asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, there are two current applications for planning permission for motorway service areas both near Junction 2 on the M40: one at Hedgerley, which was the subject of a public inquiry last year, and on which a decision is awaited; and one at Burtley Wood, which we expect to be considered at a public inquiry later this year.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, does he understand the enormous frustration and disappointment that that will cause people who use the M40 every day? Will the Minister confirm that it is the Government's intention to have a motorway service station in the area as soon as is possible and practicable? Will they also consider the possibility of having directional signs, and perhaps distance signs, on some of the roundabouts on the M40 to direct people to where they can buy petrol?

My Lords, the M40 has three service stations at roughly 30-mile intervals, according to government guidelines. The distance between Oxford and London is slightly further than that; nevertheless, there is not necessarily a case for the development of a motorway service area. We shall, however, consider arty proposals that come forward. At present, the inspector considering the Hedgerley proposal has recommended against it. Such matters are also complicated by the fact that planning applications have also been made as regards the M25, some of which have been subject to court procedures. That will also have some influence on the availability of service stations in the area.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that when the High Wycombe bypass was developed in, I believe, the early 1970s, provision was made for a service station in the area? Indeed, some of the slip-roads were constructed at the time and are still there today. Can my noble friend say what has happened to that proposal? Thirty years is an awfully long time for the provision of a service station!

My Lords, I am aware of that situation, principally because my noble friend told me about it roughly four minutes ago. I am afraid that I do not have at my fingertips information regarding the reasons for not proceeding with that development 30 years ago. Indeed, if my arithmetic is right, the party opposite was in power at that time. It is possible that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, knows more about it than I do.

Under the present system, we shall consider any commercial proposals that come forward. There are currently two commercial proposals regarding areas further down the M40, closer to Gerrards Cross. There is currently no proposal to use the site at High Wycombe on the table.

My Lords, is the Minister aware how much I appreciate that warm and unsolicited tribute to me?

Yes, my Lords. I deeply appreciate, as does the whole House, the noble Lord's participation in these debates.

My Lords, the Minister did not respond to the second of the noble Lord's supplementaries with regard to signing. This is a problem in quite a number of different areas in the country. Therefore, in areas where service stations are not situated at fairly frequent intervals, should not the availability of petrol and other services he signed on the motorway or dual carriageway?

My Lords, the general policy would be against installing such signs. Broadly speaking, service stations are situated at least every 30 miles on motorways. Therefore, installing signs indicating that petrol facilities are available off the motorway would raise issues not only of traffic flow and, potentially, of safety, but also regarding the Highways Agency effectively favouring one garage as against others in the vicinity. Although there are exceptional circumstances in which we sign off-motorway facilities, we do not do so in general. However, I shall bear the point in mind in this case.

My Lords, will my noble friend perhaps take a different point of view about the M40; namely, that there is an adequate number of service stations and that, if anything needs to be improved, it is the quality of the food? As for signing, if anyone happens to miss such a sign should not he be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention?

My Lords, I certainly agree that motorway service areas and facilities are pretty well signed in advance. Indeed, as you approach one sign, you are told how many miles it is to the next one. Drivers should certainly be paying attention to such signs. As to the quality of food and service, the contents of my postbag indicate that there is considerable concern in the country about such matters. The OFT recently considered the pricing and the quality of the service available, and wants to increase competition and improve services. Discussions are taking place with both the operators and my officials to ascertain how competition could be increased and the quality of the service thereby improved.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Government and the operational agencies in Northern Ireland are committed to tackling the organised crime problem. Organised crime is unacceptable in any society but in Northern Ireland the problem is compounded by paramilitary involvement. In September last year the Northern Ireland Office established a multi-agency Organised Crime Task Force which has already published an analysis of the problem and a strategy for tackling it. A copy of these documents can be found in the Library.

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. As a result of the Good Friday agreement the paramilitaries are on cease-fire. However, they have not been doing nothing. They have supported the alarming growth in organised crime such as racketeering, drugs and intimidation, bringing untold misery to thousands of people. Does the Minister accept that the RUC has, against all the odds, prevented anarchy for over 30 years? Does he agree with the previous Secretary of State who assured Parliament that the implementation of Patten would proceed only at a pace favourable to maintaining law and order in the Province?

My Lords, I agree with the statement made by the previous Secretary of State, Mr Peter Mandelson, about the introduction of Patten. I agree with what the noble Baroness said about the relationship between paramilitaries and organised crime. Indeed, that is specifically referred to in the document produced by the task force, The Threat to Northern Ireland Society from Serious and Organised Crime. It is vital that the Government and all the agencies address it with full vigour. That is what they are doing. That is why they have set up the task force and why the task force has analysed the threat and has set out a strategy for dealing with it.

My Lords, is it not vitally important and in the best interests of the citizens of Northern Ireland, of Britain and of the Republic of Ireland to combat the growing destructive evils of powerful local and international organised crime and racketeering with plans to ensure the retention and development of the ongoing, effective and efficient police service in Northern Ireland?

My Lords, of course it is and, indeed, the police service has achieved some considerable coups against organised crime in the past year. I should have associated myself with the noble Baroness's comments about the splendid job that the police service is doing. I give one statistic. So far in 2000–01, 51.4 million cigarettes have been seized by Customs in Northern Ireland. Last October a joint police and Customs operation resulted in the recovery of about 7.5 million cigarettes from premises in Northern Ireland. It is vital that the police continue to be so effective.

My Lords, of the 78 mafia style organisations mentioned in the report of the task force to which the Minister referred, over half are paramilitary sourced. Gangsterism is flourishing in this potentially transitional period for Northern Ireland as those with expertise in using paramilitary networks for serious criminal purposes are increasingly using their expertise for purely personal rather than part-paramilitary gain. Does the Minister agree that until paramilitary organisations and their criminal networks are either disbanded or destroyed Northern Ireland will be unable to become an organised crime and intimidation free society?

My Lords, I accept that there is a link between the paramilitary organisations and organised crime which is committed simply for criminal purposes and for no other. It is vital that not just the police but all of the agencies involved get together and fight that with all the vigour they can command. The task force was set up to bring all the relevant agencies together to fight organised crime. It is vital that it be defeated so that Northern Ireland can return to normal.

My Lords, what proportion of the crime in Northern Ireland—that is, the established crime which has resulted in convictions—is known to be politically motivated?

My Lords, I do not have the statistics to hand. I shall write to the noble Lord.

My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord do his best to convince his colleagues that harmonising VAT and other taxes as between Northern Ireland and the Republic would do a great deal to reduce organised crime and in particular to reduce the profitability of smuggling?

My Lords, I take note of the noble Lord's point. I am very aware of the fact that the greater the difference in duty rates between the two countries and, indeed, between the United Kingdom and other countries, the greater the prevalence of that kind of crime.

My Lords, is my noble and learned friend able to make a comparison between the crime rate in Northern Ireland and that in England?

My Lords, the rate of ordinary crime, as it were, in Northern Ireland is lower than in the United Kingdom.

My Lords, what is the volume of illegal diesel being brought into this country from the island of Ireland and particularly from the Province? Who is benefiting from those illegal sales and what is being done in the United Kingdom to prevent them?

My Lords, I cannot give the precise figures. I believe that the figures are greater in the main part of the United Kingdom than as between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. I shall give the noble Lord the figures in writing.

My Lords, have Sinn Fein/IRA and the SDLP yet taken any steps to encourage their communities to co-operate with the police as against hating the RUC and doing their best to destroy it?

My Lords, the noble Baroness will know from the debates that we had on the then police Bill that neither the SDLP nor Sinn Fein has yet urged their communities to join the new police service.

My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the key to tackling this problem lies with the paramilitaries? Can he report any progress in dealing with their prevalent activities? Is he aware that the editorial of the Belfast Telegraph of 24th April states:

"The reality is that despite the ceasefires many areas of Northern Ireland remain within the grip of the paramilitaries. These self-appointed groups lay down the law and intimidate those who stand up to them"?

Do the Government recognise that description and—I appreciate the difficulties—can they offer us some progress?

My Lords, the analysis of the threat posed by organised crime published by the task force earlier in the year specifically recognises the link between paramilitary organisations and organised crime. It states that the legacy of terrorism is a significant influence. More than half of the groups known to police are either associated with or controlled by loyalist or republican paramilitary organisations. The task force seeks to bring together all of the agencies tackling these groups and to make the tight concerted. The first step it has taken is to prioritise against which groups they must focus the fight. In the light of what has been said, it is clear which groups those are.

My Lords, against the background of the debate we have just had, does the Minister share our deep concerns over reports that up to half of the senior officers in the RUC are set to leave the force by the autumn of this year?

My Lords, this point has been raised in the past. I was able to report that the Chief Constable is satisfied that as a result of boards he is having there will be sufficient people above chief inspector to fill any vacancies.

My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the introduction in Ireland next year of the notes and coins of the single currency, the euro, may give new opportunities for organised crime and racketeers, especially in the areas of fraud and money laundering?

My Lords, that is a point which has to be taken into account by the task force.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, none. This is a matter for the United States administration, which decides on weapons sales to Taiwan with reference to American law and its assessment of Taiwan's needs. We attach great importance to the avoidance of conflict in the Taiwan Straits which could be very destabilising for the whole of the region. We look to both China and Taiwan to resolve their differences peacefully through dialogue.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and indicate appreciation for the restraint shown by the US administration in postponing any decision about the supply of Aegis radar systems to Taiwan at present.

First, is the Minister aware that the eight diesel submarines which are to be supplied to Taiwan are all based on European designs? Can the noble Baroness tell the House whether those European designs have been the result of consultation with the United States; and what the German and Dutch governments may have said about them?

Secondly, will the Minister and Her Majesty's Government consider making the strongest representations to the People's Republic of China about possible retaliation through the supply of missile technology to the Middle East and Pakistan, indicated in the past two days by a leading military officer in a leading think tank in Beijing?

My Lords, we understand that by mutual agreement the United States and Taiwan do not discuss the specific decisions taken at their annual meetings on arms sales. It would not be appropriate, therefore, for me to do so now. Although I am aware of the details contained and widely discussed in the press and have noted their comments, I cannot respond, therefore, to the first part of the noble Baroness's questions. However, we see it as of crucial importance that everyone should now behave in a temperate way; that we should be very careful to do all we can to make sure that there is a rapprochement between China and Taiwan and an amelioration of any anxieties that may currently exist between the United States and China.

My Lords, I am sure that everyone will back the Minister in her desire to avoid conflict between China and others. However, will she also bear very much in mind that the Government of Taiwan are not now the rump of the Kuomintang. They are an elected, proper, authentic, democratic government. Will the noble Baroness further remember that in any supply of weapons to Taiwan there is no danger whatever of Taiwan committing aggression against China; and, frankly, there is every prospect of something nasty happening from the Chinese end?

My Lords, we of course acknowledge the elections the Taiwanese held, and we were warm in our congratulations to the Taiwanese on those elections and the democratic process in that country. We bear well in mind what the noble Lord says. However, I reiterate that we must all consider how to express ourselves with moderation at this time. Ill considered words can sometimes cause more damage than good.

My Lords, further to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Shore, does the Minister accept that while the Americans are probably right on this occasion to withhold the Aegis antimissile radar systems from the Taiwanese, they are totally justified in supplying equipment to allow the Taiwanese, who are a resourceful and dynamic people and nation, to defend themselves against violence and violent threats. That is their democratic right. That is consistent with the ethical standards which I understand Her Majesty's Government support. So could we have a little more enthusiasm from the Government Benches for the measures which are being taken to ensure that the Taiwanese are allowed to protect themselves against violence and violent attack?

My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord that from these Benches we fully appreciate the nature of the situation. But I reiterate that the American position is the American position. We have demonstrated the position that we take, which is moderate, well considered and balanced.

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that technologically Aegis is unlikely to be effective within the next 10 years, by which time wiser counsels may have prevailed in Washington? But can someone explain to the American Government that if they seek to protect America and her allies from nuclear attack, destabilising the non-proliferation regime is rather like looking for a gas leak with a lighted match?

My Lords, the debate that we have just had demonstrates quite dramatically the differences of view on this. That is why we take the view that it is important to retain the balance of which I have already spoken, and to emphasise that the American situation is different from our own. Their position is governed by their legislation; ours is not. We shall continue to do everything within our power to strive to ensure that there is a de-escalation in international tension, and that we have a more balanced and stable world.

My Lords, will the Minister gently and with moderation point out to the Government of the People's Republic of China that the responsibility for increasing military tension in this area lies entirely with them for having installed between 250 and 300 missiles on their coast aimed at the cities of Taiwan? In those circumstances, are not the Taiwanese Government entitled to defend themselves from an apparent military threat, particularly when that seems to be accompanied by the People's Republic of China completely ignoring the democratically and freely expressed views of 23 million Taiwanese people in their recent elections? May it not be the case that on this occasion and on this issue the Bush administration has got the issue right?

My Lords, I shall say for perhaps the fourth or fifth time that it is of real importance for everyone to behave with moderation. We have exhorted all sides to do so in the interests of world peace and we shall continue so to do. There is much merit in what a number of different noble Lords have said, but I think that it is evenly shared. All must do what they can.

My Lords, I commend the Minister on the moderation and wisdom of her replies. Perhaps I may remind some of our colleagues in this House that, first, whether we like it or not, Taiwan is not a sovereign state; and, secondly, we have a substantial stake in a contained and peaceful South China region, given our relationship to Hong Kong and the restraint with which China has behaved towards the dual nation policy.

My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to remind us that we do not recognise Taiwan as a state; and that we acknowledge, and have done so for a considerable period, the position of the Chinese Government that Taiwan is a province of the People's Republic of China. That is a reality for them. It is a reality for us.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the report by the International Bar Association makes depressing reading. It reflects mounting international concern at the Government of Zimbabwe's blatant disregard for the rule of law and their policy of intimidating the hitherto independent judiciary. The Government of Zimbabwe have so far ignored international calls for them to take action to implement the rule of law. For the sake of the Zimbabwean people, who are clearly suffering, we hope that they will not ignore the recommendations made by such an eminent body as the IBA.

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the mission was organised by the IBA's Human Rights Institute, of which Nelson Mandela is president? As the noble Baroness has said, the mission included senior judges and lawyers from Commonwealth countries and one from the United States. It concluded:

"Conduct committed or encouraged by government ministers has put the rule of law in Zimbabwe in the gravest peril and the very fabric of democracy at risk".

It went on to say:

"This cannot be justified by the need for social justice".

What action is being taken by the United Nations, the Commonwealth and the European Union, in all of which the United Kingdom is an influential member?

My Lords, all those agencies are trying to exert appropriate pressure on Zimbabwe to behave well. The noble Lord will know from questions that we have had in the House before that it is hoped that a Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group delegation will be sent to Zimbabwe to discuss the issues with the Zimbabwe Government and Mr Mugabe in particular. No response to that idea has yet been received, but the Commonwealth Secretary-General has recently been in touch with the Government of Zimbabwe about the proposed ministerial mission. It is for him and for the Ministers involved from Barbados, Nigeria and Australia to agree on the timing. Internationally we are doing all that we can to bring pressure to bear on the issue. Tragically, it does not appear to be bringing the response that we would like from Mr Mugabe.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be highly desirable for the October Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Brisbane to have before it a report on the state of the law and the judiciary in Zimbabwe even if CMAG is not able to send a mission? With that in mind, would it be possible for the Commonwealth Secretariat to ask the United Nations rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers to compile a report for the CHOGM, regardless of whether he is able to visit Zimbabwe for that purpose?

My Lords, there may be much merit in the latter part of the noble Lord's question. It is hoped that the CMAG delegation will be able to go. If it cannot go, it will make the appropriate report in Brisbane when the issue is considered. At that point the whole Commonwealth will be able to consider where we go from there. This is an important step. We hope that Mr Mugabe and his Government will see the merit in receiving a delegation, which will include representatives from Barbados, Nigeria and Australia, and will allow them to have proper discussions with him.

My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness's answers. Has President Mugabe been reminded that in a democracy it is vital that the judiciary should be free from political interference of any kind?

My Lords, that issue has always been clear. The independence of the Zimbabwean judiciary has always been impressive. They have been extraordinarily brave and robust to date. We must commend their bravery. My noble friend Lord Goldsmith participated in the trip and I understand that the issues to which the noble Lord referred were raised with Mr Mugabe.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that this telling report, in which, as she says, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, played an important part, carries two powerful messages? The first is that the matter of Mugabe's behaviour is not a white issue or an ex-colonial issue, but concerns everyone in the world who loves liberty and justice. The second clear message from the report is that the one thing that Mr Mugabe really fears and will be moved by is well directed international action. In the light of the conclusive arguments in the report on that point, is it not time to be a little more vigorous than simply relying on critical dialogue and to take some of the steps suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and others in the CHOGM and all the other international institutions in which Britain has considerable leverage? We have not yet used that leverage in relation to this problem.

My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord says that the Government have not really used their influence. There are those who say that we have used it too much and that the criticisms that have been made of Zimbabwe really represent the voice of Britain, not that of the international community. We know that that is wrong. Britain has been at the forefront among a number of equals in our clear condemnation of what is happening in Zimbabwe. We have put a lot of energy into making sure that Mr Mugabe knows how strongly the international community condemns what is happening and he has heard us. That is why he has been so critical of our involvement.

My Lords, the Minister is no doubt aware that paragraph 12.3 of the report of the International Bar Association says that the Attorney General of Zimbabwe did not consider the intimidation of judges an offence. Do the Government consider that an acceptable application of the rule of law? If not, what representations will they make?

My Lords, we have made clear representations. It is of interest and importance to note what the acting Chief Justice said. I cannot immediately find the reference in the report, but I shall paraphrase his comments. He has made it clear that he saw no reason for any of the judges currently sitting to be removed. We have a clear indication that the judicial integrity and robustness of the judges remains unchanged. All the issues that have been highlighted will continue to be pursued with the Zimbabwean authorities.

My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place in answer to a Private Notice Question on the Government's actions in relation to Motorola, Bathgate.

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

It may be helpful if I explain that the purpose of the Motion is to allow the Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, to appear on the Order Paper next to the Motions in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and the noble Lord. Lord Chalfont. This will mean that all the Motions relating to the Chinook helicopter crash will appear together and can be debated together.

Moved, That Standing Order 40 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Monday next to enable the Motion standing in the name of the Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank to be taken immediately after the Motion relating to the second report of the Liaison Committee.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)

rose to call attention to the role of national policy makers in creating a learning society; and to move for Papers.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for giving us this opportunity to engage in such an important and interesting debate. This matter is close to my heart.

In her speech, the noble Baroness ranged far and wide—she gave a tour d'horizon of what has been achieved and what still needs to be done. There are many definitions of a learning society; mine would refer to a society in which all members are learning and to the fact that the society is learning about itself and the way in which it changes. Such a society would enable everyone to navigate a future for themselves in what can be a high-risk social setting.

There are many reasons to be cheerful. The learning world has been turned upside down in recent years not just by the Internet and the external revolution but by an internal revolution, which involves what we know about the way in which the brain works. I hesitate to say more on that in your Lordships' House because many noble Lords have great neurological expertise. We know more about the way in which learning works than we have done for many years.

The outlines of the learning society are developing before our eyes. The most recent version of the Fryer report contains no less than 23 separate initiatives—and, I admit, a mass of acronyms—several of which have already been mentioned. They are making a profound difference to our access to learning. They involve radical steps but those steps are the right ones. Any government would have been at fault if they had not taken advantage of the ferment of new ideas and possibilities that are now available.

The mass of changes raises two paradoxes. First, if the learning society is potentially so inclusive, what shall we do about people who are still left out? Secondly, if we cater so well for individual learning opportunities, what is the government's role? How can governments be as effective as possible in relation to the new prospect that involves when, where and how people learn?

The doors to the learning society may be open to individuals. The Government's role is to hold those doors open and that of the community is to enable people to pass through them. Only the Government can take the lead in that regard by dismantling the structural and cultural barriers that continue to hold people back.

Those who want to join should not be left outside and those who are left outside are, I am afraid, only too well known to us. I refer to the 30 per cent of adults who experience no further educational training after formal education and to disaffected pupils, who become disaffected adults. Such people are most likely to be unskilled workers, lone parents, part-time or temporary workers or ethnic and linguistic minorities. Those people need to be able to access courses and qualifications and to afford them. They also need childcare facilities, mentoring support and individual support. That would help them to appreciate that such initiatives are for them.

Unless we provide such coherent extra support the learning society will become a learning market that is open only to those with information and expertise and access to that market. People are banging on the doors. Much more needs to be done, particularly, as the noble Baroness said, in terms of integrating learning with social renewal.

That is already happening on a small scale, but it is an inspired initiative. A network of learning partnerships is springing up across the country. It contains learning towns, learning cities and learning regions. They are already showing new ways of engaging people. They are largely funded in parallel to the formal education system through single regeneration budgets and European and lottery funding. In many areas, they have become the key to local regeneration and they are powered by the needs of skilled people. In some areas—for example, the family centre in east Leeds—priority is given to families and in other areas priority is given to those who are traditionally excluded, such as those with disability. The Torfaen initiative in the Valleys, for example, is developing a community valleys university. Blackburn and Darwen take particular care of their Asian communities and are creating new opportunities for them. Such initiatives take learning into everyday situations in which people gather together. As the noble Baroness said, they risk falling between different funding strategies and regimes, and in many respects they are failing to connect with formal learning, which can give extra power and effect.

The second set of barriers involves the cultural barriers that are placed across the workplace and the community as a whole. Many noble Lords can speak with great expertise about the workplace. I say only that we have a particular challenge with regard to small firms and small voluntary organisations, in which much innovation is taking place. Unless we provide extra help, they will not have access. For example, I want the Government to measure the gap between the corporate policy for training and employment development and what is happening on the ground. Are the marvellous plans that were set out in the annual report being accessed in practice by individual workers?

When it comes to dismantling the structural and cultural barriers in the community, we have a working model before our eyes. We have a proud tradition of community education, which is now reborn through the concept of full service schools which can bring into schools new opportunities to learn and health, career and family centres—everything that the community needs. Why should not such facilities be offered in schools? Adults can access, for example, fitness or ICT training. It is not a far-fetched idea—it is already happening in some schools in parts of the United States. We have a blueprint in the Social Exclusion Unit report. Schools Plus, and there is a commitment to implement that. I am delighted by that. I hope that we shall continue to invest in the concept and the reality.

Perhaps the greatest challenge involves another set of barriers—the personal barriers to learning. That involves motivating those who do not want to learn or who do not appear to want to learn. I agree with the noble Baroness—I do not think that there is anyone who does not want to learn. William Morris said that the essential point about education is that it must build on the desire to learn. I believe that everyone instinctively has a desire to learn.

The terms "lifelong learning" and "the learning society" are slightly problematic. I remember some years ago seeing a cartoon of two little boys going unwillingly to school. One was saying to the other, "Bad news—there is something called lifelong learning". Many people have the same reaction to the concept of a learning society, which may appear to involve being on a treadmill.

There are new ways of offering learning and new places and situations in which to do so. We are already doing that. One example involves the "playing for success" initiative, which I know is dear to the heart of the many noble Lords who love football. The initiative places homework opportunities in football clubs. There are already more than 30 such schemes in operation and they are highly successful. Summer learning is another initiative that has developed during the past three years, and it covers the curriculum. Summer universities and summer schools are now springing up all over the country. They are highly successful at raising people's skills and motivations. The schemes show that the way to succeed is to find out why young people enjoy learning and to provide more of it. We need to build on their voluntary commitment to learn.

Today's debate is timely for another reason. We have been rather short in this country of hard evidence to show why the funds for out-of-school learning work. Today the first national cohort study of 8,000 young people is being published. Those young people have been followed for three years to establish their commitment to out-of-school learning in homework clubs and so on. The results show conclusively that young people who have been taking part do significantly better in their GCSEs. They have shown better attendance in school and they have a more positive attitude towards school. That is a very fine achievement and I hope that it provides us with a platform on which to build.

Finally, the key question is: what can the Government do? I would say that the key task of the Government is not to invent or manage informal learning or the learning societies. They have the more difficult task of steering, supporting and co-ordinating that and ensuring that there is sustained cultural investment. There are a plethora of partnerships and a mass of initiatives. If we are not careful, they will all contradict and cut across each other. We need to have a strong framework to bring this together. That framework can ensure that those opportunities are equitable and accessible. That is the key task in ensuring that education and social policy really work together.

That must be done in view of the alternatives in terms of the social and economic costs. We only have to look at the fate of looked-after children or the fate of children who are excluded from school to see the huge costs which continue throughout their lifetime. We simply cannot afford those costs. I believe that if we do not do that, we shall not have a learning society but we shall have a learning enclave within a wider society which does not value learning or society, and we certainly cannot afford that.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for introducing this debate. She has obviously struck gold with two debates in two days. What a wonderful contribution we had from her. Perhaps I may say also how much we, on these Benches, are looking forward to the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd. We shall certainly listen to her with great care, as we always did when she controlled the other place.

I welcome this debate directed at the role of national policy makers in creating a learning society. I intend to confine my remarks solely to education and the Prison Service. There is so much neglect in our prisons that, at times, it seems almost hopeless to suggest any reforms. I read with much interest an editorial in a magazine of the Prison Reform Trust which said:

"Education gained in prisons can transform lives. Opportunities to write, play music, paint or perform can unlock doors to closed emotions. Employment and training, access to gaining qualifications and a prospect of a real job on release all undoubtedly reduce the rates of reoffending".

No one should be sent to prison because he would benefit from educational opportunities behind bars or the chance to develop work skills prior to release. Prison reduces employability and adds to social exclusion. Many prisoners lose their homes or tenancies, contact with their families, educational places and jobs or careers as a result of incarceration.

I do not believe that many sentencers take such factors into account. That is a high price to pay. It is justifiable if, and only if, the crime is so serious and the offending so persistent as to warrant those social outcomes.

We spend too much time locking inmates in their cells rather than creating a learning environment which would benefit them individually. What do we achieve when we lock up inmates for up to 24 hours per day? My time as a member of the board of visitors made me realise how little time and consideration we had given to education in a closed environment. Many of the inmates lacked numeracy and literacy skills and yet little has been done to put that right.

Surely there is a relevance between reduced offending rates and the availability of learning skills in our institutions. I have seen the positive effects of writers in residence in our prisons. The same applies to art and music. It is a constructive way to run our prisons. Education has a crucial part to play in reducing reoffending by released prisoners. Research evidence shows that released prisoners who do not have basic educational skills are 40 per cent more likely to reoffend than those who have such skills. Moreover, unemployed ex-prisoners are twice as likely to reoffend as those who get and keep a job on release.

Yet at present 60 per cent of the prison population is below NVQ Level 1 in basic skills, which rules them out of over 90 per cent of new jobs. At the other end of the spectrum, there is a group of highly intelligent offenders whose criminal activity has demonstrated a range of qualities which would be admirable had they been directed into legitimate pursuits—qualities such as drive, ingenuity, resourcefulness and an ability to influence and lead other people. Access to further and higher educational qualifications have helped many such offenders to turn around their lives. Without educational opportunities, it is much more difficult for released prisoners to obtain jobs comparable with their abilities and to lead a productive future life without breaking the law.

The connection between educational failure and offending is particularly striking if one looks at the characteristics of young offenders. In 1997 the Chief Inspector of Prisons carried out a thematic review on young offenders. He found that over half the young offenders in custody had been excluded from schools and many others had regularly truanted. Two-thirds had no educational qualifications. Two-thirds had been unemployed before entering custody.

The following year, a research study published by NACRO entitled Wasted Lives looked at a sample of juvenile offenders in custody: 86 per cent of the sample had been persistent absentees, truants or excluded from school; and 46 per cent had no skills or qualifications of any description.

The Government have recently announced some welcome moves in relation to prison education, notably that prison education will, in future, be managed by a partnership between the Prison Service and the DfEE and that resources for prison education will be ring-fenced. Let us monitor the situation carefully and see how it will work out.

What more should be done to tackle the problem of prisoners' education and under-achievement? First, the Government should continue to increase the resources available for basic skills education in prison in view of the extensive need demonstrated by the survey and figures which I have cited.

Secondly, however, the Government should recognise that many prisoners can benefit from more advanced educational courses, many of which have been cut over the past few years as a result of Prison Service budget cuts. Providing basic skills education and access to further and higher education courses should not be seen as an either/or. Both are needed for different prisoners.

Thirdly, the Government should tackle firmly the problem of prisoners missing out on educational classes because prison officers are not made available to bring them from their cells to the classrooms. Time and again reports from the Chief Inspector of Prisons give examples of prisoners regularly arriving late at classes or not arriving at all, so that all classes are run with empty places or, in some cases, are cancelled completely if teachers are unavailable to take them.

Fourthly, we need a strategy to help prisoners to bridge the gap between education programmes inside prison and accessing courses on release. That should include changing the funding system for Employment Service training programmes to ensure that all areas of the country have a range of specialist programmes which cater for ex-offenders and other unemployed people who have special support needs. At present, the availability of such specialist programmes varies greatly from one area to another. In many areas, contracts are being withdrawn from organisations such as NACRO which can provide effective specialist programmes of that kind. Will the Minister look at that to see whether the matter can be rectified? I should declare an interest at this stage as I chair that particular charity.

Fifthly, we need to ensure that prisoners who could safely be given temporary release to go out to educational programmes in the community during the day are allowed to do so. We currently have a nonsensical situation whereby low-risk prisoners towards the end of their sentence are rightly allowed to go out of prison to do paid jobs or community work but they are not allowed to go out to participate in employment training programmes run by the Employment Service. Yet that can be one of the most effective ways of getting prisoners into work on release. The Home Office, the Prison Service and the DfEE should jointly examine and change that anomaly as soon as possible.

We need to move away from the old concept that education was one way of establishing control and discipline in prisons. There may be some truth in that because, if you keep inmates occupied with purposeful activities, they are less likely to be disruptive. But in essence that is a policy about managing prisoners rather than promoting meaningful education.

Of course I value the core curriculum that was established in 1995. The aim is laudable. The emphasis is on numeracy, literacy, intermediate technology and social and life skills. The purpose is to reduce the number of prisoners released without basic skills at Level 2 or above. However, there is a concern that art, drama and vocational classes now receive less emphasis, if any at all.

There is also a lack of support for higher skills. At least 30 to 40 per cent of inmates—on remand or in custody—have a higher level of education than Level 2 on entry to prison and such persons are told that there is nothing in the system for them. I refer to a case reported in the magazine of the Prison Reform Trust where an inmate said the following:

"Prior to coming to prison I had started an OU course and I asked about continuing the degree whilst I was here. I was told that the department was unable to get involved—a question of resources, even though I was going to fund the course myself".

> I draw the attention of the Minister to Professor David Wilson of the University of Central England in Birmingharm, who has established the Forum on Prison Education to lobby for prison education beyond the provision of basic skills. I am sure that the Minister would find it helpful to open a dialogue with that particular body.

In conclusion, with an agenda that is tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime we should remember that the promotion of a learning society offers the best prospect for reducing crime, criminality and the unacceptably high prison population.

My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for tabling her Motion which has enabled me to make my maiden speech in your Lordships' House. I confess that I rise with great nervousness. This is my first parliamentary speech on an issue of national policy in over 14 years. I know that at the start I must declare an interest, although it is an unpaid interest. The Open University made me its Chancellor seven years ago. It was the second best thing that has happened to me.

The difficult birth of the Open University illustrates the narrow line that sometimes exists between success and failure in our approach to education policy. One distinguished statesman described its concept as "blithering nonsense". I shall not mention the name of that statesman as that would be too contentious. Others in positions of influence were indifferent to its struggle to survive the Treasury axe during the economic difficulties of the 1960s. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, played a valuable role in keeping it afloat. The noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, was our first vice-chancellor who believed that the Open University could not only exploit new ways of teaching through the media, thereby encouraging a learning society, but that it could also promote better teaching in some of our conventional universities.

The noble Lord, Lord Perry, has described his exchanges with the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, when she became Opposition spokesman on education as "sharp, short and furious". But the noble Baroness admitted to being better informed after their frank exchanges and the OU survived her scrutiny as Secretary of State.

Had it been allowed to go under in its early years we would have lost an academic institution that has pioneered new ways of higher education, stimulated thousands of people to become learners and which is admired and emulated in many countries. We would have been denied a university that has transformed the lives of 250,000 mature students—people from all walks of life and many without formal educational qualifications—who have won degrees.

Such achievements would not have been possible without the skills and dedication of a world-class academic staff, to whom I pay tribute. Nor would it have happened without the determination of its founders, notably my colleague and friend Jennie Lee, who served in your Lordships' House. My point is that when we, in this country, embrace a worthy cause, nothing can stop us. The Open University is living proof of that.

Perhaps I may tell your Lordships something of its finances without boring you too much. Its students appreciate it so much that last year they paid £102 million in fees and for the purchase of study materials. Of course, the nation contributes £137 million of the OU's income, but where else in higher education is there such enthusiasm for learning that students themselves provide 37 per cent of the university's entire income?

Nor do our students indulge themselves in subjects that some noble Lords may consider to be frivolous. Two of the five top courses are computer and Internet-related and another teaches health and social care. Today over 21,000 students are taking those two courses.

When the Right Reverend Eric Devenport sent his entry to Who's Who with "BA (Open University)" after his name they queried it. Nobody does that any longer. The OU earned the maximum possible score for general engineering in a recent survey. It has become the largest provider of management education in Europe. I am proud to add that it is also the country's leading provider of higher education for the disabled.

I succeeded the noble Lord, Lord Briggs, who was our Chancellor for 15 years. We both followed in the tradition set by the late Lord Crowther, our first Chancellor in 1969. He was succeeded by a most distinguished Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, Lord Gardiner. But it was Lord Crowther who pinned the OU's colours to the communications revolution and it has since changed all our lives.

As a new girl in your Lordships' House I gather that I am entitled to a laptop. Is that right?

Yes!

My Lords, I am open to advice on how to use it. I fear that I would not stand a chance among the 110,000 students who link up to the OU's online teaching at home.

At this time of year in particular I meet hundreds and hundreds of graduates at weekend degree ceremonies. Many of them are very young and they get through their studies in record time and many are more mature and their studies take them a long time. There are housewives, men with full-time jobs, people with homes to look after, people with children to bring up and people who have to take time off to look after elderly relatives. Many come to me on the platform and whisper, "It took me six years to get here, but I did it in the end and this is my proudest day". It is a most moving experience for all of us who take part in those ceremonies.

I associate myself with so many of them because I too was a slow starter. It took me five parliamentary elections and 16 years to reach the other place. My best friend said that I could have qualified as a brain surgeon in that time and my second-best friend said, "She ought to pack it in". But I do not complain. Being here and being Chancellor of the Open University are both great privileges.

I conclude by rejoicing in the success of that university and the learning society that I believe that it is helping to create. I do so by inviting today's policy makers to show some of the vision that made that possible some years ago.

My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, has given us the opportunity to debate the learning society. I, too, admire her stamina in taking part in three debates in two days.

It is my great honour and privilege to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, on her outstanding maiden speech, full of the wisdom and order which, if I may say so, we have come to expect of her over the years. The noble Baroness's reputation and skill go before her. She is a most welcome, elegant and dynamic addition not only to this House but to the women Peers' room—with or without computer! She is a hard act either to precede or to follow.

Today I shall focus on the role of families and schools in setting the foundation for a learning society, as I believe that they are key agencies. As others have done, I shall argue that an holistic approach to education is necessary. Levels of adult illiteracy have remained constant and high in this country for the past 20 years. If we think that literacy is one of the symbols of a learning society, clearly new approaches are needed.

I believe that those approaches must put people, not topics of instruction, at the centre of learning. It is about creating a "can do" society rather than a "cannot do" one; and "can do" societies need structures which enable and encourage people to be confident learners.

I do not believe that an emphasis on more academic targets, important though they are, necessarily encourages lifelong learning. Indeed, they may set up unpleasant associations with learning at an early age unless other support is involved. Learning is not only about getting to grips with helping individuals to pass exams or reach academic targets; learning has many strands. It is about motivation to learn, enthusiasm to continue to learn, as the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, said, and to enjoy learning. It is not just intellectual; it is about creativity and curiosity. It encompasses the arts and sport. It includes manual as well as academic skills, and appreciation of other cultures and languages. It involved what some psychologists have called "emotional intelligence", which is valuable in itself and which also supports other kinds of learning.

Children can be taught to challenge constructively rather than merely conform and be satisfied with passive rote learning. Children are curious. What happens to that curiosity as they grow up? Do we forget that the processes of learning are often more interesting and valuable than the outcomes?

The diverse strands of learning must, I believe, inter-relate if we are to deliver a context for holistic and sustained learning. Unifying the strands means that policy-makers from different disciplines must also inter-relate. There are instances of those relationships; for example, between the Departments of Health, Education and Employment, and of Culture, Media and Sport. I am trying to avoid using the term "joined-up".

I was at Lord's Cricket Ground last week where rain, hail and wind greeted the first day of the cricket season. The Minister for Culture, Media and Sport, Chris Smith, was launching an initiative where major sports bodies contribute at least 5 per cent of their TV income towards developing grass-roots sports facilities and activities. Chris Smith talked about investment and commitment being necessary to make a difference to development and achievement in sport.

I believe that the same is true in creating a learning society; that is, we need both investment and commitment. The investment and commitment must come from national policy-makers, local policy-makers, communities, institutions and individuals; not just in joined-up thinking but in joined-up strategies which place people at the centre of policy, and not policy at the centre of people. This surely begins with families and particularly with parents. Poverty, and what Sir Keith Joseph some years ago called "the cycle of deprivation", must be addressed vigorously if children are to develop and maintain learning strategies. It is well known that language development, self-confidence and a particular view of the world and self are formed in the early years. It is well known that children who are talked to, read to, played with and stimulated are more likely to want to extend their learning in many directions and for life. Indeed, parents need confidence to parent effectively.

Government support for families, with the children's tax credit, increased child benefit and so forth, is helpful; so are new projects, such as the Supporting Families report, the Sure Start programme mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and the National Family and Parenting Institute set up as a focal point for policy and research. Organisations are carrying out important parent training programmes. Those, too, are important and could be a valuable part of the school curriculum. Parenting may come naturally to some, but it is difficult task for which many people are ill prepared. The fact that more than one-third of children between the ages of two and eight do not have bedtime stories read to them is a matter of concern.

Schools of course have a vital part to play in creating and fostering a learning society. The Campaign for Learning suggests that school structures and approaches need to change in order to focus on giving pupils confidence that they have the ability to learn, encouraging self-esteem, and developing capacity for learning as key tasks for teachers. Learning and teaching are not just about gathering or giving information. They are about developing motivation and the tools to seek information and to make use of it.

The recent Green Paper on schools omits discussion of what is called the National Healthy Schools Standard. That has helped schools and parents to develop healthy atmospheres and good relationships in schools, as well as healthy approaches to exercise, diet and the environment. We know that healthy children make better learners as well being able to make informed decisions about their own health. It is this kind of multidimensional approach which inspires people to become involved, to enjoy working as creative teams and to want to carry on learning.

Children who are shown respect and understanding make better learners, too. Some children are victims of discrimination or low expectation due to their race, special needs, gender or sexual orientation. Some carry deep disenchantment of school processes, which may distract from enthusiasm for learning.

National policy has improved class sizes in primary schools, endorsed pre-school education for four year-olds whose parents want it, set up a scheme of learning mentors, provided extra assistance for those whose first language is not English, and has introduced the successful literacy and numeracy hours.

There are of course concerns and these relate largely to secondary schools. A substantial number of children go backwards when they go to secondary school. In a challenging report called Education Futures, the Royal Society of Arts—I declare an interest as a Fellow—has reported the thoughts of several educationists. Reva Klein, in a chapter entitled "Lost at School", talks about children in secondary schools becoming "invisible" unless they are destructive or outstanding. She points out that

"the interconnected nature of subjects that allows children to see and make links and get excited by them",

when in primary school later disappears. There are new plans for improving performance in secondary schools. Perhaps the Minister can reassure us that this will not just be about more academic targets, but about humanising schools and supporting the teachers and pupils in them.

The Goodison Group has held seminars where expert witnesses reflect on learning. It suggests that people need to be convinced that learning is valuable, but also that it pays off in economic, intellectual and emotional terms. Professional development for teachers is essential. That should be about enhancing the role of the teacher, especially at middle management level, about mobilising resources both inside and outside the school, managing the boundary between schools and community, and spreading good practice. It is not about putting more burdens on teachers, but about rethinking the nature and structure of teaching as a profession.

Schools and families are not the only source of education for young people. Theatres, art galleries, museums and sports clubs have outreach programmes. I emphasise the multifaceted nature of learning. There are startling examples, both nationally and internationally, of how a learning society should be encouraged. I wish that we could take greater note of those practices and research. The "learning society" is a complex notion, but I believe that if we are prepared to invest and commit creatively and imaginatively, it can become a reality.

My Lords, I shall attempt in this debate to make a connection between the learning society and the concept of global citizenship. I extend my warm thanks to my noble friend Lady Prashar for giving the House this opportunity and allowing me to bring a global perspective to this important subject which is, after all, as broad as the www itself.

It is often said that globalisation shrinks the world and makes learning more accessible and the world, theoretically, more understandable. Ultimately, with more awareness it should also be a safer place in which to live, although I shall not pursue that aspect today. I shall simply argue, with the general election in mind, that the Government are making good progress in this subject but could still do better. While they have embarked on a somewhat utopian journey towards lifelong learning and new communications skills, I do not believe that they have yet fully confronted the pressing demands of global citizenship or the urgency of learning about other cultures and religions. I do not need to spell out why this is important to the harmony of our society; that is clear from other debates to be held today.

The Department for International Development White Papers of 1997 and 2000 recognised the importance of increased understanding of other cultures alongside the more commonly accepted need for international development. In previous debates I have acknowledged the growing commitment of both governments in this decade to spreading greater awareness of international issues. It can even be said that international development is an election issue because of its implications for our society and the sheer number of votes which issues such as fair trade and debt relief can now command.

The most recent example referred to in the other place today is the campaign against the pharmaceutical companies which supply AIDS drugs. That is one in which the Chancellor has played a part by offering tax concessions, and we shall hear more about that from the Government. I hope that we shall also hear from the Conservative Party, which traditionally has had more impact on multi-nationals but has yet to announce its position on the matter. However, it has moved a long way from the anti-social decade of the 1980s.

Within the national curriculum, too, there have been significant developments. There must now be,

"knowledge and understanding of the spiritual, moral, social and cultural heritages of Britain's diverse society".

Those words come from the statement on values, aims and purposes for the national curriculum of 2000. That theme is summarised in the phrase "global citizenship" which is close to the heart of today's politically correct education. "Active citizenship" is also one of the aims of lifelong learning spelt out in the post-Lisbon European Commission staff working paper last year.

Citizenship education, therefore, has come rapidly up the agenda and from 2002 it will become a statutory subject at secondary level, with recognition of the global dimension. I have welcomed this very gradual advance by Ministers before, although I believe that the rhetoric is well ahead of the classroom and the workplace, as was implied by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. In the daily context of formal education, the global dimension has been kept very firmly in the sub-culture of cross-curricular work—the no-go areas of the curriculum where teachers were once allowed to use their initiative.

Today, I am concerned not only with global awareness but with learning about the many cultures within our society. One can find out a lot on the Internet these days. Yesterday I contacted one of today's great gateways: the Campaign for Learning. This eminent quango belongs to the burgeoning school of government-friendly wordsmiths and instant service providers with the motto "I will always fax you 18 pages when you want only one". I recognise that it is behind much of the rhetoric of today but there is no doubt that inside that armoury it carries out valuable educational functions. I noticed that, apart from its more down-to-earth task of spreading e-learning through websites, citizenship and the notion of "democratic learning schools", which is new to me, are encouragingly high on the agenda. I hope that the Government will explain what those concepts mean before they become too orthodox.

Gateways cannot disguise the yawning gap between various branches of government. Whatever the talk of debt relief, global fair trade and ethical foreign policy, which has been inspired largely by the supporters of NGOs, I am still not satisfied that the educationists in this Government, with the honourable exception of those present, have a genuinely international outlook. It is not just citizenship but current affairs and Europe. For example, we still have a terrible record in modern languages. It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, is not here to make that point. We assume that mastery of the Internet somehow exempts us from any other language but English. If we cannot find the teachers, perhaps the BBC World Service will help with its excellent record of foreign language broadcasting and many skilled staff. Insularity cannot be justified today, especially with our membership of the Commonwealth, most of whose citizens must learn a host of languages in their own countries whereas we get by with only one. And how many of us have actually read the Koran?

Yet our talents already lie in our midst. How many times have we sat in a London bus listening to our own citizens speak Russian, Urdu, Swahili or even Spanish without being able to make out a word? The Secondary Heads Association warned in its policy statement on the international dimension in education in 1999:

"The Island mentality' is deep-seated within our culture. While an understanding of cultural history and norms is central to our well-being, such an aspiration often results in insularity. In short we are not natural international citizens. Current and future students will be members of an international community. This will require an understanding of different cultures and communities far beyond that which has been our current practice".

This is a serious agenda which I believe is the task of a learning society—a responsibility to learn more about the world to which we belong, and through the medium of our own citizens. I know that the Government are alert to this, but they must keep at it and make more use of non-governmental organisations and institutions like the British Council and the Commonwealth.

The current issue of the Development Education Journal focuses on the role of politicians, which is novel, and contains a lot of useful European examples from which we can learn.

From my experience of working with aid agencies, I believe that there is no substitute for overseas experience as a means of sharing knowledge and skills at both the giving and receiving ends. Where our parents went out to serve and administer, we go out mainly to see and learn. When we come back from war-torn areas like the southern Sudan, as I recently have, and remember our own recent European history we learn not to draw too many conclusions. Strong minorities, whether they be Dinkas, Sikhs or Anglo-Saxon football supporters, are a part of every society, and the contribution of other cultures, as is often stated in this House, is always to be celebrated.

I looked up "lifelong learning" in Commons Hansard and found 1,298 references to it already this year, not all of them uttered by Ministers. I did not look up Lords Hansard, but I suspect that there have been fewer references to it in this Chamber. Obviously, IT is the motor behind most of the new learning initiatives. Life skills in IT have provided the biggest opportunity that any government could wish for, of literally spreading the word to schools, colleges, adult groups of all kinds and, most recently, even to small rural communities, as has been mentioned. I have seen the benefits in country towns in west Dorset where I am a school governor. I know less able students and disabled people who have literally been rehabilitated by their laptops, as I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, will be, if that is possible.

In education and employment, I know of many examples of Internet conferences, exchanges and training programmes which are helping young people to enter or progress in the job market. I hope the Minister will reassure me—I think she will—that global citizenship, which incidentally is a growing source of employment too, will have an increasing share of their timetable.

So what should policy-makers do during the next period of government? First, I would like to see the DfEE further develop its present partnership with the Department for International Development in promoting the concept of global citizenship throughout formal education. This partnership has been manifested most recently in a joint paper with the Development Education Association called Global Perspectives to the Curriculum, which demonstrates the breadth of opportunity across the whole spectrum of education.

Secondly, I will expect the DfID to expand its programme of development education and its support for appropriate education programmes. I am quite seriously looking forward to a third DfID White Paper on education which could involve DfEE more closely and become a new monument to joined-up government. Several other ministries already have an input in this subject: the DTI through the ethical trading initiative; the FCO through the British Council and human rights initiatives; the Home Office through immigration and race relations; the DCMS through broadcasting; and even the DETR through its interest in sustainable development. I gather that the MoD is to develop a learning culture throughout the Armed Forces. So there is no end to it. If there is ever a case for holistic government, this is it. But, of course, the Treasury presides over all, and the learning society, fashionable as it is at the moment, will probably have to wait in the queue like everyone else.

My Lords, I too am extraordinarily grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for initiating the debate. I am more than happy to declare my own relevant interests, which include being chair of the General Teaching Council and Chancellor of the University of Sunderland.

I would also very much like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, on a wonderful maiden speech. We were doubly blessed, not only by the quality of her delivery—she has forgotten very little in the past 14 years, if I may say so—but also for reminding us of the birth pains of the Open University, which, to an extent, underlines much of what I should like to address in the next few minutes.

The past four years of political life have been marked by any number of transformations, but surely none more remarkable than the way in which education in the very broadest sense has at last taken its place at the heart of government thinking. I should add "its rightful and timely place", a place It had for too long been denied by successive governments who seemed all but oblivious to the linkage between the quality of our education system and the impact of that system on our collective national future: literally generations of lawmakers seemingly content to see unequal opportunities harden into unequal outcomes.

This Government, and most particularly this Prime Minister, were elected on a commitment to make education their number one national priority. To their credit, they seem intent on delivering on that promise. Spending on education is now growing almost three times faster than it was under the previous government. But I am sure your Lordships, most particularly noble Lords opposite, will be glad to hear that I do not intend to engage in an extended eulogy on the achievements of this administration, impressive as they undoubtedly are.

Instead, I want to argue that if Britain is genuinely to become a learning society, with all that that implies, there is not the slightest room for any let up in our efforts to deliver a world-class educational opportunity for every man, woman and child in this country. There can be no return to the bad old days, the days when—to borrow a rather dispiriting phrase—it was perfectly acceptable to see state education as "a poor service for poor people".

The daily realities of global competition leave no excuse for apathy or ignorance of the overwhelming importance of a superb education. As I have argued in this Chamber before, like it or not, we inhabit a post-industrial economy. In a world where market value can collapse with the click of a mouse and thousands of jobs can disappear virtually overnight, then surely, more than ever, we need a workforce with high-quality transferable skills, skills that will enable us to ride out the crests and the troughs of an increasingly turbulent global economy.

Yet there are still those who seek to go back, whose sense of security lies in the past, and who, brick by brick, would dismantle much of the work of the past four years. I can only hope that that form of negativity is consigned where it rightfully belongs; that is, to the dustbin of history. For in reality we are only scratching the surface of the learning revolution, let alone understanding what, when fully developed, it might come to look like. We are only just beginning to address the benefits that might be gained from giving back to our teachers their pride, their confidence and their self-esteem; in short, all those qualities which, to their eternal shame, the previous government were so instrumental in destroying.

How ironic it is that any mature society, having come to terms with the notion that beating learning into a child was possibly not the best way to achieve results, wilfully sets about trying the same dunce's cap treatment on its teaching profession.

One of the central tasks of the General Teaching Council is to offer that profession the sense that it really is a profession, one that can justifiably stand alongside doctors, engineers, accountants and any number of others. It is vital that we at last give teachers a sense that they can and should be constructively involved in the shaping of their own professional destiny. They have much to be proud of. A great deal has been achieved already in raising standards of attainment. But the human price has been high. Much of that has been at the cost of teachers' personal sense of trust and professional fulfilment.

I think it is true to say that the positive impact of information and communications technology in schools and colleges is beginning at last to make itself felt. Yet we still have a long way to go before we can claim to be harnessing even a fraction of the potential that ICT possesses to revolutionise the manner in which we teach and learn. We seem to be as bad at taking ICT on board as we were to embrace the fantastic opportunity that the Open University offered in the 1960s. As I see the matter, the problems we now face relate far more to the "how", than the "if'. How do we shift investment policy in ICT from creeping incrementalism to radical step change? Or, to put it another way, how are we to "frame" the need to equip an education service for the present rather than the previous century? How do we ensure that the "proliferation" of initiatives relating to ICT that have emerged from various government departments deliver a high-quality coherent strategy, a strategy that produces far more than the sum of its parts? How do we move away from the increasingly irrelevant political imperative to value increases in "computer-pupil" ratios above all else when what we urgently need is far better ongoing support and training for teachers and the development of a world-class content to inspire them? Because without it, the National Grid for Learning, and many other initiatives may well be doomed to failure.

If we are to have the remotest chance of remaining a competitive nation on a global stage we have to invest massively, if necessary, in training and education for the skills-based industries of the future. The very idea that we can scrimp and save on that obligation, or cut taxes while sustaining the necessary investment, is, frankly, an extravagant fantasy. It is a rather old fantasy, one, I am sad to say, which has been on display in this House as well as in another place since time immemorial. Similarly, I believe that the idea that we can achieve a successful and sustainable society while offering some 20 per cent of the population the opportunity of a first-class education, leaving the remainder to sink or swim as best they can, is now as economically indefensible as it always was morally.

During the past few years I have had the opportunity to visit literally scores of schools all over the country. Likewise, I have spoken to innumerable groups of business leaders on the subject of education. Everywhere I go I ask my audience, whoever they may be, if they can offer any formula whatever for the future of a successful Britain that is not in every respect built upon a first-class education system. I have to tell your Lordships that as yet not one single person in three and-a-half years has responded to that challenge.

I am constantly amazed by the tenacity and flexibility of the teachers I meet. I have yet to come across a chief executive of any private sector enterprise—or public sector for that matter—who would be expected to deliver half of what the average head teacher achieves with such meagre resources. CEOs of all companies have finance directors, human resource departments, operations managers and, where relevant, research departments. Head teachers have only the good-will and the patience of their increasingly over-stretched and under-rewarded colleagues. But while the imperative for a step change in educational provision is increasingly becoming a commonplace in the rhetoric of politicians, educationists and indeed business people, we have yet to attach it to a "funding model" that makes it even remotely possible.

I genuinely applaud this Government's increased investment of £540 per pupil since 1997. That is a significant increase when judged by the small, incremental increases of the past 20 years. But it is still not remotely sufficient. There is no point in acknowledging our desperate need for a world-class education system unless we are prepared fully to face the financial implications. We have to stop pretending that we can drift into this new century in a spirit of resigned complacency; that same spirit in which we economically drifted through most of the last. From Beijing to Bombay, the learning societies of the 21st century are racing ahead. They are pouring hard earned and often extremely scarce resources into their effort because they know that there is no other future for their own populations. If we do not respond, and respond quickly, decisively and courageously, we will be left by the wayside—a nation vanquished in the one area in which, for some 150 years, we were entitled to believe that we led, or at least equaled, the very best in the world.

The noble Baroness has offered us a deceptively innocent title for this important debate. The ambition it refers to is, in reality, fundamental to our national future. The role of policymakers in achieving it is equally fundamental. As I see it, those policymakers are confronted with three essential challenges: first, in the course of the coming election—whenever that may be—unambiguously to set out for the nation the price our children and our grandchildren will pay should we fail to secure an effective and thoroughly competitive "learning society"; secondly, unstintingly to invest in the professional development and therefore the confidence of this nation's teachers, without whom there can be no "learning society"; and, finally, to make real the Prime Minister's declared ambition that every school in our state system offers the resources and opportunities of the very best of the independent sector. This, like the creation of the "learning society" itself, cannot remain a warm aspiration because in today's world both have become an inescapable economic and social necessity.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for initiating the debate. Noble Lords have covered many subjects and they have addressed those involved in the learning society. I shall address my remarks to a group of people mentioned by my noble friend Lord Dholakia. I refer to the prison society and to those defined in a government document as "non-learners".

A significant group within the "non-learners" is the dyslexic population. I draw attention to this one disability group because of its size. It undoubtedly presents the greatest number of problems in terms of a truly learning society. It is reckoned that 4 per cent of the population have dyslexia to a sufficiently high degree to have a noticeable difficulty. A further 6 per cent have it to a lesser extent. If someone has had a bad educational experience and comes from a background where learning and the initial school experience are undervalued, one will probably find that those effects are greater. Where adults have dropped out of the system, it is almost guaranteed that they will have much greater problems.

It is reckoned that 81 per cent of the prison population have a major problem with literacy. The most conservative estimate of those with noticeable and detectable dyslexia is 17.5 per cent. That is probably not the true percentage as one cannot put a gun to people's heads—yet anyway—to make them have an assessment. That 17.5 per cent is three to four times the level one would expect.

I draw attention to this issue because of the positive moves the Government have made. Noble Lords may think that it is a slightly odd way of approaching the subject to say, "Here is a problem group and you have done some positive things", but I do so because in some of their documents the Government make commitments to getting people up to certain levels and they refer to assessments. But this group has different learning patterns, different learning needs and different continuing learning needs. People in this group have had worse initial experiences of education. They present totally different problems. If they are merely placed back in situations similar to the ones they have come from, they will fail again and may become even less acceptable in terms of the learning process.

The Government describe themselves as being positively bullish. Government departments probably need such assertiveness and drive to fight their way through the Whitehall jungle in order to get the money to do something. But if we constantly drive forward, we shall be in danger of leaving behind people who do not figure in the statistics. I look to the Minister to reassure me on this issue. If we do not have properly trained staff to assess people in order to give them the help that is appropriate to their situation, we shall make matters worse.

Having said, "Hello, but help!", I should like to set out what I think those problems are. We are dealing with people who have a different learning process. They have problems with short-term memory. They tend to have difficulties with time management. Those problems are difficult to deal with. Where someone in the outside world has a disorganised life—perhaps because he is long-term unemployed—it is extremely difficult to bring him back into the learning process. When we were debating the new one-stop shop for the social security system I bored the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, almost rigid at times by asking whether people would be sufficiently trained to deal with this problem. The noble Baroness said that they would, but I still did not accept that the Government had totally taken on board the idea that it would be incredibly difficult to deal with the problem.

No one test fits all types of dyslexics. It is a blanket term. It is probably one of the widest terms used when referring to disability. We sit here discussing the problem. Indeed, work done under the previous government—it was under the previous government—has meant that in the education system, particularly the school system, dyslexia is a recognised problem. We are only starting to get it recognised in the outside work environment. Although progress is being made in adult education, it is probably not an ingrained as it should be. We are dealing with a difficult situation. When it comes to passing on basic skills, if we insist on teaching in the wrong way we shall fail.

Let us be perfectly honest. Dyslexia is a disability. It does not go away. Some dyslexics who come into this non-learner category will simply not be able to reach the required level. It is like saying to someone who is confined to a wheelchair, "Get up and walk". He or she cannot do it. That aspect must be brought into the system of assessment and tuition. Although people may not be able to reach the literacy level, there may be ways around that in order to achieve employment and so on.

In the prison situation we have an opportunity to create proper tuition. We have the staff there. That is one positive aspect of a very negative situation. We can ensure that people receive the right kind of tuition if they have the right assessment. That cannot be done initially by a computer program or through a screening process. One must explain to people who may have written themselves off as stupid, at least in academic terms, that they have real problems. When that has been explained to them, I have known adult dyslexics who feel that they have had the weight of the world removed from their shoulders. However, an adult dyslexic who is functioning quite well with a low-level job might say, "I simply do not want to go back into that environment where I am learning again and failing again. I shall simply stay out of it". Explaining the problem to people may well prevent much anti-social behaviour. However, I know it is odd to suggest that saying, "Don't worry, you cannot do it because of", will stop half the problem.

We must also concentrate on getting these people accepted and understood by those around them and those who are dealing with them. Government bureaucracy, especially low level bureaucracy, must be made more aware. If someone said to those in a government office, "I am dyslexic. Will you fill out the form for me?", I should like to think that most people would turn around and say, "Yes, of course". That would involve reading out the questions, explaining the answers and then writing them down. It is not a big deal and may well save man hours if the right information is then gathered. I wonder how many census forms will be filled in badly because of this problem. Even with the assistance of my wife, I had enough difficulty trying to explain that my name and my title are different. What other mundane problems have been overlooked in the process?

If we are to address this problem, we must ensure that all assessment processes build in systems that take it into account and that when it comes to instructions being issued from the top level of the machine down to the bottom, that governments of any and all colours say to organisations, "Thou shalt do it this way and in a sympathetic manner". That is most important. The processes must be opened up to ensure that if someone does not conform to normal learning processes, that person then receives help to allow them to achieve, using other methods.

The noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, mentioned her laptop computer and how she needed a little help in learning how to use it. I should like to say, first, that we are glad to see the noble Baroness in this House. Secondly, if the noble Baroness does succeed in finding good advice, I should be more than grateful if she would pass it on.

The new learning society will provide some answers, but it has been pointed out to me that the new habit of chatting via e-mail is a social nightmare for a dyslexic, who finds spelling difficult. We must try to adapt the way we work in order to address this problem.

All new government initiatives must bear these issues in mind because it is at the lower end of the spectrum where the real problems are to be found. If someone has already been trained in how to learn, they will have no difficulty doing it again if the training systems are accessible. However, getting people into the habit of learning presents a much more fundamental problem.

I hope that the noble Baroness, whom I know has been active in this field, will be able to assure me that these concerns are being addressed, because if they are not, there is a danger that we shall create that horrible thing—an underclass with a slightly harder core to it.

My Lords, I wish to speak in particular on the subject of family learning and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for providing such a wide canvas on which we can display our individual niche interests.

To the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, I offer my congratulations on her ability to maintain silence on matters of policy for 14 years. I cannot claim such a distinguished achievement for myself—rather the contrary. Perhaps I may also offer my thanks to the noble Baroness for her service to the Open University. That is an institution of genuine world-class renown, which is reflected by the extent to which overseas countries are using it. I shall also offer the noble Baroness a little advice. I, too, have been given the perk of a free laptop computer because, perhaps like the noble Baroness, I no longer have a secretary. That in itself is a valuable learning experience for life. So I did what a good chairman of an institution called the University for Industry, a junior sister organisation to the Open University, should do: I called and asked. "Please may I have a course in how to use this computer?". I shall give the noble Baroness the telephone number when we have finished the debate. I have been given a course and I shall let the noble Baroness know how I get on.

In a few months' time it will be four years since the committee appointed by the previous government to advise on the future of higher education submitted its report. That report was entitled Higher Education in the Learning Society. The title was chosen with some care and deliberation because we saw that the big issue for this country was the creation of a learning society. The terms of reference confined the committee members to that element in society which succeeds best in learning and is therefore best equipped to become a member of the learning society for life.

I wish to concentrate on those at the other end of the spectrum. A great achievement of the Conservative government, starting in 1988, was their effort to achieve huge growth in higher education. We needed that big catch-up operation. It is good that the present Government have continued that expansion and placed renewed emphasis on further education. Furthermore, they have created the University for Industry, a flagship institution which has demonstrated its commitment to the creation of a learning society and lifelong learning. I am glad to say that the UFI is up and running, and perhaps I may point out to the noble Baroness, who mentioned that we are a culturally diverse society, that I understand that the number from the ethnic minority communities participating in the university's programmes is twice that which one would expect from the proportion in the population.

My noble friend Lord Sandwich said that he had puzzled over how to define the learning society and lifelong learning. He mentioned that he had found a thousand or more definitions. I, too, puzzled over this, but I found only one definition—possibly because I did not consult the Internet. It came from a committee chaired by Professor Bob Fryer when he was chairman of the National Advisory Group for Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning. I shall not read it out, but two parts particularly struck me.

He highlighted the realisation that we must harness new technology and that we must set up learning centres in order to open up this new form of learning. They should be as transforming as was the public library in the 19th century. I believe that this is something that this Government have gone about with a will and have done well. It is not enough merely to have the kit, it must also be "Mum and Dad friendly". It should be accessible to those mums and dads who shook off the dust of education when they left school, vowing, "That is the end of that". There was no hope of lifelong learning.

If we are to have a truly inclusive learning society, then we must think anew. In essence, we no longer have 20 per cent of our youngsters leaving school and continually replenishing the 20 per cent of our adult society that cannot find a plumber in the Yellow Pages. That is very much a social problem as much as it is one of education and we need to look at it in social terms. We need to succeed in involving parents in their support of schools.

I wish to exemplify my concern about this issue by giving the House a little information about my home city of Hull. For five years, the city was at the bottom of the league table for GCSE grades A-C passes. It is a city where 75 per cent of the homes are in the lowest community charge category. It is a city which has twice the national level of unemployment. It is a city which, unhappily, is ranked fifteenth from bottom in 254 communities for the level of deprivation.

Given the seriousness of its schools' performance and the recognition that that needed to be improved, the education authority—which came out well in its 1999 Ofsted inspection—arranged that each of the 16 secondary schools would write to all the parents of its pupils, inviting them in to talk about how they could lift the deplorable level of average performance in those schools. Each secondary school has between 500 and 700 pupils and therefore 1,000 or more parents. In spite of writing to each individual parent and in spite of support offered by the local newspaper, which has conducted a big campaign to lift educational standards, the average turnout was 50 parents per school—and sometimes as few as 12. Is it surprising that those children, living in a city of deprivation, are not performing better at school?

We shall not succeed in cracking the problem unless we see it not only as a problem for schools, but as a problem for society and, in particular, for families. Families are failing these children. Schools are not failing them at all. They are not had teachers in Hull; they are not had schools; they are not bad kids. We have a big problem.

It has been suggested in the debate that we need new ideas—not top-down ideas but top-up support for bottom-down ideas. I have looked around. Hull has got some ideas—for example, "Achievement in Excellence", under which kids from the city, with the support of the two universities, can go on a short course when they are about 13 for the local university and are promised a place. Great. But it is not really attacking the parenting problem.

I looked a bit wider. Cumbria has a CREDITS scheme for Community Renewal Education Delivering Information Technology in Schools. Family community renewal using the school is a success. East Leeds has been mentioned. Yes, Leeds is going about it. I particularly like "Dads and Lads in Computing" because it is 90 per cent mums who are coming into the initiatives. "Keeping up with the Kids" is another Leeds initiative. Great. Kent has big areas of deprivation in its coastal towns. It has the "University for Children" scheme, aimed particularly at areas of deprivation and getting pupils in years six and seven to come in with families. There are family learning days and weekends when dads can come. Good stuff.

If this is to happen and there is to be a flourishing of local ideas, one should say to the Government, "Look, you have done a good job in creating this learning society, but look at the family issue. Make it easy. Provide funding for local initiatives. Develop the scheme that you have introduced already of providing free computers for those who cannot afford to buy them so that the kids and dad and mum can get into the game. Encourage bottom-up ideas and share them around". This is so important.

I congratulate noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches on what they have said about prisons. Parents in prison cannot engage. I could not believe it when it was said that while prisoners can, in the run-up to release, go and see about jobs and getting work, they cannot engage in education. For goodness sake, they must become learners. They need it more than most if they are not going to go back to prison within a couple of years, as most of them do. The only way to prevent that is to get them set up as learners in civvy street and at home.

I hope that the new Chief Inspector of Adult Education will be as vigorous as Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons about education. I congratulate the department on setting up a joint unit with the Prison Service and getting the scheme going. It has received some £50 million. Let us have more.

If we are going to help children to come into the learning society we must realise that this is not a problem that we can leave to the teachers; they desperately need our help. We need very new thinking in regard to the engagement of parents in these areas of deprivation and for getting them into education themselves. They would thereby be equipped to help their children and would realise how much education means to their children's lives.

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for introducing this stimulating debate. I join others in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, on her splendid maiden speech. I join in her praise for the achievements of the Open University. It is very much an exemplar of what we need in terms of continuing education.

Three themes have run through the debate. The first is: what do we mean by a learning society? The second is: is Britain a learning society? The third is: what can national policymakers do about it?

The first theme first—what do we mean by a learning society?—has been translated into meaning "lifelong learning" and that we never shut the door on learning more. For all of us there is always the opportunity to go a little further and to learn a little more from the cradle to the grave. This, in itself, is an important end.

Education can be, if you like, a consumer good because it adds to consumer satisfaction. As the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar said, it helps a person to exploit his or her full potential for a satisfying life. Indeed, it provides ways of finding more satisfaction in life. It is an important end in itself.

It is also, of course, important from the economy point of view, a point raised by a number of speakers, particularly by the noble Lords, Lord Dearing and Lord Puttnam. In today's globalising economy—and I belong to a ghastly group in Europe called the Globalising Learning Economy Group—technology, knowledge and capital are all mobile; the labour force is not mobile. This country's gross national product, therefore, depends very much upon the skills, knowledge and experience of our labour force.

In a world in which knowledge is changing so fast, if our labour force does not update its skills and its knowledge, it will create two great dangers. One danger is that we will tend to end up with the low value-added jobs instead of the high value-added jobs. However, there is an even bigger danger. If we do not understand what is going on, we cannot use leading-edge knowledge. We have all got a laptop; most of us just about manage to master Word and do very little else with it. There are all kinds of things we could do if we were better at it. If we all did the training and, as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has done, signed up with the UFI, we would be able to use properly our Excel spreadsheets and our address lists instead of experimenting from time to time, as one does, to try and run off a list of addresses.

Exactly the same happens with technology. If firms are not employing research scientists who are at the leading edge, it is no good. We cannot buy in technology from elsewhere and use it because in our firms we do not have anyone who can understand it and receive it. We have to have those points of reception. If we do not understand it, then it is useless and we cannot use it. So the notion that we do not have to worry about technology because we can always buy it in is not correct; we have to grow from underneath people who can understand these matters.

So, from the point of view of a consumer good, it is a good thing in itself to have more education and to understand more; and, from the point of view of the economy, it is important that we participate in continuing learning. We must go on always learning and learning more.

Turning to the second theme—is Britain a learning society?—I think that it is becoming a learning society. I do not think that it was. One of the issues about which I feel very strongly is the kind of world in which I grew up in the 1950s and 1960s, when I went to a grammar school. If you did not pass the 11-plus, doors were closed on what you could do; if you did not sit GCSEs, doors were closed; if you did not sit A-levels, you could not go on to university. Constantly, it was a closing-door education system.

Now, thank heaven, over the course of the past 30 years, we have begun to create an open-door education system and the Open University has done a vast amount to help. But we need to go on still further. It is an academically-based education system. A-level is the gold standard and, whether you like it or not, vocational education is regarded as being a second-class education. It is vital for our country that there is parity between vocational and non-vocational courses. Above all, it is vital that we open up opportunities for those who lose out in the early phases for one reason or another—whether because of family background, dyslexia, illness or whatever—so that they can always make up the grade.

I think that we are improving. There are still too many closed doors in our system but I think that we are improving in terms of an open-door education system. The Government have taken many initiatives to improve it—Sure Start, the Early Years programme, the numeracy and literacy standards, the New Deal for the young unemployed, the Connexions service, the establishment of the Learning and Skills Council, the bringing together of further education and the technology and enterprise councils, the Learn Direct initiative and the University for Industry—and I welcome all of them.

But one is left asking some questions. Why, for example, did the Government leave it so late to begin putting resources into the system? It is a real indictment of this Government that during their term of office spending on education has been 4.6 per cent of GDP, whereas during the Major years it was 5 per cent. Yet this was the Government who said, "Education, education, education"—and, God only knows, we do need education, education, education. But why wait two years before starting spending some of that money instead of, as the Liberal Democrats asked them to do, immediately putting money into the system?

Why have the Government not adopted the recommendations of their own National Skills Task Force which would entitle every adult in this country to free tuition if he or she were working for the first time to obtain a level 2 qualification, the equivalent of a GCSE? Why have they not accepted the recommendation of the CBI that there should be a level playing field between all vocational and academic qualifications, with everyone aged 16 to 24 being entitled to free tuition up to level 3, the equivalent of A-level? Why have the Government been so slow in introducing individual learning accounts? Why are they not available for those over 18? Why do not the Government begin to use individual learning accounts as a way to help open up the continuing learning process to a much greater degree than they have so far? Why do they insist on setting up separate local learning and skills councils instead of using the existing regional development agencies to develop "bottom up" initiatives which, as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said, are so important. These questions remain in relation to what the Government have done in this area.

I want to raise a further question which has not been dealt with in the debate. All these initiatives are on the supply side of education. Yes, we are opening doors and saying to people, "Come through, come through a little further". But what if people do not come through? There is considerable evidence that Britain's problems lie on the demand side. We have far too many people who do not care about education and training, either for themselves as individuals or within their working environment. For example, almost one-third of the managers and proprietors of small businesses have no qualification equivalent to GCSE; 27 per cent of those who run small and medium-sized businesses have no formal education or training qualification whatever.

Added to that is the dispiriting finding, quoted in the final report of the National Skills Task Force, that 50 per cent of adults who left school or college over 10 years ago and who have not since participated in learning activities say that they want nothing further to do with learning. The task force says in its report:

"This lack of demand for, indeed resistance to, learning is likely to present as much of a barrier to raising skill levels of such adults as their own lack of basic skills".

That is the challenge for the Government. How do we get through to those who have no skills at all but who do not particularly want to learn?

I put forward some ideas that may be worth considering. Should we be looking at an equivalent to the French system in terms of a general remissible training levy, which it is claimed has been extremely successful in instilling a training culture among firms in France? It was rejected by the majority of members of the National Skills Task Force, who were worried about the bureaucracy that it might impose on small and medium-sized businesses. The Liberal Democrats' answer is to move on a voluntary basis and to suggest that national training organisations can introduce a training levy where they want to. But given the lack of training among small and medium-sized businesses, ought we perhaps to be thinking about that?

Should we be tackling the problem from the other end and insisting that those who set themselves up in a trade, be it as a plumber or a motor mechanic, should have qualifications? The Liberal Democrats want to re-establish the grade of master craftsman—a person who satisfies minimum standards of workmanship. People could set themselves up and to some extent be acknowledged by training standards officers as possessing that qualification. In Germany, France and America, a person cannot practise as a plumber or an electrician without such a qualification. Why are people in this country allowed to set themselves up without it? Why is the biggest problem with which the Consumers' Association is asked to deal that of cowboy plumbers?

I have two further ideas. It is important that we try to "grow our own" within the public sector. Are we doing enough to encourage school meals assistants and so forth to think about acquiring educational qualifications? That is an important point.

The debate has emphasised the need for Britain, in this modern world of globalisation, to become a learning society. As I have indicated. I am not convinced that we have moved far enough in that direction. But it is important that the measures undertaken are from the bottom up. If we look at other countries, we see that such measures have been successful. As a number of speakers have mentioned, it is important to garner the community and to get people to acknowledge what their peers are doing. It is important to examine measures on the demand side, not merely on the supply side.

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to engage in another debate about education; however, I think we all agree that time constraints will inhibit any attempt to do full justice to such an important debate.

I want to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, who opened the debate with an excellent speech. Among the many key points that she made, the importance of teaching people how to learn resonated with me as a fundamental prerequisite for all learning. A further point that I picked up among many others was the importance of removing obstacles to learning.

I, too, welcomed the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd. We have all looked forward to hearing her maiden speech. The noble Baroness came to this House following a most distinguished career as a constituency Member of Parliament and as Speaker of the House of Commons. Having heard her excellent speech, I know that I speak for everyone in the House when I say how much we look forward to hearing from her on many occasions to come. My noble friend Lady Carnegy, who is not in her place, came and whispered in my ear—as the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, knows, she has an involvement with the Open University—how much the noble Baroness is revered by everyone at the university including many of the students. Just as the noble Baroness feels privileged to be chancellor of the Open University and a Member of this House, we regard it as a privilege to have her with us as a friend and colleague.

The first time I can recall the expression "a learning society" being used in relation to public policy was when Gillian Shephard, the then Secretary of State for Education, used it during a "Campaign for Learning" in the spring of 1996, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. The words used by the chairman of the Campaign for Learning, Sir Christopher Ball, are as pertinent today as they were then. He said:

"In the 21st Century those individuals who do not practice lifelong learning will not find work; those organisations which do not become learning organisations will not survive; those schools, colleges and universities which do not put their students first will not recruit".

Such is the complexity of the world in which we live that flexibility within the labour market and a requirement to train and to retrain throughout one's working life will be the normal experience for most people. Even within a more stable and professional career, such is the speed of technological advances that the need to keep abreast of new techniques and new technology is equally pressing.

Companies, whether large, medium or small, must give priority to education and training. Much progress has been made by industry and commerce in developing dynamic ladders of opportunity for the education and training of their staff. However, progress is patchy. Manufacturing industry, for example, is in serious decline and scope for engaging new technology and more modern working practices with all the required capital investment and the provision of training programmes is simply beyond many manufacturing companies. Their energies are debilitated keeping their heads above water in order to survive.

Having said that, medium and small-sized companies are coming to realise that a successful future depends upon their willingness to invest in education and training and a readiness to adapt to changing market conditions. Globalisation, a much abused word, is a fact of life. Today, we see a more rapid movement of people, goods and services, as well as capital, between countries—even between continents—than ever before.

The effects of those changes—of the global economy and increasingly world-wide competition—is forcing enterprises to adapt to change. Traditional secure jobs are disappearing fast, and an increase in self-employment, flexible employment and innovative working practices is happening on an unprecedented scale. The result of all this poses a fundamental shift of many social and political certainties. Therefore, the imperative is for people to become more personally responsible, more adaptable to change through education and training. The challenge for the policy makers is to balance the creation of opportunities without being over-prescriptive or too interventionist.

There should be encouragement for greater personal investment in life-long learning, and for employers to develop a vested interest in a well-trained and well-motivated workforce. Although I have linked education with training in my contribution so far, I also wish to put on record the importance of learning for its own sake—for enjoyment and for self-fulfilment. In a very interesting article in today's Daily Telegraph, Anthony Smith, who is the president of Magdalen College Oxford, refers to learning in order to maintain the practice of scholarship and the pursuit of new learning. All of this is also important.

I also support the importance of informal learning, which is a great tradition in this country. As I represented the subject in this House when I was a Minister, I should like to pick up on the theme advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, about the importance of education in prisons. Having been an education Minister before becoming a Home Office Minister, I must say that I regard that as almost an essential pre-requisite to enable people to understand the points made by the noble Lord. At this point, I should like to pay tribute to those working in the voluntary sector. I believe that they are almost more effective in the field of prison education than the professionals. That is often because of the nature of the relationship between the volunteer and the prisoner.

I was deeply depressed by the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. I believe that the tone of the debate changed very dramatically at that point. On behalf of my colleagues who served in the education department with both energy and aspiration, I can tell the noble Lord that I took personally the scathing criticisms that he made about the time when I was serving in government. Much was achieved; indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, referred to his involvement in many of those achievements. I should point out that the introduction—

My Lords—

No, my Lords. My speech is time limited, and I do not intend to give way.

The education department throughout those years introduced the national curriculum, devolved schools management and opened up technical education, as well as developing GNVQs and NVQs. There was also the development of the specialist schools in languages, music, drama, sport, as well as in science and technology. More information and better accountability was provided for parents and regular inspection was introduced. The number of people entering university increased from one in eight to one in three, when we left office. The spending on education as a percentage of GDP in the previous Parliament was greater than that spent by the Government throughout this Parliament. Two major Acts for improving special educational needs were introduced during that time, and they have since been built upon by the present Government. I simply know not what, or to whom, the noble Lord was referring when he talked about "beating" education into children.

The need for flexibility and adaptability, greater competitiveness and a highly educated and trained workforce is well understood, but there is considerable scope for addressing the problems that beset our educational system at the local level. Given the importance of serving the needs of all people, there is concern and confusion about the resources matching the aspirations of the special educational needs Bill, which is passing through Parliament at present. I have read the ministerial answers to Written Questions tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. There appears to be a lack of clarity about where responsibility lies and how competing policies will be resolved.

There is a serious teacher crisis. There are far too many temporary supply teachers covering for teacher vacancies. There are far too many children being taught subjects for which their teachers have not been trained. There are even children without school places, who have missed months of education because of the sluggishness of the organisation and development committees system that has taken over from local education authorities the responsibility for decision making in the supply of school places for the number of children in an area. We heard only yesterday that the new A-level and AS-level system requires hundreds of additional exam markers, who are proving difficult to recruit and train. There is far too much bureaucracy throughout the school FE and HE sector, which is dissipating time, energy and precious resources.

There is also a funding crisis. Although additional funding has been announced by the Government, the actual core funding into our schools and colleges is not rising. One reason for this is the unprecedented tranche of money that is held back by the DfEE over which Ministers exercise personal patronage for endless pet schemes that are the subject of numerous press releases on an almost daily basis.

Coherence is another issue. There have been so many changes and so many initiatives that many of the relationships of the new bodies require greater clarity. I have in mind local education authorities, 47 learning and skills councils (which replace the FEFC and training and enterprise councils), a network of local learning partnerships with a co-ordinating function, the University for Industry (providing direct learning through learndirect centres), local information, advice and guidance services, as well as those bodies dealing with individual learning accounts, deferred repayment career development loans, union learning funds, and the Connexions service, to mention but a few. These bodies, and many others, provide a complex and bewildering picture for young people, especially those young and more vulnerable people who require much more assistance to enable them to see their way round the system.

If life-long learning is to be a reality, it must be accessible. It must be free from over-burdensome regulation, particularly for business and commerce; it must also be flexible, as well as free from bureaucracy and intervention. It must meet the educational and training needs and aspirations of its students, both young and old.

My Lords, as the former Master of Birkbeck, perhaps I may begin by saying just how delighted I was to hear the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Boothroyd about the Open University. I believe that every speaker in the debate will share her view about the unique value of the OU and the very special qualities of the part-time mature students who take its courses. Indeed, I recommend its courses to all Members of your Lordships' House. However, I hope that I can arrange a learndirect course for my noble friend on how to use her new laptop. Perhaps she would like to come to see me after the debate.

I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for raising this important matter and for doing so with great conviction—and, if I may say so, with wisdom. We have had a very good and most stimulating debate. I am also grateful to all the speakers who have taken part.

Learning is fundamental to our future prosperity. We can no longer rely on a small élite: we need the creativity, the enterprise and the skills of all our people to achieve economic growth, social justice and a civilised society. For many people this means overcoming past experiences that have put them off learning. It means recognising and developing their talent, often for the very first time.

That is the vision that we set out in our Learning Age Green Paper four years ago. Since then, I believe that this Government have done more than any other to lay the foundations for a learning society. We have raised standards in schools and have encouraged more young people to stay in learning. I believe that we have reached out imaginatively to engage adults with poor skills and qualifications and established a framework for raising standards in learning beyond education.

However, I should like to say how much I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and, indeed, with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, who said that what we are about here is learning to learn. We are also concerned with those other three Rs: resilience, resourcefulness and reflection.

As the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said, an understanding of international development and the global world is important. As he rightly pointed out, the introduction of citizenship in the national curriculum is important in that regard. Many link-ups are being established between schools in the UK and the rest of the world. Recently in Cambridge witnessed middle school pupils making important links with schools in Ghana. The pupils enjoyed that enormously.

The work of the new Learning and Skills Council will be central to the delivery of our strategy. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, does not support that important reform because the council integrates for the first time the planning and funding of all post-compulsory education and training outside higher education. It will have significant new resources for its work. In 2005 its budget, excluding the total for school sixth forms, will be £6.4 billion. Therefore, there will be substantial extra resources going into further education. That is just part of the extra investment this Government are making in lifelong learning. By 2003–04 investment in higher education will total over £7 billion as a result of the extra investment that we have provided. In addition, we shall invest substantially more through the University for Industry, individual learning accounts and other initiatives to promote adult learning.

I must defend my noble friend Lord Puttnam. He referred to the substantial extra investment that this Government have made in education across the board. I believe that he mentioned the additional £540 per pupil that has been provided since 1997. Of course, he is right that more is needed, but the Prime Minister has pledged that if we win the election we shall provide further increases in funding for education. I say to the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Blatch, that we are spending more as a proportion of GDP on education. The figure was 4.7 per cent in 1996–97. In 2001–02 it will be 5 per cent. It is projected to rise to 5.3 per cent in two years' time. We should acknowledge those improvements and those changes.

The Learning and Skills Council will build on achievements in our schools, as a number of speakers have rightly indicated. My noble friend Lady Massey was quite right to suggest that those who achieve most during their years of compulsory schooling are most likely to remain lifelong learners and to realise their full potential in their jobs and in the wider community. That is why our focus on raising standards in schools is so crucial. Last year primary schools delivered the best ever results in literacy and numeracy tests following the introduction of our new national strategies. More young people achieved five or more higher grades at GCSE. These are the returns on that extra £540 of investment per pupil since 1997.

We now intend to put in place new measures to promote diversity and higher standards in our secondary schools. The transformation of teaching and learning for 11 to 14 year-olds will ensure higher achievement at Key Stage 3, especially in English and Maths. However, I reassure my noble friends Lady Massey and Lord Puttnam that we are concerned with the wider aspects of learning and, of course, with support for teachers, as well as meeting our achievement targets.

We are encouraging all young people to go as far as their talents will take them. Social and economic disadvantage must no longer be a bar to learning. Over 90 per cent of young people from professional families stay in education after the age of 16, compared with only 60 per cent from semi or unskilled families. We are determined to close that gap, to which my noble friend Lady Andrews referred. We have created clearer and more challenging learning pathways, both academic and vocational; broader A-level study; the new key skills qualification; and stronger vocational options from 14-plus with new vocational GCSEs, reformed modern apprenticeships and new foundation degrees. These reforms will help to make sure that we achieve our aim of 50 per cent of people going to university by the age of 30 compared with around 43 per cent today.

In driving up standards we also seek to raise aspirations and to overcome the poverty of expectation that has bedevilled so many families. That is why we are matching better opportunities with targeted support for those at most risk of dropping out or underachieving. The benefits of focused effort are beginning to show from Sure Start and our Early Excellence Centres Programme, from Excellence in Cities schools and from education action zones.

To keep 13 to 19 year-olds engaged in learning we shall provide advice and guidance through the one-stop Connexions Service. The incentive for young people in disadvantaged areas to continue learning provided by education maintenance allowances has produced a 5 percentage points increase in the proportion of 16 and 17 year-olds staying in education.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, adults who missed out on education and training earlier in life must no longer be disadvantaged relative to their better qualified peers. Our strategy to engage these adults tackles the barriers reported in the National Adult Learning Survey: low levels of prior attainment; lack of information; lack of attractive and accessible opportunities; and lack of resources. As the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, said, there may be no such thing as a non-learner. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, many people's expectations about putting their potential to learn into practice are still far too low.

Basic skills are essential for further learning and for many jobs. As a number of speakers have said, up to 7 million people in England have poor literacy and numeracy skills. Our aim is to eliminate poor literacy and numeracy among adults, starting with a reduction of 750,000 in the number of those with poor basic skills by 2004. Our strategy, Skills for Life, was launched last month. By 2003–04 funding for the strategy from the department will reach £403 million a year. That is a massive increase.

New diagnostic assessment tools will help to identify learners' needs. New national standards, curricula and tests for literacy and numeracy have been published. Those teaching basic skills for more than six hours a week will receive intensive training. We are testing in 10 pathfinder areas radical improvements in the quality of the training and support delivered to learners to drive up standards. We are embedding basic skills training in a clear pathway of further learning, with a targeted approach for different groups. For example, for people without jobs, literacy and numeracy assessment and learning will form part of wider employment training.

The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, focused on people in prison. The Prisoners' Learning and Skills Unit will help offenders to improve their literacy and numeracy skills so as to improve their employment prospects on release. However, they also have to develop skills other than literacy and numeracy. The noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Dearing, also referred to the importance of improving what we do for people in prison. They are absolutely right to say that there has to be a much greater emphasis on education in the prison regime than there has been in the past. I am grateful for their welcome of our initiative in that regard. I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, on the more specific point that he raised.

Good quality information, advice and guidance can help inspire and realise the desire to learn. We are therefore building a comprehensive system of local services and piloting free in-depth guidance services for the most disadvantaged. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that we shall focus on the challenge of those with learning difficulties, trying to match their needs to good quality provision.

We also want to increase the attractiveness and availability of learning. For many people, adult and community learning is the essential first step out of exclusion. We are proud that we have arrested the decline in adult education that was seen, I regret to say, in the 1990s. In November 1998 there were 1.1 million enrolments in LEA adult education, an increase of 50,000 on the previous year. This growth will continue. We have announced a record £167 million for adult and community learning. In providing these extra resources, we have listened to what people want—both learners and providers. The family learning, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, referred, is being encouraged through that funding.

A number of speakers have talked about the use of IT. We are exploiting the Internet and electronic media to create opportunities for learning which are more convenient in terms of time, pace and place for adult learners with work and domestic commitments. I entirely endorse what my noble friend Lord Puttnam said about the importance of those developments. We are piloting ways to close the digital divide through wired up communities in urban and rural areas. Over 1,000 UK online centres are contributing to our goal of universal access to the Internet by 2005 and of helping people to explore opportunities for learning. Around 5,000 more will be "live" by the end of 2002.

The University for Industry, whose board the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, chaired—I am most grateful to him for that—has created an e-learning network for people at home, in the workplace or at one of over 900 learndirect centres around the country. The 1.7 million searchers and 2.6 million callers to the learndirect website and helpline demonstrate the importance of information on learning opportunities and the extent of the potential interest in learning. This is encouraging for us all.

We are doing more than ever to provide financial support to adult learners. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, suggested that we had not made a proper start on individual learning accounts. I disagree. Over 950,000 individual learning accounts have been opened.

The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and my noble friend Lady Andrews mentioned the importance of learning in the workplace. We must not forget that. It is vital. The economic benefits to employers are now well proven. The Learning and Skills Council will work with a smaller, stronger network of national training organisations and with the University for Industry. I hope that they will persuade more employers to reap the reward of a well trained workforce and to gain recognition as investors in people. With the Small Business Service, they will offer extra support to those small firms which lack in-house resources for staff development.

No one mentioned the unions, but they, too, have shown that they can play an imaginative and constructive role in helping members to develop their skills to ensure their long-term employability. Over 2,000 union learning representatives, trained through the Union Learning Fund which we have introduced, are informing and advising their members about the importance of learning and the opportunities to take it up. We shall continue support for that fund.

Our strategy is to raise participation and standards of learning for everyone at every age. We need a nation that has acquired those basic tools for further learning and self-development which will see them through not a job for life but the prospect of movement both within and between jobs which will take place more and more.

Much has already been achieved in our schools, colleges and workplaces and in wider communities. But I am the first to accept that more still must be achieved to create the learning society that we all want to see. The Learning and Skills Council will lead that growing renaissance of our learning culture in partnership with employers and individuals. As an active, enabling Government, we shall continue to drive forward this agenda to build the learning society not just for today but to meet the demands of tomorrow in the knowledge economy of the 21st century.

I conclude by agreeing with my noble friend Lady Andrews and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that, above all, we have to convince people that learning is not a treadmill but that it is engaging, enjoyable, stimulating and rewarding for its own sake.

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. It was a delight to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, about the growing pains of the Open University and to be reminded how small revolutions can make such a dramatic change

We have had a wide-ranging debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, said, the title was deceptively simple. It was a broad canvas. However, it would have been difficult to define the subject in any other way. Given the range of issues, lifelong learning is a wide subject. But I have been greatly encouraged by the tone of the debate, hearing new perspectives and the call for new thinking.

We are moving towards a learning society. There is a large range of initiatives, both top-down and bottom-up. We need to bring some synergy and connection to those initiatives. There is need not only for investment of money but of thought, new perspectives and targeted investment.

I was also pleased to hear the commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, towards ensuring that society values teachers. Over the years, teachers have taken a beating and it is important that we recognise that those who contribute to the learning society are valued professionals.

I hope that the debate has contributed to a broadening of our thinking and that the momentum towards creating a learning society will continue. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat in the form of a Statement the response made to a Private Notice Question in another place by my right honourable friend Stephen Byers. The Statement relates to redundancies announced yesterday by Motorola and reads as follows:

"I know that the honourable Member will share with me and I think most Members of the House the feelings of regret and disappointment caused by Motorola's decision to close its plant at Easter Inch in Bathgate. This is a bitter blow for hard working people and their families.

"In considering our response to this announcement we need to be aware of the reasons for Motorola's decision and the steps that will need to be taken to help those individuals affected and the communities in which they live.

"There is no doubt that Motorola is facing a difficult position with the sharp downturn in the market for mobile telephones and this was the reason given for yesterday's decision. As a consequence of this global decline, Motorola announced trading losses of £140 million for the first quarter of this year.

"The closure of the Easter Inch factory is part of the wider rationalisation of global production capacity by Motorola's Personal Communications Sector—that is, the mobile phones division of Motorola.

"Since December Motorola has announced plans worldwide to cut 12,000 jobs from this sector alone. It is closing two plants in the United States and cutting its workforce in Brazil. In Europe, Motorola has sold its Dublin facility, with a major loss of jobs.

"The Scottish Executive has been in constant contact over the past few weeks with Motorola, both in the UK and in the United States. The UK Government have backed the Scottish Executive's efforts. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign Secretary and I have all made representations to Motorola.

"In the end Motorola took a decision that it believed to be in the long-term commercial interests of the company, but there is no doubt that this will be an extremely difficult time for all those affected by the announcement. It is a devastating blow for the individuals and the families of all those involved and for the whole community.

"The first priority must be to pursue with Motorola future options for the Bathgate site. We need to explore every possible future use of this excellent facility. There are a variety of options to explore with the company. One is its sale as a going concern, including to a contract manufacturer of mobile phones or to another related business. The other alternatives include new employment for a new employer purchasing the site. Invest UK stands ready to assist the Scottish Executive in that task.

"In order to assist the individuals affected, the Scottish Executive is setting-up a task force with Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh and Lothian, the Employment Service, West Lothian Council, the Careers Service, the Benefits Agency and the Scottish TUC.

"The task force will draw up an action plan to meet the needs of the Motorola workers. Subject to the agreement of Motorola, it is likely to include an on-site job shop, business start-up workshops and other support to help people to find jobs. The task force has already been set up and begun its work to give those individuals the help that they need. The action plan will meet the details and the needs of those individuals. The Scottish Executive is setting aside up to £10 million to help fund the action plan.

"It has been made clear to Motorola that it will now have to pay back the £16.75 million in regional selective assistance that it has received for the Bathgate plant over the past six years. This will be the largest clawback ever of RSA grant in Scotland.

"Although the Bathgate decision is a real body-blow, we must not forget that Motorola will remain a major employer—and the largest electronic manufacturer—in Scotland. The company has given assurances that its semiconductor operations at East Kilbride and South Queensferry are unaffected by yesterday's decision. We welcome that. Motorola remains committed to a software development centre at Livingston and to the planned next generation of semiconductor technology in Dunfermline. Despite the decision towards the end of last year to reconsider the timing of the project at Dunfermline, Motorola has emphasised its underlying commitment to it.

"We expect that workers from Bathgate will have the opportunity to retrain and apply for those new jobs being created by Motorola. The company has confirmed that it looks forward to building on its 32-year association with Scotland and sees the Dunfermline site as the cornerstone of its future investment.

"It is clear that at a time of globalisation many sectors of industry are going through major restructuring and that there are bound to be implications due to the slowdown in the world economy, particularly in the USA. We should not overstate our difficulties. Most forecasters expect manufacturing output to grow this year. The medium-term prospects appear good, with productivity having grown at 6 per cent. Exports are also growing, with manufacturers' export volumes up by more than 10 per cent in the past year.

"No country can ever insulate itself from world economic events. However, because of the decisive action that we have taken—introducing tough fiscal rules, reducing the national debt, making the Bank of England independent and delivering the lowest inflation for 30 years—British economic policy is much better placed than it has been in the past. We are on course to continue to deliver stability and sustained growth.

"It is an extremely difficult time for individuals and communities when jobs are lost as industries restructure in the face of change. It is even more frustrating, as in this case, when such losses arise because of global managerial decisions based on financial problems in one sector despite the success and profits coming from the plant that is earmarked for closure. This will be a difficult time for all those who will lose their jobs as a result of this announcement. The Bathgate workforce are productive and highly skilled. I know that, working with local and national agencies, the Scottish Executive and the UK Government will do all that we can to assist them to find new employment.

"The closure of Easter Inch will take place over a period of six to 12 months. Motorola, the Scottish Executive, the Employment Service and this Government will work together to ensure that employees are found new employment before redundancy takes effect.

"Bathgate has suffered from job losses before. In the 1980s, unemployment reached 17 per cent. Through hard work and commitment, the situation has been turned around. As a result, the current rate of unemployment in West Lothian stands at 3.8 per cent. That is a great success story. However, I am the first to acknowledge that those figures will be of little comfort to the workers affected by this announcement. Many in this House will understand the anger and frustration that they feel. We must do all that we can to help them through the difficult months ahead. By working together with the Scottish Executive, I am confident that we will be able to meet the challenges that lie ahead and as a result offer real hope for the future to those affected by Motorola's announcement".

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in answer to a Private Notice Question in the other place, although I was surprised that the issue has been dealt with here, because I thought that employment was a devolved matter. I gave the Minister notice of that point. Perhaps he can clarify it for me, because nobody else seems to know the reason.

The situation is a great tragedy for all the 3,100 employees who will lose their jobs. It is a tragedy for their families and for everyone in Bathgate, in Scotland and in the United Kingdom. It is particularly sad that a new industry that was so warmly welcomed in the hope that it would replace the employment in coal, steel and shipbuilding that had been lost has ended in this way.

I say at the outset that we welcome the efforts that the Minister has mentioned to try to alleviate the situation and find alternative employment for the workers and an alternative use for the factory, wit h the setting up of the task force and the combined work with all the agencies. We wish all those efforts well.

However, one good thing that might come out of this is that the situation should bring vividly to the attention of the Government their role in the severe problems that seem to have beset our manufacturing industry in the past four years. Some 350,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing. High taxes and the enormous burden of regulation have taken their toll. Today's press release from the CBI points out the trend of future loss of orders. I was interested to hear the Minister saying that many sources predicted strong growth. I hope that that is correct, but it is not what today's CBI press release said.

The emergency interventions by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry are all very well, but Motorola will not have a change of heart unless it is in the company's commercial interests to remain at Bathgate. The announcement that the company lost 200 million dollars, or £140 million, in the first three months of this year tells its own story. Intervention, however well intentioned, cannot combat the harm done to manufacturing industry by over-regulation. That point was made by Corus after a similar intervention only a short while ago.

Apart from the general difficulties in manufacturing industry, Motorola faces a downturn in the market for mobile telephones. The same effect has been felt by Ericsson recently. As the Chancellor has said—and as I am sure that the Government will continue to say—we cannot remain unscathed by the global turndown. But at these very times it is absolutely necessary for the United Kingdom to remain competitive. Indeed, that issue was highlighted in the Statement, which said that the Government believe that, thanks to their policies, they may avoid the worst scenario. We certainly hope so.

However, confidence should be tempered with a hint of caution. While, on the one hand, the IMF—in a leaked report, I believe—predicts that the British economy will grow by 2.6 per cent this year, on the other hand, the highly respected Item Club predicts that it could fall as low as 1 per cent both this year and next. And what has happened to our manufacturing industry is a warning of which we should take notice.

The honourable Member for the West Lothian area mentioned in his speech in the other place a little earlier today that Motorola has been an exemplary employer, having had a 32-year commitment to Scotland. I managed to catch his words only at the last moment as I rushed into the Chamber for the aborted Statement. However, I believe that he said that the company had provided 20,000 quality hours of employment in Scotland and that it was a model employer, having spent much time and effort on training its workforce. I certainly hope that that will prove beneficial to those who have lost their jobs and that it will help them to find employment in the future. I simply make the point that I do not believe that we can lay the matter at the door of the employer; it is an issue which concerns the general scene surrounding the company.

Perhaps I may ask the Minister just four questions in addition to the earlier one on which I have already touched. My first question is: has the slow roll-out of the GPRS (the general packet radio service) by the mobile phone operators been a significant reason why Motorola has incurred so many job losses? Secondly, is the reason why the mobile phone companies are not able to afford the infrastructure the £22.5 billion that was taken from them in the government spectrum auctions?

Thirdly, perhaps I may ask whether the slow take-up of the GPRS and WAP (wireless access protocol) is an indication that people will not want the services provided by third generation mobiles. Lastly—I am sure that the noble Lord will be pleased that this is my last question—does that mean that the 3,000 job losses at Motorola are only the tip of the iceberg which could sink the United Kingdom as the best place to do e-business?

My Lords, from these Benches we, too, welcome the Minister's repetition of the Statement in this House. As did the Minister and the Opposition spokesman, we also wish to express our sympathy to the workers at the Motorola plant, many of whom have already been made redundant once and, in some cases, twice. Clearly, for them this is a terrible blow.

We obviously agree with the Government that at this stage it is crucially important that all the agencies involved at national level—the Scottish Executive—and at local level in Lothian work very hard to examine the job opportunities that may be available. However, I believe that it is worth pausing to reflect that the rate of unemployment in Lothian is 3.8 per cent. If many of us who grew up learning economics in the 1960s and 1970s had been asked what was the rate of unemployment in Lothian, we should have been more likely to say 13 per cent or, possibly in some places, 30 per cent rather than 3.8 per cent.

The economy in that part of Scotland has been extremely buoyant. That is, of course, one reason why there is now cause to revise the Barnett formula. However, in this case we are not talking of a situation quite like that which appertained—to a certain extent, it still does—in the Welsh Valleys or South Yorkshire. There, whole industries have been swept away and high and endemic levels of unemployment now exist. We are talking about an area which is, or has been, close to its capacity but where, as we speak, there are skill shortages. The key issue now is not to talk in terms of doom and gloom and of an entire region failing but to look at how we deal with a particular, severe problem which affects that single plant.

Neither do I accept some of the more gloomy prognoses of the Opposition Front Bench. I believe that this is the third time since the previous general election that Members on that Bench have argued that we are about to enter a severe recession. They have been proved wrong up until now. Although clearly there are problems in relation to the world economy, I believe that at this stage it would be mistaken to talk down too far our economic prospects.

However, this closure raises a number of issues which need to be investigated and on which I should welcome an initial response from the Minister. The first is the extent to which he believes that there are features of the UK economy and the UK labour market which make Motorola and other international investors more likely to close down plants in this country than they would equivalent plants elsewhere. The noble Baroness referred to the questions of taxation and regulation. I add to that list the question of whether any aspects of our labour market legislation make it more attractive, cheaper, easier and quicker to close down a plant such as Motorola in this country than it does to close an equivalent plant elsewhere in the European Union.

Secondly, what implications does this type of closure have for the Government's cluster strategy for industries? It is all very well to group together a large number of facilities which produce equivalent or near-equivalent products when times are good. But when times are bad, the danger is that a downturn in a single sector will have a disproportionately high effect in an area. The closure of one factory and a reduction in another in the same industry can, in the short term, lead to a severe shift downwards in the number of jobs and employment levels. Taking a long-term view, does the Minister still believe that pushing hard for clusters makes sense?

Thirdly, does the Minister accept that the continuing and high level of job losses in manufacturing over recent years has been made worse by the continuing high level of the pound? Does he accept that the Government's complete failure to do anything about the level of sterling has caused, is causing and will continue to cause job losses in manufacturing and, indeed, in other sectors, including tourism?

Finally, on a more general point, do the Government have an industrial policy? Do they accept that, in effect, the market rules unfettered, or do they believe that they could and should affect investment and disinvestment decisions by multinationals such as Motorola?

My Lords, perhaps I may deal with some of the questions that have been raised. First, I turn to the question of whether this matter has been an issue of devolution. That was a point that I raised when I was asked to repeat the Statement. The answer is that the Secretary of State has made a Statement about the Motorola situation. Therefore, it was considered right that, in these circumstances, he should make a further Statement.

We need to be clear that in this case we are dealing with a very specific situation which relates to the mobile telephone market. I do not believe that it has anything to do with the strength of the pound; nor does it have anything to do with over-regulation. It has everything to do with the demand for mobile phones and how that has moved in recent years.

In relation to UK subscriber and owner figures, it is as well to remind oneself that in June 1999 there were 15 million owners of mobile phones—that is, 26 per cent of the population. In June 2000, the figure was 30 million—that is, 52 per cent of the population. The latest figure is 42 million, which is 72 per cent of the population.

I do not believe that it is totally irrational to accept that, as those figures begin to be reached, the demand for basic mobile phones will begin to tail off. I believe that that is the clear reason behind the fact that, at the end of the year 2000, the big three handset manufacturers—Nokia, Motorola and Ericsson—all revised downwards their forecasts for demand.

Here, we are dealing with a specific situation in which production was geared up in order to meet that extraordinary increase in demand. Clearly, the company counted on the fact that the next generation and the replacement market would begin to pick up that demand. That has not happened as it would have liked. I hope that the Opposition's references to the overvaluation of the pound and to over-regulation do not mean that they are making the mistake of losing touch with the fact that a specific industrial situation occurred in this case.

On GPRS, the answer is, no. It is being rolled out—companies are developing it. They wanted it to have moved faster, but it is moving. The decision does not have anything to do with the auction of GPS3 or 3G, which is also moving ahead and which was always a long-term investment. In this case, a licence lasting for 20 years—until 31st December 2021—is involved. The situation is moving forward but not as fast as the industry would have liked. However, that has no relevance so far as e-business is concerned. The demand for e-business will continue to move forward. It will not go in a straight line, but that is not what happens with innovations; demand comes in spurts.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked about the labour market. The costs and procedures for UK redundancy agreements are in some cases higher than those in other European countries. That was not relevant to this decision, although it will he a source of great aggravation to people in this plant.

A major tax issue with the German plant, which has tax advantages of 300 million dollars, is involved. That is due to the losses that were incurred in the plant—the company has a credit for that. It would have lost that if it closed the plant. There is no doubt that that affected the decision. That is clearly a great blow to those working in the Scottish plant, which has an exemplary record for efficiency and profitability.

I turn to clusters. The Government do not impose clusters on companies; companies want to adopt them to secure innovation. Increasingly with investment, companies want to go to places where there is a skilled workforce that is relevant to the industry. That has the implication that during periods of boom those areas do well, although particular industries may get into difficulty.

The level of the pound was mentioned. That undoubtedly puts pressure on companies to increase their productivity in order to upgrade the industry. That is very difficult in some industries, especially those that are dependent on large amounts of tins killed labour and which do not have the scope of going to added-value markets. The issue was not relevant in this case; we are dealing with a specific problem in this sector.

My Lords, I voice my grave concern about the situation in Bathgate and express my sympathy with the employees and their families, especially because the workforce is so highly skilled. I was glad to hear—perhaps the Minister will confirm this—that Motorola will pay substantially above the minimum redundancy rate to those who will lose their jobs.

I am a little disappointed about the fact that there was political content in the Statement in another place. After all, it was after the closure of the British Leyland works near Bathgate that the Conservatives were able to bring new industry, such as Motorola, to Bathgate and to bring down the unemployment levels so dramatically.

Is it not a little counter-productive for the Government to require the repayment of the grant of £17 million? Will that not be a deterrent to new industry and incoming investment? Surely that money would be far better used if it went towards retraining and helping to re-employ the present employees.

Does the Minister agree that the German tax situation, in relation to which tax losses can be carried forward, is a substantial part of Motorola's decision to leave Scotland? As he rightly said, however, we should bear in mind that Motorola will continue to be a large employer in Scotland.

Lastly—this point was made by my noble friend Lady Miller—the fact that we have had a Scottish Statement in another place and in your Lordships' House must surely have created a precedent by which we can ask questions about Scotland in this House.

My Lords, there have to be clear rules on regional selective assistance. Those clear rules must be that if one receives regional selective assistance, one pays it back if one closes the relevant factory. It is for the government to make money available for retraining and other activities, but that should be seen as a separate exercise from the payment back of regional selective assistance. If we said, "You can have RSA and if you close the plant and go, you can keep the grant", that would send precisely the wrong signals.

On the carry-forward of losses in relation to the German tax system, the situation is no different from the British approach to carrying forward tax losses. The difference in this case is that the plant in Germany has already made those losses, which is what makes closing it down particularly unattractive. That is a wrinkle in this case but it does not, so far as I understand the situation, involve differentiating between the British and German tax systems.

We must be clear about the fact that the decision is a body-blow to people in the company. Equally, however, we must be clear about the reasons why the decision was taken. It was due not to the failure of the plant or the workforce, which has performed extremely well, but to particular factors. There was a very rapid decline in this relatively high-tech sector, which meant that the company, in the face of rapidly mounting losses, had to cut back.

My Lords, I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monro, and the Minister about the RSA—the situation is rather like the question about the chicken and the egg. Will the Minister explain how the money will be repaid? Has he made it abundantly clear that it has got to be repaid?

My Lords, there is no particular complexity about the matter. A cash payment was made to the company and the company will have to pay it back. I do not know whether discussions have yet taken place about the relevant time-frame.

My Lords, in view of the terms of the Scotland Act, it is excellent that the Department of Trade and Industry is still able to help Scotland, as it is currently doing. There is great anxiety in Scotland about the possibility that the industrial situation there is somewhat different from that in the UK as a whole. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked the Minister various questions about the UK's industrial position compared with other parts of the world.

In their discussions with people in Scotland, have the Minister or his right honourable friend heard any whisper from Motorola about whether doubts about the future level of personal taxation in Scotland affected its decision? The anxiety is that doubts about the tax that employees may have to pay, and what they would expect in their salaries, may have affected the decision.

There is pressure from some people in the coalition in the Scottish Executive to put up the basic rate of tax. The pressure from Westminster is apparently growing somewhat in favour of altering the Barnett formula so that Scotland receives less money from Westminster. That would also possibly mean tax going up in Scotland. The Minister will not want to comment on what the Scottish Executive might do, but has he heard any whisper that doubts in that regard in Motorola have had anything to do with the fact that it is in relation to the plant in Scotland, as opposed to anywhere else, that the closure decision has been taken?

My Lords, Motorola has been absolutely clear about its reasons and has discussed at great length with the Scottish Executive and with the UK Government why it is making that decision. As I said, it is faced with an extremely difficult situation in one specific part of its business. It is extremely noteworthy that it has confirmed that it is going ahead with the higher value-added investments which it is making in the Scottish economy. Clearly, if the company had doubts about the economic climate in Scotland, it would not be making those investments.

It is those investments which are most important in this situation. The Scottish Executive are seeking to ensure that there is more of an upgrade in the design areas—the sales and marketing areas—of those industries which are more value-added. They are seeking also to make arrangements to train people to go into that higher value-added sector. But the fact that Motorola is continuing to make those very important long-term investments indicates to me that it is continuing with its position of being a long-term and very good investor in Scotland.

My Lords, perhaps I may revert to the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monro, and, indeed, earlier by the principal spokesmen from both the opposition parties; namely, that one of the reasons for closing the Bathgate plant rather than a less successful plant in Germany was the fact that losses had been made in Germany and they can be carried forward. Therefore, there are good commercial financial reasons why one plant rather than another should be chosen for closure.

The Minister has very fairly said that our tax laws relating to carried forward losses are rather similar. My question is slightly different but on the same point. When it is determined that selective assistance be given on a regional basis and when other forms of assistance and encouragement are given to a global company to start a plant in the UK, whether in Scotland or elsewhere, are such matters taken into account? What knowledge do we have at that point that there are other plants of the same company in other countries which may not be doing very well? If there is a global down-turn, we should perhaps know in advance that our plant may be the one which is closed down.

My Lords, one must have a reasonable approach to those issues. When one is trying to attract mobile investment to come to this country, to ask those concerned to tell us about the financial arrangements of all their plants around the world and what their tax losses are so that we can judge, in a down-turn, which particular plant decisions would be made is, frankly, unrealistic as a way of approaching the situation. It is quite unrealistic also in relation to forecasting the position in five or 10 years when those businesses are faced with decisions about having to close plants. That is not a realistic way forward.

It is a bitter blow to the people involved in the company. When a decision is made on those grounds, I believe that anyone working in the plant concerned, which has been highly successful, would be extremely bitter about it. But I doubt that it is a sensible approach to try to forecast the future tax-loss position of different plants.

My Lords, whatever the extent of devolution of industrial policy, it is, nevertheless, a fact, as the noble Lord said, that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and, indeed, the Prime Minister himself were all involved. That is perfectly understandable in view of the severity and painfulness of that major closure. Nevertheless, can the noble Lord give some indication of the helpful lines which I am sure the Prime Minister and his colleagues pursued with the company?

My Lords, the Prime Minister became involved because, in the final analysis, it appeared to be a rather close decision and he was keen to see whether his personal intervention could change it. A plant had to be closed and it was a question of which plant should be closed. It was also a matter of seeing whether anything could be done in relation to tax or assistance which would weigh in the balance of that decision. In the event, it was not possible to do so, but it was wholly right and proper that, at the very highest level of government, an attempt should have been made to see whether there was any way that we could put factors into the balance which would redress the balance in favour of the Scottish plant, which, as I say, was accepted to be more efficient and more profitable than the German plant.

My Lords, first, I declare an interest as an investment fund manager. Does the Minister agree that a major cause of the closure of the Bathgate plant was Motorola's worry over the future of 3G? We all wish 3G well, but it is not without its element of risk, with the sums of money involved

Secondly, the Minister will be aware that there has been a fair amount of speculation that the terms of the £22.5 billion auction of 3G licences is being renegotiated. Will the Minister comment on that, with particular reference to some of the noises off from the European Commission on those lines?

My Lords, the situation on 3G, as I said, is that it is going ahead and clearly it is going ahead faster rather than slower, given the very heavy prices which have been paid in the auction. Companies make commercial decisions, which they are perfectly entitled to make. However, other companies make other decisions and then do not get the licences. In those circumstances, it is extremely difficult for government to turn round and say that they will change the rules and undertake the matter on a different basis. Leaving aside any other considerations, one would come under legal attack if one started to roll back on that situation. However, I do not believe that that is a major consideration in this decision. As I said, it is due to the fact that there has been a very sharp decline which has caught many companies unawares and which has forced them to cut back their forecasts for the future.

rose to call attention to the violations of human rights in Iran and to the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards Iran; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, on 27th March, in a debate in your Lordships' House, considerable dismay was expressed by noble Lords about the decision to place the Iranian resistance movement on the list of proscribed organisations. In moving the Motion on the Order Paper today, it is not my purpose to revisit those arguments, to which we shall doubtless return via the appeals procedure and the courts in due course.

Some months ago, and prior to the Home Secretary's order, I first sought to raise the abuse of human rights in Iran and Her Majesty's Government's policy towards that country. I am glad to have secured a place in the ballot, enabling me to do so today.

This is a timely debate, especially in the light of the decision last Friday by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights to keep Iran under annual review for human rights violations and also in the light of the assessment by the Special Envoy, Professor Maurice Copithorne, that there are,

"continued executions … in particular public and especially cruel executions",

and that the regime uses,

"torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment".

In his report to the 57th session of the commission, Professor Copithorne said:

"breaches of human rights are in large part as egregious today as they were five years ago".

He added:

"In some key areas, it seems hard to accept that there has been any substantive and quantifiable improvement since Khatami took office".

He also said:

"Torture in Iran is practised in its most primitive form".

Today's debate takes place just days after Iran fired 77 scud missiles at camps occupied by members of the Iranian resistance, some of which missed their target, killing civilians nearby. I place my remarks in the context of a statement made by the Foreign Secretary, Mr Robin Cook, published by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on Wednesday 28th March, when he took as his theme human rights in foreign policy. He said:

"When I made our commitment to human rights"—four years ago—"I was criticised in some quarters for sacrificing the national interest for principle. There is something odd with a national interest that is in conflict with principle. I would robustly argue that the British national interest is promoted, not hindered, by a commitment to human rights".

Taken at its face value, I wholeheartedly endorse those sentiments, but measured against Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Iran—a country that intriguingly and perhaps oddly, to use the Foreign Secretary's word, is not referred to at all in Mr Cook's statement—I argue that we have been too concerned with normalising relations. Concern for commercial gain appears to be greater than concern for continuing violations of human rights.

Nor is it the case that we are impotent in the face of such abuses. Mr Cook rightly observed that the reality is that we cannot do everything, but that does not free us from our duty to do what we can. Even if we were to set aside questions of duty and principle, I do not believe that it would be in the long-term interest of the United Kingdom to hitch ourselves to the present religious dictatorship that, as in the time of the Shah, will ultimately be the losing side.

Contrary to what is frequently said, dialogue with the Iranian regime has not improved the human rights situation—quite the reverse. A few weeks ago Abbs-Ali Alizandeh, a senior judicial official, was received at Geneva. On his return to Iran he was even more emboldened in defending the so-called retribution law, which involves punishments such as amputation and eye gouging.

Mr Khatami gave the lie to the notion that he favours deep-seated reform. Last year he said that,

"talk of changing the constitution amounts to changing the state. This is treachery".

On another occasion he said:

"Let me remind you that I did not come in the name of reform".

I want to place before your Lordships' House examples of past and present atrocities which throw considerable doubt on the claim that this is a regime that we should encourage or one with which we should conduct business. That there may be reformist elements within the Marjlis, the Iranian parliament, I do not dispute, but to confuse those elements with the regime itself and its declared policies and practices is self-deceiving.

Perhaps I can illustrate my argument with examples of persecution against political dissidents, religious minorities and women. I am indebted to the BBC World Service which states in a briefing note that,

"since the general elections of February 2000, hard line conservatives have reasserted their grip on all the levers of real power which they command".

The BBC has reported on the move by the judiciary to ban over 20 newspapers and journals. It says:

"It appears that his opponents have all but wiped out reforms introduced by him"—

that is Khatami—

"in the past three years, especially freedom of speech. For example, pressure on liberal clerics has increased and a special court to prosecute members of the clergy has been very active. The vice police have suddenly become active in the past few weeks by arresting women for improper clothing or raiding parties attended by young people".

The BBC also reported:

"An Iranian court has delivered harsh sentences against a newspaper editor and 6 other defendants, ranging from 4 to 10 years, for taking part in a controversial conference in Germany. For western policy-makers, this sends two negative signals. First, it shows the further erosion of human rights and basic freedoms in Iran. Secondly and even more worrying, is that ahead of a crucial general election in June, President Muhammad Khatami and the reformist camp are under attack by the conservatives, who have blocked reformist legislation, closed down dozens of reformist newspapers and magazines, and imprisoned reformist journalists and intellectuals".

The BBC's Iranian affairs analyst, Sadeq Saba, also recently reported on what was described as "horrifying stories" of political dissidents jailed in the notorious Evin prison, north of Tehran. One such account concerned the feminist lawyer, Mehrangiz Kar, who spent 53 days in Evin prison for taking part in the German conference, to which I have referred. Mrs Kar describes how filthy her solitary cell was:

"The floor of the cell was covered like a carpet by dirty pieces that carried the sign of the dried vomiting of the previous prisoners. The metallic toilet with its large opening and small base and a movable lid was infectious and dried dirt was stuck to its inner walls".

In Mrs Kar's experience, the most intolerable torture was sleep deprivation.

Another feminist campaigner and publisher, Shahla Lahiji, who spent about two months in Evin prison gives a macabre account of life inside the prison:

"The door is closed with a dry sound and I am standing in the middle of the cell. There is a feeble gray light illuminating the space. My feet are swollen. I lean against the wall … The water is warm and smells of white spirit … I force myself to drink the water … A black large cockroach is moving down the wall of the toilet bowl. I don't even bother to kill it. I follow it with my eyes as it crawls beneath the blanket and disappears. I can't think. I don't feel the passage of time. While still standing I lean against the wall and close my eyes".

The investigative journalist, Emaddin Baqi, who is serving a five-and-a-half year prison sentence on charges of endangering national security, describes Evin prison as a graveyard for the living. He says that prisoners are deprived of some of their basic human rights and complains about widespread corruption among the prison staff.

The dissident cleric, Mohsen Kadivar, has recently served an 18-month prison sentence for criticising the Iranian supreme leader. He says that prisoners are subjected to the cruellest types of treatment. He believes that the worst psychological torture for a political prisoner is when he is put in a cell with common criminals. But he is optimistic about the future. He says:

"Evin should not he feared. It should be welcomed. It seems that there is no other way for freedom and democracy in Iran than going through Evin. But we should hope that one day Evin will be turned into a recreational park or a playground for children. And that day is not very far away".

The suppression of free speech by alleged reformers has led to the closure of 23 publications and to the jamming of the satellite television programme "Simayeh Azadi". That censorship is totally contrary to international agreements, but it has occurred with barely a murmur of protest. Perhaps the Minister will tell the House whether we have made a démarche or raised these violations in any international forum? I hope in reply that she will spell out the specifics of any remonstration or protest that we have made.

Perhaps the journalists condemned to prison may in one respect be regarded as fortunate. Last month, on the eve of the Iranian new year, the Mullahs' regime publicly hanged five people, bringing to 75 the number of people executed or sentenced to death since January 2001. At least 13 of those victims were publicly stoned to death. That is double the number for the same period last year, so any argument that the situation is improving is clearly erroneous.

As many Peers know, in one year alone, in 1988, 30,000 political prisoners were butchered, an atrocity that has never once been condemned by Khatami. Indeed, as the Sunday Telegraph reported on 4th February, it is alleged that he was complicit in the massacre. It also begs a question, which I put to the Minister, as to whether we are pressing for those responsible to be tried for crimes against humanity. Amnesty International points out that under President Khatami, the reformer, there have been 800 executions. The question for us is whether such a regime is one in which we should be investing morally and politically.

Last week, I received a beautiful and moving card from Laila Jazayeri, the director of the Association of Iranian Women in the UK. The card was designed and painted by a political prisoner who spent 12 years in Iranian goals. He had been a talented university student studying physics. His time in prison has left him paralysed, able to use only his hands and parts of his upper body. The tragic personal story of Behrooz is the story of continued suffering and pain of countless numbers of Iranian people.

I said that I would refer also to the persecution of religious minorities. Since the Khomeni revolution seven Christian leaders have been martyred; churches have been closed down; bible printing and Christian bookshops are banned; evangelising is illegal; and the human rights group, the Jubilee Campaign, reports that Christians are watched and are often called in for questioning. In one case of apostasy, the convert was executed. I shall happily make available evidence from the Jubilee Campaign to any Member of your Lordships' House who would like to see it.

During the past decade, the execution of Mehdi Dibaj, the murder of the Reverend Tateos Michaelian who was the President of the Council of Protestant Churches in Iran, and the assassination of Bishop Haik Hovespision-Mehr have traumatised this very vulnerable minority. Human Rights Watch reported that,

"churches have been shut down, scores of young Christians have been imprisoned and tortured".

Others who have been killed include the Reverend Hossein Soodmand, who was hung, and Mohammed Bagher Yusefi. The Anglican priest in Shiraz, the Reverend Sayyah, had his throat cut and Bahram Deghani-Tafti, the son of the Anglican bishop, was shot dead.

Christians are not the only ones who have suffered. There have been reports of the persecution of Baha'is, of Suni Muslims and of Zoroastrians. Yesterday I received a letter from the Board of Deputies of British Jews. It has drawn attention to the plight of Iranian Jews. A letter from Simon Plosker, Public Affairs Officer, concerns 10 Iranian Jews now in goal. Thirteen were originally held on charges of espionage on behalf of Israel and the United States; charges which both those countries have consistently refitted. However, the fact is that under Iranian law any contact whatever with Israel is defined as "espionage" and the maximum penalty is the death penalty.

The spurious nature of these charges and their possible anti-Semitic basis are borne out by the professions of the accused; Hebrew teachers, Jewish community leaders, circumcisers, ritual slaughterers, a Jewish cemetery attendant and a 16 year-old boy. Concern regarding the fate of these Jews was acute in the light of pervious experience. After all, two Jews were executed in 1997 on espionage charges and in 1998 a 60 year-old man was executed on vague charges of being a Zionist agent.

On 21st September 2000, Jewish prisoners who had been imprisoned were taken to the Shiraz Court of Appeal and the verdict was given. The outcome was that they are to remain in prison for terms ranging from two to nine years. The Board of Deputies comments that despite claims by Iranian officials that Iran's judicial branch was "independent", in early September the judiciary announced a delay, reportedly to provide a reprieve to President Khatami during the trip to the United Nations where he was attempting to portray Iran's regime as one that respects the rights of its citizens.

The verdicts raise many questions as to the appropriate Western response. Western governments must surely give thought as to whether they can rightly carry on with business as usual, given the clear violations of the human rights of these Iranian Jews.

The Board of Deputies wants to know whether it is to be "business as usual" with the regime. That is the question at the heart of this debate. It is about Mr Cook's pledge that national interest and principle are two sides of the same coin.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mrs Mary Robinson, who has done so much to keep human rights to the fore, who recently voiced her frustrations about the international funding and commitment of national governments to human rights, has, because of her frustrations, alas, decided not to seek a second term. That decision should enliven and stimulate our determination to become a standard bearer in promoting and upholding the principle of human rights. In the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, we have a diligent, competent and articulate advocate and I would like to see her given greater authority and a wider ranging mandate to concentrate exclusively on highlighting these issues. Their importance is central to the pursuit of our foreign policy.

Mary Robinson has remarked that

"today's human rights abuses are the cause of tomorrow's conflicts".

That is most certainly the case in Iran. The Mullahs are facing a collapsing economy and have responded with intensified oppression. Focused aid as a quid pro quo for a national minorities policy and for fundamental democratic and judicial reform would at least be a more logical policy for Her Majesty's Government than the one we are pursuing today. Collaborating with a regime which last month publicly executed five people, one of them a woman, by hanging them from a crane in east Tehran, which has already hung or sentenced to death some 75 people, and which stones people to death, gouges out eyes, amputates limbs and publicly flogs is neither ethical nor principled. It will be, as Mrs Robinson observed, merely sowing the seeds of tomorrow's conflict.

To answer the Board of Deputies, we should have no business collaborating with such a regime, and no business interests can justify such involvement. I hope that today's debate will bring these issues to a wider audience and encourage the Government to reassess this policy. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for providing us with the opportunity to voice concern at the continuing abuse and denial of human rights in Iran.

Almost every day information becomes available that confirms that the regime in Tehran continues to rule by what can only be described as a policy of fear and terror. There is no scarcity of information about the human rights situation in Iran. The information comes from members of the Iranian community here in Britain and Iranian communities in other countries. The information comes from our own media, from human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and, as recently as last week, from the UN Human Rights Commission following its meeting in Geneva just a few days ago, already mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alton.

The meeting of that commission voted in favour of a resolution to continue its annual review of the human rights situation in Iran. At the meeting, the Iranian Ambassador, Ali Khorram, had requested that the mandate of the UN special envoy on Iran, Maurice Copithorne, should be ended. The reason the Ambassador gave to the commission was that he considered,

"that the 18-year long process had proved to be ineffective and fruitless".

The UN Human Rights Commission rejected the arguments put by Ambassador Ali Khorram and carried a resolution that called on the regime,

"to continue its efforts to consolidate respect for human rights and the rule of law".

I have no doubt that there are those who will draw comfort from other references in the resolution which acknowledge,

"some improvements in its record, particularly concerning women and children".

Such crumbs of comfort do little to relieve the fear of those both inside and outside Iran whose lives are affected by the brutal system. That brutal system is also recognised by the UN resolution. I refer specifically to the part of the resolution which,

"deplores the continued executions, in particular public and especially cruel executions",

already mentioned.

Additionally, the United Nations has again called upon Tehran to,

"take all necessary steps to end the use of torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. particularly amputations".

During the debate in your Lordships' House on the 2001 order relating to the Terrorism Act 2000 on 27th March, I drew attention to the report of the United Nations special envoy in Iran earlier this year (col. 162). The quotation from Professor Copithorne has already been mentioned but it is worth repeating. He said:

"Breaches of human rights are in large part as common today as they were five years ago".

Again, where is the progress towards a better system of justice in Iran?

Professor Copithorne reported that 200 people had been executed so far this year and that a further 75 people have been sentenced to death, including eight women. Some of the sentences included death by stoning.

No resolution, however diplomatically it is drafted, can deny the fact that the people of Iran live in fear. Recent punishments in Iran, some of which have been mentioned, serve only to underline and confirm the brutality of the regime. On 11th January of this year the French press agency reported that the official Iranian news agency had said that Iran's Chief Justice, Ayatollah Mahmud Hashemi-Sharrudi, had confirmed,

"that 800 drug traffickers were on death row and called for further harsh punishment. Eight hundred cases imposing the death penalty on drug traffickers have been looked at by the remission panel, but no sentences were commuted".

The report also quoted the head of Iran's judiciary as saying that it was,

"important to take firm action against drug traffickers. Harsh punishments must be considered and applied in public to strike fear amidst the groups of traffickers".

This is the same head of the judiciary who last November underscored the need to carry out "retribution verdicts in public", such as hangings, the amputation of limbs and the gouging out of eyes. We have heard about that.

It is also worth looking at the footnote to that report by the French news agency, which comes from a Marjlis Deputy, Ali Mir-Khalili—someone from inside the Iranian Parliament—who said:

"The State Security Forces are putting pressure on the people on various pretexts. They murder people and then justify the killings by just saying that the victim was a drug trafficker".

The rest of the world can draw its conclusions as to what is going on from that comment.

A further example of the brutal regime is the public lashings of three young men, all in their 20s, who had been accused of drinking alcohol and having illicit sexual relationships. In February this year the three young men, two brothers and their cousin—Ismail, Majid and Mahammad Rahimi—staggered away between their police escort, each having received 180 severe lashes. In the wonderful civilisation that we enjoy in this country it is difficult to understand how any civilised government can have dealings with a regime that publicly executes, lashes and stones its own people.

The list of acts of brutality since the beginning of this year includes 24 youngsters accused of dancing in a disturbing manner, whatever that may mean. The 17 boys who were arrested received 58 lashes and each of the girls was sentenced to 28 lashes. All of the youngsters were sent to Adelabad prison in Shiraz. In another case reported in the Kayhan Daily on 15th January, men received lashing sentences in Qom, the verdicts to be carried out in stages over three days. Six were given between 50 and 74 lashes in six districts. In February of this year a man charged with theft had four fingers amputated, plus two years in prison and 74 lashes.

These illustrations of justice in Iran indicate how right Amnesty International is to draw attention in its July report, under the heading "More Failures of Iranian Justice"—I obtained that document as recently as Monday of this week—to the failure of the regime in Iran to deliver the promised reform to its judiciary. It is worth mentioning that the promise was made in 1999 by the same head of the judiciary who in January of this year had advocated the carrying out of "retribution verdicts in public", such as hangings, the amputation of limbs and gouging out of eyes. The same man who made that promise said exactly the opposite two years later.

Last Wednesday the world recoiled at the news that Iran had fired scud missiles at camps inside Iraq belonging to an Iranian rebel group. The report said that the Iraqi Government were furious and reserved the right to respond with suitable means to the attack on their country. When I heard Channel 4 News I thought that somebody had gone completely mad, given the present situation in the Middle East. The Mojahedin said that one of its members was killed as a result of the attacks on its camps closest to the cities of Kut and Khalis in Iraq. Channel 4 News also said that, according to reports, some of the missiles missed their targets and landed on residential areas. Other reports put the number of surface-to-surface scud missiles launched at 77.

The missile attack lasted 10 hours. The Mojahedin camp at Habib to the north of Basra was hit in two series of attacks with 27 missiles. Twenty-four missiles hit the city of Jalawla, killing a 33 year-old mother and her daughter aged six and wounding dozens of other people. Two missiles landed near Jalawla's mosque and the rest landed on residential areas. Thirteen missiles hit Khalis about 100 kilometres north of Baghdad, while five hit Meqdadiah. In Kut, some of the craters left by the impact of these missiles measured up to 12 metres in diameter and up to 5 metres in depth. At about seven o'clock in the morning three more scud missiles landed near Kut, one of which hit the city's technical college.

As would be expected, there was a reaction. A Reuters report last Wednesday referred to a statement issued by Massoud Rajavi, the Iranian resistance leader, following the scud missile attacks. In his statement he urged the UN Security Council to condemn the attack and take a stance immediately against the Mullah's outlaw action in breach of international law. I ask my noble friend whether Her Majesty's Government will give support to that call by Massoud Rajavi.

The damage inflicted by the unprovoked at tack on innocent civilians has been seen by reporters from western news agencies and television networks. Those reporters have visited the scenes of destruction in Jalawla, Kut and Khalis.

On the day following the attack, not unexpectedly, Iranian exiles, refugees and supporters of the resistance took part in rallies in 18 cities across the world, including Oslo, Melbourne, Washington, Ottawa, Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels, Stockholm, Copenhagen and Berlin and in at least six other cities in Germany.

The dangers and the threat to stability in the region by the scud missile attacks that have caused civilian casualties and damage to property are obvious. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Paris summed up the reaction of many who can see where such unwarranted attacks could lead. In a statement it said:

"Whatever action which could jeopardise the region's stability must be avoided".

It added:

"In this spirit, we deplore the missile attack by the Iranian regime".

I should like to return to the question of the brutality of a regime that includes death by stoning. I quote an appeal by Amnesty International in January of this year. The appeal was for interested people and organisations to protest at that time against the imminent execution of a number of young people. I shall not quote all of the appeal, but by way of illustrating the brutality of the Mullah's regime I simply quote Amnesty's description of how the sentence on a 31 year-old woman (Maryam Ayoubi) was to be carried out:

"Maryam Ayoubi had reportedly been facing 15 years' imprisonment followed by stoning to death … However, new reports indicate that she will simply be stoned to death".

I quote this go give your Lordships a description of how the sentence is carried out:

"Stoning to death is prescribed for certain offences under the Iranian Penal Code. According to the Penal Code, men should be buried in a pit in the ground up to their waists, and women buried up to their chests. Individuals who manage to dig themselves out and escape from the pit while the stoning is being carried out have their lives spared. Article 104 of the Penal Code states that 'the stones should not be too large so that the person dies on being hit by one or two of them', so is designed to cause grievous pain leading to eventual death".

Amnesty International commented at the time that in the unlikely event that this poor, unfortunate woman was able to dig herself free before she was killed, she would then start her 15-year sentence.

The time for making excuses for dealing with these people is long passed. Constructive dialogue is acceptable if it has any promise of bringing about change. In the words of the head of the Iranian judiciary, who only last week sought to end the UN monitoring of human rights abuses,

"the 18-year long process had proved to be ineffective and fruitless".

Perhaps the time has come when we should recognise that constructive dialogue with the regime is not bearing fruit. It is not crumbs of comfort from diplomatic resolutions that the people of Iran need and deserve; they want the free world to speak out loudly and firmly against the barbaric methods of justice that the regime routinely uses in its endeavours to cling to power.

My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Clarke, have both referred to the resolution passed last week in the Human Rights Commission and to the report of the special rapporteur, Dr Maurice Copithorne, who, among other things, regrets that the Government of Iran have ceased to co-operate by allowing him to visit the country. Fortunately, as the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, told us, there is enough evidence available to build up a detailed assessment, something which I suggest the thematic rapporteurs of the Human Rights Commission should bear in mind when they are refused invitations. Dr Copithorne says that freedom of expression is a matter of despair and many people feel that the president has lost his struggle to create a more tolerant society operating under the rule of law.

The rapporteur says that the legal system, particularly the judiciary, is in desperate need of repair. The status of minorities remains a neglected area of human rights. The murder and disappearance of intellectuals and political dissidents is a stain on Iran and will remain so until all the outstanding questions are answered and the perpetrators brought to justice. The trials of those who attended a conference in Berlin—mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alton—have the strong appearance of farce, he says, except of course for those who are going through this unreal experience.

The rapporteur's report was completed in December. Since then, as Dr Copithorne told the commission, there has been no improvement in the state of freedom of expression and of the press. He said that the revolutionary courts and the special court for the clergy make frequent use of pre-trial detention, particularly of journalists, students, intellectuals and political dissidents. The detainees are often held incommunicado in secret places of detention, a practice which is conducive to torture, and, as might be expected, many cases of torture have indeed been reported to the rapporteur on torture, Sir Nigel Rodley, of which I give two examples.

First, Mr Abbas Amir-Entezam, deputy prime minister and spokesman of the 1979 interim government of Mehdi Bazargan, was arrested in 1998 at his home in Tehran. He is one of the unfortunates held in Evin prison. He is said to be in urgent need of appropriate medical attention for kidney failure and a ruptured eardrum and loss of hearing in one ear, allegedly as the result of his long detention and repeated subjection to torture. He is an Amnesty International prisoner of conscience.

Secondly, Mr Akbar Ganji, an investigative journalist, was hung upside down in a cell while four guards kicked him in the head and stomach. He was punished with 80 days of solitary confinement when he started a hunger strike to protest against his treatment. Ganji had written a series of articles implicating former President Rafsanjani in the murders of dissidents and intellectuals carried out by agents of the Ministry of Intelligence.

At the end of 1999, as your Lordships may recall, four well-known opponents of the regime were savagely murdered and a number of people were arrested for those crimes. They all turned out to be agents of the Ministry of Intelligence. The principal accused, Sa'eed Emami, was a deputy Minister of the Ministry of Intelligence. He died later on in Evin prison after he was said to have drunk a bottle of hair-remover containing arsenic while he was in his bath and was momentarily not observed by the guards. Most people believe that he was eliminated by the regime because he knew too much and would have lingered several top people if he had appeared in court. Emami's boss was Ali Fallahian, the former Minister indicted in a German court for the murder of the Kurdish leader Dr Sadegh Sharafkandi and his three companions in a Berlin restaurant in 1992. But there were certainly other high-ups in the regime who knew and approved of the assassination of political opponents, some of whom are still there. Mr Fallahian is standing as a presidential candidate in the elections. But others named as part of the conspiracy have included—I have mentioned former President Rafsanjani—Fallahian's successor at the Ministry of Intelligence, Mr Qorhanali Dorri-Najafabadi, and Ayatollah Ahmas Jannati, the head of the Council of Guardians, and many others.

Emami was said to have made a confession on videotape. But it was never made public in spite of assurances that it would be shown on television. The trial of the other 18 defendants linked to these four murder charges was finally held in camera at the end of last year. No attempt was then made to link these particular murders to earlier killings by Ministry of Intelligence agents, some of which I described in my book Iran: State of Terror published in 1996. I also analysed the available evidence on the more recent killings, which were known as the "chain murders", and the way that they fitted into the pattern of state-sponsored murder in my book Fatal Writ, published a year ago. In his current report, the rapporteur says that he reiterates his deep concern over this tragic abuse of the human rights of the victims, and his dissatisfaction with the way the government have handled the investigation over the prolonged period of two years.

Why should not the rapporteur undertake an inquiry into the regime's use of murder to silence its opponents? if he announced that he was going to collect and analyse evidence on the phenomenon, including assassinations committed abroad and attempts to kill the author Salman Rushdie and many other people associated with his book, a great deal of fresh material might become available. It would serve to underline the international community's abhorrence of the gang which master-minded the killings of the Christian priests mentioned by the noble Lord. Lord Alton, and of a former prime minister, Kurdish leaders, political opponents, intellectuals, and all the people associated with the publication of The Satanic Verses.

The recent wave of arrests of members of the nationalist Iran Freedom Movement and others has been described as a "creeping coup" by Joe Stork of the Washington-based Human Rights Watch. Twenty people were arrested in March and another 40 earlier this month in what Mr Stork said looked like a coup designed to stifle free expression and activism for reform in the run-up to the forthcoming election. As has been mentioned, already 30 independent newspapers have been closed down and hardly a week goes by without news of further arrests of journalists. Among those detained in the latest sweep was Heshmatollah Tabarzadi, leader of the newly formed Democratic Front of the Iranian People, and all the people who were attending his weekly lecture at that time. Mr Tabarzadi is editor-in-chief of the daily Hoviyat-é-Khich, and, according to Reporters Sans Frontières, his arrest brought the number of journalists in custody in Iran up to 21, the largest number for any country in the world. Last Saturday that rose to 22 with the arrest of Amid Na'ini, editor-in-chief of Payam-e Emrooz magazine, who was said to have confessed to publishing two sacrilegious articles, one of which said that the Angel Gabriel was an "imaginary creature".

On Monday, Mohammad Salamati, a close ally of President Khatami, went on trial, accused of spreading rumours of a conservative-led impeachment motion against the president. He is managing editor of the weekly Asr Ma, Our Age, and also secretary-general of the Islamic Revolution Mujahedin Organisation, and an important member of the Second Chord Coalition which supports the president. Mr Salamati came before the notorious judge Sa'id Mortazavi, who has been responsible for the decimation of the press and journalists. He was accused of questioning the reliability of state-controlled TV reports about the conference held in Berlin, mentioned earlier, to discuss reform in Iran.

Yet another senior figure belonging to the president's faction, Mostafa Tajzadeh, the deputy interior Minister who is supposed to be supervising the elections on 8th June, appeared in court in relation to his alleged role in the violent unrest which arose at a pro-reform student conference in Khoramabad last August.

Finally, another newspaperman, Gholamheidar Ebrahimbai-Salami, managing director of the daily Hambsategi, has been summoned to appear in the administrative court on charges which are not yet known.

I can understand the Government wishing to believe that President Khatami would be able to liberalise the regime, to end arbitrary detention, reduce the number of executions, extend freedom of expression and widen the political space to allow democratic pluralism. However, it has to be recognised that none of these have been achieved during the four years of his presidency, and there is no prospect that the forthcoming election will lead to any amelioration. It is not even certain, with just over a month to go, that Mr Khatami will stand as a candidate. But if he was genuinely committed to reform, he must be bitterly disappointed at having been able to achieve so little, and he will be reflecting that within the straitjacket of the velayat-e-faqih, the doctrine laid down by Ayatollah Khomeini of the supremacy of the spiritual leader, the elected president and Majlis have about as much say in national affairs as your Lordships do in this country in our affairs. Three years ago, the BBC' hailed Mr Khatami as Iran's Gorbachev, and Foreign Office experts were convinced that somehow, miraculously, he would transform the regime into a participatory democracy. In fact, as the BBC now says in its evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee,

"since the general elections of February 2000 (convincingly won by the reformists), hard-line conservatives have reasserted their grip on all the levers of real power which they command, and have struck back in every way possible".

People may still support Mr Khatami, if he decides to stand, because he is perceived to want change, and not because he can actually deliver it. But I doubt whether it is possible to sustain indefinitely a political system which is incapable of producing what the electors demand. A theocratic dictatorship with a democratic veneer is unworkable and unstable, but for as long as it lasts, the governing mullahs have to trample on human rights, to counter the growing opposition to their rule.

Our policy should not be to rely on the process of reform gathering momentum but should take account of the possibility that the extremists will come out on top, whatever may happen on 8th June. If human rights are under greater threat than ever with a so-called reformist president and a would-be reformist Majlis, why should it be assumed that 8th June will make any difference? With the reactionaries in control of the judiciary and the Basij militia, which is to recruit another 2 million new members this year according to its commander, as well as the Revolutionary Guards Corps, they are in a position to stamp out unrest and dissent. Our policy for the period after 8th June has to take account of that; otherwise, we shall fail.

My Lords, I share with others in the House a concern about the violation of human rights in Iran. I do not doubt the figures and the stories quoted this evening and also in the debate in the House on 27th March on proscribed organisations in relation to the Terrorism Act. Concern is perhaps too weak a word; there is sadness, anger and sometimes a sense of horror. Nevertheless, I did not sign the letter on human rights in Iran circulated by some Members of your Lordships' House for a reason I should like to explain and why I am glad of the opportunity to take part in this debate.

Iran is an Islamic state and Islam is a fundamental part of its life and culture. If it is to move in the direction that we all want to see, with genuine democracy, greater respect for civil liberties and less abuse of power, then it will do so, I believe, in Islamic terms. The problem with the letter and some of the language of this debate is that they are couched in Western human rights language. Human rights are, I believe, of universal validity and are not simply an invention of post-World War II Europe. But we need to pay attention to the Islamic context in which that language has to become a reality. In short, my contention is that there needs to be a greater appeal to the fundamental principles of Islam and Islamic civilisation, which properly understood can underpin and reinforce the values which we share and support from a secular, Jewish or Christian perspective.

Like other noble Lords taking part in the debate, I have received a wodge of papers from the National Council of Resistance of Iran. It is, as we know, particularly critical of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in the debate on 27th March. In response to that speech it asserts:

"Fact. If 'standards of Western European democracies' mean the principles stipulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including the right of life, freedom of speech … then according to which logic can one argue that the Iranian people are not entitled to them?".

They are entitled to them. But in speaking about them I suggest that it would be most helpful if we could appeal to those fundamental principles and values which are already enshrined in Islam as a religion and in Islamic culture and civilisation.

Take religious toleration, for example, which is of such crucial importance to the beleaguered Baha'i community in Iran. Sura 2:256 of the Qur'an says:

"There is no compulsion in religion. Rectitude has become clear from error".

Then there is human dignity, which is always violated when there is not due process of law, and cruel or degrading punishments, which have been referred to in the debate today. Sura 15:28–29 of the Qur'an says:

"And when thy Lord said to the angels 'See. I am creating a mortal of clay of mud moulded. When I have shaped him, fall you down, bowing before him!'".

The angels, according to the Qur'an are called to bow before human beings, the respect we owe our fellow sister and brother human beings cannot be less. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, is to take part in the debate. I hope that he will be able to elaborate on and reinforce these principles.

Within the Islamic world at the moment there is a great debate about the relationship between democracy and Islam. We have to recognise that some, both governments and extremist opposition parties, believe that they are incompatible. But others argue that Islamic values demand a democratic system. The concept of Shura or consultation is fundamental to Islam. There is also the tradition of independent reasoning, Ijtihad, and consensus, Ijma. On this basis some leading Muslim thinkers argue that democracy is not only compatible with Islam but is required by it. So as one prominent writer has said:

"The legislative assembly—majlis al Sura—must be truly representative of the entire community, both men and women. But a representative character can be achieved only through free and general election; therefore the members of the majlis must be elected by means of as wide as possible suffrage, including both men and women".

We all know that the basis of political power in Iran at the moment is complex and not always clear, but obviously the role of the Supreme Leader and the Council of Guardians is crucial. Nevertheless, there is an elected president and an elected majlis or parliament. Another leading Muslim writer on human rights in Islam has written:

"An integral part of this vision"—

the Islamic vision of human rights—

"is an insistence in freedom of expression, encompassing the right to criticise government at all levels, and especially to protest against tyrannical action, stemming from the Qur'anic injunction to 'enjoin good and prohibit evil' (Qur'an 9:71). Alongside freedom of expression, the Islamic system also upholds political pluralism; the Prophet observed, for example, that difference of opinion within the Muslim community was 'a sign of God's mercy'. Indeed, the jurisprudential doctrines of difference of opinion (iktilaf) and reasoned thinking aimed at arriving at a level of opinion (ujtihad) have long informed a pluralistic intellectual tradition in Islam. The general Qur'anic exhortation to justice has important implications in the affairs of state, as in the criminal justice system; the Islamic vision insists that all accused enjoy the right to due process of law in open court, and hence to freedom front arbitrary imprisonment".

That is a devout Muslim writing about the tradition of human rights in Islam.

We know that there is a democratic element in Iran at the moment and I should like to suggest that we should do all we can to encourage the development and growth of that democratic party within a culture which is and, so far as one can tell such things, will remain essentially Islamic. Despite the tensions and struggle between those who want to change in a more democratic direction and those do not, things have changed for the better.

Last year, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester led a Church delegation to Iran. He wrote of his trip:

"Change is certainly very visible … in some respects the position of women is better than before 1979 and they are socially very confident. Religious and ethnic minorities are also a little more relaxed and appear to be freer today than in the early years of the revolution".

He thought that there was a recognition that change would come more cautiously and gradually than originally had been imagined. I myself was recently in Iran on holiday and found people to be remarkably cheerful and open. In the papers we received from the National Council of Resistance in Iran, reference is made to many of the atrocities that have taken place over the past year and concludes from this that:

"This stems from a simple reality of the regime ruling Iran. The government in Iran is based on a theory of government called velayat-faqih, or the absolute rule of the religious jurist. By understanding this underlining concept, it becomes quite evident that any change to this principle is tantamount to the collapse of the whole theocracy rule in Iran. That is why this system is absolutely incapable of any reform and moderation".

I would suggest that that is an unduly pessimistic assessment. There are forces for change in Iran at the moment and I believe that there are principles and values in Islam itself which can reinforce and carry forward this process of change.

The non-Islamic religions in Iran have suffered very badly since the revolution, above all the Baha'is, whom I have already mentioned, but also the small Jewish community, some of whom were tried and imprisoned last year, and the Anglican Church. On the positive side, the Anglican Bishop in Iran has now been officially recognised by the state. On the negative side, the property that was seized after the revolution has not been returned and the resolution of the 1988 Lambeth Conference respectfully requesting the Islamic Republic of Iran to respond positively to the claims of the Anglican Church in Iran has not yet happened.

While in no way glossing over the abuses which continue in Iran and continuing to draw attention to these, as other noble Lords quite properly have done this evening, I believe that we should welcome and affirm the process of change which has taken place there. Above all, we should see that process and its future possibilities within its Islamic context and do all we can to bring to the fore those Islamic principles and values which resonate with our western human rights language.

My Lords, Iran is an extraordinary country with an extraordinary history and a no less remarkable present. In his report on the human rights situation in Iran to the United Nations Human Rights Commission on 16th January this year, Mr Maurice Copithorne, the Special Representative for the commission, put it this way:

"Iran is going through a period of critical turmoil. The struggle is for the soul of Iranian society, for certain values such as justice, one of the oldest political values going back, scholars say, to the Achaemenian period"—

that is over 1,000 years ago—

"and for the more modern ones of accountable governance and the welfare and dignity of all citizens".

Mr Copithorne went on to say that he,

"believes that change is clearly underway and that given certain foundational improvements that have taken place—

I emphasise those words—

"in areas such as women's education, democracy and health, the trend is now irreversible".

I draw special attention to that judgment on the part of Mr Copithorne.

However, in the same report the Special Representative quite rightly identified various serious failings, one of which is,

"the currently successful mass suppression of two fundamental human rights, the right to the freedom of expression itself and the right to be free from detention for seeking to exercise that right".

I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to that.

However, I would add that, despite the closure of over 30 reformist papers over the past year or so, invariably without any open process or clear legal justification, the Canutes of the reactionary Iranian clerical establishment cannot keep the genie of free expression in a bottle of their choosing. Just before we debated the Terrorism Bill in relation to MKO/MeK/NCRI in this House on 27th March, I asked the British Embassy in Iran to let me know how things then stood in terms of reformist newspapers. Although it was only six weeks ago, the embassy reckoned that at least 10 such national newspapers were in circulation, each with readerships in excess of 60,000.

As recently as this month, more than 150 of the 290 deputies in the Majlis, the Iranian parliament, sent a formal letter to the head of the judiciary, Mahmoud Hashemi-Shahroudi, demanding an end to what they called the illegal and unwarranted arrest of liberal and reformist figures. This followed the recent banning of the liberal opposition group, which again has already been referred to, the Freedom Movement, and the detention of more than 40 of its activists. Yet in the very aftermath of that banning, a new reformist paper, Nowruz, went on sale, run by one of the reformist MPs, Mr Mirdamadi. I suggest to noble Lords that all this is not nearly as a black a picture as so far has been painted tonight.

Students continue to hold demonstrations and conferences which thousands enthusiastically attend to express their views. On the anniversary of the 1999 student riots—I was there with a parliamentary delegation the following week—the Tehran university students were back on the streets, publicly making their views felt. In August of last year a massive conference took place at Khorramabad, to which various speakers were invited and which the revolutionary guards did their best to prevent and upset. No fewer than three inquiries have taken place since the disturbances in Khorramabad. Two of those inquiries have come to the clear conclusion that the revolutionary guards were responsible and must not be allowed to undertake such disruptive activity.

Of course, producing reports and coming to conclusions is not the same as achieving results, but it is all part and parcel of a vigour of democratic expression and activity in Iran which, I venture to suggest, has not been fully or indeed fairly expressed so far in the debate.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for allowing me to intervene. Can he explain why, if the revolutionary guards were responsible for the injuries and destruction of property which took place in Khorramabad in August of last year, the deputy minister of the interior—who is supposed to be responsible for the arrangements for the elections due to be held on 8th June—has now been arrested in respect of those events?

My Lords, I shall be perfectly frank and say to my noble friend and colleague that I do not know the answer to that specific question. However, I shall find out and communicate with him further.

Student organisations are thriving and active, although both they and, of course, the Majlis, are under sustained pressure. There is no denying that and we have heard of that tonight. The battle for the soul of Iran is real and harsh. It is difficult for those who have not recently been to Iran to recognise, from this distance, the sheer buoyancy and indefatigability of life and debate in Iran. The right reverend Prelate referred to that when recounting the visit of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester.

Despite all the woeful and sometimes wicked attempts to suppress free debate, despite the continuing extensive human rights abuses—although the more brutal aspects of them seem significantly to be on the decline (I, too, have been in touch with Amnesty on this point) the Iranians will not be stopped from conducting public debate and from putting over their point of view.

I warrant that everything said in the House today will have been said and will be reflected endlessly by Iranians themselves in towns, cities, villages, squares and universities. They will not be prevented from pursuing the democratic debate that is now unstoppable.

I say this not because of any complacency—there is no room for that. The struggle for the soul of that remarkable country is still being fought out. To ensure the successful outcome of that struggle, it is essential that we here do not misconstrue what is happening there; do not fall prey to defeatism; do not simply concentrate on the failings; do not underestimate the courage, vigour and persistence of the Iranians themselves, particularly among the young. This is a real 21st-century Pilgrim's Progress.

At the end of November, President Khatami addressed a huge students' rally in which he, inter alia, criticised the press violations and stated that, as the constitution stands, he did not have enough power to intervene where and when he should. He also urged the students, none the less, not to become demoralised; not to give way to despair. That theme has been persistently taken up and pursued by the student leaders themselves because they know that giving way to despair and losing patience will play into the hands of the reactionary clique.

In the same month, President Khatami made a similar critique to a special commission set up to monitor implementation of the Iranian constitution, the chairman of which also issued a hard-hitting report attacking the press laws and their implementation. The point, however, as the BBC reported at the end of last year, is that everyone on the reformist side—and it is much the biggest side, as the presidential, city council and Majlis elections made abundantly clear—realises that the clerical provocations and judicial assaults to which reformists have been subjected, particularly over the past year, must not be met by extremism or violence. It is in this context that President Khatami's cat-and-mouse tactic of holding up the announcement of his own candidature for the 8th June presidential elections must be assessed.

I now turn to the constitution of Iran. It is easy, with our centuries old constitutional evolution, to underestimate the turbulence which inevitably has gone with a switch from thousands of years of autocracy—often bloody autocracy—via a bloody civil war, to democracy in a mere 21 years. The constitution itself, in my view, is overburdened with checks and balances. Certainly it has far too many lacunas and ambiguities to avoid the uncertainties and the possibilities of reactionary interpretation which Iran is experiencing now.

There are unresolved conflicts as to the division of powers between the Supreme Religious Leader and the elected President, and between the Parliament and the Council of Guardians. There is a body of experts—rather aptly called the Expediency Council—which has the task of adjudicating on disputes between the Parliament and the Council of Guardians. There is a body of clergy—a clergy court—established in very uncertain constitutional circumstances in 1987, and there are various revolutionary entities in place, usually hostile to any laicisation of Iranian life.

Certain it is that, as Mr Copithorne correctly diagnosed, a dangerous amount of scope is given within the constitution to repressive action on the part of the state which we would consider contrary to normal freedoms by reason of its laws on dissemination of false news, insulting of religion, incitement of public opinion, propaganda against the state and actions likely to weaken the state, as well as blasphemy and defamation laws. Those areas of law are, to our view, unacceptably wide and unacceptably susceptible to reactionary interpretation.

Having said that, there has been some sign recently of an awareness on all sides, including the reactionary clerics, of the need to mollify frictions between the different power centres. Even the hardliners have to have regard to the messages at the polls and the pressing need for foreign investment.

One of the things that we must do our best to encourage—and I mean encourage rather than simply denounce—is the evolution of the judiciary in Iran so as to buttress the independence of judges and make for a better separation of powers than is presently the case. I also believe that the independence of lawyers is a crucial issue in Iran. The independence of its bar is also vital. At present, the head of the bar is appointed by the judiciary. That is plainly unacceptable.

Indeed, the question of vetting generally—ostensibly to ensure compliance with the constitution—is far too easily an instrument of subversion of true democracy and is used as an instrument of reactionary conformity. That aspect of the candidacy for the Majlis is well known.

I must say in passing that there are a number of Iranian lawyers who have shown heroic independence and courage in upholding the law and due process. Some of the grisly tales that we have heard today have attached to them brave lawyers, who do their duty at great risk to themselves.

We need—I am running swiftly out of time—to have regard, none the less, to our own status in Iran. We are viewed in a mixed way. Sometimes as lackeys of an incurably hostile USA; sometimes as the basest of hypocrites. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, that the recent missile attack on the MKO/MeK bases in Baghdad are rather similar to the Israeli attacks on Hezbollah bases in the occupied territories.

The MKO/MeK/NCRI, which provides much of the information—although much of it is not true information—to Members of this and other Houses, is a Marxist/Leninist organisation paid for by Saddam Hussein, quartered outside Baghdad and used ruthlessly by him as an instrument of general nuisance making, particularly in the light of his grappling with Iran in that atrocious eight-year war which ended only the year before he occupied Kuwait. The difference was that whereas we got on a mighty high horse over Kuwait, when he attacked Iran we did nothing except supply him with his arms, including chemical weapons.

Despite all this, the Majlis has since last May, when it was elected, passed laws or resolutions to lower the voting age, to allow single women to study abroad, to instigate an independent inquiry into the national prison system, to protect newspapers, to limit vetting of parliamentary candidates, to prevent security forces entering university campuses and clerics' houses, to give MPs immunity from arrest and to reduce the funds available to the state-controlled media. Much of this, of course, remains blocked by the Council of Guardians, but the struggle continues. The presidential election on 8th June—Khatami or not—will deliver another resounding verdict for change. These are the real straws in the Iranian wind.

The ground is shifting irreversibly under the feet of the conservatives. The future is with the young and the young are the future. Whether that is within a theocratic state is for the Iranians to decide, just as it is for the Israelis in terms of their theocratic state.

Our problem in looking at Iran is to realise and accept, as the right reverend Prelate made clear, that it has a profoundly different history, different culture, different religion. It is a proud nation; it will not be patronised. Iran will, in the cliché, do it its way. Indeed, given the ineffectiveness of many constitutional transplants, vividly illustrated from virtually every continent in the world, we ought in this House to understand and support Iran's own gradualist, painful, agonising evolution of democracy and the rule of law.

Ultimately, what is at stake in this debate is not whether there are human rights abuses in Iran—there are; many of them are atrocious and there is no defending them—but whether this is the moment to bale out; whether this is the moment to abandon the vast majority in Iran who want reform and progress. I believe that it is precisely because, as Mr Copithorne said, the ground is irreversibly moving that we must remain firm in our support for the reformist forces; we must remain in contact; we must persevere along with the Iranian people themselves.

My Lords, we have listened to a number of highly expert speeches. As a newcomer to the subject, I admit to being befuddled. I am very clear in my mind that things are appalling in Iran—frightful things are happening—but are they going to get better? Having heard these experts, I am afraid that I cannot make up my mind. No doubt the Minister will straighten it out when she responds.

Leaving that aside, I wish to explain my excuse for speaking. It is partly, of course, because when the noble Lord opens a debate I feel bound to toe the line. The future of the House depends on people like him and on the gifted Minister who is to reply. That is a minor excuse. My main excuse for taking part in the debate is that I have recently acquired a new friend, a good Muslim who served with distinction for nine years in the Iranian navy. For a number of years he has run a very successful car agency which I use several times a week. Most of his drivers are also good Muslims. I have many talks with them about Iranian affairs as seen from a Muslim point of view.

My friend served under the Shah and has both good and bad things to say about him. The regime under the Shah was a great deal better than the present one. After serving under the present regime for a number of years, my friend came to this country. He could no longer bear what he calls the awful injustices—which in his view have not diminished. I am open to the argument that matters are slightly better, but I do not find it easy to believe. My friend tells me what the present regime is like from his point of view.

My Lords, I should be grateful if the noble Earl would give way. I simply want to ask whether he is in any way correct in relying on one person's statement that the human rights circumstances under the Shah were better than they are under the present regime. I travelled in Iran during the time of the Shah and was arrested three times by SAVAK, his brutal secret police. They had a reputation of which the noble Earl may not be aware. Is he sure of his ground in making that statement?

My Lords, I am pretty sure of my ground. I have a friend, a distinguished man who did good work under the Shah and under the present regime, and who found the present regime intolerable and decided to leave Iran. That is fact. There is no further argument. He is a successful and reliable man who is much admired in this country, and that is his testimony. If I may say so, it is even more reliable than the always reliable testimony of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. Leaving aside the personal issue, I rely on what my friend says. The present Muslim regime in Iran is one of extreme religious fanaticism.

Fanaticism has its merits. We usually call the Reverend Ian Paisley a fanatic. Nevertheless, he called for a prayer in Parliament the other day. I wish that I had been there when he was last elected. I should have voted for him. But the Reverend Ian Paisley is not like one of the mullahs. He once gave me a little book on the Epistle to the Romans. No one could think that he would be a cruel man or that he would do anything harsh like the mullahs.

As I said, according to my friend, the present regime is one of extreme religious fanaticism. He is not my only Iranian friend; most of his drivers come from Iran and they say the same: that the present regime goes altogether too far. It is not based on sound Muslim teaching.

That brings me to the important speech made by the right reverend Prelate. It was far more important than anything I can say. He said so many things so well that I can do little more than say, "Ditto". I am sure that we must approach the question as though it were in large measure one of religious fanaticism. The situation is not the same as it is in Iraq, where there is a military dictator; it is not the same trouble as under the Communists; it is a religious question. The right reverend Prelate explained it very well.

I have little more to say save that we are dealing with a religious problem. I look to religious leaders, including the right reverend Prelate, to show us the way forward.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for initiating this important and timely debate. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford for his generous words about Islam and for his reference to the Koran.

Your Lordships will be aware that I have spoken on human rights in Kashmir, Palestine, Chechnya, the Balkans and in northern African and Middle Eastern countries. At the outset, I remind the House that human rights were first established in Islam by the Prophet Muhammad—peace be upon him—in his famous Mount Arafat sermon 1,400 years ago. Rights were given to men, women, children, prisoners and refugees, and even environmental rules were established.

One must never confuse that with the political situation in Islamic countries where things appear to be done in the name of Islam and yet have no relevance to Islam. Of course, Islamic rules are interpreted by different governments and institutions. However, in Iran we have seen considerable improvements in legislation, human rights and the education of women. Reference has been made to the resolution passed last week by the United Nations Human Rights Commission welcoming the report of the special representatives on human rights. In relation to the areas I mentioned earlier the report noted that,

"certain foundational improvements have taken place".

The report refers to the efforts of the Sixth Majlis to improve the status of women and girls, in particular the project of a Bill aiming to raise the marriage age and a Bill to remove the existing ban on unmarried women studying abroad. However, the report expresses concern at the delay on the part of the Council of Guardians.

While no one can defend the abuse of human rights, I should like to draw attention to the tremendous changes that have taken place in the Islamic republic of Iran in the past five years. Despite strong resistance from the hard-liners and the conservative element, President Khatami and the Majlis have opened up Iran to the outside world. I had the pleasure of visiting Tehran 18 months ago. I spoke with many young graduates, including young women students, who were staunch supporters of change and supporters of President Khatami.

It is absolutely imperative that we understand the complex nature of the struggle that is taking place within Iran between the moderates and the conservatives. In this debate we should not provide any reason for the hard-liners to criticise the reformers for not securing any support from the West. Here I should like to point out, as was mentioned earlier, that one organisation based in Iraq claims that it is fighting for a change inside Iran; however, I saw no evidence for supporting that organisation. It is most hated for its terrorist activities inside Iran. It is seen as an instrument of Saddam Hussein rather than as a legitimate opposition group. Even the British ambassador in Iran told me that the popular support in Iran was for the modernisers and for Mr Khatami, and that there is no support for any external organisation.

I am also deeply concerned about the banning of many newspapers and journals by the judiciary, as mentioned earlier. Your Lordships will understand that this is part of a power struggle and I am pleased to announce that two-thirds of all newspapers are still pro-democracy and pro-modernisation. Iran's intelligence services have also gone through some change. As your Lordships will no doubt be aware, two years ago the head of operations was arrested for ordering the killing of dissidents and later committed suicide in prison. Although reformers have the backing of the majority of the population, unfortunately since last year's elections hard-liners have reasserted their grip on the judiciary and on other institutions—a point made by almost every speaker.

I congratulate the BBC and the World Service on providing an excellent news service to the Iranian people, with balanced news and views. The BBC World Service radio (Persian language) has a regular following in Iran, including the president, politicians, decision makers, young people and intellectuals. The BBC has made an enormous contribution to the process of democracy in Iran. I congratulate the Foreign Secretary, the right honourable Robin Cook, and our Government on the strong stance they have taken with the Government of Iran regarding women's rights, minority rights and human rights, including the resumption of diplomatic relations at ambassador level.

Therefore, I do not believe that condemnation from the House will help the democracy and change that is taking place in Iran today. We should follow the lead of the UN Human Rights Commission and acknowledge that a change is taking place in Iran. In the words of the executive summary of the United Nations Human Rights Commission report:

"Certainly every shade of opinion seems to make itself heard, despite the massive repression of the reformist press. Democracy in the form of popular elections continues to make progress. Some argue that the point of self-sustaining take off has been reached".

I am pleased to hear that positive steps have been taken regarding the situation of the Baha'is in Iran. I call upon all those in powerful positions inside Iran to ensure that minority rights, women's rights and children's rights are safeguarded in accordance with the UN declaration of human rights and other international human rights agreements.

Finally, as the oldest parliament in the world, we have an opportunity to help in the process of change that is taking place in Iran by having a serious dialogue with the elected Iranian representatives and exchanging visits rather than condemning and strengthening the hands of the conservatives. Iran has a strategic position in the region, with Afghanistan in the north-east, Iraq to the west, and the largest natural resources in the region. Iran is also an influential and active member of the OIC, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference.

When the presidential elections are only six weeks away, we cannot afford to isolate Iran at this crucial time by condemning the growing democratisation that is taking place. We should continue to encourage democracy and progress in Iran where over 50 per cent of the population is under the age of 20 and 52 per cent of university students are female. Such a country has a vast potential.

My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for introducing this important debate from which I believe many of us have benefited a great deal. We have heard some extraordinarily interesting and perceptive speeches. Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, I should like to associate myself with the condemnations made of human rights abuses in Iran. It is perhaps particularly difficult for a woman—or, for that matter, for a Baha'i or a Christian—to accept some of the dreadful things that have happened to women and to minorities in Iran. I defer to no one in agreeing that such matters must be condemned. We must persuade the regime in Iran that the road to a civilised modern world lies through respect for human rights. All of us, from whatever country or part of the world that we come, recognise that fact. It is interesting that the next topic for debate tonight is precisely the issue of human rights and discrimination on religious, racial and gender grounds.

I suppose that this debate has turned in many ways not on any question about the outrage of human rights abuses in Iran but on whether our view about the Khatami experiment is an optimistic or a pessimistic one. I believe that that division has run through the speeches made from all Benches in the debate tonight. The arguments for the pessimists are unquestionably strong. In 1997, when President Khatami was elected, there seemed to be a real opportunity for rapid development in Iran towards a democratic state. Although the election of the president was not completely clear of doubt, it was conducted in a pretty transparent and acceptable manner. The more recent election of the Majlis, which led to a clear majority of moderate reformers, appeared, again, to be a most encouraging step forward.

However, in the past few months, the closing of reformist newspapers and journals and, above all, the detention and imprisonment—indeed, in some cases, torture—of scores of dissident reformers has filled many of us with some discouragement. The essential question is: what line should we take? Despite the fact that the sky has clouded since that bright dawn of 1997, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, and the right reverend Prelate that there are some real signs of hope.

One of those signs of hope is the sheer courage of the reform element both within the Majlis and outside it in the universities, and elsewhere. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, and my noble friend Lord Phillips both referred to the very courageous statement made by the 150 members of the Majlis only a few weeks ago about the detention of the members of the freedom movement. Since then—indeed, only today—there has, again, been an extraordinarily courageous manifestation with 109 university professors signing a letter to their president drawing his attention to the effect on universities and on the intellectual climate of the detention of dissidents who, at no point, have ever turned to violence as a way of expressing their opposition.

Therefore, the first hopeful point is one that I believe the whole House should express; namely, our profound respect for members of the reform movement in Iran, who, at huge risk to themselves—risks that most of us, thank God, have never had to contemplate—have continued to bear witness to the need for democratisation in Iran.

The second sign of hope was the one mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed: half of the population of Iran is aged under 20. The evidence, which is overwhelming, shows that the younger elements in the population of the country strongly support President Khatami and the movement towards a more democratic regime. In short, as time passes, the situation should inevitably improve not worsen. However, it is also important to point out that 40 per cent of those same people of Iran live in either abject or extreme relative poverty. Relative poverty is not the best seedbed into which to plant the seeds of democracy.

That brings me to my third point, which is one that needs to be most clearly made. The present condition of Iran has made possible the establishment of an illiberal and totalitarian theocracy. I should add that we, too, remember theocracies in our history that behaved little better in their own day and in their own time. However, that theocracy is, in part, a reaction to the intervention by Western powers who established a Shah, against what was clearly strong, popular feeling in Iran. Those powers supported him in what was a cruel policy; namely, of literally seizing and confiscating a large number of small peasant holdings in Iran in order to sell them to large agro-businesses, with no compensation whatever in many cases to those who had owned, admittedly, infertile and rocky land. However, it was land which belonged to them and which underpinned a powerful conservative view in Iran. The regime forbade the worship of Islam, and did so to such an extent that it actually detained people who had a copy of the Koran in their homes.

I saw evidence of this in 1970s when I travelled around Iran, during the time of the Shah. Those powers subsequently provided weapons and support to Iraq in the most cynical way for one of the most dreadful and painful civil wars that we have seen since our own Second World War, and which led to deaths on a scale equivalent to that experienced in the First World War in Europe. Perhaps we Europeans, Americans and other Western powers ought to make it plain that we accept some responsibility for a reaction back to medieval values, given how hypocritical and, in many ways, self-interested modern politics must have looked to many Iranian citizens.

The fourth point I want to make, which has not been touched upon so far, concerns the reasons why the West sometimes changes its attitude towards a particular Islamic state. Even now the Energy Committee under Vice-President Cheney in the United States is discussing the possibility of lifting the present economic sanctions on Iran. So far as we know President Bush has said that the time is not ripe. However, we should not pretend to ourselves that one of the major reasons for even considering the lifting of sanctions is directly connected to the huge recent oil discoveries in the Caspian Sea and to the possibility of pipelines passing through Iran or, alternatively, through Georgia and Turkey. We should not be too noble in not regarding our own economic involvement with Middle Eastern and Islamic states when we consider issues of human rights. Let me make it plain that that in no way forgives for a moment abuses of human rights, but it does at least recognise that we have been complicit in some of the abuses of human rights in other Middle Eastern countries.

My final point relates to what we might do now. We have heard some constructive suggestions. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, suggested—I am sure that he is right—that there should be closer interchanges and relations with the Iranian Majlis, which badly needs the support and encouragement of old democracies such as those of the United Kingdom, Germany and others. I believe that such exchanges could strengthen and increase respect for the Majlis. I am sure that the right reverend Prelate is right to suggest that there is room for a deeper and more profound interchange of religious views and values between Christianity, Judaism and Islam. I defer to his knowledge which is infinitely greater than mine in that regard. I too have come across in Malaysia, Pakistan and elsewhere the profound divisions with regard to the interpretation of Islamic holy writ between the more modern members of the faith and those who are wedded to more ancient and traditional attitudes. As a Roman Catholic, who am I to suggest that there are not similar tensions and differences among Christian religions, as anyone who is familiar with Vatican Two and its aftermath is bound to accept?

We must try to meet the huge challenge of how we live with Islam not by reverting to the view that this is a clash of civilisations which will lead to a kind of new crusade, but rather by recognising that on every possible level we need to encourage the more liberal, modern minded, tolerant and, in the widest sense, religiously credible members of Islam, Judaism and Christianity to develop many dialogues between ourselves in which we all accept that the recognition of human rights is a fundamental element that binds us all together. We should hesitate just a little before condemning a whole people and rather recognise that there is a real opportunity that out of Iran may grow a regime with which we can live much more comfortably than with the theocracy of today.

My Lords, your Lordships' House clearly owes a singular debt to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for promoting the debate and raising issues at a very appropriate time given that the Iranian presidential elections will take place on 8th June. I assume that that will occur the day after our general election. He initiates the debate at a time when great changes are afoot in the whole Gulf area and in American foreign policy. However, we are obviously concerned centrally with the question of human rights.

I propose to confine my remarks to four subjects: first, whether reform is or is not going forward, which constitutes the central theme of the debate; secondly, our interests in relation to Iran in its present state; thirdly, the specific question of human rights abuse to which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred and to what extent that remains an internal matter; and, fourthly, what, if anything, we can do about it all.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, rightly said, with her usual accuracy and eloquence, there has run through the whole discussion the central question of whether the Khatami regime is a reforming regime. Are things getting better or has nothing much changed at all? Are we talking about the same people who were previously involved in the most hideous atrocities and are still presiding over a country in which atrocities continue but who are using slightly different words?

As the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said, it is impossible for most of us to reach a judgment on the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, speaks on the matter with great authority. If one listens to him or to the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, one hears an unqualifiedly grim tale of atrocities carried out in a sinister and sick country. However, if one listens to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, or to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, it appears that the situation, although difficult, is getting better. On listening to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, I had the familiar feeling that I wished to Heaven I was as certain of anything on these matters as he seems to be of everything. I cannot reach a judgment on whether his confidence is soundly based and how one weighs that against the evidence of the most hideous things that are still happening. The layman must have grave doubts about the matter.

A ministerial statement from the British Government to Iranian Ministers contained a phrase about respecting each other's cultural identities. One has to ask oneself what kind of culture is reflected in conducting mass hangings, stoning people to death, amputating limbs and imposing extrajudicial death sentences, let alone, on a lesser scale, in the suppression of the media or in other acts of cynicism and hatred and certain police action. Just as our views and the opinions expressed in the debate differ, so Iran itself is a country with deep divisions of view and with a completely dual power structure. There is the power structure of President Khatami, the police and the official state forces and that of the revolutionary courts, the Council of Guardians and its guards, who hold people under arrest without trial and conduct their separate system of law, hate and violence. Against that background, to reach a judgment as to whether the situation in the country is improving or going backwards is even more difficult.

My instinct is that some progress is being made if one looks very hard. However, there is also clear evidence that even in the past few months, and perhaps even while we speak, horrific things are happening which cannot be condoned by any stretch of the imagination in any context, Islamic or any other. To turn a blind eye to those events is not to serve the cause of democracy and stability, let alone to support the values that we do support and try to include in our relations with the rest of the world as we should. As say, perhaps matters are improving a little, but it is hard to tell. There are certainly some evil and bad elements in Iran and among those who govern it at present.

I shall discuss human rights abuses in a moment. As regards our broad interests in this matter, as a responsible power we want to see stability and security in the Gulf region. We are uneasy about regimes 'which spend much money—however, all kinds of regimes do this—on the development of new missiles—we have to ask why they need those missiles—and which trade in the dark world of the arms markets and which perhaps dabble in weapons of mass destruction. We have an open fear about Iraq in that regard, but we are also fearful about Iran's intentions. Those countries appear to be unreliable. One is not sure whom they will bite next. However, we must have security in the Gulf. Some 65 per cent of the world's oil reserves are to be found in the Gulf region, whatever may be found in the Caspian Sea. But I say with respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that I understand that it is not nearly as plentiful as was thought. Vast reserves are to be found in the Gulf region which will dominate world oil markets for years to come.

It must be true, too, that it is in our interests to see a prosperous Near Asia and Middle East. If only Iraq could develop a democratic regime, and if only Iran could develop a democratic, prosperous regime, what wonderful prospects there would be for the entire Middle East. Here are two sets of people—the Iranians, in particular, are brilliant people, with a fantastic history, and full of talent: think what the possibilities would be if it could open out as a free, lively and vigorous society.

We are right to long for that and to want to use our policy leverage, such as it is, to break open this sad little world. As the Financial Times reminded us in an article yesterday, 40 per cent of those living in Iran are in absolute or relative poverty. That is a colossal percentage. It demonstrates what a miserable and sick society it is.

Then there is the question of the Middle East peace process and the role of the Hezbollah. If there are to be better relations with Iran, if there is to be business with Iran, it must be accompanied by efforts by Iran to play its part in the peace process far more than it has been prepared to do so far. If people say that the Israelis go over the top and attack when the existence of their country is threatened, the same criticism has to be applied to the Hezbollah, the so-called "army of god", and some of its atrocities and attacks. There must be give and take in that area; and there is little sign of any give whatsoever in condoning the actions of the Hezbollah terrorist groups.

Then we come to the real focus of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, wanted us to consider the human rights issue. There used to be a time when the argument that these were internal issues was the end of the matter. One was told not to interfere. Just as the Chinese Government tell us that we must not comment on many of their affairs and self deceptions as they are internal matters, so we are constantly told by the mullahs that how they govern their country is an internal matter. But that is no longer the world in which we live. We now live in a world in which human rights issues are taken into the heart of nation states. The concern with human rights is linked directly with the stability of the globe. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, quoted Mary Robinson saying that,

"Today's human rights abuses are the cause of tomorrow's conflicts".

The Foreign Secretary reminded us of that in his speech on 28th March. It was in some ways a strange speech. It did not mention Iran or Iraq, which I found a little strange. It mentioned Burma and other countries. But that is the new order of things: that today we feel justified in carrying concern for human rights right inside nation states. In doing so, one must realise an even greater responsibility in commenting on these issues and a greater need for accuracy and transparency than has existed in the past.

The fourth matter involves what to do. Whatever we have heard about the horrors of Iran, the way it is governed today and has been governed in the past—there may have been unqualified horrors—it is, as always, a matter of light and shade. The Iranian nation has had to contend with an appalling refugee problem: 1.4 million Afghans have been driven out by the maniacal Taliban—in many ways it committed the same kind of atrocities, or worse; we do not really know—and have come into Iran. There are half a million refugees from Saddam and his hideous activities, and many other refugee problems. My impression from past experience with the Iranians is that they have been dealing with these refugee problems with great care and competence, and deserve some support, which in a substantial way the British Government and other governments have sought to give them. So one must understand that in making judgments from far away.

What do we do? Do we encourage closer links? Do we let businesses, which are always looking for ways to get into areas, become more closely involved? My judgment is that a general policy of isolation, having nothing to do with Iran, is probably wrong. I think that one has carefully and gingerly to see whether some contacts can be opened and maintained. If the Americans aim to remove their sanctions—I agree with those who suggest that they do—I think that that is probably the right way forward. They will have to keep a close watch on the armaments trade. But I do not think that the sanctions have been very effective. And the Bush administration is an energy administration. They are all energy men; they think entirely in terms of oil. They note that America now imports 60 per cent of its oil supplies. When I had some responsibility for these matters 20 years ago, it was 20 or 30 per cent. That makes America very vulnerable. They are concerned about all aspects of oil, and that will drive their policy in the Gulf and the Middle East, as it will drive their policy elsewhere.

I do not agree with a total cut-off: that no businessman, even if he knew the risks, could go in. When applied by this Government to Burma—they tried to pressurise Premier Oil to get out of Burma—that policy was totally wrong. It is pathetically misplaced and misunderstands the way in which openness and democracy are helped.

What do we do about the declared opponents of the theocratic tyranny—the Mujaheddin-e-Khalq—which has been made a proscribed organisation, to its great indignation? I appreciate that it is a difficult issue for the Government to decide. We cannot provide a nest for terrorist, violent organisations. But we can provide, and have often provided in our history, a home for exiled governments pleading for freedom to return to their land. So the judgment has to be made; and I appreciate that it is very difficult.

My heart does not go along with the broader proposition that somehow we can excuse the mass hangings, killing of children, murder of the Baha'is, and so on, because it is all part of understanding Islam and seeing issues in an Islamic context. I listened with as much sympathy as I could to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. I note the point he makes: that we have to see things through Islamic eyes and that we must understand Islam. But let us understand the right kind of Islam. Let us think back to Islam and Christianity, which lived together in the early centuries after Christ, up to the 1500s and later. The gentle Islam is a wonderful thing. Christians, Islam and Mohameddans lived in peace and worshipped in each others' churches in syncretic symbiosis. That went on; it can go on again today. But not if we are dealing with this extreme, horror-filled, tyrannous theocracy which does things in the name of Islam and I think insults the name of Islam in doing so.

My plea would be that we should understand the right kind of Islam and not this sick mutation of it; that we should look hard for signs of opening up in Iran and work with and respond to them. But we should not let out of our minds for one moment some of the facts which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, and others have placed before us. They should be constantly in our minds in dealing with this once great country—as I hope that it will again be one day.

My Lords, perhaps I may say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for initiating this debate and to all noble Lords who have participated in it. I thank the noble Lord for the far too generous, fine compliments he so graciously paid me; and for the compliments paid me by my noble friend Lord Longford.

Her Majesty's Government share many of the concerns which all noble Lords have rightly expressed about the human rights situation in Iran. As so often, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, put her finger on the issue with skill and elegance. The balance is between the optimists and those who are pessimistic about the future for Iran. The noble Baroness also reminded us of the risks faced by all those who are committed to democracy in Iran. I cannot but agree with her on that.

With the cautious acknowledgement of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that some progress is being made and that it would be wrong to withdraw, the balance of the debate has tipped slightly in favour of those who are cautiously optimistic about change, lodged as it is in the hopes and aspirations of the young people of Iran and the reformers.

I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that we do not and will never put commerce before human rights. That is why only last week we and our EU partners put the resolution of the Commission on Human Rights to the vote—and won. We have consistently co-sponsored that resolution and the annual United Nations General Assembly resolution on the human rights situation in Iran, the last of which was adopted on 4th December last year. Those resolutions underline the continuing international concern about certain Iranian human rights policies. A significant part of the process of improving UK-Iranian relations is to raise our concerns over such issues. Ongoing EU-Iran dialogue also contains a substantial human rights element.

We remain particularly concerned about the discrimination practised against some religious minorities, most notably the Baha'is, who are still unrecognised by the Iranian constitution. They were mentioned by a number of noble Lords. The harsh prison sentences handed down at the trial on espionage charges of a number of Iranians, including 13 members of the Iranian Jewish community, are also a cause of concern. We continue to urge the Iranian judiciary to show clemency in that case. The sentencing of 10 representatives of the academic and intellectual community in Iran for attending a conference in Berlin in April 2000 was another affront to human rights.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, rightly referred to the conviction on 27th January of 15 intelligence officers for their involvement in the serial murders of liberal intellectuals in 1998. That represented a significant victory for President Khatami. It was the first time since the revolution that officials of the system had been tried and prosecuted for extra-judicial killings. However, as noted in the Commission on Human Rights resolution passed in Geneva on 20th April, we regret that all the circumstances surrounding the killings are not fully clarified. The resolution urges the Government of Iran to continue the process of investigation and to bring the alleged perpetrators to justice in accordance with the due process of law.

The violations of the legal rights of prisoners and the high number of executions remain important issues. There is also continuing discrimination against women in the courts and in society generally. We regularly raise a broad range of human rights concerns, including those on specific cases. Only last week, the permanent under-secretary raised such issues vigorously with the Iranian Foreign Minister and his officials. We and our EU partners have also démarched the Iranian authorities on a number of specific cases, including the trial of the Shiraz Jews and the sentencing of those who attended a conference in Berlin. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that we continue to be vigorous on such issues.

The use of capital punishment has been referred to several times. As I am sure your Lordships are aware, we are implacably opposed to the use of the death penalty and we shall continue to lobby with vigour in all forums with all our partners to have that form of punishment expunged from the systems and statute books of the world. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, that the Government wholeheartedly share the distaste that he so graphically demonstrated.

However, it is important to recognise that since the election of President Khatami in May 1997 there have been a number of significant improvements in Iran's human rights record, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and, most potently, my noble friend Lord Ahmed said. We welcome the Iranian Government's commitment to developing an Islamic civil society based on respect for the rule of law. Engagement with the outside world will help to speed up the process of change and democratisation. In February 1999, local elections were held for the first time in Iran's history. They put local power in the hands of the people. The mass participation in those elections reaffirmed the Iranian people's support for the reform process.

The subsequent Majlis parliamentary elections in February and May 2000, in which 190 of the 290 seats were won by reformers, were further evidence of a more open and vigorous electoral system, as a number of noble Lords have said.

There have also been some modest improvements in the situation of women, notably with the appointment of Iran's first four women judges and its first woman vice-president. The efforts of the Iranian president and other senior figures in the executive to press for a change in attitude towards women and women's issues are particularly welcome and have been recognised by the UN special representative on human rights, Maurice Copithorne.

An increasing number of Iranian women now take part in politics and go on to higher education. More than 50 per cent of the university intake in Tehran is now female. That is a positive development that has been commented on tonight. One of the changes brought about by the Islamic revolution in 1979 was better education for women. Many of the women who have received that education now work and expect to do so as a right.

None the less, there is still strong evidence of continuing discrimination against women in the courts and in society generally in Iran. Recent UN resolutions on human rights in Iran sponsored by the EU have called on Iran to take further measures to eliminate discrimination against women.

We also welcome President Khatami's affirmation last year that Iran's constitution forbids any pressure on any person for their ideological convictions and grants all citizens their rights. We also welcome his comments that, as a president elected by the people, he is committed to defending the rights of all citizens as nationals of Iran. We hope that that will extend to all groups in Iran, including minority religious groups such as the Baha'is, mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. I greatly welcomed his sensitive and balanced approach and wholeheartedly agree that such sensitivity is needed.

Of course, Iran could do more. We continue to urge the Iranians to allow the special representative of the Commission on Human Rights, Maurice Copithorne, to visit Iran soon. In his latest report, published in January 2001, he welcomed some progress, but regretted that it had been overshadowed by regression in other areas, notably freedom of expression. It is right that noble Lords have noted the range of negative developments that he noted in his latest report. We share those concerns. That is why we have supported his work in its entirety.

Maurice Copithorne gave a clear welcome to the progress made in other areas, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. He has assured us that he believes that we should remain engaged with the Iranian authorities. I agree with the exhortation and caution of my noble friend Lord Ahmed and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, among others, about the need not to give negative indications to those who wish to diminish the importance of the reformers in Iran. We believe that those issues can best be addressed within a policy of constructive critical engagement and dialogue. Face-to-face discussion of those difficult issues has real value. We would be loath to abandon them at the first sign of difficulty.

The recent arrests of religious nationalists provoked passionate debate in the Iranian parliament. The security and foreign policy committee summoned the intelligence Minister to answer questions about the arrests. He stated that his ministry had not been involved. Nevertheless, clearly there remain in Iran forces which are resisting democratisation and the development of an Islamic civil society.

However, we should also recognise that there exists in Iran a strong movement for change and democracy. We agree with noble Lords who, during the debate, have made that plain. President Khatami has spoken of the importance of that. He said:

"There is no threat more serious to our popular system than a situation in which the rulers of the country cannot justify their conduct to the people".

Of course, the arrests show the limitations on the freedom of speech. But the extent of the debate and controversy which the arrests provoked demonstrate that legitimate opposition is possible in Iran. We know that the MeK claims that the resort to arms is the only option. It issued the following statement:

"First, the viper never gives birth to a dove and the Mullahs' regime lacks the capacity for reform. Second, the only language the criminal Mullahs understand is the language of armed resistance".

That is clearly not true.

While perhaps not yet as far reaching as we might hope, change for the better is taking place in Iran through debate and discussion led by people who have chosen to stay in their own country rather than by those who have based themselves abroad and resorted to armed attacks and terrorism.

That process has met with many difficulties and setbacks. The proliferation of the press and the relative freedom of expression in recent years were seen as major developments in Iran's efforts to reintegrate itself into the international community. Therefore, it is all the more regrettable that over 30 newspapers and other publications have been closed in recent months and that a number of journalists and editors have been arrested. However, there is still a wide range of newspapers and critical commentary, and new publications still appear on the streets.

As did my noble friend Lord Ahmed, I pay tribute to the sterling work carried out by the BBC World Service. It not only has journalists posted in Iran but also has expert analyst teams based in Bush House, some of whom have played an incredibly important part in the wider debate. Some of them were also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alton.

I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked about the jamming of the TV station. We understand that SIMA TV is currently under investigation by the Independent Television Commission for broadcasting incitement to violence and for biased reporting of the situation in Iran. Therefore, it is not quite as straightforward as it might appear at first blush. I cannot but agree with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, that the overall picture in relation to such journalistic activity is not entirely bleak.

The result of the presidential elections in June will be important in determining the direction of progress in Iran, including that in relation to human rights. Many challenges still lie ahead. Some people claim that the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran—also known as the MeK—is fighting for freedom in Iran. Although the MeK claims to be seeking to advance a legitimate struggle for democracy, such a claim is difficult to reconcile with its history of violence and authoritarian nature.

The group alienated the Iranian people and lost any popular support it may have had in Iran when it sided with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. It maintains a standing army of several thousand fighters in Iraq, supported and armed by the Iraqi regime, from where it launches cross-border attacks into Iran, including terrorist attacks.

Despite claims that it attacks only "legitimate targets", the indiscriminate nature of some attacks means that civilians have been killed or put at risk. In February last year, a mortar attack on government offices in Tehran killed one person and injured five others. The MeK has assassinated senior Iranian officials and launched mortar attacks against government buildings in Tehran and elsewhere. Over the past year, the group has claimed responsibility for a series of mortar bomb attacks in central Tehran and other Iranian towns, such as Karaj and Ilam, resulting in death and injury to both civilians and servicemen.

We understand that the Iranians have launched attacks against MeK camps inside Iraq, as referred to by my noble friend Lord Clarke and the noble Lord, Lord Alton. We note, too, that Iran describes those attacks as limited and defensive operations aimed at halting MeK terrorist activity inside Iran. Iran claims that they are in accordance with Clause 51 of the UN Charter. I believe that that leads us to another debate as to where the rights and wrongs of that situation lie. However, those are the claims that have been made by the respective parties.

The MeK and the National Council of Resistance in Iran, of which the MeK is the dominant group, have a very effective publicity machine. They are also aware of the bad image of Iran created in the West by the country's poor human rights record. However, that does not mean that the MeK or NCRI would improve the situation in Iran. The MeK has called for new elections to be held under the auspices of the UN. That ignores the fact that the majority of Iranians voted for the present government. We may question some aspects of the process, but the Iranian people elected President Khatami, who was not the favoured candidate, and later elected a parliament in which the majority of the members are reformists who are willing to challenge what is going on in Iran.

The MeK had their roots in times of repression. At that time, its campaigns of violence may have seemed the only solution. But the political situation in Iran has moved on. The election in 1997 of President Khatami marked the beginning of this change in direction. We should respect the wishes of the Iranian people.

The situation is fluid. It is right that we should keep it constantly under review. However, there is hope that out of Iran may emerge a well-run, diversified and dynamic market economy, fully integrated into the global economy, which will be capable of contributing to a healthy bilateral economic relationship. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, was right to refer to the noble and good history that Iran had in the past and to say that this is a joint aspiration for Iran's future.

I know that all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate wish there to be a peaceful transition and the emergence of a full democracy in Iran with a civil society based on the rule of law. At present, it appears that those aspirations are shared by President Khatami and—much more importantly—by the vast majority of the Iranian people who elected him. Iranians have hope. Their courage has already been commended, and I join those who commend the courage of the reformers.

At present, it appears that the aspirations are also shared by others outside who might strengthen them. The evidence thus far suggests that the president and his government remain genuinely committed to this course. President Khatami has stated his commitment to an Islamic republic. We hope that he will honour that commitment and the commitment to a civil society based on the rule of law. If he does so, he will satisfy the wishes of the vast majority of the Iranian people.

My Lords, this has been a well informed debate in which every speaker who has contributed has done so from the basis of knowledge and conviction. I am extremely indebted to everyone who has participated.

The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, described the fault line that has run through the debate as a difference between optimists and pessimists. That remark was echoed by the Minister. It was once suggested to me that a pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history. Those of us who put perhaps too much faith in people who caricature themselves as reformists are sometimes bitterly disappointed in the end. One figure that should cause us at least some concern is that last year there was a 300 per cent increase in the number of refugees from Iran seeking asylum in this country. There was a similar trend throughout the rest of Europe. That is an interesting insight into the way in which Iranians perceive the situation in their country.

We in this place are extraordinarily fortunate to have the opportunity to speak freely about human rights questions and our liberties and freedoms. It is right that we discussed the questions that we raised today. We should remember that those who have been suffering acutely—whether in prisons, by being stoned to death or being subjected to the most terrible privations—will be grateful to us for having done so.

I say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford that those who have been suffering are Muslims, too. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, who sensitively drew out an understanding of Islam. That must not cloud, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, our over-riding concern for the universality of human rights. Those rights must be applied to all, whatever their state or denomination. We in this place have a duty to work towards that objective. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.

rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking tow arc's the comprehensive reform of anti-discrimination legislation in the United Kingdom. Particularly regarding discrimination on the grounds of sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of my Question is to seek to discover the Government's approach to the reform of our anti-discrimination legislation.

A quarter of a century ago, I was special adviser to the then Home Secretary, my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, and helped to develop government policy on legislation to tackle sex and race discrimination. We introduced radical and controversial measures. The government had both the political will and the skill needed to design and to enact what became the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976, together with a half-measure, known as the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act, which combated discrimination based on religious belief and political opinion.

I take pride in what we achieved. However, with the benefit of 25 years of practical experience, I share the belief of the equality agencies, of senior judges, of independent experts and of employers and trade unions that the time is over-ripe for the comprehensive, rather than the merely superficial, reform of that body of legislation. The approach of successive governments to the increasingly complex, opaque and anomalous state of British anti-discrimination law has been piecemeal and minimalist. It has involved the addition of new layers of legislation in bits and pieces, be they to implement European Community law, to introduce half measures on disability discrimination or to strengthen law enforcement only in Northern Ireland, not in Great Britain.

The complexity of the existing legislation makes it unnecessarily difficult for employers—in particular, for small businesses—to comply with their legal obligations. That complexity hinders victims in their access to justice. Compliance is too dependent on the willingness of individuals to take a case to a court or tribunal. Entrenched patterns of systemic discrimination remain and, except with regard to racial discrimination, British law does not yet require public authorities to perform positive duties to promote equality of opportunity or to eliminate unfair discrimination. The present defective state of the law helps no one.

The defects in the legal regime and the options for reform are lucidly analysed in the independent review by Professor Bob Hepple QC, Mary Coussey and Tuyfal Choudhury entitled Equality: A New Framework. We need a coherent, user-friendly joined-up framework that covers all the main grounds of unfair discrimination throughout the United Kingdom. The concepts need to be rationally and consistently applied. Indirect discrimination against the disabled needs to be forbidden, as do all of the examples of unfair discrimination contained in the EU employment equality directive, including religious discrimination, age discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination. Moreover, there needs to be equal protection against each type of discrimination, with assistance from an equality commission, to enable everyone to be treated equally within a workable and user-friendly legal framework.

The right to equal treatment is a fundamental human right. It should be recognised as part of our constitutional birthright everywhere in this country. It is unacceptable that religious discrimination is forbidden in Northern Ireland but not in Great Britain. There needs to be equal protection of the right to equality and equal access to speedy and inexpensive remedies everywhere. A major step towards the recognition of the importance of that right to equality would be for the Government to ratify Protocol 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights, which places that right on a par with other basic human rights that are listed in the convention. I am very disappointed that so far the Government have not even been prepared to sign, still less to ratify, Protocol 12.

The legislation needs to implement European law properly. The present hotch-potch of piecemeal statutes does not achieve reasonable legal certainty by informing the citizen of the true state of the law. It needs to set out the principles on which the legislation is based, while avoiding undue specificity and technicality. It needs to provide only for necessary exceptions to the principle of non-discrimination in accordance with EC law. It needs to encourage a non-adversarial approach, which avoids unnecessary bureaucratic requirements but secures the effective enforcement of the law.

The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 has created a powerful authority with strong regulatory powers in place of a weak and divided regulatory scheme. The reformers had the huge advantage that their reforms were driven by the most powerful government department, the Treasury. The same political will and intellectual energy should be devoted to re-making the system for regulating and enforcing the equality legislation, which would overcome the difficulty that its subject matter is the responsibility of a balkanised bureaucracy that is spread across five different government departments.

It makes no sense to continue to create more equality agencies to tackle the different types of discrimination that are made unlawful by successive parliaments. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 replaced the equality commissions, working side by side with a human rights commission. The reforms are working well in practice and do not appear in Northern Ireland to be resulting in a hierarchy of rights, by which some would be given a higher priority than others. The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland works well.

Those innovations in Northern Ireland should be implemented in Great Britain. An equality commission is required that has as much professional expertise in monitoring and law enforcement as has the Financial Services Authority. It should be committed to strategic law enforcement and to promoting voluntary compliance and respect for the law.

Such an equality commission will combine the expertise of specialist skill in tackling each form of unlawful discrimination and avoid wasteful duplication of resources. At present, the CRE and the EOC face difficulties in co-ordinating their work in cases of multiple discrimination on several grounds. A single commission would not face those problems and would be well placed to deal with discrimination on related grounds, such as gender and race, or race and religion. Eventually, it could take over the work of the new-horn Disability Rights Commission as well.

The reforms should apply to public authorities a positive duty to promote equal opportunities and to eliminate unlawful discrimination. Such a duty has been imposed in respect of race by the Race Relations (Amendment) Act, and should now be extended to gender and other grounds of discrimination. Such a public sect or duty will serve to encourage the spread of good practice and oblige policymakers to assess the impact of their policies and decisions on equal opportunities.

Legislation must be enacted by December 2003 to implement the EC race directive and the framework equality directive. Those require measures to be enacted prohibiting discrimination not only on grounds of sex or race but also on grounds of sexual orientation, age and religion or belief, in employment and training. By December 2006 at the latest, there will have to be legislation to combat age and disability discrimination.

There is concern that the Government will take a narrowly restrictive approach both to the implementation of those directives and of the proposals made by the equality commissions. There is a serious risk that the Government may seek to tackle the new grounds of unlawful discrimination only in the employment field, excluding discrimination in access to goods and services, including education and transport services, and even denying the victims of employment discrimination based on age, sexuality and religion the protection and support of an equality commission.

Such a minimalist approach would be in breach of the United Kingdom's international obligations. It would make the existing patchwork of legislation even more incoherent, inconsistent and unworkable. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House that those fears are unfounded; that the Government's measures will clarify and simplify the law, introducing greater coherence, and ensuring the equal protection and enjoyment of the fundamental right to equality. I hope she will be able to tell the House that the Government intend to impose positive duties on public authorities generally to promote equal opportunities. And I hope she will be able to say that the scattered pieces of legislation will be combined, as we on these Benches believe it should be, in a single, comprehensive equality Act, with an equality commission to tackle the new grounds of unlawful discrimination as well as the existing grounds.

The time is over-ripe for a bold and imaginative approach. The opportunity should not be squandered. I look forward to the contributions of all noble Lords, with their great experience and expertise. I am only sorry that the Conservative Benches, for a second night running, are denuded of everyone except the luckless noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, who sits alone in unsplendid isolation. I very much hope that the Minister will be as forthcoming in her reply as I have suggested.

My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for bringing this debate to the attention of the House. His tenacity is to be admired. He has consistently been at the forefront, over many years, in fighting discrimination. I listened attentively to his presentation and was almost persuaded by his well-founded arguments. However, I believe that Her Majesty's Government must give much thought to this issue and that is why I welcome the debate and look forward to the contributions by all noble Lords this evening.

I believe that there is an argument to be made for harmonising what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred to as the complexities and inconsistencies of existing anti-discrimination laws which hinder complainants and public authorities and make legislation cumbersome. That harmonisation would indeed augur well for employment issues. I can agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that employers, advocates and trade unions need a clear framework—one which is easy to operate and to apply.

However, we need to be aware of the different kinds of oppression which different groups experience. My days of doing case work give me the experience to assure the House that institutional racism demonstrates itself differently for different groups. There is no empirical data that women or disabled persons have been stopped and searched because of their gender or disability. But we all know that the statistics as regards black young people stopped for that reason are quite amazing.

The changes in the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 were critical to black people. They were the ones most vulnerable to discrimination and disadvantage by the arms of the state—those who were specially empowered to intervene in citizens' lives. Different kinds of discrimination impact on women, gays, lesbians and people with disabilities and I should not want to minimise those in any way. But I believe that we need to learn from the way in which the amended Act 2000 impacts: the way that it is changing the thinking and practices across the public sector, and to evaluate whether even stronger measures are not needed before we embark on the type of harmonising legislation suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Lester.

It needs to be the right legislation. It needs to be able to assist those whose responsibility it is to enact changes; but more importantly to assist those for whom the legislation is needed to protect from discrimination.

There has been a range of community-based organisations which played a role in tackling single-issue discrimination at local level. Most of those have been in relation to race discrimination and they all maintain that race discrimination stands in a class of its own. Our objective must be to put in place the right machinery for dealing with prejudice in its different forms. It cannot be appropriate at this time to produce legislation through a single mould. The different structures, although not perfect, have owned merit in their own right. The Commission for Racial Equality itself has recognised the need to simplify the workings of the Act and has put proposals before the Government which are awaiting government programme time.

I can understand that, in relation to the European directive, there is an urgency for harmonisation. But the greater need is to be sure that the legislation serves the most vulnerable in the different ways needed to tackle discrimination.

My Lords, it is now over 35 years since the introduction of the first race relations statute in this country. Much has changed in those years both in the character of race relations and the general understanding of the issues and problems involved. The working of the legislation has been evaluated time and time again and found to be wanting. It is for that reason that we have had the 1965, the 1968, the 1976 Race Relations Acts and now the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. No one in their wildest imagination in 1964 could have imagined that this country would put on statute four separate Acts to deal with racial discrimination and promotion of equality of opportunity and good relations. But that is the reality today.

Equally to the envy of the western world, it has been a positive framework for a successful multi-cultural Britain. Much of the credit for that goes to my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill. In his capacity as special adviser to the then Home Secretary Roy Jenkins, he was instrumental in shaping our race relations legislation.

We now have the Human Rights Act, which has significant implications for women, disabled people and ethnic minorities. We still need to address matters of age, religion, sexual orientation and discrimination or other improper grounds. The Human Rights Act has opened up a debate as to how equality and discrimination issues should be tackled. It has made existing agencies broaden their focus to consider the way in which differing equality and human rights legislation could address the complexity and inconsistencies of existing legislation inherent in agencies and ably identified in the contribution of my noble friend Lord Lester.

There is no dispute that the essential educational, promotional and law enforcement work requires an independent body—a human rights commission. Also, complexity and inconsistencies in present law would best be eradicated by an equality commission, which will bring the EOC, CRE and DRC together. We need to demonstrate, as we have done in Northern Ireland that the factors that unite them are strong. The Human Rights Act, which brings the rights in the European Convention on Human Rights into UK domestic law, provides some additional protection against discrimination. We need to examine that to see its significance in relation to the provisions of existing equality legislation, but more importantly to see the effect on those groups excluded from it.

We welcome the setting up of the Joint Select Committee on Human Rights. It would be wrong to confuse that with a human rights commission. The Government have already stated that they retain an open mind on whether a commission is needed. I come back to the arrangements ably identified in Northern Ireland. The Good Friday agreement of April 1988 brought into being a Human Rights Commission and a separate Equality Commission. The Equality Commission will take over the existing roles of the Northern Ireland Fair Employment Commission which covers religious and political discrimination, the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Disability Rights Commission.

The Equality Commission will have the additional role of supervising the duties to promote equality on grounds of race, religion, political opinion, age, sexual orientation, disability and marital status. The HRC has a wider mandate on human rights issues. The model is just one example of new thinking on discrimination legislation. I believe that after 35 years changes are appropriate. Comprehensive reform of anti-discrimination legislation is long overdue and I support the case made out by my noble friend Lord Lester. It is better to prepare for a change now than to be forced into introducing changes by circumstances outside our control.

My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for instigating this important and timely debate. I cannot support his proposal for one equality commission, although I believe in the harmonisation of legislation. There have been important changes of attitudes to equality rights since 1997 and they are reflected in government policies. However, we all recognise that there is still a long way to go.

While recognising the importance of anti-discrimination legislation across the board, I want to concentrate on two aspects relating to anti-discrimination in relation to women and to sex legislation: a public sector duty to promote sex equality and consistency—on which the noble Lord and I may agree—and enforcement of legislation. Here I declare an interest as a former equal opportunities commissioner serving on that body from 1991 to 1998. I was originally appointed by the then Home Secretary, now the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking. Therefore, I have worked on changing equality legislation through that body.

In many important respects the sex equality legislation did not bring about, as many of us hoped, equality in working practices and service provision. That is why discrimination laws need to be reformed and made more consistent.

The Sex Discrimination Act is based on the principle of the right of the individual, not to be discriminated against and it has introduced penalties on those who breach those rights. However, the law does not require organisations to put in place systems to address the underlying causes of sex discrimination. I believe that the time has come for organisations to be closely scrutinised and in particular for their promotion, recruitment and evaluation of performance practices to be examined in detail to eliminate discriminatory practices between men and women.

During the debates on the Race Relations (Amendment) Act last year, Ministers acknowledged that institutional practices may lead to racial discrimination, rather than simply the acts of a series of individuals. That analysis is fine, but just as it applies to race discrimination I believe that it should also apply to sex discrimination.

Now may not be the time for organisations in the private sector to be subjected to a statutory duty to promote sex equality, but as a first step a duty should be placed on public services to promote equal opportunities between men and women. A public sector duty has been introduced into race discrimination and the time is right for such a duty to be applied to sex discrimination also. Over the years, across government departments, consideration of gender equality in the planning and delivery of services has been sporadic. Now is the time for action to ensure consistency.

The passing of the European directive on discrimination in employment is a welcome step in providing legal rights for groups who have previously had no legal protection against discrimination under British law. As has been explained, that has, unfortunately, further contributed to the legal inconsistencies in discrimination law. It brings in a new test for indirect discrimination on the grounds of everything except gender. Having two indirect discrimination tests, as the noble Lord said, will be extremely confusing, especially for employers.

The Better Regulation Task Force review of anti-discrimination laws has called for greater consistency throughout legislation. Therefore, a golden opportunity is before Government to change the discrimination laws to bring them into line with each other and to produce a consistent legal framework. A vital element to that approach must be that any new rights are properly enforceable.

The Government rightly emphasised the need to provide disabled people with enforceable rights under the DDA. A recent survey has shown that 86 per cent of firms have developed or revised their employment policies as a direct result of that Act. The EOC, the CRE and the Disability Rights Commission are statutory bodies that have strategic law enforcement powers to tackle non-compliance with the non-discrimination law. The fact that government granted those powers to those bodies shows the significance attached to enforcing non-discrimination law.

Therefore, I urge the Government to devise a planned programme of change to ensure that all anti-discrimination legislation is both consistent and enforceable and to consider seriously the introduction of a public sector duty to promote sex equality.

My Lords, I am grateful for this brief chance to speak to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, not only as a bishop, but also as a co-founder of the Interfaith Network UK.. That organisation engages in the essential task of developing relationships and understanding between different faith communities. It has had encouraging dialogue with the Government to help it on its way. We hope that such positive consultations will continue after the election. As the Cabinet Office Minister said in February,

"The Government is determined to tackle religious discrimination once and for all by cracking down on prejudice and reshaping our thinking to foster a culture of tolerance and mutual respect and to celebrate the contribution of Britain's many different faiths to the stability and prosperity of British society as a whole".

In addition, we have the EU directive, which is to be implemented by 2003, to which reference has already been made. Much can be done through information, sensitivity and respect for peoples' prayers, their moral teachings and the need for support and representation for faith communities. Much can be achieved by a change of attitudes; for example, there could be a shared chaplaincy in hospitals, in work places and in prisons, giving space and time for worship and festivals. Many things can be done to resist harmful, excluding religious discrimination.

On the other hand, as we have heard from the previous speaker, it is clear to me that legislation could strengthen this purpose enormously. At the same time—this is the difficulty that I want to highlight—there must be protection for the identity of faith communities and their distinctive organisations. It is quite difficult to see how all those matters can be fitted together. Muslims will want to appoint their imams and I guess that Christians will want to appoint Christian bishops.

As chairman of the Children's Society, I believe that we have a distinctive contribution to make to social justice. That distinctiveness is sustained by having a Christian Society management team. There are also schools and colleges that give tremendous service to our society. Some see the pluralist society as demanding that all children should be educated together, and I can see places around the world where that would be true, although some religious schools are divisive. However, almost every day I see how schools can provide a broad sense of belonging and a sense of moral and spiritual values according to the faith of the school that the children attend. For that we need the context of a strong idea of citizenship.

I believe that problems arise when the identity and the distinctiveness of the Christian organisation or the organisations of other faiths are made into divisive creations. However, to encourage the celebration of the variety of communities, to which the Minister referred, within our whole society requires a great deal of skill in terms of legislation.

If we can find a way of strengthening the resistance to discrimination and yet give space for distinctiveness, we will do not only a service to our own nation and society but, as we heard today in an earlier debate and as we know from other experience, to many countries of the world where discrimination amounts to persecution. Perhaps we have a chance now. When I was chairman of the Interfaith Network, I heard a most moving speech by a doctor who said that he thought such an organisation could exist as it does only in the United Kingdom.

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to take part in a debate initiated by my noble friend. His great experience in these matters and his persistence in putting across his point of view, because he knows it to be an important one, are well known in this House.

My comments reflect my increasing interest in the difference between being a subject rather than a citizen, but they also chime with the comments of my noble friend Lord Lester on the ad hoc, piecemeal and inadequate nature of equality legislation in the United Kingdom.

There are some curious oddities in the system. Public authorities have a duty to promote equal opportunities and to eliminate racial discrimination but no such duty in respect of women.

Older people, who all their adult lives have been able to choose with whom they live and whom they invite into their homes, can find themselves confined in a so-called home with people with whom they may have nothing, except their age, in common. What is more, unless the Government comprehensively change the situation, they will be obliged to pay for care which, were it given in hospital, would be free. That is a unique penalty.

At present, political parties may be legally inhibited from positively promoting the candidature of women as MPs so as to address the balance in the House of Commons. There is legislation against religious discrimination in Northern Ireland but not in the rest of the UK. There is, education apart, little or no equality legislation in respect of access to services or to the quality of services provided. Voters are not of equal value in the ballot box. I could go on but time is short.

How has this happened? My feeling is that the fundamental cause is the absence in this country of a generally accepted theory of citizenship. We have had continuous constitutional change from the beginning of history. We even had a revolution, but one could argue that we had it too early, before the Age of Enlightenment and the ideas of universal rights of man, of Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité, of the citizen as the building block of democracy.

Speaking very broadly, from the early Middle Ages up to the time of the Glorious Revolution, constitutional change consisted in essence of the sporadic wrestling of rights and powers from the monarchy in favour of certain, often quite small, groups and of the growing concept and reality of Parliament. That process of the transfer of powers from the Crown to Parliament, interrupted by the Civil War, was acknowledged as irreversible from the draft Declaration of Rights.

In the 19th and 20th centuries, the right to vote was gradually granted to the masses and to women, the nation's two inferior types of people. But even the process of broadening the franchise left untouched the idea of the sovereignty of Parliament rather than the sovereignty of the people.

It seems to me that it is this uniquely pragmatic and ad hoc attitude to our fundamental constitution which has led to the jungle of legislation in the field of equality. It is as though whenever someone notices something is wrong a law is passed to correct that wrong but nothing is done to deal with wrong as a whole.

The same attitude made the European Convention on Human rights seem so foreign in the eyes of many Members of this House when we discussed its introduction into our law. But is it too late to change? Could we look forward to a reforming government who use our acceptance of the convention into British law as an opportunity for a root and branch reform of our equality legislation? Could we start with an assertion of the equal right of every citizen, regardless of age, sex, ability, sexual orientation, race, colour or creed, to fair treatment at work, equal access to appropriate services and equal life chances—not minimalism but a new version of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for introducing the debate, especially for having chosen the first anniversary of the establishment of the Disability Rights Commission, the body which has given teeth to our Disability Discrimination Act and for which the Government can be justly proud.

The issue which I wish to raise may be seen as minimalism according to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, but it is one which I believe will become increasingly important in the 21st century. It is the use of genetic technology and whether new legislation is now necessary to outlaw discrimination resulting from genetic screening.

Since Dolly and Polly were launched upon the world—one a cloned sheep and the other a sheep with human genes—the disability community has been raising concerns about the fast pace of developments in genetic science. Disabled people have been in the spotlight of media and public interests as our impairments are the reason given for pushing back the frontiers of what is acceptable. Organisations such as the British Council for Disabled People and RADAR have been highlighting concerns that while there is new hope of treatment for rare disabling conditions, this may go with new danger for disabled people and others, such as increased discrimination in employment, insurance and healthcare.

Despite the Government's plans for the fast expansion of genetic technology in the NHS, they have shown themselves to be aware of these issues. On 19th April, the Secretary of State for Health announced the Government's intention to legislate to outlaw human reproductive cloning. He also said that, subject to the Human Genetics Advisory Commission's recommendations in mid May, the Government plan to issue a moratorium on insurance companies' use of genetic profiling tests to predict which of their customers were likely to die prematurely or suffer chronic disease.

However, it is in employment where perhaps there has been least discussion of the discrimination threat posed by genetic testing. While there is no evidence that genetic screening is currently practised in the UK, its use in the US is, however, extensive. A 1999 survey by the American Management Association found that 30 per cent of medium and large-scale companies sought some form of genetic information from employees.

There is also significant evidence of genetic information being used to discriminate. A survey by Dorothy Wertz of 1,500 genetic counsellors and physicians found that 785 patients had reported having lost jobs or been denied insurance because of their genes.

Employment practices in the United States are frequently adopted here, the most recent example being drugs testing. This becomes more likely as genetic testing for employment purposes becomes cheaper and more readily available. Multinational companies with UK premises are likely to introduce such screening and strict controls should be put in place before this happens rather than afterwards.

The current legal position in Britain is that an employer may require an applicant for employment to take a genetic test and the employer may discriminate on the basis of such a test—that is, unless the test relates to an existing disability covered by the DDA. The Disability Rights Commission agrees with the Human Genetics Advisory Commission's recommendation that employees should not be obliged to take a genetic test for employment purposes. However, it disagrees that an employer should be able to ask for access to existing genetic information if the test relates to a condition that will directly affect the individual's ability to do the job in question or his susceptibility to a particular workplace health risk. The DRC's view is that excluding or removing people from the workplace just because they might develop a genetic condition is unacceptable.

An increasing number of European and other countries have legislated to restrict the use of personal genetic information in relation to employment and insurance. For example, in Austria insurers and employers are barred from obtaining test results; in the USA federal employees are protected from genetic discrimination; and in Norway and France genetic testing for employment purposes is illegal.

This is an issue which affects us all. The discrimination currently faced by people with impairments might soon be faced by those with no symptom of disease and no apparent difference from the idealised average. In a 1999 survey on genetics and disability, RADAR found that 85 per cent of those surveyed believed that legislation to outlaw unfair discrimination based on genetic status was now necessary. In responding to this debate, will my noble friend the Minister give an indication whether the Government have any plans to include discrimination on the basis of such genetic screening within any possible reform of anti-discrimination legislation in the UK?

My Lords, I initially added my name to this debate for the simple reason that the assumption of my noble friend Lord Lester that all forms of discrimination should be treated equally is one that I find almost impossible to resist.. The discrimination legislation with which I have been most closely involved has dealt with disability. When my noble friend Lord Dholakia referred to a number of matters in the field of racial discrimination, I started to think of the number of Bills on which I had spoken specifically in relation to disability legislation, or discrimination, equality and inclusion in the field of education. I gave up because such Bills are virtually without number.

We try to bring about full inclusion and rights for groups and bodies but we always run back to stick in bits of legislation; we think that it should be there and we should deal with problems, but we have absolutely no standard. We are always plugging holes and making the same points. All of the bodies in the world of disability will always claim that their case requires special attention. That is the way that the disability field works. But those bodies are most effective when they join together. Generally speaking, they join together when they have to and they believe that something may be done. I say that in the full knowledge that earlier today the noble Baroness heard me talking about one particular disability. I would have liked it if the noble Baroness's answer had been, "Yes, according to one overarching guideline", or some guidelines that already exist. In that case it was dyslexia. I should have declared an interest at that time, but I rather assumed that in my case that was already on the record. That would then be conformed to as the gold standard, whether it became a universal standard or one particular standard.

There is an absurdity here which cries out to be dealt with. We can jump around as much as we like, but if we believe that people deserve to be treated on equal terms whenever that is possible, we must go some way to bring them on board together; otherwise, there will be the faint suspicion that it is all right to discriminate against someone for one reason but not for another. I do not believe that there can be any conclusion other than that if we do not follow the path set out by my noble friend Lord Lester.

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lester, on securing this debate. The fact that so many speakers are listed clearly demonstrates how strongly many noble Lords feel about discrimination. Just over a year ago when I was still director general of Age Concern I gave oral evidence to Sub-Committee F of your Lordships' European Union Committee in its inquiry into the EU's proposals to combat discrimination, including age discrimination. Shortly afterwards, I was privileged to take my place as a Member of this House. I was able to speak in the debate on that committee's report held on 30th June. Rather appropriately, it was the day of my retirement from Age Concern. I am, therefore, living proof that this House does not practise age discrimination. I hope that it continues to behave in that way.

I am now a member of Sub-Committee F whose report on migration and the need for a European policy on it was published today. The report touches on attitudes which unfortunately often result in discrimination against people who seek a better life in this country or escape from persecution. My views on age discrimination are probably known to some Members of your Lordships' House from my time with Age Concern and heading up Eurolink Age, a pan-European NGO. Age discrimination is an unacceptable and very pernicious form of discrimination which is still largely unrecognised. Therefore, I welcome the Government's acknowledgement that it is a real problem and one that must be tackled. However, I am aware that it is difficult to do that through legislation alone.

The competence of a person should, however, be the criterion on which that person is judged as capable of doing any job. Chronological age is not a reliable marker of anything; it is totally arbitrary. We all differ, whether we are five year-olds, 25 year-olds or 65 year-olds. We differ from each other even if we share the same date of birth.

The EU framework directive on discrimination, despite problems with its text and the ability of this House properly to scrutinise it, is a defining moment for those who campaign against any form of discrimination and want it to end. But for those who campaign against age discrimination this is the first fruit of the Treaty of Amsterdam which states that the EU,

"may take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on age".

I am aware that there are serious concerns about its drafting and the delay until 2006. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government will not use that as an excuse for inaction. I should be very interested to hear the Minister's thoughts about the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights which was recently adopted and appears to go further than the equal treatment directive. It includes, for example, an article that,

"everyone has the right to engage in work and to pursue a freely chosen or accepted occupation".

For those who campaign against discrimination more generally, the fact that the directive seeks to tackle discrimination on the grounds of religion, disability, sexual orientation and age in employment and occupation is unusual. Normally, these issues are considered separately. I am aware of the split view, both within this House and outside on whether this directive is a good or bad thing, and that the Government were doubtful when the draft directive was first published in 1999.

However, I am very much committed to the idea of an equality commission which would eventually cover all areas of discrimination, including race, nationality and gender. I was interested to read the excellent independent report produced by the Judge Institute. It argued persuasively for the matter to be considered, not just on grounds of administrative convenience or to save a little money on bureaucracy, but because there are sound policy arguments for giving it serious consideration in the near future. It is not only our economy but our society, in its broadest sense, that needs this to happen.

I therefore hope that the Minister can reassure the House that the Government are considering a comprehensive reform of anti-discrimination legislation rather than just piecemeal action, department by department or issue by issue. Discrimination is a cross-departmental issue. It should be at the heart of government thinking, policy and action.

My Lords, as my noble friend pointed out, in Northern Ireland we already have the mechanisms for considering discrimination across the board. The public authorities are required to promote equality of opportunity between persons of different religion, race, age, gender, political opinion, sexual orientation, physical and mental ability and family size. Every authority has to produce an equality scheme stating how it proposes to fulfil those duties. The scheme then has to be submitted to the Equality Commission for approval. The commission has the power to issue guidelines as to the form and content of the schemes. I suggest that the Northern Ireland model is one that we should consider very seriously in framing our own legislation in Great Britain.

As my noble friend has pointed out, in Britain the positive obligation on public authorities applies only to race under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act. That extends to the removal of any indirect discrimination which may be found to exist. However, in Britain the public authorities are not required to produce equality schemes, although it would be possible for the Secretary of State to make an order requiring them to do so under new Section 71(2) of the 1976 Act. Perhaps the Minister in her reply can say whether it is the Government's intention to exercise their powers under that provision.

Northern Ireland is also ahead of the rest of the UK in that promoting social inclusion runs as a theme through the policy of all departments instead of being segregated into an under-funded office directed by the Prime Minister, as the Social Exclusion Unit is here. Psychologically, there is something to be said for the positive idea of promoting social inclusion as opposed to the negative concept of preventing social exclusion. I ask the Minister whether that might be taken into consideration in the framing of any legislation, because the Social Exclusion Unit would obviously need to be merged within the new commission which would be created by any legislation.

I want to give an example of how this policy works in Northern Ireland. Travellers benefited from a new policy on accommodation launched in August 1999 by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and a report by the PSI Working Group on Travellers in June 2000. In Britain, by contrast, since the Government came to office they have taken no policy initiative to promote the social inclusion of Gypsies. Their needs have been ignored by the Social Exclusion Unit, although everyone acknowledges them to be the most disadvantaged of all minorities in terms of access to education, healthcare, social services and accommodation.

I draw the Minister's attention to the case of Chapman v. UK in the European Court of Human Rights. That court said that special consideration should be given to the needs of gypsies, both in the regulatory planning framework and in arriving at decisions in particular cases. There was a positive obligation imposed on contracting states by virtue of Article 8 of the Convention, which deals with respect for family life and facilitating the gypsy way of life. That extends beyond the immediate issue of planning.

The comprehensive legislation to promote equality which we hope to see must include a unified equality commission with powers to consider representations from and on behalf of disadvantaged minorities, and to highlight failures of policies such as these, which are still failing to deliver the Government's promises on equality.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for initiating this debate and for drawing attention to the report Equality: A New Framework. It is a mark of his commitment to equality and his pioneering role in the development of anti-discrimination legislation. This is a significant review for it paves the way for a co-ordinated reorganisation of a highly disjointed and fragmented area of law.

In his opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, concentrated on the legislative framework. I want to say a few words about the parts of the report that deal with the promotion of equality of opportunity within institutions. As someone who for the past 25 years has spent a great deal of time, in one capacity or another, trying to persuade and cajole institutions to adopt policies to tackle institutional barriers which impede equality, I cannot tell the House how delighted I was to see the report's recommendations. The recommendations are aimed at changing organisational policies and behaviour. Anyone committed to eliminating under-representation and institutional barriers to equality cannot afford to ignore the rationale and logic of the recommendations. The rationale for change is compelling.

As we know, discrimination and exclusion are now more complex and covert than they were three decades ago. Eliminating institutional barriers now requires greater emphasis on changing organisational culture and must be internally driven. The present framework places too much emphasis on state regulation and too little responsibility on organisations and individuals. It adopts an incoherent approach to different manifestations of inequality. Consequently, the initiatives which have been adopted are reactive and separate from each other. I can say that because some years ago I chaired a panel that was designed to increase the representation of minorities and people with disabilities in the senior Civil Service. My assessment was that the main barrier was the externally driven initiatives and the disjointed and competing factors among different groups.

The present framework was derived largely to deal with hierarchical, vertically integrated and centralised organisations. That is no longer appropriate for modern, flatter organisational structures in which equality depends not simply on avoiding negative discrimination but on the active participation of all concerned—I refer in particular to middle managers—in terms of training and improving skills, Learning, developing wider social networks and encouraging adaptability.

If we want a step change in promoting equality of opportunity, we must break away from the mind-set which relies on externally imposed detailed regulations. We must move our focus to shifting responsibility for change on organisations and individuals themselves if we want what I call sustainable cultural change in institutions and not merely cosmetic tinkering, which is based on externally imposed targets.

The report's recommendations are as compelling as its rationale and they resonate with my practical experience. They offer a model which starts from a base of persuasion, information and voluntary action plans. If those fail, only then does one move to investigation, compliance notice and judicial enforcement. That will encourage a proactive, non-adversarial approach. Voluntary, internally-driven initiatives are far more effective than externally enforced regulations.

The progress in institutions has been frustratingly slow because initiatives have been marginal. I was delighted when the positive duty to promote equality was enshrined in our race relations legislation. But we need to go further by creating a comprehensive framework for all types of inequalities. It is necessary to take early steps to introduce this new framework. We want to make equality an integral part of our institutional consciousness. We have been offered an effective way ahead and we should grasp it. If we do not, we will be flying against the force of our experience.

My Lords, I, too, should like to thank my noble friend for introducing this debate. Like him, I abhor discrimination of every kind, but as the President of Women Liberal Democrats, I think it appropriate that I confine my remarks to discrimination against women.

It is many years since the Treaty of Rome established the principle that men and women should have equal pay for equal work. However, equal pay is still not a reality in Britain today. Women who work full-time earn only 80 per cent of the average hourly pay of full-time men. Women who work part-time earn only 60 per cent of the hourly pay of full-time men. The mid-skilled childless woman earns £241,000 less over her lifetime than her male equivalent and, if she has two children, she will lose another £140,000. Retired men receive an average income of £174 per week while women receive only £94. The pay gap is caused by a complex combination of factors, including women's over-representation in poorer paid jobs, the undervaluing of jobs traditionally done by women and the high percentage of women in part-time employment.

The new regulations on equality in part-time pay will certainly help, but that is not enough. The Castle awards and the "fair pay champion" idea unveiled recently by the employment Minister are all very well, but the companies which are doing the least are the ones that should be forced to act, not the ones which are doing well enough to be nominated for an award. I ask the Minister what else the Government plan to do to ensure that women are treated equally in the workplace.

The Liberal Democrat proposal for an equality Act would do much to address the problem of unequal pay. The historical underpayment of women has resulted in millions of female pensioners living in poverty. Many married women paid the reduced national insurance stamp and the consequence is a tiny pension. While I am on the subject, can the Minister tell me exactly what women who choose to pay the reduced stamp get for their money? The Liberal Democrats want to make pensions fairer to women by abolishing the contributory principle and having pension rights based on citizenship and UK residence. This would help women with incomplete contribution records as a result of their caring responsibilities.

The problem with the current law is that the onus is on individual workers to prove discrimination rather than on employers to demonstrate equal treatment. What is needed is a change to allow group or class actions to be taken to industrial tribunals, since many tribunal decisions are relevant to large numbers of workers. Tribunals should be able to make general findings which would have a wider effect than just judgments on single cases.

I turn now to the benefits system and I should like to highlight one particular discrimination against single working mothers. If they are receiving working families' tax credit, they have to receive it in their pay packet. Couples receiving the same benefit can collect it at the Post Office, but single mothers cannot do so. When my colleagues in another place tried to amend the Act to remove this anomaly, the Government refused, saying that single mothers should be taught the value of work. If those women are managing a family single-handed and still holding down a job, they need no sermons from this Government about the value of work.

The effect of this anomaly was demonstrated recently by three single mothers in Stoke-on-Trent. Their employer changed from paying in advance to paying a week in hand and the women lost a week's worth of WFTC. In the same situation, a couple would have been able to collect their benefit each week from the Post Office. If that is not discrimination against single mothers, I do not know what is.

Finally, I urge the Government to get on with the promised study into the recommendations of the Constitution Unit on changing the law to allow special measures by political parties to improve representation by women and ethnic minorities. From these Benches, we have assured the Government of our support for such a study. European law is clear. Commissioner Flynn has emphasised that Community legislation is no impediment to national measures to improve the representation of women on elected bodies. It is therefore time that the UK Government caught up with those of our European partners who have shown us the way on this very important matter.

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for introducing this debate, which has attracted an extraordinary degree of interest and knowledge from Members of your Lordships' House. In the same way as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I intend to deal with the issue of sex discrimination and to express my support for the Private Member's Bill introduced in another place during the last Session of Parliament by Robert Walter MP which was designed to prevent private clubs from admitting women on different terms from men.

Three kinds of club would have been covered. The first group is sports clubs, in particular golf clubs, which allow women restricted membership or allow them to play only at particular times. Many allow women only associate membership and deny them full voting rights and the use of the club rooms at evenings and weekends. One example I found in the press cuttings is that of the Gay Hill Golf Club, at Wythall near Birmingham, which was described as,

"the most backward golf club in England",

by Bridget Malin, one of two women members who gave an interview to the Observer newspaper.

Included in a catalogue of discriminatory practices, all of them perfectly legal, were the rules which applied to the so-called "public room"—the one to which women were admitted. While that was being refurbished, a white line was painted on to the floor to stop women from going more than half-way into the bar.

The second kind of club where change is needed is working men's clubs which allow women to use some facilities but not others. Take the Sunnybank Social Club in Silsden, near Skipton. According to the Independent on Sunday:

"The club's problems began when a group of young women were caught playing snooker and told that they had no business there. When two men came to their aid, arguing that women should have full status, they were charged with 'bringing the club into disrepute'".

The report states that out of 3,000 clubs affiliated to the Working Men's Club and Institute Union, some 60 per cent deny women full rights.

The third group is the so-called gentlemen's clubs which allow women only restricted membership or keep them out of certain bars or dining rooms. Here I should declare an interest as a member of the Reform Club, which changed its rules to admit women on equal terms with men 20 years ago in 1981. Not so, however, the Carlton Club, where there have been three attempts in the past two years to change the rules to allow women to be full members. Before the last vote in November, Mr William Hague said that he would resign if the change were not made. It was not—and he has not.

In The Times yesterday, Theresa May, MP, was quoted as saying that she and several women were considering leaving. She said:

"I dislike the fact that lady associate members are treated as second-class citizens".

If the provisions of the Private Member's Bill, the Sex Discrimination (Amendment) Bill, were adopted, these difficulties would be resolved. The Bill was in line with what the Equal Opportunities Commission proposed in November 1998 and had the support of the Fawcett Society. I understand that the DfEE hopes that change will come naturally and that legislation may not be necessary. May I ask my noble friend to indicate when she replies whether the Government are monitoring the situation and at what point they would support legislation if change is too slow.

There is some evidence that golf clubs in particular are prepared to forgo lottery grants—which are offered on condition that there is no sex discrimination—rather than change their ways. So surely we need a new sex equality Act to update the Sex Discrimination and the Equal Pay Acts and to change the law so that if a club chooses to admit women, it must admit them as equal members.

This issue has nothing to do with political correctness; it is about civilised behaviour. Private clubs are prevented by law from discriminating against people on grounds of race, creed or colour. Any decent person would be affronted if they tried to exclude people because they were Jewish or black or Asian or Welsh. Discrimination on grounds of gender is equally offensive and must come to an end.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. He may have explained to us why, regrettably, there is only one member of the Conservative Party on the Benches in the Chamber. That may be because of the discriminatory practices of the Carlton Club.

I have to admit that I remember still, as a junior Minister, having to walk through the central heating system of the Reform Club, owing to the thought that, as a female, I would have in some way polluted the halls of the Reform Club by passing across them in order to chair a study group on early forms of genetic manipulation. It just goes to show that we have moved on a little.

I, too, should like to add to the many tributes paid to my noble friend Lord Lester and, for reasons of time, simply say that at some time in the future, when history is written, it will be recognised that the introduction of a culture of human rights owes probably more to him than to any other single person, not only in this country but throughout the whole of Europe. That is something that most of us would very much wish to be written as a tribute about ourselves at the end of our careers.

As to the common equality commission, the noble Baronesses, Lady Greengross and Lady Gibson of Market Rasen—a relatively new Member of our House—have drawn attention to the anomalies, as has my noble friend Lord Addington, which arise as a result of having a large number of split commissions and split bodies; there are some four commissions at the present time. It does not make for effective action in cases of the less widely recognised forms of discrimination.

The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, referred to discrimination on grounds of age, and my noble friend Lord Addington referred to discrimination on grounds of disability—neither of which have received the kind of attention that race and gender have received up to now. That should not in any way diminish the importance of non-discrimination on grounds of race and gender, but it shows that we have a further step to make in order to treat our citizens equally.

That brings me to the thoughtful speeches of my noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. Citizenship should be about the acceptance of the equality and respect that we all owe to one another. It should go beyond simple negative anti-discrimination to a positive statement of what citizenship should mean in a multi-cultural and multi-racial society. We believe that an equality commission would enable us to take that final and more positive step.

I now turn to a recommendation in the Hepple report, based on the findings of a review conducted by the University of Cambridge Centre for Public Law. Perhaps I may quote one sentence from the report:

"The present framework places too much emphasis on state regulation and too little on the responsibility of organisations and individuals to generate change".

That elicited eloquent statements from the noble Baronesses, Lady Howells and Lady Prashar, about the importance of positive action.

We are looking at a situation where, even now, after 30 years of anti-discrimination legislation in respect of both race and gender, there are still huge inequalities. Some of them were mentioned by my noble friend Lady Walmsley in the case of gender. One might add to that the absence of members of ethnic minorities from the highest positions in the land, including in the Civil Service. Perhaps I may congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, on becoming the first Civil Service commissioner. I hope that she will introduce positive action to produce in the Civil Service a more anti-discriminatory view of its duties.

An interesting point was raised about citizenship and the possibility of scientific change. Perhaps I may conclude by saying something about each. In regard to citizenship, it is appropriate that the Minister of State for Education, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is to reply to the debate. One area where a much more positive position should be taken in regard to human rights and the recognition of the equality of all citizens is the national curriculum. In this country we have been neglectful, frankly—across all parties and over a long period of time—of the training of our young people in the whole field of the recognition of equal rights and respect for all citizens.

The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, raised a fascinating point. She spoke eloquently about the dangers of genetic testing establishing differences between people which might affect, for example, their insurance liabilities. I should merely like to add one thought about the future. If we get into a situation where it becomes possible—and that may be very close now—for people to select the genetic traits of their children, including such traits as the colour of their eyes or even the quality of their IQ, it will be essential to have a single body, an equality commission, that can legislate in a field that could present us with huge problems the like of which we have only just begun to envisage. I suggest that one of the areas that an equality commission could examine closely is that of the effects of scientific advance in terms of being able to reinvent inequalities which, after so long, we have tried to legislate against.

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for initiating this debate. I am sorry that both he and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, are disappointed that I have a certain scarcity value.

My party's policy is that we support any sensible action to enhance anti-discriminatory legislation but without overburdening public services or business with excessive regulation. I fear that the admittedly persuasive suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, of an equality commission may suffer from that drawback.

On the whole, we would be against a general reform of the anti-discrimination laws, as we believe that the current framework, particularly after the passing of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act, which we supported, offers significant protections. We should certainly not oppose sensible reforms where these are believed to be necessary. There is one area within which there is possibly room for further legislation; namely, on the grounds of religious discrimination.

Therefore, in the short time available I want to concentrate on religious discrimination. As several noble Lords have pointed out, it is a particularly complex subject on which to attempt to draw a line in the sand. What is a religion, what is a faith? Current race relations legislation covers religious groups, but only where these can be classified as religious groups; for example, Jews and Sikhs. But what of the many Muslim adherents, which comprise many different ethnic groups? The report from the University of Derby concludes that religious discrimination is a significant problem, particularly for the Muslim communities. But among Christians, too, there is, sadly, evidence of discrimination against black-community Churches and against non-mainstream Christian bodies such as the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.

There are two further points that I should like to make on the matter of religious discrimination. We have particular concerns that religious groups, and charities associated with them, must have the freedom to engage as employees members of their own persuasion. The right reverend Prelate referred to the need for bishops to be Christians. On a less exalted level, I am not thinking of vergers and sacristans only but also of the ability of faith-related charities to employ people of their own faith or persuasion.

I was interested in the right reverend Prelate's point about the delicate balance between diversity and discrimination. I am reminded especially that we are fortunate in many ways in this country; for example, Muslim girls can wear the veil to school with impunity, whereas they cannot do so in France: they must conform.

A particular concern is the discrimination that many faith-based groups face when applying for grants from the public sector. I shall give your Lordships the specific example of the awarding of broadcasting licences. My party's case was set out unequivocally by my right honourable friend Mr William Hague in his speech to the Muslim Council of Great Britain on 20th March of this year, when he said:

"In the boldest initiative for a generation we will establish an office of Civil Society within the heart of Government. Charities, faith communities and family groups will staff the office. The office will encourage Britain's voluntary sector to take a greater role in schooling, housing and regeneration. It will help us remove discrimination against those voluntary bodies to apply for funding and remove burdensome regulations".

So, in conclusion, can the Minister say whether it is the Government's policy, as it certainly is of my party, to take steps to inhibit the practice of discrimination in the awarding of grants in the public sector, albeit that it is so often indirect and more difficult to identify?

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for raising these important issues tonight. He has made a major contribution to the development of anti-discrimination legislation in this country, and his views on how further progress might be made to achieve equality of opportunity are both extremely valuable and most interesting.

Given that there have been 16 speakers in this short debate and I have but 12 minutes within which to try to respond, I think it would probably be most sensible for me to write to noble Lords who have asked particular questions. Otherwise, I might spend the entire time trying to respond to different detailed questions which I do not believe would make a lot of sense.

At the beginning of my remarks, I have to say that I have similar memories to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on private clubs that restricted membership to men. I am happy to say to my noble friend Lord Faulkner that the issue is still under review, and we shall continue to keep it so.

This Government share the firm commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to equal opportunities and eliminating discrimination. Economic competence and social inclusion are not competing objectives; but they are interlinked ambitions that we should all have. We want to remove the barriers that prevent people from fulfilling their potential and create the conditions whereby every member of British society is treated fairly and is not hampered by stereotypes and false assumptions. We have taken steps, and shall continue to do so, to ensure that an effective legislative framework is in place. Indeed, legislation provides the floor; it is essential. However, it is not enough of itself to achieve the change in attitudes and preconceptions that lead to discrimination.

We have seen radical changes over the past 30 years and the pace of change is likely to continue; indeed, I hope that it will. We must build on the framework already in place and ensure that individuals and organisations are aware of their rights and responsibilities and are able to take on the new responsibilities that befit a just, fair and diverse modern society.

Where we do regulate, our challenge will be to strike the right balance between protecting the rights of individuals and reflecting the legitimate interests of business and other employers.

Let us be clear. Discrimination is in no one's interests in the long term. But legislation must be workable. We have no wish to impose unreasonable burdens on business. I agree with the noble Viscount that it makes no sense to do so. However, some of our most innovative companies have already discovered the benefits which inclusive and flexible approaches to the recruitment and management of their staff can bring. On some issues the best way forward will be to build on current best practice, offering informed advice through both central and regional services and preparing down-to-earth practical guidance.

If attitudes are to change, people need to be aware of the issues. Initiatives such as the "See the person" campaign have had a major impact in making some people think twice, or even think for the first time, about assumptions that they have long held but never questioned. Here I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, about the importance of education and the value of the introduction of citizenship in the national curriculum. We must address these issues with young people and try to shape their attitudes to make them non-discriminatory and tolerant.

There is, of course, a clear need to modernise the framework, for example, to ensure protection in relation to all the grounds of discrimination which society now recognises need tackling. That is why we were pleased to secure agreement on the new EC employment directive, about which I shall say more later. I first touch on what we have done so far.

The Government have been pressing forward on a broad front taking action through legislation and other means to promote a fairer and less discriminatory society. In our 1997 manifesto we made clear that we would support comprehensive civil rights for disabled people. We quickly set up the Disability Rights Task Force. Its first task was to report on the role and functions of a Disability Rights Commission, for which the disability lobby had fought for 18 years to no avail under the previous government. The DRC opened its doors to the public a year ago today. Therefore, we celebrate its first anniversary.

Access to education at all levels is something which many of us take for granted. The exemption of education by the Conservatives from the Disability Discrimination Act was a serious blow for those campaigning for comprehensive civil rights for people with disabilities. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill will plug the gap left by the DDA and is a major step forward in increasing opportunities for disabled people to fulfil their potential.

On 5th March we published our response to the DRTF. In it we propose a number of legislative changes to improve disabled people's rights. The total number of jobs brought within the scope of the Act by the changes we propose will be nearly 7 million, including around 600,000 disabled people.

On race, the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 delivers a government commitment to extend the full force of race relations legislation to the police and goes further. The Act also imposes a general duty on listed public bodies to ensure that they carry out their functions with due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, on sex equality one of the key issues is the gap between women and men's average pay. We welcomed the report of the Equal Opportunities Commission's Task Force on Equal Pay as an authoritative contribution to understanding how best to secure further progress. There will be a comprehensive review of women's employment opportunities and pay to be headed by Denise Kingsmill, the Deputy Chair of the Competition Commission who will report back her findings later this year.

On age, we are already tackling age discrimination by vigorously promoting the code of practice on age diversity and the benefits to be realised. Evaluation of the code of practice shows that a third of employers are aware of the code and that since its launch the use of age in recruitment has halved from 27 per cent to 13 per cent. But I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, that we have to go much further to ensure that all employers understand the benefits of age diversity.

The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has set out his vision of what the anti-discrimination law should look like. We need to consider seriously the case for a single equality statute and a single equality commission. Calls for a single system have been accompanied in some cases by analyses of how equality legislation has evolved into its current form and its strength and weaknesses. Such analyses have added great value to the general debate. Among the best and most comprehensive is the report of Professor Hepple on Equality: A New Framework to which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred. The Government recognise the validity of many of the arguments for comprehensive reform. We shall consider them seriously. For example, it has the potential to bring benefits for business, offering greater consistency of approach and improved coherence of advice and guidance. It might indeed embrace a more proactive approach to promoting equality in both the public and private sectors, bringing a shift from reliance on individual cases, with enforcement very much as a last resort. There would be benefits, too, for individuals—a single avenue for advice on rights and, if need be, redress.

Of course, there are counterbalancing arguments too. I was interested in what my noble friend Lady Gibson said about a single commission. Some would argue that a single commission might weaken the emphasis that needs to be placed on tackling particular types of discrimination. We have to take those views seriously.

On disability, we have had it as our highest priority to ensure sufficient focus on closing the gaps in legislative protection and ensuring businesses meet their obligations under the DDA. As part of this it has been, and remains, essential that we do not undermine the effectiveness of the only recently established DRC.

With regard to age, we are only in the early stages of identifying with interest groups the critical issues that need to be addressed. Matters of religion and sexual orientation also raise very different issues. When one starts to analyse them it becomes clear that "one size does not fit all". So we would need to look carefully at other practical, transitional implications of moving to a single statute. It would take time for case law to develop and provide a clear, common understanding of employer obligations and best practice. We would want to be very clear that the long term benefits outweigh the short-term costs.

That said, we shall watch with great interest the developments in Northern Ireland, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, where there are different equality laws and structures, including a single equality commission. The executive there is committed to taking forward work on a single equality Bill to harmonise existing legislation. We shall see how they incorporate new grounds including age and sexual orientation.

In the interim, we do not need to wait for definitive conclusions on the questions of a single statute or single commission to secure some of the practical benefits. As I have said, we want to harmonise and improve the consistency of legislation when the opportunity arises. We are moving forward already to secure some of the benefits of joint working by the equality commission.

We have encouraged close collaboration by the commissions through co-location (in the case of the EOC and the DRC) and the production of joint publications. The three commissions have been key partners with the DfEE in ensuring the successful development and launch of the Equality Direct service, which offers practical advice on equality to small and medium-sized companies.

Against that background, we are starting to consider the implementation of the Article 13 employment directive. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has made a powerful case for grasping the opportunity for comprehensive reform. We recognise the arguments for a single equality framework incorporating a single equality commission, but we have to think about how such a framework would be constructed in practice.

I have run out of time and cannot take the issue any further this evening. A variety of views have been expressed during the debate. I shall draw them to the attention of my right honourable and honourable friends.

The key to fair treatment lies in the way in which individuals in society behave towards one another and the attitudes that inform that behaviour. We need to strike a balance between refining the legislation and further reinforcing sensible, practical action within the current framework to assist those who, for far too long, have suffered unnecessary discrimination in this country.