences that are bandied about are truly terrifying. A report in the Observer on 6th February claimed that government scientists and experts in the nuclear industry fear that former nuclear power plants will be threatened by flooding from the sea. 1t pointed out that all but one of Britain's nuclear plants, is on the coast, many intentionally sited in low-lying areas to give easy access to sea water. Indeed in my own area we have one. If that report turns out to be true I hope that the Government will absolve the hapless maritime councils where these stations are situated from responsibility for protection of the land against erosion or encroachment by the sea. The cost of carrying out the work to the required standards would, I fear, be well beyond the means of any district council, even given the current maximum grant of 75 per cent.

Loss of land to the sea will increase. In the South East it will be made worse by the natural tilt, to which reference has been made. Before 1949 individual landowners were responsible for coastal defence and decided for themselves the balance between the cost: of maintaining the line and losing chunks of land. After that the landowner lost the power of choice and sim ply had to accept the loss of the land. Time has marched on and changing circumstances have led to a policy of "managed retreat" or "managed realignment". Both mean that the sea is allowed to claim the dunes, the rock wall or the cliff face in one area in order to avoid coastal erosion elsewhere. Both are used to protect life and property but increasingly also to recreate particular habitats such as salt marshes.

Only in very special circumstances is compensation paid for the loss of the land, for loss of buildings standing on the land, or for consequential loss of profit. I remember the story of the Kent farmer who found himself faced with the uncompensated loss of some 100 acres of his 400 acre farm. At a very conservative £2,500 per acre that works out at a loss of a quarter of a million pounds. At the time I wondered what would have happened if the land in question had belonged to a developer with outline permission for, say, 200 retirement homes. It did not. But as this century matures, the possibility of enormous consequential loss, especially in the South East, with its plans for 1.1 million extra homes, will continue to grow.

The Select Committee report, already referred to, commented both on current levels of funding and the way in which that funding is delivered and recommended that the funding be reconsidered. Like other noble Lords I would support that. It also stated that compensation was an issue. In the words of the committee chairman, Peter Luff MP:

"If individuals are required to make sacrifices for some wider social benefit, they should be compensated.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/2/99: col. 327.]

I endorse that sentiment. At the moment it is mainly farmland that is affected. But eventually, I suspect, other interests and maybe whole communities, like those on the Isle of Sheppey, Canvey Island, and along the Severn estuary, will be involved. I do not think that it is fair to deny compensation now to farmers and to a few individuals only to have to pay later to different groups of people in greater numbers. I shall be most interested to hear the Minister's reply.

This has been a very interesting debate. It has covered a wide range of examples from the personal knowledge of people who have had to deal with the problems. I have spoken briefly regarding farmers and those living in affected areas. It is clear that a situation in which several authorities are responsible for various matters is not the best way to preserve our countryside. I thank again the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for making the debate possible and look forward to the Minister's response.

My Lords, I should like to echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. It has been a fascinating debate and we should congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, on initiating it and, indeed, on the speech in which he did so. Equally, I think we ought to congratulate him on his tenacity in ensuring that we did eventually debate this important subject. I have been noting his interest for many weeks and months. It is right that we have finally managed to have a debate on this. I hope that he has been pleased with what I think were very high quality contributions.

Like everyone else, I think that I should point out how the whole House, I felt, was particularly impressed by the erudite and wise maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Chesterton. We recognise in him someone who has a contribution to make on this important topic that we will all wish to take very seriously. Climate change is a subject to which, in various guises, I am certain the House will return, and all of us will look forward to having the value of the noble Lord's expertise and experience in our future deliberations on this matter.

The noble Lord said that he had been told that it was not appropriate to make a controversial maiden speech, which of course was absolutely right; and he assumed that the existence of climate change would not be controversial in your Lordships' House. We managed to have some controversy in the course of the debate and I suspect that the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, would not have passed the "maiden speech" test. Luckily, it did not have to. However, it did illustrate that there is controversy in this field still and that there is also high emotion. Flooding and coastal erosion, with the damage to, or loss of, land and property, is a highly emotive subject. It affects people's lives. Damage and distress are sustained by those affected, and are often very severe—and not only in economic terms.

This week we saw the effects of flooding in Todmorden and elsewhere in northern England. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to express the Government's sympathy to all those who have been affected by those floods. Although natural events such as flooding and coastal erosion can never be entirely prevented, it is obviously right that those public authorities which are empowered to take measures to alleviate the risk take action where it is reasonable and right to do so.

It has been pointed out that there are a range of public authorities involved in this issue. Lead strategy and policy-making for flood and coastal defences rest with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but of course other national bodies under local authorities must rightly be involved in these considerations. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, spoke of the importance of the regional dimension. I suspect that it will be impossible ever to give a single authority total powers in this area. The challenge is to maintain both leadership and the appropriate co-ordination that is warranted by individual circumstances.

Perhaps I may now retreat from the local question and speak about climate change. That has underpinned many of the contributions in today's debate. The majority opinion expressed in this debate in your Lordships' House has suggested that climate change is with us and that we have to take action to recognise that and do what needs to be done and what can be done to combat the causes of climate change. The lead department in this area is, of course, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and the House will know of the efforts being made. Measures are being undertaken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The current campaign asks citizens, "Are you doing your Bit?". I was grateful for the support for those campaigns demonstrated by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, in his remarks when opening the debate.

We need to take action to adapt to the effects of climate change that are taking place and will be with us for some decades. So far as concerns flood and coastal defences, these adaptation measures are within the policy area of the ministry. We work closely with the operating authorities—the Environment Agency, internal drainage boards and local authorities—which are responsible for the planning, design, construction, maintenance and operation of flood and coastal defences. In particular, they need to ensure that, in considering defence options, they take account of sea level rise. Research is under way to investigate other impacts such as increased storminess and changing rainfall patterns. We shall be offering appropriate guidance as our understanding of these impacts develops.

Since 1899—I apologise, I was thinking of the 12th century which was mentioned in the original contribution—since 1989 MAFF has issued allowances to the operating authorities to take into account when designing schemes and considering defence options. The allowances are relevant for defences with a design life of up to 40 years. Beyond that, defences should be flexible so that they can be constructed in a way that will allow for future modification. Allowances are based on an expected rise of 18 centimetres over 40 years in global sea level, which represents an average of 4.5 millimetres a year, which is close to the mid range of predictions that have been expressed in the House today.

The allowances also take account of another issue that has been raised by several noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves; that is, long-term geological tilt, resulting from the last ice age. That means that the South and East of the country are sinking while the North and West are rising. The overall figure is therefore modified for different areas of the country to produce net allowances of between 4 millimetres and 6 millimetres a year according to region. Those allowances are kept under review in the light of emerging scientific evidence. If extreme events follow the predicted pattern of global sea level rise, indications are that the allowances should be adequate at least to the middle of the 21st century.

In that context, the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, asked specifically about the Thames Barrier. This is a robust and flexible installation with a design based on rates of sea level rise predicted in the 1970s which were higher than those currently anticipated. It provides London with a high level of protection from tidal flooding and, with normal care and maintenance, should continue to do so until at least the latter part of this century. Even then, although the barrier may need to be closed more frequently, it will continue to fulfil its primary function of protecting London.

Overall, the Government's policy is to reduce the risk to people and the developed and natural environment from flooding and coastal erosion by encouraging the provision of technically, environmentally and economically sound and sustainable defence measures. There are three key strands which support that policy aim.

First, we encourage the provision of adequate and cost-effective flood warning systems. We do this by grant-aiding flood warning systems and by supporting underpinning measures. In the past year the Environment Agency has produced indicative flood risk maps which show the areas most at risk of flooding. These are important tools in deciding where flood warning systems are needed. But whatever warning systems are in place, individuals must take action to protect themselves. They need to heed warnings. Noble Lords will perhaps remember the message in the Environment Agency's flood awareness campaign last winter, that, "Floods don't just happen to other people".

People also need to ensure that they have adequate insurance against flooding. However much sympathy the Government have for those who are affected, we cannot act as "insurer of last resort" for those who simply decide not to take out cover. But what the Government can do is to encourage the provision of flood and coastal defence measures, which forms the second strand of the policy. We do this by providing grant aid to schemes that are technically, environmentally and economically sound and which achieve an appropriate priority score based on urgency, ministerial priorities and benefit/cost ratios. Schemes must be sustainable; we cannot commit future generations to maintaining defences in areas where it is not sustainable. Such defence measures need to be based on an understanding of natural processes and, as far as possible, they need to work with those processes. I believe that was the point to which my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone referred. The key issue here is sustainability.

As part of the strategic approach to flood and coastal defence problems, the ministry has promoted the setting up of coastal defence groups which provide a forum for discussion and stimulus for co-operation to help to ensure that coastal processes within particular stretches of coast are taken into account. To assist those groups in the strategic management of discrete stretches of coast, the ministry has encouraged the preparation of shoreline management plans, which were referred to by my noble friend Lady Young and by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who, I believe, recognised the value of the contribution those plans can make.

The aim of the plans is to provide a basis for sustainable coastal defence policies and to set objectives for the future management of the coastline, taking into account natural coastal processes, coastal defence needs, environmental considerations, planning issues and current and future land use. This approach enables evolving knowledge of physical processes, environmental issues and land use to be drawn into the planning process. Plans should be the subject of wide consultation with all bodies with an interest in the coastline and should take due account of other coastal initiatives.

Coastal groups also play an important role in integrating shoreline management plans (SMPs) with the work of local planning authorities with a view to avoiding problems in the future by discouraging inappropriate development. Shoreline management plans are intended to be living documents and will need to be reviewed at regular intervals. Indeed, a timetable for review should be included in the plans. The ministry intends to issue revised guidance for the next generation of plans later this year.

It is for operating authorities to assess what measures are needed to reduce flooding and coastal erosion in their areas and to come forward with relevant plans that are cost-effective and sound in engineering and environmental terms.

One of the issues that has come out of the debate is the need for flexibility in this area. It is important that we recognise that, given the tremendous diversity of coastal formations in this country, there can be no uniform approach to coastal defence. In particular, we have to be ready to use some of the more novel approaches that have been recommended—my noble friend Lord Hunt referred to them—to look at the possibilities for using beaches and to recognise that coastlines do recede or advance with changes in current, wind and tide. It is therefore unrealistic to expect to maintain every inch of coastline as it is now. Instead, authorities need to look at a range of options and consider the impacts of defending a particular stretch of coast so as to avoid, wherever possible, burdening future generations with the maintenance of unsustainable defences.

As the bulk of expenditure on flood and coastal defences is provided by taxpayers, many of whom may personally derive little direct benefit from the money spent on their behalf, both the ministry and the operating authorities have a responsibility to ensure that value for money is obtained when funding schemes. Economic analysis is an effective tool for comparing the impacts of flooding and erosion and the cost of reducing that risk in order to arrive at an optimum solution. It is not applied in isolation, however, and authorities are required to consider other matters, including environmental impact and sustainability, when deciding where investment in defences should be directed and determining the optimum solution.

The ministry provides grant aid for capital flood defence and coast protection schemes which are technically sound, economically worth while, and environmentally acceptable. Funding takes the form of direct grants at varying rates and, for local authorities, the ministry also provides approvals to enable them to borrow the balance of the cost of approved schemes net of grant. This was one of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves.

In the face of ever-increasing demands for MAFF funding, priority scoring arrangements were introduced in June 1997 on a pilot basis, with a view to optimising the allocation of available funds. The priority scores take account of ministerial priorities, urgency, and benefit/cost ratio. For the first time, sites of environmental interest were specifically identified within ministerial priorities, which also recognise the emphasis placed on the protection of life, and hence on those parts of the country where large numbers of people live and work. It is important that we recognise that the protection of people and property, infrastructure and the environment, and not simply rural coastal schemes, do receive high priority.

Whatever decisions are taken about the future level of MAFF funding for flood and coastal defence, it would be unrealistic to assume that it would be sufficient to meet all demand. That is why I would say, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, that we need a means of setting schemes in order of priority; and that was the purpose of this scheme. It may not be perfect; that is why we regard it as a pilot and indicate that we are prepared to consider revisions. A review of the score arrangements will be initiated later this year.

While I am on this point, the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, asked about the state of play on the protection of Cley. My understanding is that the project rests with the Environment Agency, which, I believe, is awaiting the agreement of the local planning authority. My honourable friend in another place heard the noble Lord's contribution on this particular point, and I am sure that he will have noted it.

There has been much debate tonight about managed retreat or managed realignment of defences. It is obviously a contentious issue. Ministers have made it clear that any proposals for managed retreat must be specific and must be considered locally. There is no intention to abandon large tracts of land to the sea. Realigning defences further inland, or indeed allowing natural erosion to continue, are simply two of the many options that local flood or coastal defence authorities should review when formulating coastal defence proposals, particularly in rural areas. They will clearly not be appropriate in many circumstances but, as my noble friend Lady Young pointed out, they may well be appropriate in some, and they should at least be considered.

That also raises the question of compensation. In general, no compensation is payable to those affected by flooding or erosion, including cases where it is decided not to defend a particular area or to undertake managed realignment. This approach has been adopted by successive governments and is justified by current legislation which provides operating authorities with permissive powers to undertake flood and coastal defence works. Save for the specific requirements of the habitats directive, there is no general obligation to build or maintain defences either at all or to a particular standard. Consonant with this approach, the legislation also makes no provision for compensation from public funds to persons whose property or land are affected by erosion or flooding.

Payment is possible, however, where quantifiable beneficial use arises. Thus land may be acquired for the construction or maintenance of defences and compensation paid for damage arising expressly from such operations.

Also, in some circumstances where land seaward of justifiable new defences can be shown to contribute to effective defence, whether locally or remotely, landowners may be eligible for payment for depreciation or for loss of land.

Finally, if a defence is realigned landward, land currently in agricultural use may be considered for payments under agri-environmental schemes, if a long-term return to inter-tidal habitats fulfils the relevant objectives. I was interested to hear what my noble friend had to say on the possibilities in agricultural terms.

The Government recognise the importance of sustaining flood defences and coast protection. The outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review meant, as the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, pointed out, that an additional £23 million was provided from ministry funding over the past, this and next year, bringing the total available in those three years to £230 million. Funding for future years will obviously be considered in this year's spending review.

I acknowledge the important point made by my noble friend Lord Hunt about the significance of maintaining efforts in R&D in this area. The ministry does co-ordinate work closely with the research councils and the Environment Agency in establishing the flood and coastal defence research programme. We also liaise closely on these matters with other states bordering the North Sea, including the Netherlands, which has received such favourable mention. We have also ensured that results of research are disseminated and fully integrated into revised guidance and policy development.

The third strand of government policy is to discourage inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding and coastal erosion. I stress the word "inappropriate". We have to ask the question: does it make sense to place this particular development in this particular area? The key test is sustainability. Even if defence measures are put in place today to protect a new development, there will be continuing costs in maintaining them and ensuring that they do their job in decades to come against the challenges of rising sea levels.

In 1992, guidance was issued to local planning authorities to steer development away from areas at risk of flooding. In April, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions issued a consultation draft of strengthened guidance which will make flood risk a material consideration for local planning authorities. I hope that will give some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, about the recognition of the need for joined-up policy in this area.

There is also guidance on the need for developers to make contributions to defences which are necessary as a result of the development, not just now, but for their whole life.

The Environment Agency remains a consultee on development proposals. The agency's flood risk maps will be important tools for local planning authorities in considering development plans and planning applications.

I have set out the Government's policy aim and objectives for flood and coastal defence. However good these are, we need to ensure that they are delivered on the ground by some 650 operating authorities. In April, therefore, the Government put in place a series of high-level targets to help to achieve a more certain delivery. Operating authorities are required to produce policy statements setting out how they will achieve the Government's aim and objectives. There are targets in relation to the identification and inspection of defences; the recording of results and assessing flood and erosion risks; flood warning and emergency exercises; and development control in areas at risk of flooding and coastal erosion. We shall be reporting on the achievement of those targets.

The noble Lord, Lord Walpole, may wish to note that successful delivery of the policy aim depends on an effective partnership with local operating authorities, including the Environment Agency, which is accountable to government. In the particular case of flood defence, that responsibility rests with MAFF.

This has been a fascinating debate. Not only have we learnt about geomorphology; I have also learnt about a piece of Marvell poetry that I had not heard before. The poem that I have always known begins,

"Had we but world enough, and time".

It may be significant and sensible to remind ourselves that in this area we should all hear,

"Time's wingéd chariot hurrying near",

and make sure that the policies are appropriate to the needs.

My Lords., I have a couple of minutes in which to express my thanks to all who have taken part in the debate. I must admit that when I tabled this Motion I was not sure of how much interest it would prove to your Lordships. I need not have worried, need I? We have heard some fascinating contributions. I think particularly of the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who is a famous meteorologist. I hope that the noble Lord will not have mistaken or misunderstood the very warm welcome that we all gave to his words. We long to hear from the noble Lord often again.

There was an important contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who is a geographer. There was also an interesting speech from my noble friend Lord Harris, who spoke with characteristic fire, but in directions which took me by surprise. It was not until I realised that my noble friend came from the Birling Gap fraternity that I understood. I may have got the adjectives wrong, but I thought that one point he was referring to the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, as "picturesque"—but perhaps that was the gap lo which he was referring at that point.

I shall, of course, read the Hansard account of the debate. I was glad to hear what the noble Baroness said about the Thames Barrier. It was much more comforting than other information that has reached me.

On the question of insurance, I do not think that the noble Baroness answered the proposition that I put. I did not expect her to do so; however, perhaps she could take the trouble to examine my suggestion. It was not that the Government should give out money to people who had not taken the trouble to insure themselves, but that the Government might help to support an insurance scheme in circumstances where the insurers themselves withdrew cover. That is the kind of supportive activity that the Government might be able to undertake.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for her authoritative remarks. She may have misunderstood me in thinking that I was in favour of hard defences—I am not. All I was saying was that we should not choose managed retreat merely because it is the cheapest option—and I suspect that there may be an element of that in some of the judgments that are taking place. I say no more. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

The issue that I raise is one that should have been resolved during the last century. It must certainly be resolved in this one. It is the issue of religious discrimination. It is unacceptable that, whereas the principle of religious toleration has been legally established in the British Isles for the past 150 years, religious discrimination is nevertheless still legally practised and tolerated today. That is why I place this Private Member's Bill before the House. The Bill seeks to extend the ambit of the Race Relations Act 1976 to include discrimination on grounds of religion.

All that needs to be done to include religion as an additional ground for proving discrimination by way of differential treatment is to insert the words "or religious" after the word "racial" whenever it appears in the wording of the Act, and to insert the words "or religion" after the word "race" wherever it appears in the Act. I appreciate that the wording of the Bill in its present form is not complete, but it can be perfected. In the meantime, the principle and intent are simple and clear.

I begin by pointing out that it is misleading to assert that the provisions in the Race Relations Act 1976 regarding indirect discrimination can be successfully invoked in their present form when dealing with cases of religious discrimination. They cannot. They can be invoked only in cases where there is also an element of racial discrimination. Even then, it is necessary to prove that the discrimination was intentional before compensation can be awarded. If my proposal is accepted, this lacuna in the law will cease to exist and those who are discriminated against on grounds of their religion will then be able to seek the justice which at present, I regret to say, they are denied in the courts of this land.

I hasten to emphasise that my Bill is concerned with religious discrimination, not philosophical or ideological discrimination. I am simply concerned with establishing some measure of protection for people who are discriminated against because they worship God, by whatever name they know God. At present, such discrimination is not against the law.

The Human Rights Act 1998, which is due to come into force in October 2000, inter alia, guarantees the right to practise one's religion, whether alone or in a group, and to educate one's children in accordance with one's religion. It is nonsense to assert, as some do, that the Act goes only so far as to acknowledge such rights, and no further. A right that can be ignored and trampled over with impunity and without liability, where loss is caused as a result, has not been secured; and until it is secured, it is no right at all—it is a mockery of justice.

When I addressed the House previously on this issue in autumn last year, some noble Lords were quick to point out the possible difficulties in defining "religion", "worship" and "God". They raised philosophical issues as regards the status and rights of those who have a belief system but who do not believe in God. They also raised the spectre of obscure and possibly evil cults seeking to shelter behind the law that I propose: for example, those who practise Satanism. These issues have already been considered by learned judges in court, especially but not exclusively in the context of the law governing charities.

For example, in the case of Regina v Registrar General, ex parte Segerdal and Another, Lord Denning, may he rest in peace, concluded in 1970 that "a place of meeting for religious worship" denotes somewhere that is used principally as a place where people come together as a congregation or assembly to offer reverence to God. He stated that,

"It need not be the God which the Christians worship. It may be another God or an unknown God, but it must be reverence to a deity … Turning to the creed of the Church of Scientology. I must say that it seems to me to be more of a philosophy of the existence of a man or life, rather than a religion. Religious worship means reverence or veneration of God or of a Supreme Being. I do not find any such reverence or veneration in the creed to this church".

These basic concepts and principles were then considered in greater detail in 1978 in the case In re South Place Ethical Society Barralet and Others v Attorney-General and Others. In his judgment, Mr Justice Dillon stated, inter alia:

"In a free country … it is natural that the court should desire not to discriminate between beliefs deeply and sincerely held, whether they are beliefs in a god or in the excellence of man or in ethical principles or in Platonism or some other scheme of philosophy. But I do not see that that warrants extending the meaning of the word 'religion' so as to embrace all other beliefs and philosophies. Religion, as I see it, is concerned with man's relations with God and ethics are concerned with man's relations with man. The two are not the same, and are not made the same by sincere inquiry into the question: what is God? If reason leads people not to accept Christianity or any known religion, but they do not believe in the excellence of qualities such as truth, beauty and love, or believe in the platonic concept of the ideal, their beliefs may be to them the equivalent of a religion, but viewed objectively they are not religion … It seems to me that two of the essential attributes of religion are faith and worship; faith in a god and worship of that god."

In applying criteria such as these, our learned judges have already broadly established the differences between a religion and a philosophy, and between religion and ethics. I have not quoted from their judgments at great length, but, as I understand it, they have already established that where Buddhism and Hinduism are recognised for the purpose of English law as constituting religions, Scientology and freemasonry are not. The list is by no means exhaustive. But the point I wish to make is that our learned judges have already proved themselves well capable of ascertaining what constitutes "religion", "worship" and "God" with accuracy, clarity and consistency. I can see no reason why they should not remain able to do so in the future.

Accordingly, it is my view that theoretical difficulties in dealing with obscure sects or philosophies should not be used by the government of the day as a blocking device to justify denying a large number of the members of the mainstream religious groups in this country the protection under the law to which they are entitled. The courts can deal with such imagined difficulties if and when they actually arise. British citizens should be free to worship God by whatever name they call God without being penalised or discriminated against because of this.

Nor should it be a precondition to legislation that it will not be promulgated until the intensity or quantity of incidents involving religious discrimination have reached a certain degree or level. If such criteria were to be applied across the board it might then be argued that murder should not be regarded as a criminal offence because it occurs relatively infrequently as compared with the incidence of armed robbery. In both the Torah and the Qur'an it is stated that if even one person is killed unjustly then it is as if all mankind had been killed.

As far as Muslims are concerned, there is no doubt that they follow a major religion whose primary purpose is worship of the Supreme Being. There is no doubt that some Muslims have been and are being discriminated against because of their religion. There is no doubt that at present there is no law in the United Kingdom, with the exception of Northern Ireland, that protects against religious discrimination. The same applies to the followers of other major religions.

If a person is protected against discrimination because of the colour of his or her skin, why should that person not also be protected from being discriminated against because of the colour of his or her religious beliefs and practices? Those who implausibly argue that the law should only be skin deep should ask themselves what kind of justice there would be if our judges only considered the actus reus and not the mens rea.

Furthermore, as far as Muslims are concerned, the practices which tend to trigger the discrimination to which they are subjected in, for example, the employment sector are already well known and well documented. Apart from blind prejudice which requires no prior reason or justification for it to be expressed, Muslim women are sometimes discriminated against if they dress modestly and cover their hair. Muslim men are sometimes discriminated against if they wear a beard. Both Muslim men and women are sometimes discriminated against if they pray during their lunch or tea breaks, or if they fast during the holy month of Ramadan. These are not phenomena that are disputed. They are referred to almost daily in the media. They have been and are being researched in the groves of Academe. The Runnymede Trust has done significant work in this area. The research project being conducted at the University of Derby is a step in the right direction. While the experts debate and while the academics ponder, ordinary people suffer unnecessarily.

I find distasteful and obnoxious the argument that asserts that British Muslims who are discriminated against because of their religion should count themselves lucky if they only face ridicule and unfair dismissal in this country, when further east in the Balkans and the Caucasus the penalty is often rape, torture, imprisonment and even death. Whatever form such acts of discrimination on the grounds of religion take, whether extreme or not, there is no lawful justification to permit legally such acts to take place.

I also hasten to add that the proposed amendment in the Race Relations Act 1976 that I am seeking to introduce by means of the Race Relations (Religious Discrimination) Bill 2000 will afford protection not only to Muslims but also to the members of all the other major religions. In that sense it is a generous proposal, not a narrow one.

It is also a proposal that seeks to assist the government of the day to fulfil their obligations and duties under international law. The United Kingdom is a signatory to the European Convention on, Human Rights and has passed the Human Rights Act 1998 in order to incorporate the Convention rights into its domestic law. Once the Human Rights Act 1998 is in force, the government of the day will be under a duty, by virtue of Article 1 of the Convention, to secure, by passing secondary legislation where necessary, the rights guaranteed by the convention by providing an "effective remedy" in the English courts "without discrimination on any ground". If they fail to do so, the Government will then be in breach of Articles 1, 13, and 14 of the convention and, unless any such breach is remedied, will eventually and inevitably find themselves before the Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg. As regards race discrimination, the Government have fulfilled their duty and are at present in the process of extending the ambit of the Race Relations Act 1976 further. As regards religious discrimination, however, the Government have up to now not yet fulfilled their duty. My proposal will help the Government to do so.

For example, the Human Rights Act 1998 will not protect a while Muslim who is refused employment or denied promotion or dismissed from employment because he or she prays at midday during the lunch break or wears a beard or hijab. What kind of justice is this? Is such a state of affairs really acceptable?

Is it right that the media should be prevented from ridiculing and attacking people because of the pigmentation of their skin but can with impunity promote inaccurate stereotypes of those who follow a particular religion and even present them as the enemy? Freedom of speech should not be demeaned by using it as a pretext for freedom of abuse, especially when such abuse can so easily incite others to indulge in more physical and frightening forms of attack.

Perhaps we can learn a lesson from more enlightened European countries which not only incorporated the provisions of ECHR into their domestic law years ago but have underpinned those rights by passing secondary legislation. For example, in Austria it is not legally permitted to discriminate against someone because of his or her religion. In that country politicians can be removed from office for doing so. The same is true of Germany, where there is already in place a mechanism whereby each of the major religions has recognised representatives who can present to the Government the concerns of their respective communities. The example and experience of those countries demonstrate that such laws are not difficult to formulate precisely or to implement equitably. That is why my Private Member's Bill is not, and does not need to be, lengthy.

In conclusion, I quote the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, in this House last autumn:

"The fundamental question raised, with great power, cogency and eloquence by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, and the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, is the problem of Islamophobia. It is the problem of how to give British Muslims the right to effective remedies for arbitrary discrimination and unequal treatment of the kind that people like myself have if we are discriminated against as Jews on racial grounds.

"I personally find it strange that I should have a remedy if I am discriminated against on racial grounds but, for example, the noble Lord. Lord Haskel, should not have a remedy if he is discriminated against on religious grounds. When, as an officer in the Army, I experienced discrimination, I could never tell whether the anti-Semitism was on racial or religious grounds. Other noble Lords have referred to the complications, as did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford in his important speech.

"There surely has to be an effective legal remedy for the wrong of religious discrimination as well as the wrong of racial discrimination. I suggest that those who raise technical objections to the framing of legislation should concentrate on the need for a legal remedy for British Muslims that is as effective as that which exists for other minorities in this country. That is the pressing social need that must be addressed".—[Official Report, 28/10/99; col. 470.]

I endorse the penetrating words of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. The noble Lord is to speak in today's debate and I look forward to hearing his contribution.

I believe that the Private Member's Bill which I promote will go some way to address a pressing social need by providing an effective legal remedy for discrimination, whether it be racial or religious or a combination of both. I am sure that the courts will apply it judiciously. I commend the Race Relations (Religious Discrimination) Bill to the House and seek the support of noble Lords in carrying it through to the next stage.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Ahmed.)

My Lords, living and working in Bradford, I share many of the concerns voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, and in principle I support his Bill. In so doing I pay tribute to the remarkable work that he has done over many years, not least in the north of England and Yorkshire, in promoting harmony and good relations between people of many religions. That is something for which the noble Lord has earned gratitude from a great many people.

There is much anecdotal evidence of religious discrimination, but legislation cannot be built on anecdotes. I believe that it is a wise step, which is much to be commended, that the University of Derby has been asked to carry out the research which it is now undertaking. I and many others look forward to reading its report, which it is hoped will emerge in the autumn of this year. If we are to have legislation, we must have firm grounds on which to base it. This is a very complex area and I do not believe that we shall make haste very quickly, but it is worth taking the care and worth doing.

I should like to make a contribution from the point of view of practical day-by-day experience in a city like Bradford. I believe that legislation is a desirable step, but it will not in itself remove religious discrimination. As the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, is perfectly well aware—better than I—in Pakistan there is a blasphemy law that is meant to protect people of all religions. Sadly, it is all too frequently abused to try to solve petty disputes in villages. There is a man called Ayub Masih who has been in prison for a very long time and has the death penalty hanging over him. It is not known when that will be resolved. In 1997 I and some friends visited Shanti Nagar, where some appalling riots had taken place. We were told that they had arisen from a trivial abuse of the blasphemy law. I know that the Government of Pakistan wish to change the law and that there are extremists who make life difficult. I do not cite that example to criticise another country but to point out that sometimes even a law with good intent can be greatly abused by those of little principle. Education and openness to change must go hand in hand with legislation; otherwise, we shall not make very real progress.

Nor is discrimination always inflicted by the majority on the minority. Just after the Lawrence report appeared, statements were made which suggested that racial discrimination was inflicted by the majority on the minority. That is not true. We need to keep in perspective that discrimination can be inflicted by anybody on anybody else for racial and religious motives.

I am also aware that there is low-level harassment (as it is termed by the chairman of the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia of the Runnymede Trust), such as spitting and abuse of that kind, because of a person's religion. I regret to say that my wife and I have been spat at by people who are not Christians. I have received a report of a women who walked innocently through the streets and was told that she was a white whore. We want to remove discrimination everywhere and ensure that nobody on any grounds indulges in racial discrimination for whatever reason.

Yet another complication arises from what is sometimes referred to as positive discrimination. It is said—I do not for a moment support it because I do not have any evidence—that on occasions the police may decline to press charges against somebody because they fear a backlash from extremists in a religious group. We must also work against that kind of discrimination so that the law is applied without fear or favour.

If we are to promote legislation—I believe that there is reason for so doing—we should at the same time take practical measures to encourage better relationships between people of different religions and thus, step by step, remove the possibility that people will resort to religious discrimination.

Perhaps I may tell your Lordships about one or two simple steps in Bradford to that end. Shortly after I arrived there eight years ago, I received strong representations from Muslims who alleged racial and religious discrimination in employment. I invited people in industry and commerce to meet me. I certainly did not presume to tell them what to do, but many were able to offer examples of good practice. Along with legislation, I believe that we need to offer encouragement that comes from spelling out what good practice is and what is already being achieved.

In your Lordships' House a week or two ago, I was able to welcome the appointment of a Muslim adviser in prisons. That is a major step forward. When I became Bishop of Maidstone in 1987 and went to Maidstone Prison, it was the Anglican chaplain who sought to find an imam who would care for Muslim prisoners. There are good examples of people of one faith who strongly support others. If one has the misfortune, because of illness but for no other reason, to go to the Bradford Royal Infirmary or St Luke's Hospital, one will find that successive chaplains have built up a team of pastoral visitors some 60 or 70 strong which comprises Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jews and Christians.

If we are to have legislation, we must have good practice which tries to prevent such discrimination alongside the legislation which punishes the discrimination. As I shall say one or two words which may be regarded as being critical of the Bradford Metropolitan District. Education Authority, perhaps I may say that the Bradford Metropolitan District Council has a prayer room in the city hall which is open to people of all faiths. If noble Lords believe that that is an excuse for providing it for Muslims, were the Bradford Metropolitan District Council to have the misfortune of having me as an employee, I should be there at midday every day to say my prayers as a Christian. I believe that that is a small but enlightened step that encourages people of different faiths and tries to prevent discrimination.

I mentioned education because it cannot be removed from the scene. Problems with education fuel religious discrimination in a city such as Bradford. With regard to the 1999 GCSE results where live or more A to C grades were achieved, the national average was 46.1 per cent. In Bradford the Figures were: whites, 34 per cent; Pakistanis, 21.8 per cent; Pakistani males, 16.7 per cent; females, 27.8 per cent; white males, 29.9 per cent; females, 38.1 per cent. Those are simply the statistics. However, the tension and suspicion surrounding education and the feeling that one has under-achieved, that one is of no use, and so on, are in my view a major contributor to unease between people of different faiths and different races. The sooner we are able to address that issue so that youngsters who come from Muslim backgrounds can feel that they achieve and are on a level playing field, the better it will be, and we shall remove yet another reason for religious discrimination.

I make a plea, too, that our policymakers should learn to distinguish between religion and culture. In my view, much religious discrimination comes from ignorance. There is a big difference between what is Islam and what may be Pakistani or Kashmiri culture. Long visits to Pakistan by schoolchildren are culture. That has nothing directly to do with Islam. Arranged marriages with consent are entirely consistent with Islam; forced marriages are contrary to Islam. I believe that we should be very careful when those who are not Muslims refer glibly and easily to the marriage practices of those who are Muslims. We can easily get it wrong and cause a great deal of offence.

Halal meat is Islam; curry is culture, as is fish and chips. Noble Lords may believe that that is a trivial remark, but I am told that in the schools in Bradford most of the Muslim children go for fish and chips and most of the white children go for curry It is a rather trivial matter but when one talks about another faith it is important to know what one is talking about. Much of the abuse that causes offence comes out of ignorance.

The mosque culture and the school culture need to be helped to come together. At the moment they pull away from each other. Children learn by rote, perhaps from an imam who speaks little or no English, and then go into an entirely different culture in a school. If we can begin to address that, we shall begin to remove some of the causes of religious discrimination.

I hope that noble Lords do not feel that I have deviated too much. I want to support the idea of legislation. However, I want to make the point firmly that I fear that that in itself will achieve very little unless we address the underlying causes. When we do that and follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, over many years, we really shall make progress and perhaps the legislation will be little used.

My Lords, before the right reverend Prelate sits down, he spoke early on in his speech of the need either for firm evidence or for further evidence. There is a difference. It did not come over entirely clearly. If the right reverend Prelate remembers, he may wish to clarify that point, particularly as he then went on to discuss matters in relation to the work of the University of Derby. I believe that it would also be helpful for Hansard to be clear regarding what the right reverend Prelate said.

My Lords, I apologise for my bad articulation. I meant to say "firm" because anecdote is fine, but legislation can be built on firm evidence.

My Lords, I support the Bill of my noble friend Lord Ahmed, not only for the reasons that he gives and the evidence of discrimination, of which I have also seen unjust and harrowing examples as chair of Camden's racial equality council, but also for another set of reasons. I shall describe them briefly.

They are based on the fact that, quite apart from the essential human rights aspect of discrimination, discrimination is a market failure. To deny people an equal opportunity for a job, a promotion, a contract or an education is to lose out on talent. It is not only the individual who suffers a disadvantage; so do the employer, the contractor and society as a whole.

Moreover, there could be a particularly disadvantageous consequence of discrimination on religious grounds in the UK. As we have heard, that includes substantially discrimination against our Muslim fellow citizens, although it is not limited to them. That is because, while Islam is a minority religion here, in the global context in which we live and trade it is a majority religion. Some of the ancient world religions help to form the cultures of the newer economies. In the United Kingdom we are fortunate to have many personal and commercial links with those economies because of our past history of immigration and emigration. That history was not without pain, even atrocity. However, over succeeding generations it has proved a resource and an opportunity—an opportunity to be at home in and thrive in a global world.

No doubt that was one of the reasons why the Foreign Office made a very interesting video entitled "Islam in Britain" for distribution abroad. It shows positively, but not over-rosily, the lives of British Muslims. It shows my noble friend Lord Ahmed being introduced into your Lordships' House, which is a very positive sight. That part of the film was quite rosy too, but that was because of the colour of the film. The film shows, above all, that the UK can have strong ties outside its location on the edge of western Europe.

I suggest that those links would be much enhanced if those who saw the video overseas and who invest in and trade with the UK also knew that we mean what we say when we talk about being a multi-cultural society by outlawing discrimination on the grounds of religion. The UK would not be unusual in doing that; far from it. We would be joining many other multicultural societies: the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and most of our fellow members of the European Union, of which my noble friend Lord Ahmed mentioned two, in making protection against religious discrimination part of the legal or constitutional framework. Our own Human Rights Act provides a first basis of protection in respect of the rights in the Act. We would be signalling that we had a modern and inclusive idea of human rights, which grappled with the real issues faced by our own citizens. For the reasons I have outlined, that addition would have a global resonance in our relations with many of our allies and natural markets.

Taking further the proposal of my noble friend, I express the hope that there could be included in the text of the Bill words to cover those of us whose ethics do not derive from revealed religion. That is the intention of the words "or belief" added after the word "religion" in the relevant provisions of the various international human rights instruments which the UK has ratified and we should try to meet the point.

Finally, I warmly commend the Bill to your Lordships. It would be a great step forward to enact it.

My Lords, I rise in support of my noble friend Lord Ahmed. I am grateful to my noble friend for his latest efforts and for his Private Member's Bill, which seeks to extend the ambit of the Race Relations Act 1976 to include discrimination on grounds of religion. I wholeheartedly agree with him that the move is long overdue and an essential step towards the emergence of a truly pluralistic, tolerant and just society in today's Britain.

The final justification for any law, as noted by Albert Camus, is the good it does or fails to do to the society of a given place and time. Today's Britain desperately needs a law to protect and redress religious discrimination so that a vast number of its citizens can talk of genuine tolerance and justice.

The amendment suggested by my noble friend would not only reflect the concerns and issues we face today but also greatly contribute towards combating one of the most unacceptable social ills threatening society; that of religious discrimination and intolerance. Like all forms of discrimination, religious discrimination has its pecking order, the most vulnerable being women and children. I referred to that at length when I addressed your Lordships' House last October.

There are too many cases up and down the country of women who have been physically and verbally abused and threatened because of their faith, in addition to suffering discrimination in the field of employment, to which I shall return shortly. Anecdotal or not, the experience of Islamophobia, for instance, is an ugly reality that dangerously wounds, scars and alienates members of the Muslim community. It is the oxygen that fuels both alienation and extremism and cannot be allowed to tarnish and disfigure our society.

I agree with the wise contribution of the right reverend Prelate. However, comparison with other countries such as Pakistan, with the entirely different aspirations, practices and expectations of its citizens, is not appropriate within this context. To my best belief there are no race and sex discrimination laws in place. There may be very good examples in other places. I wholeheartedly agree with the contribution of the right reverend Prelate as regards the impact on education.

That is not only in place in Bradford. I have been talking about Tower Hamlets all afternoon, and this is a matter which readily comes to mind. The continuous unacceptable level of educational achievement remains abysmal and must be addressed. I shall return to that many times in your Lordships' House.

I return to the subject at hand. Lack of recognition of the fundamental role of religion in the lives of people, particularly those from the ethnic minority communities, has had a profound impact, whether or not we recognise it. Over the years it has meant the bypassing of faith communities in securing resource allocation. The perception and understanding of society purely on race categorisation has meant the marginalisation and impoverishment of large sections of the community. For instance, resource allocation for blacks or Asians normally totally bypasses the Muslim community, which is a multi-racial and multiethnic community with distinct needs.

I draw the attention of your Lordships to a report published today by the Cabinet Office, entitled Minority Ethnic Issues in Social Exclusion and Neighbourhood Renewal, which totally misses the point on faith-based regeneration. Had this law been in place, that would not be the case. Without the proposed amendment, the legal situation can best be described as necessary but not sufficient. In order that the basic objectives in applying race laws are achieved, laws against religious discrimination must be introduced, and must be inevitable.

Many people feel that they are discriminated against in employment and service delivery because their religious background and practices are not recognised or are simply ignored. In many public sector organisations, people are discouraged from putting their religious beliefs into practice. They are prevented, for example, from taking leave during festivals and on other important religious days. I am not referring to midday prayers, which have been covered adequately.

The present situation also implies lack of recognition and respect. People from many faiths, including members of the Muslim communities, feel their identity is not recognised by law. The situation has been made even worse by the reluctance to include religion in the forthcoming census. During times in which almost all decisions are numerically led—having been a local government deputy leader for nine years, I should know—lack of basic statistics will put many faith communities at a great disadvantage as regards resource allocation. The lack of monitoring based on one's religious affiliation has had the effect of making faith communities invisible in today's Britain. That cannot be just or right.

The cost of tolerating an environment in which faith communities feel unprotected and vulnerable cannot be measured in terms of anguish, pain, the deep sense of isolation and the resultant marginalisation.

The suggested amendment to the law would be a major leap in engaging the minority community, as well as ensuring that the Britain of today and tomorrow is a society which genuinely believes in and is guided by the high principle of respecting all people regardless of their background, gender, ethnicity and religion.

The proposed legislation is particularly important also because of its timing. We are at the moment in one of the country's best epochs in terms of having a government, a Prime Minister and a Home Secretary totally committed to confronting the forces of discrimination and prejudice. Not having a law against religious discrimination actually goes against all the basic principles of this Government, who have shown beyond all doubt a commitment towards crating a society that is free and tolerant for all our citizens. If they fail to introduce both the relevant religious discrimination legislation and the religious question in the 2001 national census, it will have a major impact on their credibility with a significant and important part of our community.

"The law", said Martin Luther King—himself a man of great faith—"does not change the heart. But it does restrain the heartless". It signals to everyone certain standards and values and it states basic terms of debate. In that way, it shapes, as it gives expression to, moral opinions and outlooks.

The legal change for which my noble friend is calling is essential to help crystallise a new climate of opinion which is already present and to bring religion into the terms of debate of what kind of society we want to have in this country. Until and unless such changes have been introduced, Britain cannot claim to be an inclusive and a fair society.

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, for introducing this Bill. He was kind enough to refer to some remarks that I made in a previous debate that he initiated on 28th October 1999, and I shall not repeat what I then said. I shall simply summarise my position by indicating that I support the aims of this Bill. I believe that the absence of an effective remedy for the injustice of treating someone less favourably than another on the grounds of their religious beliefs or political opinion is a source of real injustice and that there should be an effective remedy.

I agree also that international human rights law requires the introduction of legislation. The ratification by the United Kingdom, by the present Government, of the ILO Discrimination in Employment Convention No. 111, which I much welcome, is one further indication of the need to do so.

I listened carefully to the important speech made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford and found his reference to the complexities of the situation and his illustrations very telling. On only one matter did I disagree with him; that is, the suggestion that one needed what he called "firm evidence" of the problem before legislating. There is firm evidence that the British Muslim community—a very large community—feels a real sense of injustice, and we know that the Race Relations Act is only able to tackle the problem indirectly. It cannot tackle the problem directly because Muslims are not an ethnic group whereas, for example, Jews—of which I am one—are recognised to be an ethnic group. The Act can only tackle the problem if there is an indirect impact upon Muslims of an ethnic nature. The Human Rights Act, as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, pointed out, can only tackle the problem in a limited way because the nondiscrimination guarantee in Article 14 is parasitic on the rest of the convention, which does not cover employment.

So I have no doubt about the need for legislation. I have no doubt about the aims of this measure. If the proposition were put before the House that the Bill should be given a Second Reading, I would certainly be in favour of it. But the rest of my remarks are designed to urge the promoters of the Bill to think more carefully about some of the underlying problems.

I spent more than two years of my life working on the Race Relations Act and the Sex Discrimination Act as special adviser in the Home Office to my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. I can say therefore that I have real personal experience of the kinds of issue that need to be tackled. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, will forgive me for saying that, even if the right bit of the Race Relations Act was referred to in his one clause Bill, which it is not—it is a boring and pedantic point—we cannot simply amend the Race Relations Act 1976 in the way suggested. I am sure he will be the first to recognise that.

Perhaps I may indicate the problems and make it clear that I am not suggesting that they are not capable of solution. They have been tackled in Northern Ireland in that context, and tackled recently and imaginatively in the Irish Republic, to take only two examples. Such legislation illustrates that the problems are not insoluble. But they are real and I want to raise them now, without wishing in any way to encourage the Minister who will undoubtedly latch on to what I am saying as evidence of the need for further time to consider all these problems, and rightly so.

The first problem is that to discriminate against someone because of their religious belief is not as simple and straightforward as to discriminate against someone because of their colour, race, ethnic origin, sex or gender. To practise racial or sex discrimination is to discriminate against someone for something they cannot control. It is because of their descent, their birth, their genetic inheritance. It is an affront to their common humanity. To discriminate against someone because of their religious belief or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, pointed out, their political opinion—both forbidden forms of discrimination in international law and in Northern Ireland—is not to discriminate against them because of their common humanity; it is to discriminate against them because of their belief system, because of their faith.

It is as unfair to discriminate against somebody because they have no faith as it is to discriminate against somebody because they have faith. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, said in relation to his definition of religion—I declare a professional interest in that I advised the Church of Scientology about its application for charitable status in the past—Buddhists, who do not belong to a theistic religion, would regard their religion as a real religion, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, would himself. The English cases to which he referred as being the golden thread in this area, I am sorry to say, are a tangled web of inconsistent principles in which English judges have done their best to fit in recognition of Buddhism, a non-theistic religion, with the theistic religions of Islam, Judaism, Christianity and so forth.

Therefore, although I do not feel it is necessary to define religion in the Bill any more than the Human Rights Act does, one must recognise that if a Bill of this nature were enacted it would undoubtedly create problems that would have to be tackled in relation to what is meant by religion and religious belief. I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, that it would be wrong to cover only religious belief and not, for example, political opinion. That would clearly be inconsistent with our international obligations.

That is the first real problem that needs to be tackled. The second problem is whether it is sensible to amend the Race Relations Act in the way that this Bill does, or whether there should be a separate Bill because of the special problems in relation to religious discrimination. Or, as I would prefer, perhaps there should be comprehensive legislation which covered equal treatment without discrimination on any ground; for example, age, disability, sexual orientation as well as religious belief and political opinion.

I believe that all that is consistent with legislation in other countries. Would it not be sensible, as I have been urging in this House for some time, to have a radical overhaul of our often inconsistent, incomprehensible mess of equality legislation and to have a single effective equality code that included religion? I would argue that that is a difficult ambition to achieve but one that would be worth the attempt.

The next problem is whether the grounds should be confined, as in this Bill, to religion or whether non-theistic religions and political beliefs should be covered? Should such legislation be confined to employment, as was originally the case in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, or, as I would argue, should it also cover goods, services and facilities? That is a policy choice that needs to be considered. It is easier to get a Bill through Parliament if it is narrowly confined to employment, but is that sensible?

Should such a Bill cover indirect discrimination as well as direct discrimination? Much more difficult problems arise if it were to cover both. I would argue that it should, but the implications would need to be thought through. What about the exceptions? The exceptions in the Race Relations Act can be pretty narrow because there are few situations in which a person's colour or race is relevant to a job or the provision of a service. In regard to religion, as the legislation in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic shows, one needs wider exceptions where a person's faith, or lack of it, is relevant to a particular employment or occupation, or to the provision of a particular service, such as separate voluntary religious schools and employment in those schools. Again, defining the exceptions where religion, or the absence of religion, is relevant needs to be worked out.

All of those problems are capable of solution. I suggest that they are better solved not by amending the Race Relations Act, not even by having a separate religious discrimination Bill, but by having, as the United States and Canada have, a comprehensive code that is user-friendly, intelligible and capable of being enforced. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that legislation is not a panacea. It seems to me to be a necessary but not a sufficient condition, and all the other matters to which he and other noble Lords have drawn attention need to be addressed as well.

To sum up, I strongly support the aims of the legislation. I believe that much more work will need to be carried out, not in obtaining evidence of the problem, but in persuading the Government to find the political will to tackle the defects in our existing equality legislation and to bring forward comprehensive legislation, of which this could be an important part. I believe that that aspiration will not be accomplished this side of the general election, but I say, respectfully, that I hope that it will find its way into the manifestos of the main parties. It will certainly be in the manifesto of my party, as it has been in the past.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, for bringing this Bill before us and giving us another opportunity to consider the subject. First, I agree that religious discrimination is fundamentally wrong. We are all on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, in relation to the morals and the principle behind his Bill.

We also recognise the dangerous force of religious prejudice. Throughout history there are examples, and today there are far too many examples, of the most hideous wars between different religions that have scarred our planet. Some of the most vicious wars have been not between different religions but between different denominations within a religion. The Troubles—I believe that is the technical term—in Northern Ireland are given that character, although, as in so many other modern cases, the dispute is not about any point of religion at all. It is a case of religion being used as an expression of difference, rather than there being a religious dispute in the theological sense.

At different times and in different circumstances each religion and each denomination within the main religions has been in a superior position and has pressed its views on others. In Great Britain those powerful forces are at work in lesser ways than war, but nevertheless in damaging ways. On a global scale, I believe that we can claim to have a good record, but that does not mean that there is no discrimination or that we can ignore it.

Like the Minister, I come from Leicester, which is a city that in my lifetime has changed its religious composition along with its racial composition, as have other places, including the city where the right reverend Prelate has his cathedral. The reason why most people from overseas came to live here was extreme religious discrimination or religious persecution in other countries. We can be proud of the fact that they have found a haven here, but not so proud of the discrimination that takes place here.

There is also no doubt that Leicester, like our country, has benefited from the vitality and hard work of many who have come to live in this country. Their arrival has perhaps led to curry being accepted as our national dish. Of course, tea from the same sub-continent has long been our principal national drink.

Given the age-old nature and the divisive force of religious divisions, I believe it would be rash to suggest that we can abolish such matters by legislation. Of course, the Bill does not seek to do that; it seeks to protect people against the effects. It is true, as the right reverend Prelate said, that education and positive actions must go with any legislation.

Returning to the law, the problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has made clear, is to draft a satisfactory law that will provide a useful weapon against discrimination. It is partly a matter of defining religion itself, but also of deciding what is unacceptable. After all, religions themselves discriminate. Religious schools, as the noble Lord, said, hire teachers of the appropriate faith to teach their children. One cannot take a full part in a Church of England communion service or a Roman Catholic mass unless one has made a proper commitment to the appropriate body. I recall some cases relating to the rates payable on churches, which are defined as places of public worship, that hinged on such matters as whether everybody could play a full part in the services.

It is a difficult area. It is true that, although some people convert from one religion to another or from one denomination to another within a certain religion, most of us follow the religion of our forefathers. That means that in most cases religion comes with our race and nationality. For that reason, some religious groups can be regarded also as ethnic groups, and so find themselves covered by the Race Relations Act, which—I hope I shall not be misunderstood in saying this—in some respects is unfortunate, because it leaves others out in the cold, simply because their religion is not so tightly tied to the racial distinction.

There are also the problems as regards how fine the distinction should go; in other words, should it cover discrimination between denominations like Sunni and Shi'a Moslems or between Roman Catholics, Baptists and those in the Church of England? There is also the difficulty that arises because of certain groups or sects that call themselves a religion. Indeed, there are some well-known examples in that respect and some of those groups are not what most of us would call "religious".

The bottom line is the fact that religious discrimination is wrong and we certainly deplore it. But we must find a law that will work and one which will cover the matters that are the primary source of concern. Obviously, jobs and the provision of services, and so on, are first in the queue, if I may put it that way, but some of the most offensive and also the most damaging examples of discrimination are to be found in the form of words used about Muslims, in particular, in press reports. Indeed, such wording implies, and often more or less says, that all Muslims are fanatics who are bent upon destroying the rest of us. That seems to me to be exceptionally damaging and yet, in some respects, it is the most difficult to deal with from the legal point of view. It is also an absolutely false and an entirely wrong impression to give of Muslims.

Once again, we are grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this important issue to our attention. I understand that progress is being made in addressing the problems; indeed, we await the report from the University of Derby, which will no doubt represent further progress. However, much more work needs to be done. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, with his great experience of such matters, set out the arguments in that respect in a much more precise way than I can. However, the fact that the Bill has been placed before us in this way has permitted us to debate the issues and helped to push forward that necessary work. We are grateful to the noble Lord.

My Lords, perhaps I may, first, join in the congratulations expressed to my noble friend Lord Ahmed on the manner in which he moved the Second Reading of his Private Member's Bill. Indeed, it displayed all his moderation, his good sense and his commitment to this particular cause. I was delighted that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford saw fit to pay such a proper tribute to my noble friend for what he has done in the past and for what he is doing at present. I should like to echo those sentiments from the Front Bench.

I should also like to make some mention of all the speakers who have taken part in the debate, but I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not do so. I must mention the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, in particular. His reputation in this field goes way before him. He is wary that, in speaking from the Front Bench, I shall latch on to the line of his arguments; indeed, if he will forgive me for saying so, it is extremely hard whenever one is debating such matters not to latch on, either subtly or not so subtly, to the arguments that the noble Lord has deployed with such expertise and skill over many years. I shall do my best not to latch on to the noble Lord's arguments tonight, except perhaps the more general one.

The fact that my speech from the Front Bench will not be very long does not mean that the Government believe that this is a minor matter. We believe that religious discrimination in our country is a serious and important issue and one which is worthy of careful and detailed consideration before deciding on the best course of action.

This country obviously has a strong Christian history, but it is also a country that enjoys the benefits of a broad and diverse religious landscape. We live in a multi-cultural society and we are infinitely the better for it. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Cope, mention Leicester from which we both hail in one way or another. If anyone would like any proof that we are infinitely the better for our multi-cultural society, he or she should spend a few days in Leicester, or even in London, in order to see the improvement that our new society has made.

However, we shall not become a successful multicultural society until we value the contribution made by each and every one of our diverse communities; take pride in our diversity and celebrate it—and I mean "celebrate it"—to the world; and until people from different ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds can live and work together in an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding, while retaining their distinctive identities. Until then, we shall not have the successful multi-cultural society to which everyone in this House is committed.

The Government are determined to take a strong lead in eliminating all forms of discrimination and intolerance. I do not believe that it is going too far to say that most reasonably-minded people would say that this Government's commitment to those causes has been pretty well demonstrated in the first three years of their time in office.

The Government are especially alive to the concerns expressed about religious discrimination and the lack of effective action to tackle it. In particular, we heard most movingly about the concerns of the British Muslim community on the issue. Moreover, the Church of England, in the form of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford in our previous debate, has also expressed its commitment to exploring the serious and complex concerns raised by the question of religious discrimination. That was also reflected in the contribution made this evening by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford.

There is an anomaly in the law at present—it would be foolish to deny it—whereby some faith groups are protected, while others are not. But as a government we need to be absolutely clear about the nature of the problem before we can tackle it. We do not yet know to what extent other minority faith communities suffer from discrimination, and we do not fully understand the complex relationship between racial and religious identity and prejudice. We do not yet know what are the most effective methods of tackling religious discrimination.

That is why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary commissioned the first significant empirical research into religious discrimination in the United Kingdom by way of a contract with the University of Derby. This is an important initiative. The research will take place over a period of 18 months. As noble Lords may well know, an interim report was published earlier this year. The final report is due to be published in the autumn of this year. The Government, along with noble Lords in this House, look forward in anticipation to reading that important document. The aim of the research is clear: to assess the scale and nature of religious discrimination in England and Wales. When the report is published, we shall take account of its findings and the research when considering the range of responses available to us in tackling such discrimination.

I shall outline briefly the background to the research. Its purpose is fourfold: first, to assess the evidence of religious discrimination, both actual and perceived; secondly, to describe the patterns shown by evidence of this discrimination—its overall scale, its main victims, its main perpetrators and the main ways in which the discrimination manifests itself; thirdly, to indicate the extent to which religious discrimination overlaps with racial discrimination; and, fourthly, but not as a last word on the subject, to identify the range of policy options available for dealing with such discrimination.

I turn now to the census mentioned by my noble friend Lady Uddin. One of the key messages that we have heard from minority faith communities was that they felt, as it were, invisible when it came to monitoring and statistics. The ethnic origin question, which was introduced in the last census in 1991, brought us a long way forward in addressing the needs of ethnic minorities but did nothing to help to identify the needs of minority faith communities. The census as it currently stands offers no detailed information about religious affiliation in relation to the Moslem, Sikh, Jewish and other faith communities.

The Census 2001 White Paper proposed, interestingly enough for the first time since 1851, to include a question on religion in relation to England and Wales. The Bill introduced in this House by the noble. Lord, Lord Weatherill, is due to get its Second Reacting in another place in two days' time on 9th June. Subject to parliamentary approval, we shall finally have reliable data on our faith communities, which will help us to identify and address their needs. One very much hopes that all in another place will ensure that the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, moves forward.

There is no quick-fix solution to the issue of religious discrimination. It would not be reasonable to commit to amending existing legislation without having a clear understanding of the mischief that we intend to address and without making sure that we address it. The results of the research will provide an important evidential basis on which to make decisions about what the appropriate response should be.

The Human Rights Act, which has been mentioned, comes into force on 2nd October. It is expected to provide relief in cases of alleged religious discrimination involving the treatment of individuals by public bodies. We shall also take account of the implications of the framework directive in the area of employment under Article 13 of the EC Treaty of Amsterdam.

This is an important issue. We want to reassure the House that we take it seriously. However, I do not think that I can do better than to paraphrase the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford: if we are to have legislation, we need to be sure about it. In other words, we need to be sure that we are getting it right.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I hope that he will clarify a point about the University of Derby study. Will that include a policy evaluation of the way in which legislation in comparable democratic societies has been framed and operates in practice? I have in mind particularly the two recent Acts enacted in the Republic of Ireland and the legislation in, for example, Canada, New Zealand, the Netherlands and Northern Ireland. Will the study consider that in the way that the Street report did back in 1967, which Sir Geoffrey Howe, as he then was, Geoffrey Bindman and the late Professor Harry Street undertook? They looked at the pattern of legislation in North America, and that was a great help. Will the University of Derby study take that into account, or should it be left to separate initiatives? I have in mind, for example, Professor Hepple's ongoing study into that matter at the moment. I hope that the noble Lord will clarify that matter.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for asking that important question. I am told that the interim report which was published earlier this year, which I have not had the advantage of reading—I would not be at all surprised to hear that the noble Lord has read it—included some references to exactly the points that the noble Lord makes. As we speak, it is not intended that the final report will deal with the matters that he mentions. However, I assure the noble Lord that I shall relate his comments to the Home Office to ensure that when decisions are taken they are taken on the basis of, as it were, comparative studies of what happens elsewhere.

My Lords, this has been a helpful debate. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in it. I am grateful for the support I have received from all sides of the House. I am particularly grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford for having travelled from Liverpool, where he was attending a conference, to speak in the debate.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for his advice, which I take note of. I have taken note of all the advice that has been given. I request the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the state of United Kingdom relations with Russia is satisfactory, in the light of the presidential elections there.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate on an important topic. The debate takes place at a relevant time. Any consideration of our relations with Russia must start with President Putin. My impression is that he is likely to turn out to be a useful person with whom to do business. He has the advantage, which was not available to his predecessor, of commanding a majority in the Duma. He was elected with 53 per cent of the popular vote, which puts him in a strong position.

The policy statements of his government and his own actions give a strong impression that he is a genuine democrat. However, I think that in that connection we have to make two reservations. The first is that he appears to be rather heavy-handed with the media. We have had recent examples of that. Secondly, of course, there is the whole problem of Chechnya. I am sure that noble Lords will agree with me that we support the Government in the representations that they have made to Russia in that connection, and we shall continue to give them our support. Can the Minister who is to reply to the debate report any progress by the commission which President Putin appointed to look into that question?

I wish to raise three other topics. The first concerns economic relations. Russia's economy is in a disastrous situation. The IMF estimates that its GDP is now equivalent to 2 per cent of that of the United States. There has been an immense flight of capital. Domestic demand has fallen dramatically. Capital investment has dropped every year for the past 12 years. Of course the European Union has an interest in the success of the Russian economy. The European Union accounts for 40 per cent of Russia's trade. It is in our interest to help Russia, if we are allowed to do so. We can help by encouraging the development of institutions which will help the rule of law and by encouraging observation of the rule of law. Those are two key factors in the future of Russia's economy. We can help Russia to prepare for admission to the World Trade Organisation.

The next subject I want to cover is the question of ballistic missile defence. That is even more important than the two topics I have already mentioned. Noble Lords will be familiar with the proposals that President Clinton has put forward in recent days for anti-ballistic missile screens in Alaska and in the rest of the United States. It is pretty clear that if those projects went forward, they would involve a breach of the antiballistic missile treaty, unless that treaty were amended.

I was intrigued by a reply which the Minister gave to a Starred Question on 18th May on this subject. She said that the Government had been speaking to Moscow and Washington about the ABM treaty and the need for an agreement. I am rather surprised that that remark—which I believe is important—has not, as far as I know, been taken up in the House. Will she elaborate on that when she replies? Will she say what the Government want to see in the agreement to which she referred, if it can be achieved? What do the Government see as the United Kingdom's role?

Ballistic missile defence is a matter of great interest to countries other than the United States and Russia, not least to the United Kingdom. There is a very important question as to whether, if such an antiballistic missile system were installed, it would work. I know of no proof that it would. I foresee that we might have a long and difficult process of negotiation, involving many countries, only to find after all that, with all the pain it would entail, the system did not work.

If the matter is mishandled there are some serious dangers—danger of the loss of START II; failure to embark on START III negotiations; failure to achieve any international agreement on the control of fissile material; dangerous consequences perhaps for the effectiveness of our own nuclear deterrent; and in particular a worsening of relations between Russia and the West, which could be serious and long-lasting.

Why is President Clinton in such a hurry? I am not convinced that there is the need for hurry that he seems to feel. As I understand it, he was proposing to make a decision on the matter this summer. It is clear from last weekend's discussions between the two presidents that any agreement, if it is achieved at all, will take some time to achieve. I do not see how it can be achieved by this summer.

Nevertheless, last weekend's meeting had some constructive results. The statement of principles is quite important. It reaffirmed the ABM treaty, but agreed that it could be amended. It showed an acceptance by Mr. Putin that there is a threat from rogue states; the first time, I think, that Russia has accepted that. It agreed that 68 tonnes of weapons-grade plutonium would be made unusable by the two participant countries. It also agreed that a joint centre would be set up in Moscow, manned by nationals of the two countries, to exchange information about launches of ballistic missiles, including, in due course, missiles launched from countries other than the two directly involved. That agreement has potential for interesting development.

The third question that I want to raise is that of the broader political relations between us and Russia. Critical engagement, which I understand is the phrase that the Government are inclined to use, particularly about Chechnya, is not enough when we look at our relations with Russia as a whole. We should be bolder than aspiring simply to that, because Russia is no longer a belligerent and stubborn enemy. We should achieve better results in understanding its concerns, especially the concern that is quite clear from recent Russian official documents, since President Putin has been in office—the concern not to be sidelined.

The best example of a mistake made by the West in that context occurred in Kosovo, when NATO provided no role for Russia in peace-keeping planned to take place after the ceasefire, despite the fact that the ceasefire was secured by Mr. Chernomyrdin, the former Russian Prime Minister, working with President Ahtisaari of Finland. That led, we will all remember, to the dramatic seizure by the Russian forces of Pristina airport. The Russian proposal was to overfly Eastern Europe with several thousand troops corning into Kosovo, which was thwarted only by the courageous refusal of, I think, three East European countries to allow them to overfly.

The reality is that we avoided a clash between the West and Russia by a fairly narrow margin. I have never understood, and have never seen explained, how NATO failed to provide in advance for a Russian role. The Prime Minister played a prominent part in NATO's affairs at the time. KFOR had its origins in NATO's rapid reaction corps, in which the United Kingdom has a central place. After the Pristina airport event NATO rapidly found a role for Russia, which shows that it could have been found in advance. I do not understand how that failure occurred.

I shall be interested to hear the noble Baroness's reaction to that question, because it seems to me that that incident, along with others that I do not have time to go into, has rankled in the minds of especially the Russian military ever since. That accounts to a large extent for the tougher and more militant line that Russia has taken in its external affairs. We must recognise that Russia has great potential for trouble for the West if we do not secure a more lasting and better relationship with it. It could, for example, accentuate the selling to other countries of arms, including nuclear materials, for which it has already been to some extent responsible. If it lost faith in the West, or had bad relations with the West, it could one day team up with China, if ever China became more hostile.

The best way of influencing Russia for the better in the future is to determine to establish warmer and closer relations, and especially to understand Russia's concerns better. In the past few days President Clinton has said that the European Union and the United States should integrate Russia into the world community and that,

"no doors can be sealed shut to Russia—not NATO's, not the European Union's".

I do not go as far as that, but at least he was pointing in the right direction.

My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest. I have various business links with Russia. Secondly, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, for putting down this Unstarred Question. We are having an extremely important debate, and I am sorry that there are not more Peers participating in it.

As an aside, I would pick up the noble Lord's second point, about the importance of the ABM Treaty and the national missile defence issue, which President Clinton and President Putin debated over the weekend. Yesterday I was at the assembly of WEU where we debated the issue. The consensus there was that it was likely to dominate relations between Russia and the United States for the next decade. It will be of huge importance.

I initiated a debate about relations with Russia on 6th April 1998. That debate concentrated on trade relations with Russia and with the former Soviet Union as a whole. I was rereading the debate this afternoon. All the broad points that one can make today were made then: the need for long-term investment, for long-term relationships and for a multifaceted approach to building institutional relationships. While those broad points are true, there has been a roller-coaster ride over the past couple of years for those who have invested in Russia. Some of the major British investments proudly mentioned in the debate two years ago have since turned sour. People are even more cautious about investing new money in Russia in the current climate.

I do not want to concentrate on trade. I want to mention some other issues to do with our relationship as a whole with Russia. I want to mention Chechnya, which has dominated our relationship in recent months. My noble friend the Minister has answered a number of questions about Chechnya and has rightly referred to the need for a critical engagement with Russia on the issue. She will know that our noble friend Lord Judd has been at the forefront of that critical engagement through his work with the Council of Europe where Russia has now been suspended from the parliamentary assembly. Members of the parliamentary assembly will be looking to see the results of that critical engagement before they consider restoring the voting rights of the members of the Duma and will see what progress the Russian Government have made in response to that critical engagement.

As to other institutional arrangements—a point touched on in a slightly different way by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker—I, too, wish to talk about NATO. I shall argue a different point from the noble Lord. I believe that NATO is proving quite constructive in rebuilding relations with Russia, particularly over recent months. We have seen the NATO/Russia permanent joint council start working again; and we have seen KFOR operating quite effectively with Russian troops as a part of it and Russian commanders in NATO. It is interesting that the tough security and defence institutions are finding it easier to work with the Russian Government than are the human rights-based institutions such as the Council of Europe and the OSCE.

This was a point emphasised to me on Monday at the WEU assembly. We were addressed by Javier Solana, the European Union high representative, and there was an opportunity for parliamentarians, including Russian parliamentarians, to ask him questions. He was asked about his personal relationship with President Putin and he gave a very convincing answer. He said that he had met him on a number of occasions and had discussed a number of issues in great depth. He certainly made the argument that President Putin was very interested in developments in European security and the missile issues to which we have referred. I doubt whether representatives from human rights institutions such as the Council of Europe would have had quite such a positive response to their discussions with President Putin. I am arguing that, somewhat paradoxically, there are greater opportunities for constructive diplomacy through these security-based institutions than there are through human rights-based institutions.

I—like everyone in the debate, I suspect—have made many Russian friends over the past 10 years or so. A point worth repeating is that personal relationships seem to be more important in Russia than in other parts of the world. They are fundamental to doing business and achieving ends. Here in London, of course, it is now very common to hear Russian spoken in the streets, on the buses—everywhere. My noble friend Lady Smith of Gilmorehill has done a huge amount of work to foster relations between the Russian Duma and the Westminster Parliament.

Criticism is part of the nature of a mature and growing relationship. A constructive criticism—which I know is the approach taken by the Government—is something we can offer Russia without undermining our growing friendship.

I have briefly talked about trade, about Chechnya, about security and defence and about the general spirit of a critical engagement among friends. I have suggestions in each of those areas.

On trade, I agree completely with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, that it is about building competence in Russian institutions. The Russians themselves have lost all confidence in their banks, in their law and in their institutions. I very much hope that the Know-How Fund and the TACIS funds and the like will be increasingly directed towards helping the Russians to rebuild their institutions so that the Russian people themselves have faith in them.

As to Chechnya, ultimately the ball is in the Russians' court to demonstrate that they understand the European Convention on Human Rights, having signed up to it when they joined the Council of Europe.

As to security and defence, there is a paradox here. There are tremendous opportunities in security and defence for building a number of relationships at different levels. As I have argued before, I believe that such institutions are in advance of other institutions in re-establishing relations with Russia.

The Unstarred Question asks whether relations with Russia are satisfactory in the light of the presidential elections. I suspect that my Russian friends would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, when he said that President Putin is a man with whom we can do business. From different political parties, they all say to me that he is honest, he is young and he is able. They are all more hopeful for their future than they were a year or so ago.

I hope that when my noble friend replies to the debate she will speak about the range of our relationship with the Russians and the Russian Government, and how she will seek to shape that relationship, with criticism and with encouragement, to build a deeper understanding in the future.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, for initiating the debate. It is a privilege to participate in a debate initiated by someone with such a distinguished career in the field of international relations.

I am aware that other speakers in the debate are taking, and will take, a wide geopolitical view of the relationships between the UK and Russia and the prospects after the recent elections. I should like to focus more narrowly, if I may, on questions which are nevertheless very important: a question of human rights and a question of reform in an area of human rights where the UK Government have played, and are playing, a supportive role.

First, I wish to echo the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, and to draw your Lordships' attention to the report by Human Rights Watch published on 2nd June which highlighted more human rights abuses in Chechnya. The report describes killing, arson, rape and looting in Aldi, a suburb of Grozny, on 5th February this year by Russian not police and contract soldiers, and it calls on the Russian Government to bring those responsible to justice. The abuses reported by Human Rights Watch are appalling, and I hope that the Government will continue to make it clear to the Russian authorities that some effective action must be taken to bring those responsible to justice.

I also want to draw attention to another report. This is a report in the Moscow Times of Saturday 27th May, which states:

"The State Duma voted unanimously Friday to approve an amnesty intended to release up to 120,000 inmates from the country's overcrowded, underfunded, tuberculosis-ridden prisons".

The report says that the amnesty was approved by a vote in the Duma of 385 to nil. This is a cause for congratulation. This amnesty is greatly needed. The Russian prison situation is indeed an abuse of human rights.

Perhaps I may declare an interest. I have been involved in prison reform in Russia since 1991 in my capacity as a board member of the international non-governmental organisation Penal Reform International. I must also declare that the International Centre for Prison Studies in King's College, London, where I am a senior research fellow, is also working on prison reform in Russia. In particular, a new project is just beginning at the international centre, supported by the Department for International Development, which will create a three-year working partnership between the pre-trial prisons in Moscow and prisons in England and Wales and Northern Ireland.

On 12th January, I spoke in your Lordships' House on the subject of the epidemic of tuberculosis in Russian prisons. Perhaps I may allude to the facts that I presented then. It is estimated by the Russian authorities that about 96,000 of the 1 million Russian prisoners have active tuberculosis, and that between 20 per cent and 40 per cent of those have a variety of tuberculosis that is resistant to the main anti-tuberculosis drugs. This resistant strain of tuberculosis is highly contagious and responds only to a long course of drugs that are very expensive.

So, the Russian prison situation is not just a human rights issue; it is also a public health issue; and an issue of relations between our two countries since TB is highly contagious. Many thousands of prisoners leave prison every year and take their untreated or half-treated infection with them. With the growth in international travel, such diseases spread very rapidly from one country to another.

On Sunday 27th May, I visited Mattroskaya Tischina pre-trial prison in Moscow. I visited the TB section where there are hundreds of prisoners with active TB. The cells were slightly less overcrowded than the normal prison cells. In the TB section each cell holds about 20 people, sleeping in bunks in two tiers. I pay tribute to the dedicated prison medical staff I have met in Russia who work very hard, with limited resources, well beyond the call of duty. The staff claimed that their medicine supply was just adequate, and that they had the facilities to test for drug resistance and to change the drugs if resistance was found.

We also visited the normal cells, which hold more people than there are beds. Those prisoners who were allocated the day sleeping shift, while others sat on the floor, slept soundly on while a party of about 10 people crowded into their packed cell to talk to the prisoners held there. That is what that prison is like after a great improvement in the situation. The governor told us that the number of prisoners he was locking up had gone down from 6,500 to 4,500 thanks to the efforts of the government to speed up the trial process.

The TB situation is very bad, so I should like to ask the Minister in her reply to tell us how the Government's plans to help with that are taking shape; whether they are yet in operation; what is the position on the promised World Bank loan for TB control and treatment; and whether that loan will help the situation in the prisons.

Another threat is now emerging: HIV infection and AIDS. The figures are frightening. The World Health Organisation reports a massive rise in the rate of HIV infection in Russia in 1999 and its spread into cities where until that year it was completely unknown. Prisons are becoming reservoirs of HIV infection. I ask the Minister whether the Government have plans to offer help with this also so that the HIV epidemic does not reach the same proportions as that in relation to tuberculosis.

The situation in the prisons seems intractable. But against that impression, we have to set the determination of the Russian authorities to bring about change.

In 1996 the Russian Federation joined the Council of Europe, and by so doing accepted that it would work to achieve European standards in its prisons. I am sure that the Council of Europe would feel that it had received great co-operation from the Russian authorities in trying to implement that enormous change.

In June 1998 the Russian Federation took another great step and transferred responsibility for the prison service from the Ministry of the Interior to the Ministry of Justice. It was an enormous upheaval and it is reported that it was carried out successfully.

In October 1999 Vladimir Putin, before he became president, visited Kresty prison in St Petersburg. That prison was built to hold 3,000 prisoners. At the time of his visit it was holding 10,000 prisoners. That moved him to say that action had to be taken.

In Europe there are 2 million prisoners. More than 1 million of those prisoners are in Russia. The imprisonment rate in the Russian Federation is the highest in the world, with the United States a close second. So the amnesty that passed through the Russian Parliament on 26th May was a most hopeful sign and should be warmly welcomed. There is one problem with it, however: 120,000 prisoners, including 10,000 juveniles, will be released from prison. They will be let loose, many of them destitute and with few alternatives to a return to petty crime.

Resettlement arrangements for released prisoners in Russia are patchy and in some places non-existent. I wonder therefore whether the Minister could look at the suggestion of adding to the range of issues being discussed with Russian officials the possibility of giving help with the resettlement of ex-prisoners. That is an area where UK experience is extensive and where help could be effectively given, and would, I am sure, be well received. I look forward to the Minister's response.

My Lords, I warmly congratulate my noble friend Lord Blaker on introducing this debate on this very important subject, at a time when Russia is at such an historic, critical, inevitably challenging and sometimes painful transition from 70 years of Soviet communism to a free-market based democracy.

The people of Russia have achieved a very great deal in the past decade in the establishment of democracy, economic reform and civil society. They have also had to confront many challenges to their internal and external security, most formidably from the recent Islamist terrorist-instigated wars in Chechnya and Dagestan.

Inevitably, there have been mistakes which have incurred legitimate criticism within Russia and from the international community. But a balanced appraisal is essential if Russia is to receive the support I believe it deserves and which is it is in the interests of this country to provide.

In the short time available, I will comment briefly on the political and economic aspects of Russia's achievements, with particular reference to the establishment of civil society, and on the implications of the war in Chechnya, as they have been highlighted by President Putin.

The political achievements are evident in the "New Russia" which emerged just a decade ago, which is fundamentally different from its tsarist or its communist past. An ideology-based, authoritarian society has been transformed into an open society, and the peaceful transition of presidential power by democratic elections, political pluralism, freedom of expression and a market economy, all of which are functions and touchstones of democracy, have been achieved.

As President Putin said in his inaugural speech:

"A change of power is a test for the constitutional system. It is a test for its strength. But this test we have overcome with dignity. We have proved that Russia is becoming a really democratic modern state… The way to a free society was not simple and easy… The construction of a democratic state was not simple or easy. The construction of a democratic state is far from complete, but a lot has been done".

There are still deep problems: notoriously widespread corruption; an entrenched Mafia; economic insecurity and poverty for many people, especially the elderly and the unemployed, as the stabilities of the old system are swept away. But the Duma, strengthened by last year's parliamentary elections, and a new president committed to strong leadership, with the opportunity for stable interaction between executive and legislative branches of government, now give Russia an unprecedented opportunity for legislation to address these urgent problems.

In this process, Russia needs support and understanding. The Duma and presidential elections reflect a new development in the political culture of Russia. The Duma is attaining more power and respect. Even though the presidency is very strong, it is working with the Duma; and there is growing respect throughout Russia for the legitimacy of the institutions of civil society. This is a very important development in the growth of democracy, and an encouraging indication of the emergence of a healthy political and economic system. I believe that it is cause for hope that Russia has crossed the point of no return in its transition from a cynical political communist system, trusted by no-one, to a western-style democracy with growing public trust in the legal system and the rule of law. Indeed the importance of the rule of law was appropriately highlighted by my noble friend Lord Blaker and by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby.

At the individual level, there are comparable signs of hope. For example, in Christian Solidarity World-wide, we are privileged to be working with the Russian Federation Ministry of Education and with Moscow city government. At their invitation, we are helping to change the policy of care for orphaned and abandoned children away from the Soviet system of incarceration in brutalising institutions to promoting foster family care. We have been profoundly impressed by the commitment, professionalism and sheer goodness of vast numbers of Russian people in implementing this fundamental reform, essential for the development of civil society.

I was particularly interested in the experiences just described by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, of positive developments in what had been an horrendous prison system, and also in the problem of tuberculosis. Merlin—Medical Emergency Relief International—with which I am working, is undertaking a major tuberculosis programme in Siberia, based in Tomsk. There are formidable problems, but there has been great progress. Merlin received international acclaim, and that was very much due to our Russian colleagues.

But too often the media have focused on the problems, presenting negative, and I believe one-sided; images of Russia, and nowhere more so than with the tragic war in Chechnya. I do not minimise the suffering of the Chechen people. Merlin, which I have already mentioned, has been deeply involved in humanitarian relief work there. But I am concerned that the situation has been inadequately presented by the media, which have tended to demonise Russia and have failed to apportion any significant blame to Chechnya. Whatever the history of Russian-Chechen relations, the situation in Chechnya in the 1990s deteriorated to widespread terrorism and anarchy, with gross violations of human rights, murders, abductions, public executions, torture and terrorist activities. Russia could not stand by.

Russia then faced a direct confrontation by an estimated 25,000 to 30,000 terrorists, including veteran Islamist jihad warriors, who had moved into Chechnya with an agenda to take over not just Chechnya, but also Dagestan and other countries in the Caucasus such as Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh and, ultimately, the Caspian oil basin.

The evidence for this analysis is available, but time does not permit me to present it this evening. However, Congressman McCullom, speaking in the US House of Representatives, summarised this evidence effectively. He said that,

"there looms an escalation in and beyond Chechnya. Spearheaded by Islamist forces, including terrorists from several Middle Eastern countries, Pakistan and Afghanistan, the new cycle of fighting is expected to spread into the entire region for geo-strategic reasons. The surge of Islamist terrorism is likely to serve as a catalyst for the eruption of the tension and acrimony building throughout the entire Caucasus.

Having just returned from a trip to Russia, including Chechnya, German BND Chief August Hanning reported to the Bundestag that the situation in the Caucasus had 'escalated dangerously'.… the fighting in Chechnya will not only escalate, but also spread to the fringes of the Russian Federation and to the rest of the Caucasus. Hanning is most alarmed by these prospects because the Islamist forces in Chechnya are supported and guided by the Afghan Taliban and by the globally operating terrorist bin Laden as well as by groups of Islamist mercenaries. Through these channels, Hanning found out, the Chechen forces have been provided with large quantities of modern weapons including 'Stinger-type' anti-aircraft missiles. Hanning warned the Bundestag of the dire strategic and economic ramifications for the West if the Chechnya war spread to Georgia, Dagestan, Ingushetia, and the rest of the Caucasus".

Congressman McCullom concludes very briefly:

"The United States must support the Russian endeavour to control the Islamist upsurge in the Caucasus before terrorism gets out of control."

I think that the world should be more appreciative of what Russia has done to contain that terrorism. Whatever critical dialogue it may be engaged in, that is a front line that Russia has held for the rest of the world. I should therefore like to ask the Minister for an assurance that the Government of this country are not in any way supporting those who are fighting against Russia in Chechnya, and I look forward with great interest to the answer to that question.

Perhaps I may conclude by urging the Government to do everything in their power to support President Putin and his colleagues as they strive to enable Russia to develop as a free, open society and to make its own distinctive contribution to the international family of democratic nations.

My Lords, I wish the Putin presidency well. Certainly, Russia is a proud nation with inestimable burdens and seemingly unsure about its position in the world. There is, however, no doubt about the importance of welcoming Russia as a working partner.

In some ways the president is a contradictory figure—proud of his Soviet values and its institutions but he has shown himself, as with Chechnya, to be ruthless, with no latitude; some would say authoritarian. He clearly has a firm view of national interests and talks of the need to preserve democratic principles, but will then stress the need to maintain stability.

Some are deeply sceptical about where a Putin presidency will take Russia, citing all manner of indicators and suggesting policies falling short of western ideals.

These are early days, but I believe we should have no illusions about with whom we shall be dealing. For all those reasons, it is absolutely right that our Prime Minister should have engaged in the manner that he did, so allowing for British interests to impact at the earliest opportunity.

Russia faces many challenges. The degree of continuing state influence and crime and corruption, together with the pace of embracing democratic principles, would inevitably further economic decline. Although I believe that there will be trappings of democracy, they will not develop into civil society. By extension to that, vital to Russian interests will be the need to attract foreign investment and economic assistance. The Minister should, I believe, impress on the president the worldwide competition for both and the need to create a conducive environment, including a commitment to the rule of law. Indicators suggest that President Putin is sensitive to IMF programmes and creditor concerns. That is helpful, particularly because his chief economic adviser is a staunch liberal.

I take a special interest in CIS affairs and believe that we shall see a more coherent and assertive regional policy. Neighbouring Baltic states report a sea change in Russian policies since Putin's arrival on the national scene. In addition, Afghanistan and all that it stands for will have to be addressed. I should very much like to know whether the Prime Minister had the opportunity of discussing any form of assistance with the president in matters relating.

I am also of the view that special attention should be paid to Russian sensitivities. While presidents Clinton and Putin are to be congratulated on their recent Moscow initiatives, the proposed American missile defence system taps into Russian fears or western double-dealing. Russia could react adversely, but then again we have to address any legitimate concerns that we have while working to create an atmosphere of businesslike accommodation.

It is unclear to me who is in the sphere of influence in Moscow. To what extent are the old guard excluded and are we now dealing with a new band of post-communists? All in all, given the upcoming American elections, interesting times lie ahead.

My Lords, it is a convention of the House to thank those who introduce debates of this kind. However, my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Blaker—

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene. It is my understanding that the first person to speak after the speaker who initiates a debate can thank that speaker. That convention then extends to all contributors. I do, of course, thank the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, but I wish to stress that I meant no ill-intent by not doing so earlier.

My Lords, I certainly did not intend to imply any element of criticism of the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. I wished simply to say that my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, go far beyond the conventional response. I believe that both the terms in which he introduced this debate and the extraordinary quality of the contributions show how valuable it has been. I repeat that in no way did I in tend to imply a reprimand of any other Peer in the House.

Perhaps I may begin by saying that I have had the benefit of returning from Russia very recently. I serve on the board of the Moscow School of Political Studies, which each year hosts a number of seminars for Russian parliamentarians at both the national and provincial levels. I have just completed a week of attendance at a seminar held in Golitsynu, near Moscow, where many of the issues surrounding the election of President Putin and their consequences were discussed in great depth.

Two points clearly emerged from our debates at the seminar and they shadow much of what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, in his contribution. First, there was the absolute determination of President Putin not to allow the break-up of Russia. Clearly he and some of those around him believe that the Chechen war was an indication of the possibility of disintegration of the Russian Federation. One might say that perhaps almost the very first principle to which President Putin is totally and absolutely committed is that there shall be no further break-up of Russia.

I think that the second commitment to which he is absolutely dedicated is that the rule of law must apply throughout the whole of the Russian Federation. Noble Lords will have noticed the appointment of seven regional super-governors, who have the power to tell the elected governors of the 89 regions of Russia what to do. It is a very striking example of the willingness of Vladimir Putin to go a very long way and to take considerable risks to re-establish the rule of law.

Having said that, however, it is important to make a qualification. Given the Russian constitution, the rule of law implies obedience to presidential decrees, which may not have been debated or approved by the Duma. To revert to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, it would therefore be perhaps a little over-optimistic to suggest that Russia is already a complete democracy. It is a country on the way to democracy. It has not yet quite achieved that.

With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and others have said about the second war of Chechnya, I would like to report back on a few other things I found in Russia—which may or may not be correct, but which go some way to bear out what the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said.

I would give no ground to anybody who suggested that the reaction of the Russian Federation to what happened in the second war of Chechnya was in any sense proportionate to the terrible things that occurred there. The concept of proportionality, that the use of force should not exceed the challenge made to a sovereign state, was certainly breached in the case of Chechnya. The methods selected by the Russian government at the time, which involved the total destruction of a large number of cities and small towns, was, at least in western eyes today, an unacceptable reaction. It would be as if we had laid flat Belfast when we first encountered the IRA.

The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is also right to say that the challenge in Chechnya has not been properly or fairly covered by the British media. Let me give just two examples. I did not fully appreciate, and I have less knowledge than many people in the Chamber tonight, what had happened in Chechnya and I have not visited Chechnya myself. There were two things that struck me very forcefully. One was the almost casual breach of the peace agreement reached in Khasavyurt in 1996 by the then Russian government and the leaders of Chechnya: an agreement which went a very long way to concede autonomy to the Chechen Republic on domestic matters, and which was virtually thrown aside by the Chechen leaders without any serious attempt to make it work. At least, that is certainly my impression.

The second thing which is worth saying, especially in the light of the extraordinary and fascinating, if very disturbing, account given by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, is that in February 1999 Chechnya reintroduced the Sharia law, which carries with it public executions and mutilations as punishment for relatively minor crimes; that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said, literally hundreds of people have been executed or mutilated under the Sharia law since February 1999 and, furthermore, that the introduction of Sharia law into Chechnya immediately put the Russian Federation in breach of its own commitment to the Council of Europe, which had led to the suspension of capital punishment in a country which had used capital punishment extensively. This led directly to a sense, on the part of the Russian Government, that its sovereignty was being challenged and indeed that its right to rule in the Russian Federation, including in Chechnya, was being challenged.

I do agree—let alone the attack on Dagestan, let alone the apartment bombings—that there were very strong reasons why Russian public opinion powerfully supported the government on the second war in Chechnya in a way that it had not done in the first war in Chechnya between 1993 and 1995.

I repeat, that does not excuse some of the extreme military methods used; but I believe that we need to look at a somewhat more balanced analysis of Chechnya than our own media have so far allowed us to undertake.

Let me say just a word about the economy, where there has been some improvement. There has been a rate of growth in the past year of 6.8 per cent and an expectation in the coming year of a rate of growth of about 5 per cent plus. There is also a bit of good news in that the oil and gas price increases enabled the Putin government to pay off substantial arrears of unpaid salaries of teachers, policemen and many others, and indeed unpaid pensioners. Although the plight of Russia remains extremely serious, therefore, with very large parts of the population still in poverty, there has been some alleviation of what was a grim situation.

Here, I part company slightly from the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, having had the privilege of hearing Mr Illianov, the president's new economic adviser, only four days ago. Although I fully accept that he is unquestionably, in a very old-fashioned sense, a liberal, some of the propositions he has put forward under the Gref programme for virtually wiping out what remains of the social provision in Russia, frankly, disturb me greatly. This is a country in which there are already extreme inequalities. Therefore, for example, to expect most people to pay fees for education and for even the minimum health provision is, to say the least, a little disturbing. As the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, indicated, in a globalised world one cannot shut people's ill health in on themselves. The rest of us have to encounter the consequences, quite apart from our moral commitment to doing something about it.

I turn finally to the important points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, followed by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, and others, with regard to Russia's foreign policy. I strongly agree with their remarks about national missile defence. When I was in Russia, I was told in so many words that the Russians would be extremely reluctant to amend the anti-ballistic missile treaty—and heaven knows, one understands that, especially in the light of Russia's willingness to ratify START II and possibly START III if it is encouraged so to do. But the other thing which, frankly, made my blood run a little cold was being told in the high levels of the National Security Council that Russia would have to consider "MIR Ving" its existing warheads if the United States were to go ahead without any compromise being reached. I am sure that Members of this House who are aware of how weakly guarded some of the warheads are, and how dangerous is the problem of deterioration over the years, share my concern about any possibility of moving towards multiple re-entry vehicles attached to those warheads.

I conclude with three brief questions to the Minister. First, is she satisfied that Russia is being given enough help to meet fully the requirements it has entered into under the Council of Europe? Secondly, will she give an assurance that NATO will not be expanded into the Baltic states without full discussion with the new Russian Government? This is undoubtedly a matter of profound concern in that country. Thirdly, does she agree that there should be an attempt as early as possible to reach a more generous trading relationship between the European Union and Russia, including exchanges of assistance and help in the kinds of fields discussed by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern. In other words, will Her Majesty's Government do their very best in the Council of Ministers to try to create closer relations between the European Union and Russia, at a time when it is obvious that the Russian Federation is extremely keen to establish closer relations with the European Union, with which it feels itself to be historically and ultimately likely to be connected?

My Lords, the timing of this debate could hardly be more appropriate and the quality has been very high. My noble friend Lord Blaker has done us all a great service in promoting it at this time. My noble friend began with a sobering, indeed staggering, statistic which we should do well to bear in mind; namely, that the gross domestic product of the Russian Federation amounts to less than 2 per cent of the GDP of the United States of America. The one is in the range of about 180 billion dollars, the other in the range of some 9 trillion dollars.

Of course, all these statistics are elastic. We have no real idea of what is going on in the Russian economy. Large parts of it are black and large parts are Mafia-controlled. I do not think anyone imagines that members of the Mafia are particularly assiduous in handing in official statistics denoting what they are up to. However, one can reach the sobering conclusion that Russia's economy is extremely poor; it is a very weak country in terms of exploiting its vast national resources, and many parts of that enormous continent are in dire straits, with people on the edge of starvation if not actually starving.

All this has been made worse, not better, by the fact that when the new dawn came and communism was overthrown, Russia was then deluged with exceptionally stupid economic advice from many sources in the West that failed to connect with the realities of the Russian people and their needs. The result has been that Russia is poorer today by far than it need have been. Certainly, the damage to the reputation of economists—that was already pretty low—has been vast, although few of them admit it. That is the first fact that I wanted to share with your Lordships this evening as we come to the end of this debate.

The second fact is a rather obvious one: we are dealing not just with a country but with a vast, disparate collection of races and nations stretching from the centre of Europe through to the Sea of Okhotsk and to the northern islands of Japan. This is something so much greater and larger than any other so-called "nation state" on earth, so we need to be careful about assuming that one can apply the rules of nation states and democratic procedures and make judgments on that basis as if Russia were like anywhere else. It is not. It is extremely difficult to control, as successive rulers of Russia have found, and the present rulers are no different.

We have heard very wide and very well informed comments from people like my noble friend Lady Cox who is familiar with what is going on in Chechnya. We know that the problem of control that the new President Vladimir Putin and his team face is more intense than ever. They are facing a very serious difficulty. It is true that the Chechen Republic used to be called a gangster republic, so they have plenty of justification for being concerned. Whether the Russians have justification for some of the methods they have used is, I think, much more doubtful. There can be no doubt that what is going on in Chechnya, and what has been going on in both wars there, is a process of erosion, rebellion, disintegration and lawlessness which has spread to Dagestan and which could develop in the other five Caucasian republics and elsewhere, which, unless checked, would mean the unravelling of the entire Russian Federation. Those who want to see the Russia of today held together—it is a strange creation: a mixture of the old European Russia and the imperial Russia of the Tsars—have to fight for their lives and for their vast extended nation to see that these rebellions are curbed.

That is the awful, grim scene that faces the rulers in Moscow. Although one does not forgive some of the hideous methods used, one does understand the position that they face, what used to be called in the days of Vietnam a "domino" effect. Perhaps it is better to call it a "ripple" effect because the domino effect turned out to be a false theory. The ripple effect is that if Chechnya goes, so other vast interests of the Russian Federation go, including the oil interests that have been rightly mentioned. The whole Russian orbit of influence in central Asia and near Asia will begin to crumble, as will the confidence and the hopes of the nation itself. That is the scene about which we must be realistic.

There have been enormous achievements and Russia is full of absolutely brilliant and dazzling people. But it is never very clear—even today, dare I say, with a new president—who is the boss of this vast and disparate area that stretches from Europe to Asia. Russia is always looking for a strong man to get a grip on things. Along comes Mr Putin, and high hopes are pinned on him. I think that he understands as well as anyone else that merely preaching democracy from Moscow or mixing with all the glitterati and the think-tanks in the various Moscow brasseries is not going to rule Russia.

For that reason Mr Putin has sent military envoys (as he calls them) with sweeping powers to get a grip on the regions and to take on some governors who otherwise would entertain warlord tendencies and think of ways to disregard Moscow's rule. Mr Putin must be very tough if he is to do this. He has used tough language and threatened the use of missiles against Afghanistan. He has issued a number of decrees in a fairly brisk manner. We shall see more of that, but it will go hand in hand with continuing tensions and difficulties not only in Chechnya but in other republics and semi-autonomous areas of the former Soviet Union. I believe that this will be a long process in which Moscow will face a constant challenge as to whether it handles these difficulties by politics and religion or, as in the case of Chechnya, by the most direct military means, which I believe to be a huge mistake.

Looking at Russia in those slightly gloomy terms, the question is: what are our interests and those of the United States and other European powers? Why does President Clinton spend time with this entity which in terms of its economic clout and importance is smaller than Belgium? The answer is obvious: Russia still has an enormous nuclear arsenal and weaponry. Beyond that, at the moment President Clinton needs something from the Russians. As my noble friend Lord Blaker aptly pointed out, the question is whether the Russians will agree to the modification of the ABM Treaty of 1972, as the Americans hope, in order to allow President Clinton to authorise the beginning of the NMD programme which must start fairly soon. That programme may not work, but it will be expensive. The view of the Americans, which I understand, is that we are moving away from the old world of mutual deterrence to a new and, if it works, potentially better world of the total neutralisation of nuclear missiles, in particular those in the hands of rogue states which believe they can hold the world to ransom.

What have we and President Clinton discovered in dealing with Mr Putin? As the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, said, it is early days and it is difficult to see what will happen. Like many of his advisers, Mr Putin is extremely clever and agile in the world of diplomacy and politics. He has convinced a large part of the European establishment that Russia has a genuine case against the modification of the treaty; that somehow it will badly affect the Russian position and that if there are to be changes, big concessions will be required. He and his colleagues have talked of the possibility, which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, of Russia having to develop its weapons. Some of Mr Putin's advisers have even talked about a new arms race. It has been hinted that there may be some sympathy from the Chinese who also dislike the whole idea of the modification of the ABM Treaty. In the past few days Mr Putin has visited Rome and said that the answer is a common missile system for the whole of Europe. That has echoes of Mr Gorbachev and the reference to the common European home. No one has said who is to pay for it, but the cost will be vast.

Mr Putin appears to have secured some big concessions from President Clinton. During his visit to this country, he also appears to have persuaded the Prime Minister and the Government that Russia has a case which should be taken into account in our talks with the Americans and that future Russian sensitivities are very important and should be considered. That is a pretty remarkable achievement by Mr Putin who has very little behind him. Russia's economy, which is minuscule, is nearly wrecked. I do not go as far as to say that it is all bluff, but the truth is that Russia lacks the money even to modify and maintain its present rocket systems. We do not even know the state of half of the missiles in its silos, and it certainly does not have the money to develop new arms systems. To that extent, Mr Putin cannot possibly carry out that aspect of his threat or negotiating stance.

We should like to know from the Minister—perhaps not tonight but later on—where the British Government stand on the NMD issue. We told Mr Putin that there are worries, but the Prime Minister also told the Americans that we shall allow Fylingdales to be upgraded. I am not sure whether one can play both ends against the middle. I believe that we should either support or not support the Americans in this matter.

My view is that the Russians have nothing to worry about in modifying the treaty. We must be positive and friendly with Russia, help it to get through the agonising difficulties that lie ahead, and open all trade routes. However, we should not fall for the old-fashioned bluster and narrow nationalism which one hears in parts of the Moscow establishment and which has no place in today's international order.

Therefore, I pay tribute to the dexterity of the Russians, their brilliant diplomacy and their ability with very few resources to achieve a great deal. However, in my view we must not be deflected by that from sensible security developments and from building as stable a post-Cold War system as possible which could lead finally to a world free of the real threat of nuclear war which characterised the Cold War years.

My Lords, I, too, add my voice of thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, for instituting this very timely debate. Perhaps I may say respectfully that the speeches from all noble Lords have been of extremely high quality. I believe that it does honour to the House when such a broad-ranging issue is debated so well.

The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, raised three critical issues: first, economic relations; secondly, nuclear missile defence and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty; and, thirdly, the concern with regard to sidelining Russia. Those issues were echoed by virtually all noble Lords who followed. They raised the need for balance and the need to respond appropriately to Russia in all her complexity.

Of course, we have a new government in Moscow. As a number of noble Lords have already said, that new government are beginning to reveal their intentions and policies. There has been significant activity in the UK/Russia relationship, with progress towards a strong and frank partnership. However, the bloody conflict in Chechnya continues to undermine Russia's progress towards democracy and respect for human rights.

Some noble Lords may have seen the speech that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, made at Chatham House last February on foreign policy and national interest. In that speech he argued that in the modern world globalisation required more bridges and fewer barriers; that the global interest was becoming the national interest; and that the global community needed universal values. Therefore, Britain had adopted a conscious policy of critical engagement with other countries: the pursuit of political dialogue wherever it can produce benefits.

My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary went on to argue that the biggest challenge for that policy of critical engagement was developing the right strategies to accommodate post-Soviet Russia as a willing partner in the global economy and in global security. The election of the new president, with the prospect of change in the Russian political climate, offers a significant opportunity to push forward that policy and our relations. Both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have made a personal commitment to making that happen. This year has seen a remarkable level of bilateral contact between the UK and Russia, from the Prime Minister's two meetings with President Putin in the space of four months to the frequent contacts at Foreign Minister and senior official level. Neither side can be in much doubt about the views of the other on the key issues of the day.

As a result, there is a realism on both sides over the scale of the challenges ahead if Russia's transformation to a market economy is to be achieved and supported by the Russian population. I believe that a number of noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord Blaker, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Howell—rightly raised the issue of how that economy can be supported and what needs to be done.

Russia faces a crushing budgetary burden—notably a welfare system which provides benefits for two-thirds of the population. It also has a huge military establishment, including 5,000 strategic nuclear warheads, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, made mention. That establishment is funded by an economy smaller than that of Switzerland, a point rightly highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker.

President Putin assured the Prime Minister that he is determined to create the conditions needed to unlock confidence and investment to kick start long-term sustainable growth. We welcome that. He also said that he wants to maintain political stability and improving living standards. Those statements are encouraging, but we shall look for early action and implementation of reform in key areas. Early agreement to Part II of the tax code and to money laundering legislation would be useful steps. The advice and technical assistance that we have provided to Russia is designed to help to address those huge problems.

We echo the concern expressed by all noble Lords about the economy. Of course there are questions. Has reform started, and where is it going? We know that the jury is out on that, but the initial signs are good—the appointment of economic reformers to key ministries; co-operation with the International Monetary Fund on new programmes; and the appointment of liberal economic advisers to work on the economic reform programme. We shall have to wait for those programmes to be agreed with the International Monetary Fund and implemented, but the signs are there. The economy has started to pick up. There has been 3 per cent growth of GDP in 1999.

The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, raised an interesting issue as regards what was done to engage Russia before Pristina. Perhaps I may say, in response, that we need to draw attention to the role played by General Sir Michael Jackson in resolving that situation. As a result, Russia was engaged and we learnt valuable, cogent lessons which improved and enhanced our ability to work. Whatever the genesis, the result, thankfully, was positive.

I turn to the issue of NMD, which has been highlighted by a number of noble Lords. We need to recognise four issues in relation to the American position. First, they have not made a final decision as to whether or not they wish to employ NMD. There are four criteria which they will apply: first, the recognition of the threat (we now have the agreement of the Russians that there is, indeed, a threat); secondly, the technical ability to set up the system and whether it will work; thirdly, cost; and fourthly, international opinion.

As regards all those issues, other than the acknowledged threat, the jury is still out for the Americans too. Contrary to the indication given by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, they have not asked for us to upgrade Fylingdales. That request has not yet been made. We are trying to engage both sides so that each understands the anxieties and concerns of the other. We hope to enhance their opportunity to understand one another and, therefore, to come to a reasonable agreement as a way forward. We note that the ABM Treaty has been amended before, satisfactorily. We stress to both sides that it could be amended again if they so choose. We recognise that we are not parties to that treaty and therefore do not have a direct voice. However, we have an opportunity to speak, it is to be hoped with a degree of cogency and support, for a valuable solution.

There is thus a window of opportunity to engage Russia under her new presidency. The UK is determined to seize this opportunity and encourage better links with a more open and constructive Russia. The problems, though, are huge. Several noble Lords have alluded to the areas where Russia continues to pursue policies which run counter to our aims and principles.

If we are to influence Russia, we see no alternative but to discuss our disagreements openly and seek to encourage a more positive course. The prize—a Russia integrated and engaged with the rest of the international community on the basis of shared beliefs and values—would be of considerable benefit to the peace, security and stability of Europe and the wider world. I welcome all the comments made by noble Lords in appreciating that reality. It would enable us to tackle the problems that are high on the global agenda more effectively, from drugs to the environment to crime. That is very much our vision. It will not be easy, but there is much at stake and much to try for.

If I may, I shall deal briefly with some of the more specific questions raised by noble Lords, and start first with the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, who, in her very erudite exposition, raised the recent Human Rights Watch report on Chechnya. It makes disturbing reading and we share many of its concerns. We have repeatedly urged Russia to ensure full and transparent investigations of human rights abuses and we agree with Human Rights Watch that it is vital that Russia should resolve the details delaying the return of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe's assistance group to Chechnya, and the arrival of the three Council of Europe secondees to the office of the Presidential Representative on Human Rights in Chechnya.

The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, also raised the serious problems of tuberculosis, HIV and AIDS. The UK is active on those issues. We are sponsoring two pilot projects in Tomsk, one of which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, to tackle TB, plus a project to reduce transmission of HIV among injecting drug users. The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, asked about the proposed World Bank loan to assist with TB-related problems in Russia. I can tell your Lordships that a 150 million dollar loan has been agreed over 10 years. That loan should be approved by the autumn of this year and disbursement will begin early in 2001.

We are also active in penal reform. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office funded a penal reform project for Russia and eastern Europe worth £250,000. It helps prisoners to share best practice, including self-sufficiency schemes, and DFID is planning a project of alternatives to imprisonment which will work in two or three pilot regions in Russia. Like the noble Baroness, we welcome the amnesty for 120,000 prisoners announced on 26th May, but are concerned that that will not fully address the problems of overcrowding and medical problems, though it does include those of TB.

Perhaps I may come to the wider arena. Britain will work hard to ensure that Russia is a key partner in the G8 and to develop relationships with NATO and the EU. But in turn we need to be able to point to evidence of Russian preparedness to work with the international community constructively on areas of shared concern—Chechnya, proliferation and the Balkans—if we are to develop the sort of partnership that we want. But we absolutely agree with the noble Lords, Lord Blaker, Lord Ponsonby, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and others that our response to the challenges with which Russia will be faced must be a balanced one. We are determined to maintain that balance. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that we will never side with terrorism or with terrorists.

Some criticised the UK engagement with Russia and President Putin as being over-hasty, given the war in Chechnya. I believe that was mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. We have real disagreement with Russian policy, and its conduct in Chechnya, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, is unacceptable and produced grave humanitarian suffering. Nor, without a political settlement, will it produce Russia's stated objective of defeating terrorists. But we believe that engagement rather than isolation enables us to bring the message home to Russia. Six months ago, for instance, Russia was vehemently opposed to any international involvement in Chechnya. Since then, the OSCE, the Council of Europe, the EU and others have sent senior representatives to the region. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, that the commission is working on the ground. We have not yet received a report but things appear to be going well so far as we are aware.

There are many issues with which we need to engage Russia. In conclusion, perhaps I may deal with the three raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. First, she raised the matter of assistance and help that we give to Russia with the Council of Europe. We are giving full assistance. The UK assistance has been focused very much on human rights. The EU TACIS programme has been refocused since December on those issues. In relation to the NATO expansion to the Baltic States, Russia has no veto on the NATO enlargement. We made it clear that all states have the chance to apply for membership, but NATO and Russia have a full relationship in which all subjects are being discussed.

As regards our EU trading relationship, that is governed by the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement, which provides opportunities for discussion on all aspects of trade, including tariffs and quotas. There is much to do with our relationship. But I welcome the positive comments made by all noble Lords and the balanced way in which they represented the challenges and the successes that we need to look for in our relationship with Russia.

House adjourned at ten minutes before ten o'clock.