Lords Sitting of 15 February 1973

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells.

OMAN: BRITISH TROOPS AND CASUALTIES
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what British troops have been seconded to the Government of Oman, and what casualties have occurred among them during the last twelve months.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, 117 British loan service personnel are currently seconded to the Government of Oman. I regret that one loan service officer has been killed and four wounded since January 1972.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, would the noble Baroness explain how it is that British troops are involved here? Oman is the only part of the world, except tragic Northern Ireland, in which British troops are involved in a conflict. Have we not withdrawn from the Gulf, and are we not intervening in an internal conflict?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: No, my Lords. It is established policy to loan personnel to certain Governments for service with their forces under an exchange of letters of 1958, and we have agreed to loan personnel to the Sultanate and to assist in the training of its forces.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is not a new situation now developing in Southern Arabia, with discussions between North and South Yemen towards a union? Does this not make an oportunity for a more peaceful approach than has been pursued so far?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, these men are required to carry out a wide range of duties, including operations against Communist supported rebels in Dhofar Province. While I should agree that one would like to see peace in that area, the rebels obtain supplies, support and shelter in the neighbouring State of the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of the officers and men that I met on a recent visit are extremely happy in the duties that they are carrying out, and the local Governments are very pleased to have them? If the Administration of the day had not gone back on their undertaking four years ago the situation would have been even better to-day.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. These men are all volunteers, of course.
LORD BOURNE: My Lords, I hope the noble Baroness can assure us that this policy is unlikely to change.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, it is not likely to change at present.

AIR FARES ON NORTH ATLANTIC ROUTES
3.9 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are in a position to make an interim Statement on the talks being held in London between the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority and the United States Civil Aeronautics Board on the question of fares on the North Atlantic route.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, the talks were adjourned yesterday afternoon to allow both sides to review the situation separately. They will be resumed in Washington, probably next week.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him whether it is correct that the Civil Aeronautics Board considered that the fares proposed by B.O.A.C. and British Caledonian were too low, and also that the number of seats which they suggested should be reserved on scheduled flights was too high?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords. The noble Baroness has summarised the points of difference quite well.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. Moving on from there, may I ask the Minister whether it is a fact that the British airlines felt that their suggestions were viable financially, and also that they had the full and complete support of our own Civil Aviation Authority? If these two facts are correct, is there anything that the Government can do to expedite a successful and speedy conclusion?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the Government are taking part in these negotiations at the present time. They are doing their utmost to reach agreement. The noble Baroness will recognise that alterations in the existing rules can only be achieved through agreement.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, may I take the Minister up on that point? Is the Minister aware, first of all, that it is very good to know that the Government are involved? It is always so very difficult to find the Government involved in these meetings when we ask Questions in the House. Secondly, may I ask this question? As the fares we are discussing should be operational on April 1, which is very near for people making arrangements, if it seems that agreement cannot be reached will consideration be given to what I would call a mutually unilateral decision: in other words, we would recognise fares for flights from this country, and the Americans would recognise those from America?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, shall be glad to pass on that suggestion. I hope that the situation will not arise, and that agreement will be reached.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, would not the negotiations be expedited if Her Majesty's Government found some means of introducing the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, into the negotiations?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I take note of my noble friend's suggestion.

HIGH-SPEED SURFACE TRANSPORT: GOVERNMENT POLICY
LORD KINGS NORTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can state their policy for the development of high-speed surface transport systems such as the tracked hovercraft.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, in respect of the United Kingdom market, it is considered that the demand for high-speed surface transport could be satisfied by the high-speed diesel train and the advanced passenger train until well into the 1980s. The Government have taken these considerations into account in deciding that they should not give financial support to work on the tracked-hovercraft project in its present form. The Government have, however, made provision for continuing research and development of the linear motor for propulsion and for exploratory research on magnetic suspension of vehicles for urban and inter-urban transport.
LORD KINGS NORTON: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that it is, like the Written Answer which was given in another place yesterday and which I think most of us have read, somewhat unimaginative and pays no attention to the great export potential that exists in high-speed transport systems? Furthermore, if we are to exploit those systems to the full, is the Minister aware that we shall have to maintain in good condition the tracked hovercraft experimental station at Earith? Finally, it is some comfort to know that the linear motor is to be continued, but are the Government aware that this linear motor in its

1683
latest form is years ahead of any of its competitors and provides this country with a tremendous commercial asset? That there should be in that one simple electrical machine propulsion, levitation and guidance is unique among all the linear motors in the world. May I ask the Government whether they will consider giving this project the utmost support and exploitation?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, there is a great deal in what the noble Lord says, but the final part of my Answer indicated quite clearly that research and development are continuing on the linear motor and magnetic suspension, but not on the whole system in its present form. I am sure your Lordships appreciate that there comes a moment in a research and development programme such as this where the Government, with the interest of the taxpayers' money in mind, have to consider whether there is a practical application ready for the programme at the particular moment in time.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, while supporting the Government in their support of the advanced passenger train development, may I ask whether they are in fact assisting in that development, which clearly is suitable to this country having regard to the fact that we already have the tracks available, with slight modification, to accommodate such speedy travel?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords; that is certainly a major consideration in this decision. The high-speed diesel train is about to start trials, and prototype trains based on the advanced passenger train system will be available probably in 1975, in the first instance using electric propulsion. Because both of these trains use existing track they seem to have considerable practical advantages.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, can the Minister say how much money is being allowed annually for the development of the linear motor hovertrain?—because if this is not adequate we shall fall behind the rest of the world. As the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, has said, this is a very promising development indeed.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, these are early days to answer that question
1684
categorically, but the present intention is about £¼ million.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, does the Minister's first reply mean that somewhere in the 1980s, and using existing principles of traction, our inter-urban expresses will begin to compete with the performance given by the existing Japanese expresses?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I would rather not answer that question without notice.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, are the Government afraid of another Concorde with the hover train; and, if so, would they accept that the House probably understands their fears very well? But have we not a transport debate on March 7, and would the Government be able to tell us all about it at that time and enable the House to debate it fully?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I think that the debate on the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, will provide us with an admirable opportunity of considering more fully these and many other related matters.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, could my noble friend say what speeds are involved in these various cases?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the high-speed diesel train is designed to reach maximum speeds of about 125 m.p.h.; the A.P.T., in the first instance, 155 m.p.h.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, as he did not answer the last part of the question of the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, about existing test facilities? Are they to be maintained, or not?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, that is under consideration.
LORD KINGS NORTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware, in connection with his penultimate answer, that it is possible now to design a vehicle propelled by linear motor which would travel at 300 m.p.h.?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords, but the maximum speed achieved so far is 107 m.p.h.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is satisfied, with

1685
these very high, new speeds envisaged of 150 m.p.h., that the present small flange on the wheels of our present trains does not constitute considerable danger, and is it going to be altered?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, personally I do not contemplate this prospect of higher speeds with much relish.

"MUGGING" OFFENCES IN LONDON
3.19 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many known cases of "mugging" there have been in London during the past year.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, there is no agreed definition of "mugging". The most relevant figures are those for offences of robbery or assault with intent to rob. The number of such offences known to the City of London and Metropolitan Police Forces in 1971 (the latest calendar year for which figures are available) was 2,785. The figure for the first nine months of 1972 was 2,466.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that Answer, may I ask her whether Her Majesty's Government have in hand any plans to combat this apparently growing evil? Further, is she aware that I feel very strongly on this matter, as only a few days ago a great friend of mine was very badly "mugged" at Marble Arch? May I further ask whether it would not be possible for police patrols, both foot and motorised, to be increased, particularly in the West End of London where so many of these cases occur, and also after the hours of darkness?
BARONESS YOUNG: Yes, my Lords. The Government take this matter very seriously, and in the Metropolitan Police District special squads have been deployed to deal with this problem; and some squads have already been increased. In one division where there have been more "muggings" than anywhere else the
1686
special squad has been more than doubled.
LORD TREVELYAN: My Lords, may I ask whether the Government will pay special attention to the Underground, where several bad cases of "mugging" have occurred lately?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, the fact is that the responsibility for policing the Underground rests with the British Transport Police, but the Metropolitan police do maintain close liaison with this force in view of the considerable number of offences that have taken place there.
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness how many convictions there have been with regard to the robberies which she mentioned earlier?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I am afraid that I have not the answer to that question but I can write to the noble Lord.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, as the noble Baroness is in some difficulty in finding a definition for "mugging", would she mind if I helped her? Would she not agree that the perfect example of "mugging" was when Mr. Heath persuaded the electorate that he could cure prices "at a stroke"?
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she realises that what are regarded as heavy sentences imposed on those convicted of "mugging" do not receive sufficient publicity? Does it not happen that when a "mugging" case occurs it is highlighted in the Press, but that the sentence imposed on the person convicted of "mugging" receives only an obscure paragraph? Will the Government try to communicate with those responsible for the Press, and even television and broadcasting, in order that more emphasis may be given to the sentences that are imposed for this crime?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, the sentences passed by courts in a number of recent and publicised cases show, I think, that they are determined to take a strong line towards "mugging", and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, when speaking recently to the Magistrates' Association drew a distinction between serious offences of violence

1687
which merit severe punishment and other lesser offences.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, as the unintelligent youth of the country watch television nearly every day, and perhaps almost every day see an incident of violence which could be regarded as the equivalent to "mugging", is there not something to be said for removing the example, which I believe has a tremendous influence on the youth of this country?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I think the control of television programmes is a rather different matter, and I am afraid that I cannot answer that point now.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, in view of the statement made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that the policing of the Underground is the responsibility of the British Transport Police, can she explain why those of us who use the Underground service cannot recollect ever having seen a British Transport policeman on duty?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, it may well be that there is some advantage in not always being able to identify the policeman on duty. I can only state the facts as they are, and the Metropolitan Police do maintain a close liaison in regard to this matter.
LORD CAMOYS: My Lords, may I, with respect, ask the noble Baroness to look into the matter of the cleanliness of our trains, because they are perfectly filthy; indeed worse than any other country.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I think that that question really is rather wide of the original Question.

BUSINESS
3.24 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I wonder whether, with the permission of the House, I could make a rather special appeal to your Lordships? I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the Order Paper, where you will see that the last two items are the Second Reading of the Badgers
1688
Bill and the Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. As things stand at present, I understand that there may be no fewer than 35 speeches on the Second Reading and the Motion together, and I am sure it would be in the general interests of the House if those noble Lords taking part in those two important debates could restrict the ambit of their speeches as much as possible.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, would not the noble Earl the Leader of the House consider something very much fairer than that proposal? Could we not have half the speakers in the first debate and then postpone the remainder until after we have had the debate on the Motion, when we can finally complete the debate on the Bill?
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, on a more serious note, as we are not sitting on Monday could not the usual channels have considered putting the very important Motion on the situation in Greece on to the Order Paper for Monday?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think that a great many speakers have put their names down rather at the last moment, and although there would certainly have been a case for taking this Motion on Monday, at this eleventh hour those noble Lords who have made arrangements to attend to-day would probably be inconvenienced if we were now to change. Obviously, if we had known there was going to be so much interest in these two debates that could have been done.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, having sat on Monday until 10.7 p.m., on Tuesday until 9.19 p.m. and last night until 9.37 p.m., is there any possibility of our being able to get anything to eat to-night?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, this is an extremely difficult problem. When there are likely to be Divisions and obviously a fairly large number of your Lordships present it is perfectly easy to arrange for dinners. When we have a debate with the probability of no Division at the end of it, the tendency is for those noble Lords who are not actually taking part—and I am afraid, to a certain extent, even some of those who do take

1689
part—to leave and to dine elsewhere even if dinner is arranged here. Therefore we are left with the position of the Refreshment Department having to bring in maybe half a dozen waitresses to provide food for perhaps half a dozen Peers whose combined contribution to the refreshment fund would barely pay the wages of one of the six waitresses. This is one of the problems we have to consider. I appreciate that this is a very difficult matter for those who are actually taking part in the debates, but I can assure your Lordships that my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, the Chairman of the Refreshment Committee, is giving it urgent consideration.

SALFORD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
SLOUGH ESTATES (UTILITY SERVICES) LIMITED BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.

SUCCESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.29 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 45(2), that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSING (AMENDMENT) BILL
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 45(2), that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 2 [Stipendiary magistrates]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 3, leave out from ("effect") to end of line 7 and insert ("but—

(a) the number of metropolitan stipendiary magistrates shall not at any time exceed sixty or such larger number as Her Majesty may from time to time by Order in Council specify; and

(b) the number of stipendiary magistrates appointed under this section shall not at any time exceed forty or such larger number as may be so specified;

and Her Majesty shall not be recommended to make an Order in Council under this subsection unless a draft of the Order has been laid before Parliament and approved by Resolution of each House.")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I do not think I need underline this particular Government Amendment. Our Committee and Second Reading debates are so fresh in your Lordships' memory that noble Lords will recollect the exchanges which took place on each occasion between the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and me. This Amendment is manifestly a compromise. I still stick to what I said, but my second name is "pliable" and I have tabled this Amendment in the hope that the noble and learned Lord may be satisfied with what I have done. I beg to move.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, for having given way on the question whether there should not be a limit to the number of stipendiary magistrates who may be appointed. I confess that when we were considering

1691
the matter in Committee I was influenced in two directions: the first, I hope properly, by a desire always to support a Lord Chancellor when I possibly can—and I hope the noble and learned Lord will agree that in general I have done so—and secondly, by my consciousness that here was another instance of the Executive increasing their power at the expense of Parliament. Unless, when this arises, it is dealt with in Parliament, it cannot be dealt with anywhere else. For the reasons I gave in Committee, I felt sure it was wrong to give all future Lord Chancellors a power under which they could substantially have replaced the justices of the peace by stipendiaries without having to come to Parliament.
I think the number so far as London is concerned is the number I suggested. The number outside London is, I must say, higher than I should have liked. Together they will enable any Lord Chancellor to appoint an additional 50 stipendiary magistrates, which is the equivalent of 2,000 to 2,500 justices of the peace. However, it is not my intention to quibble about numbers. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having reconsidered the point and for giving way on the question of principle. I only want gracefully to accept the Amendment which he so gracefully moved.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am greatly moved by those words and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

PROTECTION OF AIRCRAFT BILL [H.L.]
3.33 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN rose to move, That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House. The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that before the Recess, on December 20, my noble friend the Chief Whip advised your Lordships that it had been decided not to proceed with the Third Reading of the Protection of Aircraft Bill because the Government were considering the possibility of adding new clauses to the Bill to provide further powers to deal with the grave problem of violence against civil aviation. Your Lordships will wish to know that new
1692
clauses and certain consequential Amendments to the Bill are about to be published, and that it is expected that the Bill with these additions and Amendments will be considered in Committee on February 26.
Moved, That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.—(Lord Drumalbyn).
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure that this is the right course to take. I rise simply to say that the Government are to be congratulated for having a further look at the Bill and for taking it, if I may say so, a little more seriously than they appeared to be doing at one time. Without necessarily agreeing with all the Amendments which will be brought forward, I am sure that the attitude of the Government in this matter is highly commendable.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BADGERS BILL [H.L.]
3.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The last two Bills I introduced into your Lordships' House were of wide-ranging public importance. This is perhaps of more modest scope, though in my view it is an important Bill. It is about badgers. I look forward to hearing from the House and the Minister both positively to what extent the badger is in need of conservation and how and, negatively, to what extent he is a pest. There is much ignorance and prejudice about him, both of which need to be dispelled. For my part, I shall do my best to show him for what he is.
Before taking your Lordships through the clauses of the Bill, I should perhaps say that this is essentially a conservation measure. It is not based on emotion, though cruelty is involved. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with any other species. The badger stands by himself to-day. I will talk about him and about him alone. He has the blessing of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Forestry Commission and both regard him as "beneficial on the land"—that is their phrase. The Council of the R.S.P.C.A., though a very different body and for very

1693
different reasons, have given the Bill their fullest support. I was delighted to hear that leave was given yesterday in another place to introduce a Bill on similar lines, though that Bill would allow landowners to let individuals on to their land for the taking of badgers; actually, most badger killing takes place on or under private land.
I described this as a conservation Bill. This does not mean that I am claiming that the badger is on the verge of extinction, though I shall show later that he is becoming less numerous. As I understand conservation, to be most effective it should take place before a species is either on the verge of extinction or is finally extinct. The words:
"Surely an animal should qualify for the label 'vanishing' on the basis of its rate of decline"
were written in Oryx, the journal of the Fauna Preservation Society. It is, after all, only recently, after 150 years, that fish are once again swimming in the Thames outside your Lordships' House. How much better it would have been if the initial pollution which espoiled the Thames could have been avoided and the long battle to restore it to something of its former purity, which has not yet been won, had never been necessary.
This Bill is short and, I hope, easy to explain. I will take your Lordships through it quickly. It is modelled closely on the Protection of Birds Act 1954. Although I did not have the honour then of being a Member of the House, I remember thinking that it was a model of what enterprise and humanity could do. Many of your Lordships will remember the important part played by this House in getting that Act on to the Statute Book. To the best of my knowledge that Act has proved successful with the passage of the years.
Clause 1 of the Bill would make illegal the taking, injuring or killing of badgers unless a licence had been obtained in accordance with the provisions of Clause 3. Clause 2 makes it an offence to deal in badgers. Clause 3, which again is modelled on the Protection of Birds Act, perhaps requires more explanation. Subsection (1) provides that the Minister of Agriculture may grant a licence to take badgers for three main purposes: first, for scientific or educational purposes—that is intended, of course, to cover and
1694
protect zoological gardens—and secondly, for breeding colonies. That would permit anyone who wished to establish colonies of badgers to do so, provided he had first obtained a licence. This clause, incidentally, lets me in, otherwise I should be in danger of denying myself the right to continue to look after them. The third purpose is for the conservation of badgers. This provision is rather widely drafted, I know, but it is intended to cover such problems as the removal of badgers from threatened habitats, the examination of diseased badgers, and so on. I hope that this clause has been drafted sufficiently tightly not to allow any loopholes in the general principle of the Bill while permitting the taking of badgers for reasons broadly concerned with their conservation.
On Clause 4, I should perhaps explain that in the third line of subsection (1), which talks of an "animal", the reference is to horses which apparently are used for taking badgers away. In subsection (1)(b) the word "animal" refers to dogs which may be, and indeed are, used in badger taking. The penalties provided in Clause 4 are modelled on those in the Protection of Birds Act, but the maximum fines are very much higher: £100 as compared with £25 in the 1954 Act. I feel that in 1973, £100 is a more effective, realistic deterrent than £25, though I hope, naturally, that this fine will not be seen as going against the Government's anti-inflationary policy. So much for the Bill itself.
Next comes the question: Is this Parliamentary exercise really necessary? I say, "Yes", both on the grounds of conservation and of humanity. I quote from the findings of the National Badger Survey, of which some of your Lordships may have heard, organised by the Mammal Society in 1963. This exhaustive, factual and scientific report, recently published, says:
"Reports from widespread parts of the country have emphasised the number of setts which had been active five years ago but which now are disused or destroyed".
I would say that Mr. Arthur Killingley, the organiser of the Badger Survey, who has reports from over 50 county recorders, including, I believe, the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, estimates that two-thirds of the badger setts in localities preferred by badgers are now unoccupied. I am sorry

1695
about these quotations, my Lords, but they are important. I quote also from a letter from the Nature Conservancy in which it is said:
"While badgers as a species are not in danger"—
I must be objective about this—
"(and indeed are plentiful in some areas), the assessment of a national expert on the badger. Dr. Ernest Neal, is that the population over Britain as a whole has gone down over the past five years, and in some parts this decline has been serious. There have been increasing pressures on the species from road and rail casualties, snaring, gassing and digging. Badger digging has increased considerably over the past three years—possibly associated with the increased popularity of working terriers as pets."
To return to the Badger Survey which, incidentally, it has taken over ten years to compile, the Report continues:
"Badgers have been subjected to increasing pressures which in some parts have brought down the actual population of badgers considerably."
It attributes this population decrease first of all to road casualties and loss of habitats due to industrial and housing sprawl, all of which we must regard as inevitable, though regrettable. But there are other destructive factors which cannot be regarded as unavoidable. For example, there is the gassing of badger setts, which, although the gassing of badgers is illegal, has become routine on many farms and shooting estates, and which is non-selective; 50 animals may die for the sins of one. Then there is the digging out and killing of badgers, both for so-called sport and for the obtaining of pelts—now seemingly again in fashion; tooth brushes are apparently the newest thing to be made out of badger hides. There is snaring which, though condemned in the Predatory Mammals booklet published by the Council of Nature, gravely depletes the population.
Thus, the conclusions of the Badger Survey and the individual findings of authorities on the badger all agree that the species is under pressure and in many areas is not making good its losses from man's predation as it was 15 years ago. In numerous areas where the badger was recorded at that time it has disappeared completely—only empty setts remain. In other districts not even the setts are there, because land use has
1696
entirely destroyed their habitat and badgers will not be seen in these places again. There is nothing we can do about this, except to lament the march of so-called progress. This has led to other unfortunate side-products. A badger area is rather like an aerodrome with a mass of surrounding satellites. When the outstations are destroyed, the aeroplanes congregate in the mother field. In terms of badgers this leads to territorial infighting among otherwise peaceful mammals; and distress upon the resident colonies has been seen to result in non-breeding adults the following spring and unusual behaviour patterns among individuals.
My Lords, it is only fair to ask the question: What harm does a badger do? I shall be glad to hear. I must confess that I have not been convinced so far that any effective evidence is available to show that he causes any harm on a scale which is sufficient to justify his destruction. One is told about the occasional rogue badger or, as I prefer to call him, the individual who has left the normal pattern of behaviour, but this animal seems to me to be a creature which is conveniently produced by those who wish to excuse the wholesale slaughter of badgers. In 1951 a Ministry of Agriculture bulletin, Wild Animals and the Land, prepared by Mr. Howard Lancum of the Ministry, showed that of the 109 cases investigated over 34 years, 92 were directly attributable to the fox, 15 were unidentifiable and two were badgers in exceptional circumstances. Nevertheless, if evidence is produced that on occasions the killing of a badger may be justified I shall be more than willing to consider Amendments to Clause 3 which would enable the Minister of Agriculture to agree a licence for the taking or killing of a badger in order to protect agricultural interests. I say this in the hope that we may reach a Committee stage. In my mind, the most satisfactory person to be consulted about the issue of a licence is the regional pest officer of the Ministry of Agriculture. I think the local pest officers have too much on their plate without adding this additional burden, though in fact I do not think that many applications would be made.
My Lords, in my submission, there is no evidence that the badger creates any significant nuisance problem; yet he is

1697
to-day being illegally gassed, he is being illegally snared, and, worst of all, he is being dug. I do not propose to speak to-day in an emotional way about the badger. Indeed I must confess that this, one of the largest of our surviving mammals, is not a particularly cuddly animal, as I well know, and I doubt whether more than 1 per cent. of the total population of this country have ever seen a badger, and then only by chance. Mostly people take it for granted. But I can assure your Lordships that the taking of a badger by digging is frequently done as a so-called sport, accompanied, as it is, by the use of such instruments as badger tongs, which, with permission, are exhibited on the table in the Royal Gallery for your Lordships' inspection. This practice involves a great deal of cruelty and suffering. These tongs and two snares, one for foxes and one for badgers—there is a difference—have been submitted by Mrs. Ruth Murray, one of the greatest experts in Britain on the badger. Such snaring exists and on a large scale. The banning of the cruel gin trap has contributed directly to the use of heavier gauge wire snares commercially produced. I am sure there is not one Member of your Lordships' House who would be prepared to condone cruelty of this kind.
My Lords, I hope this has been a brief speech; it was meant to be. I could have detained your Lordships with many facts and figures and many harrowing descriptions. There are matters to which, if we have the good fortune to move forward, we shall have to return in greater detail at a later stage of the Bill. I should like to say now that, should we reach a Committee stage, I shall gladly welcome any Amendments the Committee puts forward to make this Bill more effective; that is an open invitation to one and all.
My Lords, in the face of the strong evidence submitted, there is no question in my mind that the badger needs protection from cruelty. Indeed, if it is agreed to give protection on conservation grounds, great care will have to be taken to ensure that the most humane methods are used if and when badgers are taken under licence. There is much to recommend humane live trapping which does not involve the use of dogs and steel tongs, but this is for discussion at a later stage. I must emphasise that the longer we go on talking about this matter the worse the situation will become, until
1698
finally we may have talked the badger out of existence.
May I, in one minute, tell your Lordships about Mr. Brock. I know him; my wife knows him even better. He is a creature of the night. He is a loyal but not too affectionate an animal except to one person. He bites. When he and his friends come into the house my sons get on the table. He is not a pet, and anyone who tries to make him one is storing up trouble for himself and, much worse, for Mr. Brock too. Badger colonies, on the other hand, are happy places. We are taking our own little colony up to an island in the middle of Loch Lomond, where there are no people and no motor cars, the badger's only enemies. The worst thing ever said about him, apart from a badger digger in Wales who maintained that unless exterminated they would come out and eat our children, was said by that great naturalist, Miss Beatrix Potter, who asserted that he went to bed with his boots on, which I know personally not to be true. Left alone, he will do no harm to anyone. He may never love you, but he will never hate you. He has long ago taken out full British nationality. In fact he has been here longer than we have, by centuries. He is a dear, good fellow, and although we seldom if ever see him I like to think that he is here for all time.
In conclusion, may I quote from this week's Horse and Hound, sometimes known as "Quad and Dog". In it there is an article which ends with this most remarkable sentence:
"Don't forget that however fascinating your sport may be …"—
and badger digging is not a sport—
"… conservation must always come first".
My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.(The Earl of Arran.)
3.56 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, may I first of all apologise to your Lordships for not being able to stay for the duration of this debate, for reasons which I have made known. I should like to take this opportunity of publicly expressing my support for the Bill so ably introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Arran.
I have known this animal for quite a long time, because a friend of mine has some land on the Borders which contains

1699
within it a badger sett; his next-door neighbour was determined to get rid of this badger sett and he rather sought to re-draw the boundary line so that the sett came inside his property. I was called in to give a little assistance in maintaining the sett within the land owned by my friend. I am happy to say we were successful and so the badger sett continues to this day.
In the course of some experience at the Ministry of Agriculture, we were always being asked whether in fact we intended taking steps to protect the badger, and we always replied, even up to the last date of reply, that it was not necessary. One cannot claim that this animal is about to become extinct; but that does not mean that it does not require protection. So what this Bill seeks to do is, for the first time, to give protection to this animal. It may not make a very good pet, but it really is a charming animal, and anything we in your Lordships' House can do to protect its future will be a job well done.
My Lords, as I said I would only detain your Lordships for two minutes and I see the two minutes are up, I now finish by saying to the noble Earl how pleased I am to be able to support the Bill, and I hope that very soon, with the co-operation of all in your Lordships' House, it will become law.
3.58 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I think it may be helpful to the House if I intervene at this point to say a few words about the matter generally and about the Government's attitude towards the noble Earl's Bill. I am sure we are all grateful to him for providing an opportunity to discuss this interesting and important subject. A large number of noble Lords and Baronesses who have indicated a wish to speak will give us the benefit of their great personal knowledge and interest and their concern in this matter. The fact that we are debating this matter this afternoon illustrates the importance that Members of your Lordships' House attach to the conservation and management of our native fauna. I should like also to say how much we shall look forward to hearing the maiden speech of my noble friend the Duke of Marlborough when he speaks after me.
1700
Her Majesty's Government are well aware of the disquiet that has been expressed in some quarters about the alleged excessive killing and taking of badgers, the concern over some of the methods of killing that are used, and the anxiety felt by some people for the survival of these attractive creatures. My task to-day is first to give, in as objective a manner as possible, an account of the general problem as we see it, and secondly to explain the Government's attitude towards the noble Earl's Bill. It is true that there is no legislation specifically protecting badgers in the wild. But they have the protection of several general measures that contribute towards safeguarding wild animals from inadvertent destruction or unnecessary suffering. For example, it is illegal to poison or to gas badgers, or to set spring traps to catch them. Her Majesty's Government are well conscious of the need to ensure that the badger—and, for that matter, all other species of our native fauna—should not become endangered, and for that reason we keep the status of all British wild animals under review in the light of information and advice from the Natural Environment Research Council. However, we believe that before legislative action is undertaken to protect a particular species it is desirable to establish clearly whether it is in need of conservation, and, if so, whether legislative means are the most appropriate way of securing this.
For advice on conservation matters Her Majesty's Government look to the Natural Environment Research Council, and its component body the Nature Conservancy, for advice. These organisations have access to, and keep in touch with, the knowledge and views of a wide variety of expert naturalists. I am sure your Lordships will be interested to hear the latest information on the badger, which I obtained from the Conservancy only a few days ago. They tell me that the Mammal Society is currently undertaking a survey of the present status of the badger. When this is completed, there will be much more reliable information on which to assess whether this animal is in need of additional protection. Meanwhile, the Conservancy attach much importance to the views of Dr. Ernest Neal—to whom the noble Earl referred—who is a national expert

1701
on badgers. From his observations Dr. Neal is convinced that over the last five years there has been a definite decline in badgers in some counties, though in others there have been slight increases. Dr. Neal is satisfied that badgers as a species are not endangered, out his own assessment is that as a result of increasing pressures from several sources the overall badger population has probably gone down over the last five years, and that in some parts of the country the decline has been marked. On the basis of their present information, it is the Nature Conservancy's opinion that badgers are generally common and widely distributed throughout Great Britain, and that the species is not endangered and does not need protection on conservation grounds.
Allegations are made from time to time that badger digging for sport, or to obtain badgers for commercial reasons, is responsible for the destruction of large numbers of badgers under conditions of great cruelty. I am aware of reports that badger digging occurs in a few widely scattered, and relatively small, areas, as a consequence of which the badger population in the immediate locality may be put under pressure. But we have no factual evidence that this practice is widespread, or that badgers are otherwise persecuted or cruelly treated by man.
An Interdepartmental Committee, under the chairmanship of the late John Scott Henderson, which inquired into cruelty to wild animals some years ago, concluded that badger digging was not then a common practice. I will not detain the House by giving a detailed account of what the Committee had to say about the badger, but your Lordships may be interested to know the gist of their findings. This was that control was generally unnecessary except in the case of rogue badgers; that badger digging was more frequently done for the purpose of controlling the number of badgers, or for dealing with rogue badgers, than for sport; and that provided the badger was killed quickly and humanely when it was reached, digging need not involve excessive suffering. The Committee did not consider that any recommendation about badger digging was necessary. The Home Office tell me that they have no evidence that the
1702
position has changed materially since the Committee reported.
Assertions have also been made that badgers are being killed on a large scale for commercial reasons, such as for their fur or for sale of badger cubs as pets. While I would not claim that the Government are so closely informed about the situation as to be able authoritatively to reject assertions of this kind, the fact of the matter is that we have received no evidence that such activities are extensive or that they have any significant effect on the overall size of the badger population. May I say at this point that the Home Office will always consider any evidence on this matter that is put before it. Inquiries made of the fur trade do not support claims, which have been made, that badgers are being killed because of, for example, a shortage of imported furs. Neither is there any evidence that the keeping of badger cubs as pets is widespread or on the increase; nor have we any reason to believe that there is any particular demand for cubs as pets, or for any other reason.
Without doubt, one of the most serious hazards which confronts the badger is the movement of road, and to a lesser extent rail, traffic. It must be recognised that as traffic increases, particularly at night, pressure on badgers from this source will increase in some areas. But this is not a problem that can be solved by legislation. I am glad to say, however, that we have no reason to think that the number of badgers killed by traffic has any serious effect on the size of the badger population in the country as a whole. So far I have tried to outline the various pressures which bear upon, or are thought to bear upon, the badger. Despite these, there is no evidence of any serious decline in the overall badger population such as to make it necessary to legislate to conserve the species.
My Lords, I should now like to mention the position of the badger in relation to agriculture. Badgers are seldom harmful to agriculture or forestry. Indeed, in many ways they are beneficial because their varied diet includes a number of small animals, such as young rabbits, moles and others which are troublesome to farmers and foresters. Occasionally, however, a rogue badger may attack poultry, or damage corn by

1703
rolling in it, and when this happens a farmer would want, quite naturally, to prevent a recurrence by destroying the offending animal. He would probably do this by shooting it in the late evening or early morning when it was coming out of, or entering, its sett.
The finding of tuberculosis of the bovine type in badgers in two specific areas of the country, in conjunction with an increased incidence of tuberculosis in cattle, is giving rise to concern. There is strong circumstantial evidence that the disease may be transmitted to cattle from an infected badger population, and where there is evidence to indicate that this is happening, it is necessary to consider destroying some badgers—not only to remove the challenge to the health of the cattle herds, but also as a measure of protection to the badger community itself. In this connection, my Lords, we can perhaps draw a parallel with what happens on the Continent where rabies is endemic in wildlife, and where the fox and the badger can be implicated in the spread of this disease. If rabies should get into wildlife in this country, as it has in Europe, it may be necessary to destroy badgers in the affected area, and for that matter other carriers of the disease, in order to check its spread.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, will the noble Baroness forgive me for interrupting. It would also be necessary to destroy the bat population, who are the biggest importers of rabies—particularly in the tropics—although I do not know how that is done. But I am not disagreeing with the noble Baroness; I am just pointing out that bats are great rabies carriers.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for those observations, of which I will take note.
I will now turn to the details of the Bill itself. The Bill seeks to provide complete protection for the badger. Clause 1 would prohibit the killing, injuring or taking, or any attempt thereat, of badgers at all times; and Clause 2 would make the sale of live badgers illegal. The broad question is: are these restrictions necessary? The first test is that of conservation. As I have said, the advice the Government have received is that legislation is not needed to protect the
1704
badger against the threat of extinction, or serious depletion in numbers. The next question is whether legislation is needed to protect the animal from cruel methods of destruction; but, as I have explained, the Government have no evidence of the widespread infliction of excessive or unnecessary suffering when badgers are destroyed. It follows, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government are not convinced that legislation to protect the badger is necessary at the present time. But let me say at once that on this basic issue the Government wish to maintain an attitude of neutrality, as is customary in matters of animal protection of this sort.
I do not propose to go into great detail on all the Government's objections to the noble Earl's Bill; but if a measure along these lines were thought to be desirable, the present Bill would need fairly substantial amendment. For example, Clause 3 would permit the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to license the taking of badgers for certain specified purposes: first, scientific and educational; secondly, establishing breeding colonies; and, thirdly, conservation of badgers. The purposes for which these licences may be issued do not, however, appear to be relevant to the functions of the Minister of Agriculture; it would probably be better for the licensing functions to be exercised by the Nature Conservancy. In passing, I might add that no provision appears to have been made for the Secretary of State for Scotland to exercise similar licensing powers in Scotland.
A much more serious deficiency, and one which makes the Bill in its present form unacceptable to Her Majesty's Government, is that it makes no provision whatever for any control measures to be taken to protect crops and other property, or to prevent the spread of disease. Neither is there any provision for mercy killing, nor for the unavoidable destruction of badgers that may be occupying setts in the way of essential works, such as housing or motorway construction.
The penalty provisions in Clause 4(2) are also unsatisfactory as they stand. Provision for short terms of imprisonment for offences of this nature is not in line with present day thinking. But if provision for imprisonment is to be included, three months for a first offence and six months

1705
for a second or subsequent offence is unacceptable. This is because a person charged with an offence carrying a liability of a custodial sentence of over three months on summary conviction has, in general, a right to elect trial by jury. It would, therefore, be evident that any person appearing before a jury on trial for an offence under the Bill had a previous conviction for a similar offence.
Enforcement would also present special problems. Legislation which provided complete protection for a single species, such as the badger, would be extremely difficult to enforce. Unless all means of killing other animals of similar size and habit were prohibited, it would probably be impossible to prove that a person who caught a badger—for example, in a snare—had deliberately set out to kill a badger.
I hope the noble Earl will consider these general comments made in a helpful spirit. As I have already made plain, the formal attitude of the Government towards the basic issue of whether it is desirable to legislate to provide additional protection for the badger is one of neutrality, and we leave it to the House to judge this issue on its merits. If, after to-day's debate, your Lordships decide to give this Bill a Second Reading, the noble Earl, Lord Arran, may wish to look again at its provisions in the light of the comments that I, and other speakers in the debate, have made. In conclusion, I should like to say that the Government will listen with great attention to all that is said.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I ask whether the badger spreads brucellosis or tuberculosis?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, my understanding is that there is strong circumstantial evidence in two counties that a form of tuberculosis has been spread by badgers.
4.14 p.m.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: My Lords, I ask your Lordships' indulgence and forbearance in respect of this my maiden speech. You may consider, quite rightly, that it is rather strange to make a maiden speech about badgers, but when I asked what were the requirements for a maiden speech I was told that there were only two important points to be
1706
observed: first, that the speech should be politically non-controversial; and secondly that it should be short. I am sure all Parties will agree that the former point is met, and the new clock in your Lordships' House will shortly prove that the latter point also has been met. Another reason for choosing this subject is that in most walks of life one has to start one's career at the bottom, and one cannot start much lower than underground with badgers.
This is a Bill
"to prohibit the taking, injuring or killing of badgers."
According to articles that I have read in an evening paper, the noble Earl, Lord Arran, keeps badgers as domestic pets. While not necessarily agreeing with his choice of companions, I can well understand his sentimental attachments. We are all, I think, lovers of animals of one sort or another. The latest instalment of the articles last night referred to this week as "Badger Week". With due respect, I think it would be better called "Dollar Week", or "Gas Week". The noble Earl is worried that badgers could become extinct but, according to my information, the facts do not show that as a possibility. The reason for their supposed scarcity arises from two causes: first, the nature of its haunts, which are generally in deep recesses of large woods, fox covers and quarries; and, secondly, the nature of its habits: it is shy and retiring and chiefly nocturnal. As I have said, we are all animal lovers and naturally none of us wants to see badgers killed for the sake of killing or for the sale of their pelts. But we must also take care that the inhabitants of the countryside are well balanced, and must not allow any particular species to become too dominant.
Clause 3 deals with Ministry licences, but there is nothing in the Bill to legislate for the rogue badger. I agree that, basically, the average badger is an attractive and harmless animal, but we must make sure that the bad ones can be dealt with in as humane a way as possible. Once a badger gets into bad habits he does not give them up. I know that such cases are exceptional, but badgers have been known to kill lambs, and there have certainly been several cases of badgers killing chickens and destroying nests. If the Bill is passed in its present form, an

1707
individual will be powerless to do anything for fear of imprisonment or a fine. If the Bill were amended in order to deal with, say, the case of a badger killing chickens and one had to apply to the Ministry for a licence, one can imagine the sort of questions that would be on the application form "What damage was done? What precautions were taken to ensure that the damage was not done? Were there any witnesses? Have the police been informed?" Send the form off with the Christmas post, my Lords, and write off those chickens.
I ask your Lordships to take the case of badgers damaging cornfields. Would a farmer have to wait for an inspection by a Ministry official? Clause 4 states:
"(1) A constable may without warrant stop and search any person found committing an offence against this Act and any vehicle or animal which that person may then be using."
I am not sure what would be the point of searching an animal, my Lords, but what worries me is that there is here a very real possibility of a miscarriage of justice. What safeguard would there be for some unfortunate farmworker who innocently gassed a badger down a rabbit hole, after being asked by his employer to gas rabbits? The noble Earl, a keeper or maybe a constable might know through instinct and knowledge that a badger was also in that rabbit hole, but the farm worker would have committed an offence. I am therefore worried about the effect that the Bill in its present form would have on the individual landlord or farmer who was acting in his or her best interests.
Would it not be right to allow the individual landlord or farmer to deal with the rogue badger in the same way as one is able to deal with a marauding dog which chases and kills sheep? If evidence is provided that the dog has attacked sheep, the law protects the person who has had to kill the dog. Surely the same type of law could be applied in the case of a badger attacking, say, chickens. It is comparatively easy to tell whether the damage has been done by a badger or by another animal. Alternatively, if your Lordships were worried about the numbers, could the Forestry Commission's large areas of woods become conservation areas, leaving the rest of the countryside to be managed by the people who live and work there?
1708
There are many landowners and farmers who like badgers. I am sure the noble Earl need have no fear that their numbers will drop dramatically. Most countrymen's thoughts and actions are directed in some way or another to preserving our lovely countryside, and to conserving the many species of animals that live therein and thereon. My Lords, I end by thanking you for the courtesy shown to me during my maiden speech.
4.21 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BATH AND WELLS: My Lords, it falls to me—and it is a great pleasure—to express on behalf of your Lordships' House many congratulations to the noble Duke on his maiden speech. He has shown great sensitivity and great understanding, and although I do not agree with him in what he has said I hope that we shall hear him much more in the coming months in this House, perhaps on other, more important, subjects.
May I, my Lords, speak for a very few minutes in support of this Bill, not only because there are a great many badgers in Somerset but because, as the noble Earl has said—and let us remember this—this is a conservation Bill. It is not a sentimentalist's Bill: it is a conservation Bill. Neither does it deal with field sports. It deals, as the noble Earl said, with badgers, an animal which is regarded by certain sections of the community as a pest. Some blame the badger quite wrongly for a great number of misdoings of other animals, especially of the fox, while others single him out as the object for a cruel sport. Anyway, he has, as we have already heard, come under great harassment recently—unjustly and relentlessly.
I do not know whether your Lordships are aware of the habits of badgers, but perhaps I may quite briefly mention them. They live in clans of from two to twelve members, occupying a complex main sett and defending the land surrounding the main sett for a quarter to half a mile against neighbouring clans. They usually choose ground which is well-drained and where cover exists. They usually choose thick hedges, brackened sides of hills and woodlands. The home range round the main sett must, of course, contain sufficient food for the clan. Over one-half the annual intake of food is earthworms; the rest is made up of small mammals, eggs,

1709
fledglings of ground-nesting birds, beetles, wasps, insects, slugs and snails, fruits, grain and carrion. These are some of the habits of this very delightful animal—part of the inheritance of our countryside.
The harassments under which this animal has recently come have already been mentioned. May I just repeat them, to press the point? First, they have recently come under pressure due to the destruction of cover. Changing agricultural practices have led to a considerable reduction in the number of hedgerows and small woods, especially in lowland Britain. Secondly, the development of land for industry, housing, reservoirs and so on has locally displaced badger colonies. Roads have been mentioned. A large number of badgers are killed each year on the roads. In Somerset it has recently been estimated from a detailed survey of the Taunton area that over 1,000 badgers are killed annually on the roads of the county. Motorways, too, can have a devastating effect, especially during the first few weeks after the opening of a motorway. Fourthly, there is trapping and shooting, and fifthly, digging, which has been mentioned. This seems to be growing in popularity, and areas such as Wirral in Cheshire, near large conurbations, have had their badger populations severely depleted. In spite of what the noble Baroness has said, I think the value of skins is a considerable inducement to digging; and sums of between £5 and £20 can be obtained for a young badger cub as a pet. Sixthly, there is gassing. This is illegal. It does take place, but sometimes quite accidentally, in gassing rabbits or in gassing foxes. Seventhly, there are pesticides; they die after eating pigeons poisoned by grain dressed with mercury seed dressings. This has been proved to kill. Those are some of the ways in which the badger is under strong pressure.
I support this Bill generally because I am sure in my own mind that with so many pressures protection is needed. I think it is needed in three respects. In particular, the digging of badgers on private land without the landowner's permission should be discouraged. The British Field Sports Society suggests that the game laws could be amended to cover this point. Secondly, there should be protection from indiscriminate snaring, trapping and shooting. Thirdly, the sale
1710
of skins and cubs should be severely discouraged. Admittedly, damage is caused by badgers. In certain circumstances, badgers can cause serious damage, and any protective legislation must ensure that in such circumstances badgers can be legally moved or destroyed. At the same time—and this point must be stressed—it must be ensured that any such clause does not allow for abuse of the law. These forms of damage have already been mentioned: the undermining of fields, roads and buildings so as to cause a nuisance; when proved to be carrying disease liable to affect domestic animals and stocks; and when proved to be causing serious damage to game birds, poultry and crops. This is very rare, but it does happen. Wild game birds, especially partridges, do suffer.
Finally, there is this subordinate question about which Department should have responsibility for controlling badgers. The Bill suggests the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In view of the conservation aspects of this question, there is a case, surely, for putting it either under the Department of Education and Science, since the Nature Conservancy, as part of the Natural Environment Research Council, at present report to them, or under the Department of the Environment, to which the Nature Conservancy is shortly to be transferred. I think that whichever Department has ultimate responsibility should exercise it always in consultation with the Nature Conservancy, who are the specialists in this field. I am very glad indeed to support my noble friend in his Bill.
4.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I should like to begin by joining with the right reverend Prelate in congratulating the noble Duke on his maiden speech. It was an extremely good, moderate and reasoned speech and, unlike other speeches, with the exception of that of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, it was expressly devoted to the contents of the Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Arran, would, I think, be surprised if I did not take part in a debate on a Bill initiated by him. I should not like to disappoint him; the temptation to take part in any Bill that he introduces is one that I find almost irresistible. He, like the right reverend Prelate, devoted a great deal of his speech to the badger. That

1711
is quite understandable; but the noble Earl said very little about what is in his Bill and the right reverend Prelate said very little about the contents of the Bill.
This has been put forward as a conservation measure and the right reverend Prelate indicated, as he thought, that the case for conservation had been made out. But the real question is this. To what extent has it been made out that the decrease, if it has occurred in the species, is due to the acts which the noble Earl now seeks to prohibit? If there is any case for conservation owing to decreasing numbers, to what extent is it due to the alleged evils? If I follow the right reverend Prelate correctly, the greatest damage to badgers is done by motor cars. I thought at one stage that he was advocating that motor cars should be abolished in his diocese and on all motorways; but I may have been wrong about that.
In one of those effervescent articles which appear in an evening paper, I see that recently the noble Earl wrote, in the advance publicity for this measure:
"It is going to be a stern battle with many vested interests against me."
My Lords, I have left off my waistcoat! He went on to say:
"I shall not talk any sentimental twaddle."
That, no doubt, was a New Year resolution. I would say to him that I would be the last to accuse him of talking any sentimental twaddle. To-day, if I may say so, I thought he moved the Second Reading of his Bill in a speech of very considerable moderation, deprived almost entirely of the emotion with which usually I associate his speeches; and although he said little about the Bill, he spoke with remarkable clarity on other subjects. One thing his speech did make clear was his affection for the badger.
Returning to this article, he said:
"I shall not talk about British field sports. Woe betide anyone who does!"
That is a terrible threat. I am not sure that it is not even a breach of privilege to try by threat to prevent one of your Lordships from mentioning British field sports.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I am not going to give way. Were I to do
1712
so, I should be doing so too often. The noble Earl will have his opportunity at the end. Despite that threat, I am going to mention British fields sports, to this extent. The noble Earl and I both engage in field sports. He, I understand, is a first-class shot and shoots a great deal. I shoot only when I can. I think that perhaps we should both be members of the British Field Sports Society. Perhaps the noble Earl is; but I am not. I should like to make it clear to the noble Earl that I do not speak for that Society or for anyone except myself. Therefore I hope he will not accuse me of being a vested interest. That would be very wounding.
We all have a great affection for badgers; they are wonderful animals. But that is not the question before the House now. Personally I do not think—and here I part company with the noble Earl—that a wild animal like the badger should be kept in captivity, even as a pet. The noble Earl has, I believe, no less than five of them. How they were taken I do not know. If this Bill reaches the Statute Book it will be illegal to take them to keep them as pets. That, I think, is a very desirable objective. Different considerations might apply to badgers bred in captivity. But I must say that I am surprised that the noble Earl did not in his Bill insert a provision to make it illegal to keep badgers as pets. I must say that I wonder why. That is perhaps one of the things the noble Earl will deal with when he comes to reply. I would ask him also, when he comes to reply, to say whether or not he would accept an Amendment on the Committee stage to make it illegal to keep badgers as pets—with heavily retrospective penalties.
My Lords, I have two objections to this Bill. The first is that when its terms are examined, you find it really goes too far: the second is that I fear it will be wholly ineffective to achieve the result that the noble Earl wants. I am against adding to the number of Acts of Parliament already on the Statute Book another which is likely to be ineffective, inoperative and therefore useless. We already know that it is illegal to gas badgers; that it is illegal to trap them. I think it was said—I am not quite sure whether I heard it correctly—that it was illegal to snare them. Has the legislation stopped that? I am afraid that it has not.

1713
But to come back, first, to the main question, this Bill is introduced by the noble Earl on the ground that there is a need at the present time for the conservation of badgers. Secondly, he says that he puts it forward on grounds of humanity. Dealing with the question of conservation, I find it difficult to believe that a case is made out for this species in the light of the statement by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I recognise, as we all must, that many species of wild animal in this island are under great pressure at the present time owing to urban development and for the reasons given by the right reverend Prelate. But that does not mean that there should be a complete prohibition on the taking or killing or on the attempted taking or killing of all those animals. It really does not. If a Bill were passed making a complete prohibition, how effective would it be? So I would say to the noble Earl that so far, despite his advocacy and in the light of what was said by the noble Baroness, he has failed to convince me that there is at this moment any real need for a Bill for the purposes of conservation of badgers. The time may come when he does introduce a Bill which I shall be able to support wholeheartedly; and I look forward to that.
Coming back to the Bill itself, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to a part of Clause 1. It is a complete prohibition. I agree with her that it really goes too far. It is a complete prohibition except in relation to three categories of case where you have to apply under Clause 3 for a licence from the Minister of Agriculture. What is the need for a complete prohibition? The noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to the answer given recently in the advice of the Nature Conservancy, that the species is not in danger and does not need protection on conservation grounds. If that be right, what case is there for the total prohibition proposed?
My Lords, the noble Baroness drew attention to the fact that this prohibition was too absolute. I must say that if I saw a badger with a snare round its neck; if I saw a badger which was injured; if I saw a badger covered with mange, and a danger to other badgers for that reason, I should feel that I was being merciful if I used my gun to put that badger out of its agony; and I think the noble Earl would, too. But this Bill
1714
makes the use of a gun for a mercy killing a criminal offence, punishable by three months' imprisonment and a fine of £100. My Lords, that really will not do. The noble Earl, Lord Arran, referred to rogue badgers. Suppose a rogue badger is found taking poultry. Is the farmer who destroys it, as he would destroy a dog found chasing his sheep, guilty of a criminal offence? That must be wrong. Those are two criticisms of the first clause of the Bill and I think that they are major criticisms.
It is not only the rogue badger. Where you get too many badgers in a particular area, and there is a shortage of their natural food, surely the badgers will be tempted, perhaps driven, to take poultry. Ought they not to be destroyed if they do so? Under the Bill as it stands, you can get a licence from the Ministry of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food to take and kill badgers for conservation purposes. Whatever the noble Lord may think, I do not think that a licence to kill badgers because they are doing a lot of damage—a licence obtained under a provision that you can get a licence only to take them for conservation—would be a method of conserving badgers. If you want to kill them that would be the reverse of conservation. Be that as it may, my Lords, I support what has been said already, that this Bill goes too far. It makes no provision for culling badgers, as has to be done, I believe, with deer in Richmond Park and Windsor Forest.
Clause 1 also makes it an offence for a person to have possession or control of any badger recently killed for taken. That will not apply to the noble Earl, Lord Arran. I imagine he has had his badgers for some considerable time. But it makes that an offence, unless the accused person can show that the badger was
"killed or taken otherwise than in contravention of this Act."
That is throwing the burden of proof of innocence on the accused, something which ordinarily we are very reluctant to do. If you want to move a badger away from a place where it is a nuisance to somewhere else, again you will commit an offence under the provisions of the Bill unless you first apply to the Ministry for a licence for conservation. It would be an offence to take them and to move them elsewhere without such a

1715
licence. But the reason for taking them elsewhere would not be for conservation but just to take them away from that particular spot.
My Lords, I should like to criticise Clause 2 in some respects. It makes it an offence to sell or offer for sale or have a badger in one's possession for sale. Does the noble Earl really think that that is a worthwhile provision? Does he think that in practice it would be easy to prove the sale of a badger, or an offer to sell one, unless it was advertised, or that a badger in the possession of some person was there for sale? It would be easy to prove that it was in a person's possession, but not easy to establish for what purpose. I am puzzled about this. Why is that limited to the possession of badgers for sale? That would exclude badgers kept as pets but I should think that that clause needs considerable redrafting to make it right.
With regard to Clause 3, I note that the noble Earl said that "scientific or educational purposes" meant capture for zoological gardens. It would be easier to understand his Bill had that been put in specifically. I will not say much more about Clause 3, but it appears that the Ministry will have fairly substantial duties imposed on them, if this Bill becomes law, without a case being made out.
Clause 4 is a most remarkable clause, and some reference to it was made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Marlborough. It states:
"A constable may without warrant stop and search any person found committing an offence against this Act …".
I pause there for a moment. Are constables to be given power to enter on any private land at any time? There is nothing in the Bill to say that. Most of these offences would, presumably, take place on private land. Are constables to be allowed to enter all woods and coverts on anyone's land at any time? There is no authority given in this Bill for them to commit trespass. But suppose they do go into a wood, what would be the position? They will be entitled to stop someone and search him if they find him committing an offence. That would be fairly easy with regard to taking or attempting to take a badger, or killing or attempting to kill one. But what about the third limb of Clause 1, which makes it an offence
1716
to be in possession of a badger recently taken unless you can show that it was not taken in contravention of the Act. The constable will not know whether an offence is committed at that stage. That will not be determined until the case is heard in court. So how can he say that a person he finds in possession of a badger recently killed or taken is committing an offence? I do not know. Perhaps the noble Earl will explain.
The clause goes on:
"… and any vehicle or animal which that person may then be using …"
The constable can stop it. The noble Earl said, if I heard him correctly, that the animal there referred to was meant to be a horse. If it was meant to be a horse it would have been better to say so, and that the constable could stop the horse. I am not sure what use the horse is; the noble Earl did not explain. The subsection goes on:
"… and may … arrest that person if he fails to give his name and address to the constable's satisfaction and … detain for the purposes of proceedings under this Act any badger whether alive or dead, or any weapon, animal or article capable of being used to kill or take badgers, which may be in that person's possession."
I should be grateful if the noble Earl would explain to me why it is necessary that Parliament should give the constable power not only to stop but also to search the horse, because that is quite clearly provided for in the first part of the subsection. I should also be glad if he would explain what is meant by:
"… which that person may then be using …"
I do not quite understand how you use a horse. I used to ride one; but I do not think that could be described as "using" a horse. The noble Earl will no doubt explain in due course what he means by that phrase.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I do not ride; but I think horses can be used for carrying.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Then the subsection continues:
"… any weapon, animal or article capable of being used to kill or take badgers"
may be seized. I suppose that any motor car is capable of killing badgers. I should find it difficult to make a list of things which were not capable of being used for killing badgers. If that object or

1717
thing is found in that person's possession at that time, it can be seized. If a farmer uses a gun in the mercy killing of a badger, the constable may seize it; and what is more, the court can order its forfeiture. That adds heavily to the penalties imposed. That is why I say, with the greatest respect to the noble Earl, that his Bill really does go too far. Even if, on conservation grounds, there is a need made out for some further protection to that now already given to the species, this Bill, I suggest to the noble Earl, goes unreasonably far.
My Lords, coming to a consideration of the position, the noble Earl referred to a Bill being introduced in another place, and also made some reference to its contents. I do not think the Bill has yet been published. I have seen a copy of a draft Bill, and I would suggest to the noble Earl, if it is the same draft, that he should study it carefully, because I personally regard that Bill as a far better Bill than the one introduced by the noble Earl, and I think he would do much better to withdraw his present Bill and put forward in its place one similar to that to which he and I have both referred. Otherwise, so far as I can see, there is nothing much to be said for any of the clauses in this Bill, and the right course would be to move to leave them all out and insert an entirely different measure.
I admire the noble Earl's enthusiasm; I admire the way in which this Bill is not drafted so as to apply to those who already have badgers as pets, although that is an exception that can be remedied. But I must say that if the noble Earl persists in this measure, because I think it will form a blot on the Statute Book I should find it impossible to support it. The other reason why I should find it impossible to support the Bill is that I do not believe it is likely to have any material effect. We have not the number of police who can patrol woods to see that there is no abstraction of badgers in the early hours of the night or in the daytime. The Bill would impose an extra burden on the police, and we should be reluctant about how we do that.
4.53 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, I should like to preface my remarks this afternoon by congratulating the noble Duke, the Duke of Marlborough,
1718
on his maiden speech. It was commendable both for its content, which led me to believe that we might have one more person anxious to deal with the preservation of our countryside, and because he stood between your Lordships and the Greek colonels for a very short time, and a number of other people have apparently wanted to do so for an exceedingly long period.
My Lords, I suppose ten years ago there were more badgers in this country than there had been for the last couple of hundred years and anybody who had produced a Bill such as that introduced by the noble Earl to-day would have been laughed out of court. Badgers were exceedingly common and had increased considerably, as had foxes, but they had not shown themselves quite so adaptable as foxes in going into the outer suburbs of our larger towns as foxes have done, living off dustbins, and, I suspect, cats. None the less, there were a large number of badgers in this country and a Bill would have been totally unnecessary. But as the noble Baroness said, there have since been signs—and they are shown in the Mammal Society's report to which she referred, and in Dr. Neal's report, to which she also referred—that in some parts of England the numbers of badgers are starting to decline. I do not agree with the right reverend Prelate's analysis of that decline. I do not think it is due entirely to men. In animal populations you get ebbs and flows, and when you get an ebb of this sort it can be as much due to natural causes as it is to men, or motor cars, or poisons and the like. But it is at that stage that some form of protection is needed. When the population of any animal in any part of the country becomes so low that the animal is in danger, we cannot afford to lose a single potential breeding animal, and some form of protection becomes necessary.
I live in Suffolk, where badgers have never been common because the country is not suitable; and they have become even less common in recent years. This is certainly not due to persecution by men, because I know three or four setts which have been previously occupied but which are now empty, although the owner of the land on which they are sited was very proud of them. Badgers in my part of the world are, I think, in

1719
quite considerable danger. There are many other parts of England where the same conditions obtain, and in those areas I believe that some form of protection is necessary. I have a relative who lives in Wales, and when I go there and walk through the woods I find badger tracks every 100 yards; and even if one goes for a walk in the evening, one can be pretty certain of seeing a badger in a particular place. In such areas where badgers are abundant, I do not think any protection is necessary.
That is the fundamental principle of our new conservation outlook on the protection of animals, as opposed to the old-fashioned, purely protective one, which, although the noble Earl, Lord Arran, has disclaimed it, I think lies behind the way his Bill is drafted. The principle we should follow now is that where an animal is falling away in numbers and is at risk we should protect it, but that protection is not necessary where the numbers are maintained. And as the noble and learned Viscount said just now, in almost the only sentence of his speech with which I agreed, a law which is unnecessary is a bad law. So far as the noble Earl's proposed law would give universal protection, I feel that it is not the right way of approaching the problem. But that point can be easily dealt with in Committee.
I hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading this afternoon, because I feel that in Committee we can turn it into a Bill which may be a model for other Bills to protect other animals. What we need at the moment is a Bill that we can use for every sort of animal which needs protection; and we could turn this Bill into that sort of Bill. I hope that your Lordships and the Government will be convinced as to that. I hope, though with no great expectation of success, that even the noble and learned Viscount may be convinced that we should give the Bill a Second Reading and then in Committee make it a good Bill.
5.0 p.m.
LORD COLERIDGE: My Lords, may I add my congratulations to those of other noble Lords who have spoken before me to the noble Duke for his very clear and authoritative maiden speech. I certainly would not pose as a great expert on
1720
badgers, but I live in a part of the country where they are relatively plentiful and where the so-called sport of badger-digging is a traditional one. Also, for as long as I can remember, I have had a badger sett within 100 yards of our house always inhabited by badgers; so I can claim an interest, even if only a small one, in badgers.
In supporting the noble Earl's Bill, I should like to make three points. First of all, I am convinced that the badger does no serious harm to the farmer, to the forester, or indeed to the poultry breeder: no harm at all. He is omnivorous, as has been said, but his diet, when it is not vegetable, consists primarily of young rabbits, rats, voles and mice. In fact, he is the farmer's friend and in many cases also the friend of the keeper. This fact is being increasingly recognised by the more enlightened. If the remains of a hen are occasionally found outside the badger sett, it is almost certainly the fox who is responsible because a fox often inhabits a badger sett. Indeed, I have seen a fox and a badger emerge from the same entrance of a badger sett within minutes of each other. The sins of the fox are far too often visited on our friend the badger. Secondly, the badger population is certainly decreasing in my part of the country, Devonshire. Of that I am afraid there is no doubt at all. Why, I am not enough of an expert to say; but I think the experts would give the explanation of more road deaths. Equally, there is more gassing and more snaring, and quite certainly there is more badger-digging in Devonshire. I cannot speak for anywhere else.
The badger-digging is done not only by local inhabitants but also by city dwellers who come out to the country—those who might perhaps be described as the "M.5 cowboys". I do not want to elaborate on the cruelty of badger-digging—this has been mentioned before—but let us remember what it is. You dig for the badger; you drag it from its sett with those horrible specially-made iron tongs to which the noble Earl has referred. It is then battered to death with spades or crowbars. It is not a very pretty sport. Terriers, of course, are also used, and though it has not been mentioned before, this also entails a good deal of cruelty. The terrier is used to flush or locate the badger and then to worry him and prevent his getting to safety, and the badger,

1721
when cornered, turns and mauls the terrier and very frequently kills it.
Neither the common law nor any existing legislation, I believe, adequately protects the badger at the moment; indeed, he has had to wait until to-day to get a chance to be protected. I should be the first to agree that Amendments to the Bill are required—Amendments, for example, to deal with the rogue badger, which quite certainly exists—but any Amendments which relate protection of the badger to trespass would be really quite useless. We all know that legislation on trespass is both weak and extremely difficult to enforce. Badger-digging, in the majority of cases, even if not all of them, involves no trespass because it is done by the owner or the occupier of the land. So, in conclusion, I hope that it can be accepted that the badger is a friend and not an enemy. I think it has been accepted to-day in your Lordships' House that the badger is persecuted and that badger-digging is an utterly dreadful sport. I think we could all accept that this delightful animal does need some form of protection, at least in some areas—and I am inclined to say all areas. Therefore I believe that this Bill would do much to protect the badger, and when it is suitably amended I shall most certainly support it.
5.5 p.m.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, in supporting the noble Earl's Bill, I do so with certain reservations, because it seems to me that the Bill is a very sweeping one, referring as it does to complete protection of the badger. That is clearly not possible in the British Isles. I am trying to speak less as one who enjoys field and blood sports, and less as a conservationist, and possibly more on the lines of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, who is an eminent field naturalist. In view of the fact that there are so many speakers to follow, I should like to talk very briefly this evening on the habitat of the badger, which is obviously shrinking all the time. With a short-legged animal such as the badger competing with a growing rural population, and the fact that something like 50,000 acres are being lost to agriculture every year, one can see that the habitat of this very charming animal is shrinking all the time. One can also readily understand that the distribution
1722
of the badger is entirely uneven and, for this reason, requires readjusting.
I may be wandering a little from the Bill, and perhaps I may wander a little further in a moment. I should just like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who gave the Ministerial reply, that I take issue with her on two small points. First, there was the mention of the risk of badgers carrying disease. That may well be true but, frankly, I think it is an exaggerated fear. After all, most deer parks are riddled with disease, and what a herd of fallow or red deer can do in spreading contagious abortion must be a much greater risk to our dairy herds or to dry heifers running in a deer park than could ever happen with a small sett of badgers. I also feel, with all respect to the Government's case, that the Nature Conservancy whatever admirable work they perform—and far be it from me to find fault with it—are probably not sufficiently informed about the juxtaposition of badgers in different counties of Great Britain.
The badger, as the noble Duke has said (and I should like to add my congratulations to him on his maiden speech) is an animal which shuns publicity and is found only in the quiet out-of-the-way places of the shrinking countryside; it obviously finds our roads, railways and suburbia impossible to cope with. For this reason there are possibly too many on one side of a road and not enough on the other of a railway line. This imbalance should be readjusted. But, if I may digress further from that point, the badger (as Lord Arran said in his admirable speech) is the oldest of the creatures now living in the British Isles; and while we seek to protect all natural animals, how much more should we strive to protect the natural inhabitant of these islands! How much more should we strive to destroy the ecology of marauding creatures such as the coypu, which does so much damage in East Anglia and is, after all, only a rat from South America; or, worse still, the mink, which is doing infinite harm to our game and poultry and, I am told, even to young badgers!
I hope that these thoughts will be borne in mind. There are only three reasons why badgers should be killed: perhaps to make a shaving brush; perhaps to supply the regimental dress sporran of an officer

1723
in the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders; and, thirdly, to blood a terrier. In this connection, there is a good story concerning what is perhaps our finest terrier, the Border, which is bred to stand up to a badger, which can always beat other terriers. There was an old huntsman of the Buccleuch hounds, whose son bred good terriers. He persuaded his father to put a badger skin over his head and get down on the floor on hands and knees and look at a young pup, to find out what the terrier's reaction would be. The Border terrier seized the old man by the nose. The man howled blue murder and danced about, with the terrier hanging on to his nose. His son shouted, "Hang on, fayther, it will be the making of the pup"!
5.10 p.m.
LADY RUTHVEN OF FREELAND: My Lords, may I add my congratulations to the noble Duke on his maiden speech? It was very interesting and I am sure he is going to be a tremendous addition to our House. I am afraid that I am going to be entirely sentimental about the badger. That is the only way that I regard the animal. For ten years I enjoyed watching two badger setts. They were on common land, but now I fear there is not a badger anywhere near. Both the setts were in banks. The installation of a new rural water supply disturbed one sett. I knew the other sett very well because it was almost next door to my garden. An odious person, a farmer, whom I tackled afterwards, blocked up various entrances to the setts and then gassed the badgers. I was frantic; I could not get over it. I could not walk across that bit of downland because of those badgers. The badgers from the other sett came over to us. I suppose they thought that it was safer than having all the workmen who were digging the reservoir around them.
Very often I used to watch the badgers in the evening. I started feeding them and I noticed with great care that the food that they touched were such things as snails or slugs that I put out for them. The same thing would happen with worms, et cetera. I tried them with food such as bread, biscuits and cake. I gave them a leg of chicken once or twice, but they did not really like it very much. It was looked at and eaten after
1724
considerable consideration on the badger's part. I found them extremely useful in my garden. That is how I first got to know them. When I went to live in East Sussex I came out one morning and across the lawn I saw some extraordinary little tracks. They obviously were not from a mole, and I wondered what they were. I asked my gardener, a Sussex man born and bred and he said, "Those are badgers' tracks". I asked, "Where do the badgers come from?" He replied, "In this bank". This was quite near my house.
With his help I found the entrance to the sett. Of course, it being day-time there was no sign of any badgers. I decided that I would go again in the evening, as they were nocturnal animals. I enlisted the help of two little boys who were at school in Eastbourne. They used to come to my home when they had finished their homework. They would knock at my door and say, "Do you feel like coming up to look at the badgers?" Off we would go and we used to sit for hours watching them. Sometimes it was rather cold, but we had great fun watching the badgers—especially in the spring, when they had their young coming out from the sett and playing around in the dusk of the evening. I became very fond of them. I should never have had one as a pet; but I strongly object to the destroying of badgers, because they do not do any harm, as practically every noble Lord who has spoken has said.
I know nothing about the merits of Lord Arran's Bill—it is not for me to criticise that—but badgers are obviously animals that need some preservation order to protect them. They are moving and disappearing, as my noble friends Lord Cranbrook, Lord Coleridge and other noble Lords have said. I checked on this point before I came to your Lordships' House. I rang up a friend in East Sussex and asked, "How long is it since you last saw a badger?" She replied, "Two years". This is the result of the movement of the population into the South-East of England, for reservoirs have to be built as more water is needed. The only time I have ever seen a dead badger was when one was run over by a motor car. So, my Lords, as I have said, I feel rather sentimental in my support for the Bill, and I support it very strongly.
5.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I agree with the motives behind the noble Earl's Bill, but before going on to speak on this matter, I should like to congratulate the noble Duke on his maiden speech. I sincerely hope that we will hear him often in the future. I am quite sure that he will be able to speak about many subjects other than that of badgers. I have had badgers on my place in the South-East of England for a long time. We have always regarded them as a boon. Where forestry is concerned, they do a great deal of good: they eat wasps' nests, moles, voles and small rodents. Badgers can be quite a nuisance sometimes because they cut through wire fences; but one cannot have everything and I am quite prepared to allow the badger that liberty—one can always repair the wire fence.
It is true that badgers may take a few hens, but it is up to the poultry keeper to have badger-proof henhouses. I have no sympathy with the poultry keeper who loses his hens because of badgers. Badgers can be a nuisance near a golf course. It can be very annoying for the greenkeeper if badgers dig up the greens. They are fond of beetles, and have a habit of scraping a green to find them, and also cockroaches and things like that This Bill, as I see it, would make it very difficult to remove badgers. You might have badgers creating a nuisance on a golf course, or undermining a river bank, or even an arable field, and a man driving a tractor might have a nasty accident as the result of the underground working of the badgers. No doubt in some areas of the country that does not apply; for instance, in my area, which is East Kent. I understand that in Norfolk and Suffolk badgers are scarce.
I think the simplest solution would be for such bodies as the Nature Conservancy to advise the Secretary of State of the areas of the country where badgers were scarce, and to give badgers complete protection in those areas. It would be quite impracticable to accept this Bill, although I think we should give it a Second Reading, after which it should be much amended. In some areas of England there are a great number of badgers, particularly in the West Country. What we really want to stop (and several noble Lords have mentioned this) is the practice
1726
which some noble Lords have called a "sport". That is a misnomer; it is an extremely unattractive practice. This does go on—and I am not being very politic now; I do not have to vote catch. This pastime of badger digging—I will not call it a sport—is on the whole carried out by village louts. I cannot describe them in any other way. I should like to see a severe penalty for anyone who came on to a landowner's land to dig badgers without the landowner's permission. From my experience, no landowner I know digs badgers. The only badger dig I ever witnessed was done by my mother's brother, my uncle, a long time ago. He did that in order to move a sett of badgers which were undermining his tennis court. I was only a boy when I witnessed this and it was done as humanely as possible. He then transported the badgers to Scotland and started a colony there. But certainly badger digging is a very unattractive pastime and if possible it must be forbidden, apart from where it is carried out really scientifically.
I will not delay your Lordships any longer, but I should like to say that I completely support the noble Earl's sentiments behind this Bill. The badger is a charming animal, and I hope the Bill receives a Second Reading. If it does, I feel it must be—I do not know whether "severely" is the correct word, but it must be amended to a very great degree. Before concluding, may I, for two minutes at the longest, point to Clause 1. If the noble Earl's Bill was in fact made law, Clause 1 would surely make nonsense. The clause refers to:
"any person"
who
"wilfully kills injures or takes or attempts to kill injure or take any badger or if any person has in his possession or control any badger recently killed or taken …".
My Lords, the only commercial worth of badgers is in their skin; one can make shaving brushes out of their tail and, so I am told, the pelts are used for the trimming of hats. Under this Bill, any man could have half a dozen pelts in his car—or, as it would probably not be possible to kill half a dozen badgers in one dig, let me say three pelts or two pelts. A man might have killed two or three badgers and skinned them on the spot. I have never skinned a badger because I have never killed one, but I have skinned

1727
hundreds of animals far larger than a badger and I assure your Lordships that I could skin a badger in about five minutes. Therefore, a man could have killed three or four badgers and buried the carcases and have the pelts in his car, and under this Bill he could not be apprehended. I thought that I would point that out to the noble Earl. My Lords, I will say no more. In spite of what the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, said, I hope this Bill is given a Second Reading. The noble and learned Viscount was rather hard on the noble Earl; I think he was really a bit too hard. Having said that, my Lords, I will now sit down.
5.25 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, before I say anything on the Bill itself I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Duke upon his maiden speech. Making a maiden speech in your Lordships' House is not an easy task. Although mine is lost now in the mists of antiquity, I can still remember how difficut I found the occasion. But the noble Duke seemed to make his with the greatest of confidence, and I hope that we shall often hear him again.
Many speakers this afternoon have referred to this Bill as a conservation Bill; and of course so it is. It is a Bill of the type, though I will not say of the exact nature, that I should like to see applied to all wild life in our country. But that is not to ignore the fact that there are certain shortcomings in the Bill. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, in a speech with which I almost totally disagreed, spent about a quarter of an hour enlarging upon the Bill's various weak points, but he made one good point: the fact that the Bill as it stands would prevent the keeping of badgers as pets. Athough that is not widely done at the moment, it is true that a badger, if taken as a cub, can be trained just as well as a dog, and is probably a great deal cleaner. Badgers make very delightful pets. Some allowance for that should be made in the Bill. As the noble and learned Viscount pointed out, there are certain features of the Bill which would not be enforceable in law and therefore would make bad law; and I quite agree that those points should be dealt with. They are all, however, points that can be perfectly well dealt with in Committee.
1728
There is no earthly reason to condemn the Bill outright simply because it needs alteration.
Many have said that the badger is in no need of conservation because it is very plentiful at the moment and quite widely spread over the country. That is not a valid argument. I do not think we should wait to apply conservation until some species is practically extinct: it may then be difficult to do so. Wild life as it exists in this country at the moment should be conserved as widely as possible as it is. I do not see any reason to wait until there are only about half a dozen badgers in the country before applying measures of conservation. One point that is not included in the Bill as it stands, but I hope will be included at the Committee stage, is the need to control numbers. With a conservation Bill, of course, one must always have that included. If a species becomes too numerous and a nuisance, there should be some authority which can reduce its numbers in as humane a way as possible. But that again could be provided for. The rogue badger has also been mentioned. There should be some provision for being able to get rid of such badgers.
When the noble and learned Viscount was speaking about this Bill he mentioned another Bill that appeared, I think it was yesterday, in another place. He referred to it as being a better Bill than the one now before the House. With all due respect to the noble and learned Viscount, it was nothing of the sort. All it said was that badgers shall not be taken or killed except with the permission of the owner of the land. What earthly hindrance is that going to be to anybody who can get the permission, which I am sure they can quite easily get? Therefore, although I think this Bill needs a certain amount of amendment, I sincerely hope that it will be given a Second Reading. I support the spirit of the Bill wholeheartedly and I only hope that it will in future be applied to other species.
5.31 p.m.
LORD GISBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like first to add my congratulations to the noble Duke upon his excellent speech, and to express the hope that we shall hear more from him often in the future.

1729
I am sure the whole House is unanimous in its support for the conservation of badgers. The idea behind this Bill is wholly good and I should like to thank the noble Earl for introducing it. As we have already heard, badgers are most interesting creatures. The name "Brock" is Danish; hence such names as Brockenhurst and various other towns, which were founded near setts. Bêcheur, the French name for the badger, means "digger"; and they do dig enormously fast. I once released a badger from a snare. Unfortunately I was not able to get the snare off its neck but the badger was able to get away. It dug under a wire fence, and although it was only a hundred yards from where I was standing by the time I got there it was almost underneath; it had dug so fast.
We have heard from various speakers of the things that the badger eats—rabbits, beetles, rats, mice and so on, and particularly wasp nests, to which it digs down. I believe that it does nothing but render a service to man by killing off obnoxious pests. It also eats acorns, apples, pears and all sort of things of that kind. The badger, too, is very prominent in folklore and if I may digress from the Bill for a moment there are some interesting pieces of folklore about the badger. There is one rather nice poem—or, perhaps, on second thoughts, it is not so nice—which runs:
"Should one hear a badger call
"And then an ullot cry"—
that is an owl—
"Make thy peace with God, good soul,
"For shortly thou shalt die."
In witchcraft it is said that,
"A tuft of hair gotten from the head of a fullgrown brock is powerful to ward off all manner of witchcraft. These must be worn in a little bag made of cat skin (a black cat) and tied about the neck when the moon be not more than seven days old, and under that aspect when the planet Jupiter be in mid heaven, at midnight."
The badger also has great medical properties. In 1800, in the Sporting Magazine, were written these words:
'The flesh, blood and grease of the badger are very useful for oils, ointments, salves and powders for shortness of breath, the cough of the lungs, for the stone, sprained sinews, collacks, etc. The skin, being well dressed, is warm and comfortable for ancient people who are troubled with paralytic disorders."
1730
Badger grease was supposed to be so penetrating that two minutes after rubbing it into the palms of one's hands it came out at the back.
I do not think it has yet been mentioned that in England the badger was once an esteemed part of the diet, and that the hindquarters were cured and eaten. It has always been eaten in China, and I believe is still eaten there, and avidly. Badgers were also captured, of course, for badger-baiting, which was a favourite British sport. But all of this is in the past. The reasons for killing badgers now, as the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, has mentioned, include the production of high-quality sporrans and badger brushes. Badgers are used, too, by the fur trade for fur collars, but the Hudson's Bay Company say that the number of British badgers whose skins are used in this way is negligible and that all the badger skins used by the fur trade come from North America or from China—perhaps those coming from China are from the badgers that have been eaten.
It is most unfair to class badgers as enemies of the farmer. We have heard how they eat rats, but they are blamed for killing chickens and lambs. As the fox shares the sett with the badger on many occasions the fox takes the chickens and lays them at the entrance of the sett and the farmer blames the badger.
I do not believe there is a great deal of evidence that badgers are in fact diminishing unduly in numbers, but undoubtedly one frequently sees them killed. They are of course nocturnal animals, they have very bad eyesight and most of the deaths are caused by their being run over on the roads. In certain areas in March and April, when Dieldrin and Aldrin were being used, there were a number of deaths and these two chemicals were suspected of killing the badgers. I believe that both gassing and digging take a toll, but I wonder whether it is a serious toll when one takes the country at large. With the pressure of syndicate shooting, where a large bag is demanded by the guns, I believe that there are a great many ill-informed keepers who while gassing the foxes also gas the badgers—and the rabbits—and when they find another sett they just gas that as well, for good measure.

1731
While I support this Bill in principle, I think it is, like a colander, full of holes. In the matter of keeping badgers as pets, undoubtedly there are in the country people who keep them, just as there are some people who keep foxes. I know a man who quite often has a fox on his shoulder when he goes for a walk. So far as I can see from the Bill it is proposed that one should keep badgers only if they are intended for breeding. So that if you had two males it would be illegal; if you had two females that also would be illegal. If you had a male and a female that would be all right, but if you had just one that again would be illegal, because it would be unlikely to breed. This appears to be somewhat of an anomaly.
Then one can imagine a fellow telephoning the police and saying, "They are digging out badgers in the wood." A policeman goes along, and sees a car coming down from the wood; but I do not think he would be able to arrest anybody, because according to Clause 4 of the Bill, the persons would have to be found committing the offence. In fact they would not be found committing the offence. The only person who can say that they were committing the offence is the justice. The constable can only search them on suspicion of committing an offence. So to my mind, that wording is inadequate.
Then, according to the Bill anybody can be arrested for carrying any weapon which could be used for taking a badger. This could be a snare, or even a pocket knife; or a gun or some cyanide to get rid of rabbits. It might be any form of weapon. Any sort of weapon could be used for taking a badger and therefore one would be liable to be arrested. The penalties, too, are so severe that I just wonder why the noble Earl did not think of cutting off the right hand of the miscreant, or perhaps the Gilbertian form of digging the miscreant into the sett and leaving him to dig himself out.
What in fact can be done? I believe there are a number of interested societies all over the country who are plotting where setts are on the map, and the County Trusts in Essex and in Hertfordshire and other places do a great deal
1732
of work in taking steps to conserve the badger. The greatest thing that can be done is to foster good relations between the badger and the gamekeeper, owner and farmer. The kestrel is a good example of this. There was a time when the kestrel was shot out of hand, but then people began to learn that it was a friend and not an enemy. To-day, almost everybody leaves the kestrel alone, not because it is illegal to shoot it but because people realise that it is a beneficial species.
As has been recommended in various reports, these interested societies to which I have referred should be in possession of badger cages, so that they can collect badgers from areas where they are not wanted and transfer them to places where they are welcome. Above all, tell us just what is the rate of loss of the badger, a fact which at present we do not know. Let us know the population and then some knowledge of what, if any, protection is needed; then perhaps the badger might be protected. It is clear that, if the Bill is given a Second Reading it will need to be severely altered.
5.42 p.m.
LORD ZUCKERMAN: My Lords, I wish at the outset to thank my noble friend Lord Strange for allowing me to intervene very briefly. I apologise to your Lordships for my inability to be in my place throughout the debate. I have come here because this subject is of considerable interest to me. I listened interestedly to the observation that it is not enough to wait until a species has been completely decimated before we set about the problem of conservation. I heartily echo that sentiment.
I wish to stress a point that perhaps has not been made in the debate so far: I do not think it has been made, but as I have not been here throughout I cannot be certain that my remarks are not a repetition of what noble Lords have said previously. The badger is a unique animal. There is probably no other wild animal in this country which has as curious and unique a reproductive physiology as the badger; and if the badger goes, students of physiology, and particularly unique physiology, will be deprived of something extremely important. Badgers may be plentiful in some parts of the country but they have been exterminated in others.

1733
I sincerely hope that my noble friend Lord Arran's Bill will be given favourable treatment by your Lordships.
5.44 p.m.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, I congraulate my noble friend Lord Zuckerman on keeping to his word and making such a short speech. I also congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Arran, and I am sure that all noble Lords will try to ensure that his Bill goes into Committee so that we may reform it a little. I wish before going any further to congratulate the noble Duke, the Duke of Marlborough, on an excellent maiden speech. My congratulations to him are genuine because I thought he made the sort of speech that a maiden speech should be. I recall once speaking immediately following a maiden speaker who had taken an envelope from his pocket and after reading a few passages said, "I am afraid I have left the rest in my car." I congratulated him, too. But on this occasion I have pleasure in genuinely congratulating the noble Duke.
I can lay aside the vast majority, if not all, of my notes, for everything that I would have said appears already to have been said. It is clear that as we take the Bill through its further stages we shall have to "doctor" it a little, and in this connection the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, who I regret is not at present in his place, made some forceful remarks.
Let me speak first about badgers as pets. Occasionally they get run over and their pups are recovered by people who make pets of them. They should however, keep the pups for only a short time. If they are kept too long in captivity they are unable to be returned to the wild. Badgers are nocturnal creatures and it is advantageous if the keeper of badger pets is nocturnal also because that way he can have more fun with his pet. It is an advantage if the keeper also keeps a kinkajou, a charming little creature. The badger's favourite food is wild honey—honey from the wasp—while the kinkajou likes a little draft beer in a wine glass, which he drinks in a lovely manner, holding the glass to his mouth with his two little forepaws. I must issue a warning here. People who keep both a kinkajou and a badger and who sit up late at night drinking beer with the kinkajou must remember that
1734
the kinkajou, not the badger, is carried by the tail.
It might be helpful to the debate if I were to relate a few badger experiences, and I assure your Lordships that I am anxious to speak for not much longer than five minutes. My youngest daughter married an Irishman and they have a very happy marriage. When I went to see them some time ago my daughter showed me a Brock's sett; indeed, she showed it to me before showing me her new kitchen. Noble Lords will see that my daughter and I speak the same language when it comes to animals. She and her husband are no longer farming the place and they have let it to a charming gentleman who runs a stud farm and trains racehorses. I was to have gone to see my daughter and her husband last Christmas, but before going there an incident happened which I will relate to your Lordships.
The Brocks had moved their quarters from near a shed to alongside a lake, where they began to dig a considerable sett. It is worth noting that some of the horses which the charming gentleman breeds on this land are worth a lot of money; one pays several thousand pounds for a two-year-old coming up for training and one therefore does not want a hole to appear in the middle of the gallop, particularly when a horse worth that sort of money is in training. The Brocks continued to dig their sett and the holes continued to appear. The lads would fill them in by day and by night the Brocks would dig them out. The Irish being humane and kindly people, it was decided to put a fence round the Brocks' sett and leave them to it. Despite that a tragedy occurred. A brood mare, wandering at night, either stood on or kicked one of the Brocks, and the Brock died.
I move on to my visit at Christmas. When I arrived I was told that the Brocks seemed to have left their sett in the gallop and had made a sett slightly further afield. Then came the great hen mystery, which to my knowledge has never been solved. The first theory was that the Brocks had got under the chicken run and had stolen a hen. There was, however, no badger hair on the fence or any Brocks' marks; nor were there any feathers from the hen. The second theory was that a fox had got in. But if that had been the case the fox would certainly have bitten off all the heads of all the

1735
hens and tried to make off with the plumpest one in its mouth—leaving the rest in its larder, so to speak; but there was no sign of that having happened. The third theory was that the man who fed the hens was allergic to feeding them and was anxious to let the hens out. So far as I know, no conclusion has been reached and the mystery remains. In any event, the Brocks decided to go back to their sett near the lake, away from the gallop.
What I have said sums up my view of what we have been discussing to-day—namely, that anyone who ever has anything to do with Brocks, even if only to see or hear them, likes them and wants them to be preserved. That, I suggest, is what we are debating to-day.
5.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I believe that I can be very brief because my views on this matter have been expressed so ably by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, but there are probably three or four things that I should like to add. First of all, it is a good thing to maintain our wild life in so far as it is not too destructive. There are so many pressures on it to-day. Secondly, most people would agree that there are now many parts of the country which are suitable for badgers but in which there are hardly any badgers at all. To those who live in these parts of the country that is very sad. When and if by any chance we get badgers back there again, there is always the desperate fear, which is founded on experience, that they will be unnecessarily molested.
The other, and last, major point I want to make is that some people have said, "Yes, of course you can legislate, but it is not effective, and it is bad law if it is not". I dispute that fact because I believe that a great many of our laws, in fact by far the majority, are not fully enforceable. We need take only one obvious instance, that of our 30 m.p.h. and 70 m.p.h. speed limits. But I wonder how many of your Lordships would maintain that they are bad law and useless. If there is a law discouraging people at least, or making it clear to people that Parliament thinks badgers should not be killed, that will be a
1736
considerable deterrent to a number of people, preventing them from doing so. Certainly in the commercial field it will make life a great deal more difficult. Therefore I dismiss completely the argument that a Bill of this nature is bad because it would be unenforceable. I do not believe that it need be unenforceable.
Like all other noble Lords, I feel that this Bill goes much too far, but I believe it can be amended to make it a reasonable Bill. It would be the greatest pity and the greatest mistake if we did not give the Bill a Second Reading. Even if for some reason it is not thrown out at a later stage, that would not be so worrying, but if a Bill is not given a Second Reading, the implication is not so much that the Bill is necessarily a bad one but that the whole subject is a bad one. Most of us here, practically without exception, have felt, even if we do not want to legislate now, that there is a case for trying by one means or another to preserve the badger to a greater extent than at the present time. So let us give a Second Reading to this Bill, imperfect though it may be and regardless of whatever else we may decide to do later in the proceedings.
5.53 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, may I commence my remarks by adding my sincere congratulations to the noble Duke on what I thought was an excellent maiden speech. It is not so very long since I made my own and I know what one goes through on these occasions. My second duty is to confess that I am the creature, or being, which has not yet been admitted; a vested interest. I am a vested interest because not only do I have two badger setts on my land, but in one of the setts there is a rogue badger, and I may say that it is still rogueing about quite unhampered. In my part of the world, in Central Scotland, and particularly on our estate, badgers first appeared some 15 years ago. They were greeted with great delight by my late father, and no doubt many of your Lordships will know what a conservationist he was. He spent many happy hours viewing them in the moonlight. A second sett has now appeared about half a mile from the first. Nobody knows what the population is, but certainly it is increasing.

1737
I have made inquiries, because there are certain parts of this Bill which I find profoundly disturbing, first as a farmer and a landowner and secondly as a lawyer. I daresay that some of your Lordships will think that that is a terrible combination for any person. I have consulted the National Farmers' Union, the Scottish organisation of the same name, the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, the Forestry Commission, and the pests officer for the combined Counties of Angus, Perth and Fife. If your Lordships ask, "Why those three counties?", the answer is that they form the East-Central region of Scotland. Basically speaking, the reply from all those bodies and organisations is the same: that over the last ten years or so badgers are increasing, generally speaking, in Central Scotland and setts have appeared throughout the region where they have never been before. They go on to say that so far as is known no estates or farms shoot them and therefore their numbers are increasing naturally.
I tell your Lordships that because in my view in a Bill such as this it is vital to be as objective and, far more importantly, as unemotional as possible about the position. So far as the need for conservation is concerned, I respectfully ask your Lordships to accept the answer which was given in another place on January 23 and which has been quoted in your Lordships' House that Nature Conservancy, at any rate, feel that:
"badgers are generally common and widely distributed throughout Great Britain, and that the species is not endangered and does not need protection on conservation grounds." [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 23/1/73; col. 107.]
My own inquiries, plus that answer, lead me to the view—and this is my first main objection to this Bill—that there is no need for conservation on a scale which would justify so Draconian a measure as this. We must be certain in our own minds what we are trying to do. Are we trying to conserve the badger by numbers? Or are we trying to put a stop to cruelty? Or both? And I assume that the answer is, "Both". From what I have said I hope that some of your Lordships, at least, will agree with me that the first objective is not so important as perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Arran, said when he hinted that if we continued talking much longer we should talk the badger
1738
into extinction. Without, I hope, being either disrespectful or offensive, that is neither more nor less than wild exaggeration. In this matter of animals where our hearts are so large and emotions are so easily aroused, wild exaggeration is not the order of the day, or should not be. So much then for what we are trying to achieve.
The second objection which I have to this Bill is that in my view it places a quite unjustifiable series of shackles on the owners or occupiers of land, whether they be landlords, tenants, farmers or whoever they are. One has heard something of rogue badgers, and if I may be permitted to talk at this moment of my own rogue badger I would inform your Lordships that the creature dug its way underneath a wire fence where a lot of expensive hens, which lay particularly brown eggs, were nesting their young. The creature bit off the heads of the hens, who were too silly to go away, and then sucked all their eggs. It may have been hungry, or it may have thought that it was a sporting thing to do, but at any rate as the hens are very expensive it was very irking to me. It may be asked. "How do you know it wasn't a fox?". The answer is that one of my employees saw it and I trust what he said. I am bound to admit that the next night, hoping that it might repeat its tactics, he stayed up with a gun, but it did not, and the venture was fruitless.
Another matter where this Bill falls down is that badgers do build setts in the wrong place, and that has been said before. Any person who—if I may use the expression used by the police in cases of obstruction—"moves on" a badger, would be committing an offence. May I point to another difficulty which has not so far been aired in your Lordships' House? From the various authorities that I have consulted I found that there were a few cases of complaints to the pest officer of hens being decapitated on nests and eggs sucked. The most serious was a game farm where they had been so foolish as to leave a quantity of hens sitting, and there 600 eggs (I think they were partridge eggs) were sucked during the night—by one badger it is thought. There have been complaints of the taking of game birds by badgers in hedgerows.
The most curious complaint, however, which has been frequently expressed in

1739
our area, arises from the fact that the badger is a great lover of water. When the badgers make these complexes, as has been described to your Lordships, they burrow down to the nearest drain search of water and use the burrow to go and have a drink when they want one; and the inevitable result is that very soon earth blocks the drain. The farmer has no idea why his expensively drained field is suddenly pond-like once more, and it is extremely difficult to remedy the position. I do not wish to over-state the difficulties, but this curiously enough, is the most common complaint in our area about the badgers' activities. Under this Bill the farmer would have no means of doing anything about it at all, and that must be bad law. In parenthesis, I may say that much of the law which comes from the Palace of Westminster is regarded, as many of your Lordships know, as what I might call "townees' nonsense", and a Bill such as this would, I am afraid, if it became law, merit the same description.
My next point is this. In our part of the world we have a hunt which has not hunted for 150 years: it races. Therefore, if we want to get rid of foxes, which are all too prevalent, we have to adopt the other methods of control, such as shooting, or, as is very popular in our part of the world, fox snares. They are effective and cheap and, if properly supervised, they are in my view as good a method of painlessly getting rid of foxes as one can devise. If one sets an honestly put and honestly arranged fox snare and it caught a badger, then one would be liable under this Bill. That cannot be right. My third objection is that in my submission to your Lordships this way of trying to tackle a problem, if it exists, is entirely the wrong one.
I now turn to the second aim of the noble Earl, Lord Arran; that is to say, stopping cruelty to badgers. There are already in existence Acts which, if amended, would either stop any cruelty or at any rate provide a springboard for an Act that would do just that, without all the artificiality which this Bill would involve—that is, assuming that it can possibly be amended to do the job. One such Act is the protection of Animals Act 1911. I see the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, in his place,
1740
and in his presence I am somewhat diffident about quoting the law. It reminds me of something contributed by that extraordinarily entertaining writer Bernard Levin, when he was music critic of the Daily Mail. He was describing the operatic performance of a lady whose physical charms were rather better than her voice. She was, however, lucky enough to be the girl friend of an impressario who at vast expense insisted that she be given a leading role in opera, because that was her main ambition in life. Mr. Levin described her performance as "listening to someone a long way off singing through a pea-shooter." In the presence of the noble and learned Viscount, that is how I feel.
Be that is it may, Section 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Animals Act 1911 says:
"If any person shall cruelly beat, kick, ill-treat, over-ride, over-drive, over-load, torture, infuriate or terrify any animal,"
he shall be guilty of an offence. Section 1(1)(c) says that any person who
"shall cause, procure, or assist at the fighting or baiting of any animal"
shall be guilty of an offence. I appreciate that this Act does not extend to wild animals, but it could if it were amended, and the blessing of the Scott Henderson Committee, as most of your Lordships will know, was given to the taking of that course. Paragraph 406 of that Committee's Report stated:
"After very careful consideration of the evidence, therefore, we have come to the conclusion that, in general, it would be desirable to bring all wild animals within the provisions of the Protection of Animals Acts. This in itself, however, while meeting the objections of many of the animal welfare organisations as regards both cruelty in field sports and that involved in the more general methods of controlling the numbers of certain animals, might unduly discourage several very necessary activities."
Then in paragraph 407 the Report goes on:
"After careful consideration, we think that there should not be any undue restriction on any person's right to kill wild animals; but that it is not asking too much that any person exercising this right should do so with due regard to the dictates of humanity, viz., to kill without causing unnecessary suffering."
Surely, my Lords, that is precisely what the noble Earl's Bill is trying to do. In my submission, a two-clause Bill would achieve just that object, saying first that

1741
the Protection of Animals Act 1911 should apply to badgers. That would be Clause 1. Clause 2 would be a little more complicated, saying that badgers could be killed in certain circumstances, with the consent of the owner of the land, and subject to the blessing of either the Ministry of Agriculture or the Department of Agriculture for Scotland or the Nature Conservancy—it matters not. If such a Bill were adopted, it would go through your Lordships' House, I anticipate, without the hours of wrangling which we shall have when this Bill comes to Committee stage.
I am bound to say that the only clause that I regard as not requiring amendment, or perhaps being completely struck out and redrawn, is Clause 2, which relates to the sale of badgers. On that I am at variance with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. Such a provision exists in the Protection of Birds Act 1953, and it has worked very well. Otherwise, the whole of the Bill will have to be redrawn, and I am not sure that it can be amended according to the rules at all.
My Lords, I share with your Lordships a great love of animals, and badgers in particular. But I hope that what I have said—at greater length than I had intended, but I feel that it should be said—will show your Lordships that, however greathearted one is, a measure such as that proposed by the noble Earl is not always good sense. I would have hoped—and I think I am the only speaker so far to say this—that he might consider asking leave to withdraw his Bill, so that more thought can be given to the matter and a better measure produced: one which in the end might have a chance of being accepted by Parliament as a whole, and would go through more quickly. If that course does not commend itself to the noble Earl, then let us give the Bill a Second Reading; but I very much doubt whether by doing so to-night the effect that we all want finally to achieve will in fact be achieved.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, the noble Earl has a legal training and I am but a humble magistrate who often has to listen to evidence presented. At the beginning of his remarks he said that the population of his own badgers was increasing. On what evidence did he
1742
base that observation since he did not seem to have seen the badgers?
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I based it on the reports of the number of setts that have been observed by the members of the two unions concerned, the officials of the Forestry Commission, and the number of complaints, and also general remarks, which have been addressed to the pests officer.
6.10 p.m.
LORD CAMOYS: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to speak now, as I had rather a bad parachute accident on Sunday and I want to try to get home. First, I want to congratulate the noble Duke on his first and excellent speech. Secondly, I want to tell your Lordships a little about badgers. The badger is our fourth largest animal. It is common, but is becoming less common, due largely to motor accidents which we cannot avoid. There is no medical evidence—and I have been into this very carefuly—that the badger spreads disease any more than the fallow deer does. I own or control some considerable thousands of acres of land, and I have three badger setts which I observe very closely; so I can tell your Lordships something about the badger's food. Seventy-five per cent. of it is earthworms. It eats small rodents and beetles, and I agree that it will sometimes run up a hedge and take a partridge's egg just before it is due to hatch—as a sort of hors d'œuvre. If it can find a ground-nesting bird like a lark, it will take the eggs. It will certainly eat those. But, by and large (and I have my own nature reserve, to which the public have access) poor old Brock does about 95 per cent. good and, perhaps, owing to the ignorance of gamekeepers, you might say it does 5 or 10 per cent. bad.
6.12 p.m.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, may I first congratulate the noble Duke on his very well balanced and thought out speech, and also my noble friend Lord Arran on introducing this Bill. I do not want to speak for long because I am about the 19th or 20th speaker; however, I should just like to make a few observations. I consider that Mr. Brock is a good animal. He is clean. He is the only animal that I know who makes his bed every morning. He does more good than

1743
harm. He kills moles and insects and small animals, and he should be encouraged. I know that there are rogues, but in my over 20 years' experience of farming and dealing with sheep I have never had a single lamb killed by a badger. Rolling in corn may do a little damage, but it is inconsequential. Clause 2 goes into the question of offences in the protection of live badgers. I think that dead badgers, or their skins, should also be covered. I should also like to see a clause introduced into this Bill banning the sale after January 1, 1974, of shaving brushes and gimmicks manufactured from the badger.
The main point of my speech is that I have had 50 years' experience of badgers, one of the first being to go to a badger dig. I have participated in most field sports—or blood sports, if you prefer so to call them—but I have never been to another dig. It is the most disgusting form of occupation that I know. A party of men arrived with dogs at the sett. They put one of the dogs in, the dog cornered the badger, and everyone started to dig. They dug and dug, and then there were the most awful screams from the dog when the badger locked his teeth into its foot or leg. Eventually, we got down to the badger, and a pair of huge, bloodthirsty tongs were produced; the badger was drawn out with the dog's leg still in its mouth, and then it was battered on the head with a blunt instrument to kill it. The skull is very thick, and it took a great deal of killing. I never want to see that happen again. That is about all I can add to the proceedings. I do not think that there are many here who have been to a badger dig, and I thought it worthwhile bringing it to your Lordships' notice. I hope your Lordships give a Second Reading to the Bill.
6.16 p.m.
LORD BIRKETT: My Lords, I dare to trespass on your Lordships' time for a few moments even at this late stage, because the quandary I find myself in may find an echo elsewhere in your Lordships' House. As it seems to me, the noble Earl has produced a Bill of extraordinary simplicity, which says that you may not kill or capture a badger except in certain circumstances. Yet
1744
there has been considerable opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill. I confess that I am a little out of patience with opposition to a Bill on technical grounds. I am naïve in the niceties of drafting legislation, but unless somebody can produce a better Bill, or will actually put down an Amendment, I find myself very much in sympathy with the existing document. It has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that the Bill may perhaps not be necessary because the badger population in this country is not shown to be near the point of extinction. Surely we are debating whether this Bill is desirable. It exists already on paper and has existed for a very long time. It has been on my shelves for many long months.
We should beware of the attitude which led a lady in the New Zealand Parliament to produce this now immortal phrase on a conservation measure:
"This creature must never be allowed to become extinct again."
I have been much impressed also by the additional exceptions proposed for Clause 3 of the noble Earl's Bill. It has been suggested that it is quite wrong to prohibit the killing of badgers for mercy killing; quite wrong to prohibit it if—and this seems questionable—they spread disease. I was particularly impressed by the lucidity and the experience of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, on this subject, and it seems quite wrong to prevent the killing if they are endangering crops or indeed other livestock. But surely that is something that can be amended very simply at a later stage by the simple addition of sub-paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) to Clause 3 of the noble Earl's Bill. Therefore, until somebody produces either another Bill or Amendments to which perhaps the noble Earl will agree, I am inclined to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill.
In those circumstances, I should like to close by saying that this problem, the problem of cruelty to animals great or small, has existed for so much longer even than, perhaps, the animal population of this country. Over 2,000 years ago, it was Aristophanes who produced what to me is a chilling phrase:
"Boys throw stones at the frogs in sport,
"But the frogs do not die in sport, but in earnest."
6.21 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, it falls to me to sum up, and no one is less well qualified to do so than myself. I shall be very brief, because your Lordships have been most patient this afternoon and I am deeply grateful for almost all that has been said. First of all, I should like to congratulate the noble Duke, the Duke of Marlborough, who showed grace, modesty and wit. I can assure him that his point about the rogue is taken, and that if your Lordships are kind enough to give the Bill a Second Reading this evening something will have to be written into it during the Committee stage or later to cover the point. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for her successful attempt to show objectivity. She talked—I thought not altogether truthfully—about scattered persecution. I will not say that my information is better or worse than that of the noble Baroness, but I believe that persecution is fairly widespread. She spoke also of the Scott Henderson Report, which I think appeared 24 years ago and was very sketchy on badgers. It did not do so full a job on them as it did on other animals. The noble Baroness said several times that there was no evidence that persecution takes place; but the fact that there is no evidence does not necessarily mean that it is not happening. I would simply say that no evidence is not proof of non-events.
With regard to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, what am I to say? He belaboured me with questions—I am sure in the kindest possible spirit—and he left me with such a list of points that I hope he will forgive me if I do not answer them all. Because this is a case of a pigmy versus a giant—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I shall, of course, forgive the noble Earl at this late hour. Indeed, he would have to make a very lengthy speech if he did try to answer all the points I made.
VISCOUNT MONCK: My Lords, if the noble Earl will allow me to say so, there is always next Wednesday's Evening News.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, if I may say so, the noble and learned Viscount also mentioned the paper, although he did not mention the name. I was much impressed by what the noble
1746
Earl, Lord Cranbrook, whom we all respect as a naturalist, had to say. I think he takes the view that certain areas need to be covered by Statute and certain do not. He suggested that a universal Statute would have to be enforced, but that it should be left to individual areas or counties to opt out. I do not know whether or not that is good law, or whether or not such a course would be permissible, but I take note of the point, and if the noble Earl would like to support an Amendment on those lines I should be very glad.
I think there have been 15 speakers and I am afraid that I gave up after five or six, but I hope your Lordships realise that I have been very deeply touched by the concern—not for myself, but for the badger. I thank the noble and learned Earl, Lord Mansfield, for what he suggested is a simple solution. He may be right, but I do not know; his point was rather sprung on me and I do not know the Act in question. But I hope he will not think me discourteous if I still stick to my last and ask your Lordships to vote in favour of a Second Reading, on the understanding that there will be many Amendments and, indeed, that at the end the Bill may not be workable. But I should like to plug on. I have the feeling that all of your Lordships want a Bill. You may not like the way the Bill looks at the moment but you think that by manhandling it with a spanner, or something like that, it can possibly be made workable.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FURNISHED LETTINGS (RENT ALLOWANCES) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

GREECE: RESTORATION OF POLITICAL FREEDOMS
6.26 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY rose to move that, following the resolution of the North Atlantic Assembly on September 29, 1971, urging "the Governments and Parliaments of the North Atlantic Alliance to use their political influence" towards the restoration of

1747
political freedoms in Greece, this House requests Her Majesty's Government to do so. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to put this Motion to your Lordships' House, I should like, first of all, to express my thanks to the Government Whips for their courtesy and for the help which I have had in finding time for this debate. In return, I should like to do a double courtesy. First, I would inform your Lordships that towards the end of this debate I shall be asking your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Motion, because I think that what we have to say here, from all points of view, had better be left to stand by itself, rather than be in any way swamped by a Vote which might really depend upon which of one or two groups of people were better at whipping. Secondly, I have asked some of my noble friends—in the widest sense of the term—whether they would keep the debate slightly shorter than it might otherwise have been, by giving myself and others who agree with me the points that they wanted to make. I am glad to tell your Lordships that there are at least three or four noble Lords who have made this self-sacrifice, and I, in that consideration, will do my best to set your Lordships an example by keeping my speech short.
The resolution referred to in my Motion was carried by the North Atlantic Assembly in September, 1971, by 46 votes to 9 with 12 abstentions, and its text—which I am afraid is rather long, but it is very important—is as follows:
"The Assembly,
Recalling that in the past international organisations, including the European Communities and the Council of Europe, have expressed, unequivocally, the view that human rights and political freedoms in Greece have been drastically restricted;
Noting that the House of Representatives of the United States Congress has called for the right to suspend arms deliveries to Greece;
Considering that in the NATO context, the continuing political efforts of the democratic representatives from the other member states of the Alliance have not been able to convince the Greek Government of the urgency and gravity of the situation;
Recognising that Greece's membership of the North Atlantic Alliance gives Greece not only rights but also responsibilities, one of the most important being to end the political injustice which characterises Greece's internal situation;
Affirming that for parliamentarians of the countries of the Atlantic Alliance"—
1748
that is ourselves, my Lords—
"Greece not only represents a problem with respect to the moral credibility of our Alliance but also poses a question concerning the political posture of NATO;
Expresses its renewed condemnation of any repression of democratic freedoms in Greece as dangerous to the internal cohesion of the North Atlantic Alliance bearing in mind the text of the Preamble to and Article 2 of the North Atlantic Treaty;
Urges the Government in Athens to undertake, immediately, serious steps leading to the restoration of democratic freedoms;
Urges he Government in Athens to underments of the North Atlantic Alliance"—
of which we are one, my Lords—
"to use their political influence upon the Government in Athens to achieve this goal".
The stance of the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance is an alliance to preserve democracy. It is explicitly stated. The Preamble to the North Atlantic Treaty says:
"The parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments. They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisations of their peoples founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law".
The President of the United States of America—that is the present President of the United States of America—reaffirmed these ideals on the 20th anniversary of NATO in 1969 when he said:
"NATO means more than arms, troop levels, …",
and so on, but beneath it
"we touch a set of elemental ideals, eloquent in their simplicity, majestic in their humanity; ideals of decency and justice, and liberty, and respect for the rights of our fellow men".
In fact, my Lords, the Governments of NATO—at least, some of them—do not appear to be answering this call. They appear, if anything, to be encouraging the régime. Our Government themselves are seeking arms orders; British troops, on manoeuvres in Greece, have been photographed marching under National Government banners, which gets headlines in the Greek Press; there have been the visits of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, which are always given maximum publicity in the Greek Press—all, it seems, in pursuit of that peculiar principle that if you supply arms and troops and combine on manoeuvres you do not interfere with the internal affairs of the country concerned

1749
but if you refrain from doing those things you do interfere with them.
I think this is an appropriate moment when I might ask the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, whether, when she comes to speak, she would say just a word in explanation. There has been a certain amount of disquiet voiced to me by some people about the fact that the Greek Ambassador was invited to the Foreign Office yesterday, I think to see the noble Baroness, prior to this debate. Of course I am not suggesting that there was anything improper about this, but I think it would help to allay fears if the noble Baroness were to say whether this was a regular practice in similar cases; whether, in particular, this happened before the last time we debated this subject in 1969; and perhaps even what she said to the Greek Ambassador. We cannot avoid the suspicion, my Lords, that in this Governmental reinforcement of what goes on in Greece—and I am talking about not only our Government but other NATO Governments—the political complexion of the Junta has a certain effect. Madame Vlachas, that extremely eminent and respected Conservative newspaper-owner now living in this country, said the other day:
"If it had been the Left that had shattered the peaceful life of Greece, if it had imprisoned, beaten up and tortured thousands and muzzled the Press and deprived the Greek people of all their rights, then the West would have come to our rescue. They would have remembered alliances and signatures, our battles, our wars and our traditions"
Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that once already since the war that has happened, and we have—
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? If he says that, then why do we not go to the help of Hungary or Czechoslovakia or Poland? With due respect, the noble Lord is talking drivel—complete drivel.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, there is an immense difference which the noble Viscount, who accuses me of talking drivel, may not have particularly noticed himself. He may not have noticed that we are not in fact in alliance with Hungary and these other countries; that we are not in fact tied with them in an alliance to defend
1750
democracy. If we were, I would say exactly the same things about them; but we are not. We are involved in a democratic alliance, and I am speaking of this in terms of the North Atlantic Treaty, as I think my Motion makes entirely clear.
LORD SUDELEY: My Lords, perhaps I may also ask the noble Lord a question. Why, then, should we not do the same with Portugal as he suggests we should with Greece?
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I certainly think we should. In the debate on December 9, 1969, the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, who I think is to speak later in this debate, said at column 526:
"To conclude, my Lords, should we therefore not trust and support Greece, our ally and friend, and leave the timing, procedures and machinery involved in a stable return to Parliamentary democracy to the Greek Government?"
I shall be interested to hear from the noble Lord how far he thinks there has been a return to democracy and a turn from oppression in the three and a half years since that debate, during which, on the whole, the timing, the procedures and the machinery involved have been left to the Greeks. The Junta say that they want to return to democracy, but many dictators and oligarchies have said this, from Caesar Augustus onwards. Some people say that this regime is less bad than some dictatorships. But, my Lords, Augustus gave way to Tiberius, and Tiberius to Caligula. The saving grace of democracies, however bad they are, is that they always have the seeds of reform in them. The trouble with dictatorships is that they carry the seeds of further corruption.
We are told that Greece is necessary to the defence of NATO. There are many of us who have considerable doubts about this, and I shall listen with particular interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, I suspect, has to say on this subject: because so many of the most senior and most respected officers of the armed forces have been purged out; there is an inter-Service rivalry, whereby the Junta is not supported by the Navy or the Air Force, on the whole; there is a real internal security problem, and in any case of crisis there would be an even

1751
greater one. I would ask what kind of use Greece would in fact be as an ally in a situation like this. But in any case, whatever the answer to that question, I should like to quote the Manifesto issued by a number of very brave and eminent Greek people on the occasion of the 150th Anniversary of Independence, in which they said:
"It is inadmissible that the liberties and the dignity of the Greeks should be sacrificed to the alleged defence requirements of other free nations".
My Lords, I shall listen with great interest to what your Lordships have to say on this important issue. My major task in opening the debate is to ask that we do not underrate it. Ralph Dahrendorf, that extremely able and one of the most brilliant Western liberal democrats, one of the Commissioners at Brussels, said in one of his latest books:
"I concur with the common belief that the struggle between free societies and totalitarian societies is the dominant issue of political conflict in our time".
I would conclude with some words written by Sir Robert Fraser, the ex-Director General of the I.T.A., in a slightly different context which speak for what I should like to say both from my head and from my heart:
"Only a very few people for a very brief time have been able to govern themselves, a tiny proportion of the world's population for a tiny proportion of the centuries of history. I see that even today democracy, a word that half the world has stolen and other parts do not even bother to appropriate, is safely and successfully practised by only a small group of nations. …
"This has deepened my sense that self-government is the happiest of all human achievements, but also my sense that it is a rare flower of man's total accomplishment, and that those of us who tend it had better be conscious not only of its beauty, for human freedom is beautiful, and in danger if we do not feel it to be so, but also, in the long tides of history, of its fragility."
My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That, following the resolution of the North Atlantic Assembly on September 29, 1971, urging "the Governments and Parliaments of the North Atlantic Alliance to use their political influence towards the restoration of political freedoms in Greece, this House requests Her Majesty's Government to do so.—(Lord Beaumont of Whitley.)
6.41 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for creating the opportunity for us to take part in a debate that without doubt will prove to be of great itnerest. It may be convenient to your Lordships if I speak on behalf of Her Majesty's Government early in the debate and then, if given leave by your Lordships, endeavour to reply at the end. This debate is evidence, if we need it, of the deep and continuing interest in Greece which exists in Britain. This is hardly surprising in view of the many links—intellectual, cultural, historical and personal—which bind our countries together. Not only do we owe an enormous debt to the civilising influence of Greek thought, but many of our own countrymen fought with the Greeks in their War of Independence. We have of course also been allies in two World Wars. It is, therefore, inevitable, in a debate of this kind, that feelings should be deeply held. Too many members of this House know and care about Greece for it to be otherwise.
Before discussing the Motion before the House, I should like to reply at once to the direct question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, when he asked me why it was that I invited His Excellency the Greek Ambassador to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and what it was I said to him. May I say that I should find it most surprising for any Minister in any Department to reveal confidential talks. May I also say that His Excellency the Greek Ambassador called on me at his own request as a courtesy call, as he had recently arrived in London.
The noble Lord's Motion refers to the North Atlantic Assembly's resolution of September, 1971, urging Governments and Parliaments to use their political influence towards the restoration of political freedoms in Greece and urges Her Majesty's Government to do so. But it must surely be clear that since 1970—not September, 1971—Her Majesty's Government have consistently stated in Parliament and to the Greek Government how much we should welcome the early restoration of true democracy. My noble friend Lord Carrington, when he

1753
said just this to the Greek Prime Minister and the Greek Deputy Prime Minister in Athens last September, also made clear that the question of political prisoners was one which caused deep concern in this country. Therefore the policy of Her Majesty's Government is of much longer standing than the date in the Motion before the House, and I am glad to hear that the noble Lord will seek leave to withdraw it at the end of the day.
Also, whatever one's feelings, Greece is a sovereign independent State, and it is not for us to try to dictate to the Greek Government how to run their internal affairs. After all, we should resent any appearance of intervention in our own domestic affairs. Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Greece since June, 1970, has therefore been to work for constructive relations with Greece as a NATO ally.
We have consistently argued that it would not be helpful to discuss the internal situation in Greece in the NATO forum, still less to call in question Greek membership of the Alliance. Perhaps I should recall to noble Lords that the previous Administration also opposed action against Greece in NATO. It would prejudice the security of the Alliance without bringing any benefit to the Greek people. The noble Lord argued that Greek membership of NATO is incompatible with the requirements of the NATO Treaty. I do not think I can do better than to remind your Lordships of the words spoken in a debate in the other place on December 16, 1969, when the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said:
"Action against Greece in NATO would not necessarily help the Greek people but would undermine the security of the South-East flank of NATO, thus putting at risk democratic ideals and Parliamentary institutions on a scale far wider than Greece."
So our policy is guided by a rational assessment of British and Western interests in Greece and the Mediterranean. Greece occupies a strategic position of importance and Greek membership of NATO is necessary for the stability of the whole southern flank.
Any weakening on the flank of NATO would be particularly unfortunate in present circumstances. In the strategic
1754
field the relatively recent Soviet military presence in the Mediterranean has added a new dimension to the problems inherent in the area. In the political field, Western Governments are already involved in preparatory talks in Helsinki with the Eastern European countries and the uncommitted countries of Europe on a possible Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. There are also the exploratory discussions in Vienna on mutual and balanced force reductions. These developments are welcome as well as very important. We discussed them in some detail in our debate following the Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, last week. But while we shall continue to work for a lowering of tension and improved relations throughout Europe, we believe that the cohesion and solidarity of NATO remain of paramount importance to those ends, as well as in their own right.
We believe that the entry of Britain into the Common Market offers great opportunities for British businessmen in Greece and we hope that they will grasp them. This has no implications in terms of our political relations with the Greek Government: we believe that trade and politics should not be confused. It is a view which I think was shared by the previous Administration because they invited the Greek Minister for Industry on an official visit to Britain in 1969. That is why I say that I think we do have good commercial relations with Greece. Her Majesty's Government are working hard to promote British trade interests. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, mentioned the official visit to Greece by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department of Trade and Industry, the noble Earl, Lord Limerick. I am sure that it was right that he should undertake that visit in this context.
The Greek Government knows perfectly well that Anglo-Greek relations would undoubtedly improve with the restoration of democracy in Greece. I would suggest to all noble Lords who are to take part in this debate that the present balanced policy of Her Majesty's Government is more likely in the long run to serve not only British interests but those of Greece and of the Western world as a whole.

1755
I hope that the House will agree that the decision how best to use influence to bring about the desire for the restoration of democratic processes in Greece is one that must be left to the judgment of Her Majesty's Government.
6.50 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I would support this Motion for the following reasons. For some years all over the world there has been what I think is a tragic increase in the use of physical force and an increase by totalitarian Governments of the considered practice of the torture of their political opponents. Owing to the action of some brave writers we know now what has been going on in the forced labour camps of Russia and their new, revolting practice of incarcerating in mental hospitals those who do not agree with the Party line, on the ground that if they do not agree with the Party line they must obviously be in need of psychiatric treatment. The degree of torture which is carried out in Brazil is well known. In November, 1969, the European Commission on Human Rights, on massive evidence, found that there was:
"An administrative practice of torture in Greece."
As we all know, in consequence Greece would have been expelled from the Council of Europe if they had not, perhaps wisely, resigned.
I cannot for myself for one moment accept, if I may respectfully say so, the view put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, that anyone who cares for human rights can take up the position to-day that so long as a Government tortures only its own citizens, that is a domestic matter with which nobody else is concerned. In fact, of course, the European Commission was concerned with all its members. I should say, having during the war been in Belsen concentration camp within a few days of its being taken, that I regret now that before the war I was not as vocal as I should have been about what was going on in Hitlerite Germany.
In June of last year several non-Governmental organisations accredited to the United Nations delivered to the appropriate body there a massive dossier, supported by due statements and affidavits, of the tortures which were then being
1756
employed in three countries of which Greece was one. I see in to-day's Times at page 6 a statement dealing with Mr. Alexandros Panagoulis. The Times states:
"According to reliable reports, Alexandros is kept in a specially built unlit cement 'tomb' without running water and has been repeatedly tortured."
My Lords, in June, and again in October, I was in Athens and had long discussions with many who had recently been tortured in the prisons of Greece. Perhaps I should explain how this came about. Early in the year I had been invited to go there in May to deliver a lecture on human rights and I had accepted that invitation, while explaining that I should not attack the Government of Greece and I would decline to have a Press conference. In fact, the speech was not delivered for reasons I will explain, but in my speech I would have said:
"I would like to say that I have not come here to attack the Greek Government. My reasons are, first, that I am a visitor to your country; secondly, that I know of no country in the world to-day which has an unblemished record in the field of human rights and, thirdly, that it is for the citizens of every country to do what they can to secure the observance of human rights in their own country; and as circumstances vary in each country I do not think that it is for a foreigner to loll people of another country what they ought to do. I would only add, I think, that in every country there is a special onus on lawyers to take the lead in seeking to uphold the rule of law and human rights."
My Lords, the society I was to address was a society called the Society for the Study of Greek Problems. It was a society mainly of intellectuals who were ordinary democrats and therefore, naturally, opposed to the Colonels' Government, while naturally taking care not to say or do anything which was illegal. The three principal officers of the society were Professor Pesmazoglu, well known in this country as a Professor of Economics and former Deputy Governor of the Bank of Greece, the man who negotiated the economic terms on which Greece was to become an associated country of the Common Market; Mr. Peponis, a former Director-General of the Greek Radio and Professor Koumandos, a well-known Professor of Law. They had previously been addressed in Athens by, for example, Monsieur Jean Ray, who had been President of the European Community, and the well-known German author, Mr. Gunther Grasse. I had, of course, advised

1757
the Foreign Secretary and our Ambassador in Athens of my visit. The night before I was due to leave the Foreign Office rang up and told me that the Colonels had that day obtained an order from the Greek court declaring the society an illegal society as having gone beyond their objects, and the three officers of the society had been forcibly deported to villages in the North of Greece for a year. They had not, of course, been charged with anything, or had any opportunity of saying anything at all.
My Lords, I imagine that the Colonels thought that in those circumstances I should not go. But I do not react very well to that sort of thing, so I went. I thought it right to see the three officers, with the permission of the Government, which they gave. I motored altogether 600 miles in Greece to these rather inacessible villages, over roads where your first puncture is not the trouble; it is when you get the second puncture before you have mended the first that there is trouble. The officers of the society were not allowed outside the last houses in the village. At the same time the Government obtained a similar order from the court dissolving the students' union because they wanted to elect their own officers instead of having officers appointed by the Colonels, and some of them also had been deported. All these people were given an allowance of 17 drachmas a day, which is not even enough to pay the rent of the accommodation that they were forced to occupy. There is, of course, no social welfare in Greece. In those circumstances you can live only with the support of your family.
While in Greece I saw the last legal Prime Minister, more than one former Minister of Justice and judges. As the House may know, after about a year the Colonels dismissed about 30 judges who had given decisions that the Colonels did not like. I suppose that the first principal rule of law is closely bound up with the independence of the Judiciary. They included Mr. Sartzetarkis, the judge in the film Z. He appealed to the Conseil d'Etat and the Conseil d'Etat ruled that his removal from the Bench was contrary to the Constitution and made an order that he should be restored to his position. The only result of that was that the
1758
Colonels dismissed the Chairman of the Conseil d'Etat.
I went back in October to hear the appeal of the society. This was obviously useless. The main evidence against them was that at previous lectures people had smiled and had appeared to be enjoying the lectures. It was not suggested that anything was said in the lectures or printed in any publication of the society which was in any way subversive. It was a curious form of appeal, because although affidavits were admissible, the society was limited to one oral witness only. The questions were all hostile questions. They were told, "Your objects include studies; that means reading books in libraries. There is nothing in your objects clause about lectures, so you should not have had any lectures." Then they were told, "Your objects include research. Who did research? You should have submitted the result to the Colonel in charge of education for him to decide whether it was right." On both occasions I met members of all political Parties. On both occasions I met and had long talks with those who had recently been tortured. Had any Member of your Lordships' House been there I do not believe that he would have had the slightest doubt that they were telling the truth.
My Lords, it has been said that the Red Cross in some report have cleared the Colonels' Government of torture. This, as I understand it, arose because the American Ambassador made some statement, or is reported to have made a statement, that during the year 1970 to 1971 when the Red Cross were given access to prisoners in Greece they found no evidence of systematic torture. The International Commission of Jurists have issued the following statement with regard to that matter. They say: Well, we all know that it is not the practice of the Red Cross to publish their reports. They submit them privately to the Governments concerned. They go on to say:
"It is, however, within our knowledge that the Red Cross delegates did make a number of reports of accounts they had received of torture of political prisoners and copies of these reports were sent to the Greek Government:
It is not for the Red Cross, which is not a judicial or quasi-judicial body, to make an assessment whether there was systematic torture. The European Commission of Human

1759
Rights made a finding in November 1969 that there was an 'administrative practice' of torture in Greece.
The agreement of the Greek Government, empowering the Red Cross to visit all places of detention, was operative only during the year after this finding of the European Commission. All available information indicates that torture of prisoners in Greece was at its lowest level during this year. It is in itself significant that the Greek Government refused to renew the agreement, and it confirms the need for humanitarian action of the kind carried out by the Red Cross.
Apart from the evidence published today, we have received other statements showing that the torture of Greek prisoners is continuing up to the present day. We are unable to publish these statements at present owing to the danger involved for the persons who made them.
We have evidence that when the Red Cross asked to see prisoners who had allegedly been tortured on several occasions, they were frequently moved to other prisons to avoid the Red Cross being able to see them."
The reference to "the evidence published today" consisted of a signed statement by 54 political prisoners in Korydallos Prison in Athens. It was brought out of prison on October 3 and refers mainly to the torture of Wing-Commander Minis. Wing-Commander Minis was a hero of the Second World War. He fought in the Battle of Crete, and was wounded at Alamein. He was later dropped into occupied Greece, where he joined the underground resistance, and was decorated by both the Greek and British Governments. When he was arrested in April,
"Wing-Commander Minis made to the examining magistrate of the military court a full confession of the offence for which he had been arrested. He admitted that he had manufactured and placed near the French Embassy an explosive (which caused no personal injury). This was done as a protest against a visit by a prominent personality from abroad. After the examination, Wing-Commander Minis was returned to the civilian prison to await trial. On June 15 he was illegally removed by the military police and taken to the interrogation centre at their headquarters. He was detained there for 111 days, believed to be the longest period that any prisoner has been continuously held there. There can have been no purpose in taking him there other than for interrogation, and the wholly exceptional period for which he was detained is itself evidence that he was not a willing or co-operative subject for interrogation".
Mr. Sartzetarkis himself was later arrested. He was kept in prison for over a year. No proceedings were taken against him. He was then released.
Of course, although I could do so, I am in difficulty in relating what any specific
1760
person has told me. Bearing in mind, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has reminded us, that the preamble to the Treaty confirms the determination of the parties to safeguard the
"freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples founded on the principles of democracy"—
there is none in Greece—
"individual liberty"—
there is none in Greece—
"and the rule of law"—
which plainly does not exist in Greece; and that Article 2 enjoins on us the
"obligation to aim at strengthening the free institutions"
I must say I have the greatest difficulty in understanding how we can properly continue with Greece as a member of NATO. If we had a Communist country which was a member of NATO, on the ground that it was willing to join NATO and it was convenient for us, I suppose that would be equally acceptable. Whether it is Communist or Fascist, I cannot see that it makes any difference. I cannot believe, though I bow to those with more military knowledge than I have, that we cannot defend democracy without a country of this kind being a member.
I found in Athens that the Americans are already at the moment very unpopular there, as of course always happens when you have foreign troops in a country. It may be convenient that the Greeks should have 25 Phantoms, as I think does Turkey also; but if there was an attack by Communist countries on the West, does anybody really imagine that that is going to make the slightest difference? In view of the support which the Colonels are now giving to Colonel Grivas, as against Bishop Makarios, is it perhaps more likely that the 25 Greek Phantoms and the 25 Turkish Phantoms will be used in a war against one another? Western democracy, I feel, must indeed be in a sad way if it is not possible to defend it without allies of that kind.
7.7 p.m.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, I felt that I must take part in the debate on this Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley (and I thank him for the opportunity), not because of my natural philhellenic feelings or my classical education at Oxford

1761
but because of my recent contact with present-day Greece and a sense of lack of fairness on the part of the Western nations of Europe, due perhaps to a want of understanding on their part of the realities of present-day Greece. My family connection dates back many years. I knew the great Venizelos. I did lessons with the widow of the young Venizelos, the sometime Liberal Prime Minister; and I remember with pleasure and interest a long talk I had with the present Prime Minister, Mr. Papadopoulos, in 1970, and I came away with a very strong impression of his patriotism and his personal integrity. I have to weigh that personal feeling against the personal feeling I get when I hear accounts that a certain lady who has written a book recently gives on hearsay evidence of what happens in Greek prisons. When people talk of torture I think they ought to be a little careful, because in the public mind torture means the tearing off of finger nails, burning with cigarettes and things of that sort. Some forms of interrogation which we used in Ireland were described as torture, which I believe was making people stand for some period of time. Of course one does not wish to have that either, but one must not give the public an exaggerated feeling of what torture conveys when you talk of it in this context.
While I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, because I am sure of his desire to see Greece back among the community of Western European nations, I cannot agree with his Motion, because I think it shows a lack of understanding of the actual circumstances in which the change of Government took place and the results which have ensued. I think we are also inclined to forget that present-day Greece is a new country. Greek independence was born and became a matter of European interest after the battle of Navarino, won by our Admiral Codrington against the Turks.
Modern Greece is not a reproduction of Classical Greece and its present geographical boundaries are very recent indeed. There is a sort of obstinate conviction, I feel, that because in classical days the Athenians invented democracy in a very small town and enjoyed it for a very short time, it is a form of ethnic suicide that Greece has not pursued exactly the same pattern. Perhaps I may just remind your Lordships of the Greek
1762
history in two very short sentences. We forget Alexander the Great; the Roman Imperium; the Byzantine Hegemony; the piracies of the Crusades; the invasion of the Turks; the First World War; the shambles in Asia Minor and the sack of Smyrna (with the resulting transfer of almost half a million Greeks to the homeland); the Second World War with the German occupation; the subsequent sanguinary civil war, the to-ing and fro-ing of their non-indigenous kinds; and the persistent interference of the European Powers, whether English, French, Russian or American. The historic tides which have swept over Greece make one wonder how Greece has managed to survive at all.
Changes in the form of Government are endemic in Greek politics. I have learnt from a recently published book that between 1922 and 1936 there took place 19 changes of Government, three changes of régime and seven military revolutions. This kind of cataclysmic history explains a certain instability in the Greek character so far as politics are concerned. One must add to all this the disintegrating effect of the geographical layout of the country. The continent of Greece, as your Lordships know, is very mountainous in the North, and its fingers stretch out somewhat spastically into the sea and take in a number of islands, each with its own history and ethnic background. Who are we to say how this difficult country is to be governed? Have we really made such a success ourselves of Northern Ireland?—because at the moment we are very much in trouble about things happening there that have happened also in Greece. I do not think we have a right to dictate to any nation what its Government should be. What Greece needs above all is a period of stability, which she has enjoyed far too rarely in her history. She is getting that at present, with a promise to return to a system of elected Government which I have personally been given and which I believe will take place. But when that is to be, surely, it is for Greece to say—
LORD KENNET: My Lords, when was the noble Baroness given it?
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: In 1970, my Lords. After all, we have elections only every four or five years, and this is only three years. Meanwhile,

1763
I hope that the Press and the mass media in this country will cease to base their information on hearsay and use only firsthand information. For example, in a book recently published by a certain lady, most of her accusations, if not all of them, were based on hearsay. The author did not stay very long in Greece and during the short time she was there she was incommunicado, and she has since been back in this country. I believe that if the mass media and the Press do in future base their information not on hearsay but on knowledge, they will then find that the "thousands" of prisoners—a phrase so often bandied about—can he resolved now into some 300, and the majority of those were convicted of criminal violence. Military tribunals have been abolished, except in Athens, and I hope very much that these, too, will go soon. The Press has been liberalised and a large amount of civilian expertise has been taken into the Government. The so-called "Colonels" gave up their military rank many years ago. Incidentally, I am rather sorry that there should be this sort of smear on a very respectable Army rank. Nobody has ever thought that General de Gaulle should not have kept his title. I believe that our present Prime Minister is a Colonel. I cannot see anything wrong with people being Colonels; but in any case the Greek Colonals gave up their rank quite a long time ago.
I should like to give your Lordships these very few figures, if I may. During the present régime, Greece has witnessed a rapid and steady growth in national production and income—among the highest in the world. The G.N.P. in 1970 was 8·1; in 1971 it was 7·2; the rate for 1972 is not yet known. The G.N.I. in 1970 was 7·6; in 1971 it was 7·6; and in 1972 it went up to 8·5. Unemployment has dropped dramatically from 83,500 in 1967 to 30,040 in 1971. The gross tonnage of shipping has doubled. The balance of trade has nearly doubled also. The Greek percentage of armed forces to population places her in second place among NATO countries, Greece has retained conscription because she has the longest border (other than Western Germany) to defend against Communist countries. She is, however, on good terms with her Communist neighbours
1764
and also with Turkey, and has strongly deprecated any violence in Cyprus. The position and policy of Greece in the Eastern Mediterranean has already been dealt with by the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, and really needs no stressing. If I have emphasised some of the other points, it is because I believe we have been less than fair to the present régime.
I appreciate the feelings of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, from the legal point of view. I am sorry that there have probably been mistakes there—because there always are at the beginning of a revolution—but I believe that even there one can understand that this country is being reconstituted, and that takes a little time. It may well be that in the meantime (as in Northern Ireland, for instance) some things on the legal side have not been such as we should have liked them to be. I believe that this Greek Government is a transitional one and that it will resolve itself by degrees into a pattern which will fit better into the E.E.C. and therefore make Article 138 of the Treaty of Rome applicable. I suggest that it is not for us, or for any other country, to dictate to Greece when or how this transition should take place. Meanwhile I believe that friendship, understanding and trading will do far more good than reviling, criticising and pushing people aside.
7.18 p.m.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, although I disagree with much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, has said, I would echo the tribute which she paid—a tribute, which was also paid by the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir— of our indebtedness to Greek civilisation and Greek culture, and our appreciation of the wonder of the re-emergence of Greece after centuries of slavery just over 150 years ago. Politicians of the extreme Right are inclined to be indignant about totalitarian régimes of the Left; but at the same time they are less concerned where there are dictatorships of the Right. The converse is equally true: Left-wing politicians are often silent, with some honourable exceptions, about totalitarian Left-wing régimes but protest with fervour against Right-wing dictatorships. Examples may be seen in the differing attitudes of the Right and the Left to, say, the tragic suppression of freedom and

1765
independence in Czechoslovakia not so long ago and the persecution of intellectuals like Solzhenitsyn, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, by the Soviet Union on the one hand, and on the other hand the denial of elementary political rights by the regimes of Spain, Rhodesia and South Africa. The truth, however, is that there is only one freedom. Freedom, as Litvinov said of peace, is indivisible. There is one true conception of the worth of the human person, and that is enshrined in the Charter of Human Rights. We have to concede that the free countries of the world have to co-exist with nations whose citizens do not enjoy the freedoms that we so often take for granted, often forgetting the sacrifices of the Servicemen in two wars that preserved for us those freedoms.
We have also to concede that power politics often prevent us from refusing to accept what we are too weak to alter. But there are times when there are special reasons which make it our duty to declare our faith in freedom, and to protest against its denial to our fellow human beings. What is happening in Greece is just one such special case, as I hope to show, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and to Her Majesty's Government, for providing us with an opportunity to talk a little about the régime of the Colonels.
We believe in NATO, in the defence by the free countries of the world of freedom itself. The Preamble to the North Atlantic Treaty affirms the determination of the nations concerned,
"to safeguard the freedom, the common heritage and civilisations of their people founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law".
Article 2 of that Charter enjoins on the Parties the obligation, "of strengthening their free institutions". It is against that concept of NATO that we must examine what has happened in Greece in recent years, for Greece is a member of NATO and in theory, at any rate, accepts the principle that I have quoted.
I speak as one who, during a long life, has made many visits to Greece; one who loves the Greek people, one who, like every scholar, owes so much to the glory that was Greece. I went there some years ago in the last days of democracy in Greece as Speaker of the House of Commons. There was at the time a fairly Right Wing Government in
1766
power. A general election was in the offing. It seemed that the Conservative, or perhaps Liberal-Conservative Prime Minister, Mr. Kanellopoulos, war-time hero and Greek representative of the Resistance Movement at an Allied conference during the war in Alexandria, would lose the election, and that the next Prime Minister would be the Left Wing Mr. Papandreou, also a hero of the Resistance Movement. It was soon after that, on April 21, 1967, that a group of Army officers seized power and the freedom was abolished, at least for the time being, in one day. There was no general election.
I recently had a discussion in London with a distinguished Greek Army Officer, who supports the régime of the Colonels. To him the issue is simple. He believes the Army struck to prevent the Communists from taking over Greece. He had fought them in the civil war; he had fought against the Germans in World War Two. He was utterly sincere. But the Communists had been beaten, thoroughly beaten, in the civil war which had ended a number of years before. What was at stake in the general election was not whether the Communists would take over, but whether a democratic Government of the Right would be replaced by a democratic Government of the Left. It had happened before. To me, the excuse of the Colonels matches that of the Soviet Union when it claimed it was preventing a counter-revolution when it overthrew the more Liberal Communist, Dubcek. Both excuses are equally specious both of them equally false.
If any proof were needed of this, it can be found in the fact that one of the first men arrested by the Colonels was Prime Minister Kanellopolous, friend of many British soldiers in the war. Later, Helen Vlachos, now in England, a true-blue Conservative and editor of Tory newspapers in Athens, found her newspapers destroyed and taken from her. Both of these people, like another distinguished friend of mine, Speaker Papaspyrou, who has been in and out of prison these past few years, are opposed, as we are, to tyranny from the Right or from the Left. What they want, and what I believe most of the Greek people want, is what we have, and what they have temporarily lost—a free Parliamentary democracy. Mr. Christopher Woodhouse,

1767
a Member of Parliament, who played a noble part in the Greek resistance struggle in the war against the Nazis, has written:
"The communist conspiracy has long been exploded as a myth."
On March 6, 1969, Colonel Papadopoulos himself said, "We had few communists in our country.".
In 1959 the American Assistant Secretary of State, writing to some fifty Congressmen who were troubled about America's attitude to the Greek régime, set out the American problem clearly:
"This then, is the dilemma … how to deal with an ally with whose internal order we disagree, yet who is a loyal NATO partner working closely with the United States in furtherance of the purposes and obligations of the NATO Treaty."
I believe there is no such dilemma. Free Greece has been a loyal NATO member, and free Greece will again carry out its NATO obligations even more than the Colonels are doing at the moment, especially as those obligations include the preservation of human rights.
As it is, the régime of the Colonels, supported by America, has been condemned by an investigating committee of the Council of Europe, and Greece resigned from the Council to avoid being expelled from it. The report of that investigating Committee makes distressing reading and would make even the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, dissent from some of the things that she said. The former Speaker, Mr. Papaspyrou, one of the noblest men I have ever met in my life, himself made a speech before the NATO Parliamentarians some two or three years ago, protesting, on the one hand, against the lack of freedom in Greece, but also expressing the passionate desire of Greece to carry out its NATO Treaty obligations.
Political resistance in Greece is largely and understandably underground. I admire the courage of those who still dare to make open protest in Greece. I deplore violence, as do my democratic friends in Greece, but one must also equally deplore the system to which the noble and learned Lord, the former Lord Chancellor, referred in his speech. Evidence of this is in The Times this morning, that Panagoulis has been in solitary confinement since 1968 in a specially built unlit cement tomb without running water in a military prison, where
1768
he has been repeatedly tortured. Nothing can justify that.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to speak? This report comes from a certain lady.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, there is no indication in The Times that the information is from the lady. I do not know whether or not it is Lady Fleming to whom the noble Baroness is referring. I said that political resistance is underground, but there are striking signs of what the Greek people really believe. On November 3, 1968, there was the funeral of the man who might have been Prime Minister, Mr. Papandreou. That day there was a demonstration of citizens in Athens of a number which has been estimated as something between 300,000 and 500,000 citizens, crying: "We want freedom! We want elections!" And in September, 1971, at the funeral of the famous Greek poet and Nobel Peace Prizewinner—how dictatorships hate Nobel Peace Prize-winners!—George Seferis, something like 100,000 Greeks demonstrated in a token of resistance against the Greek Government.
My Lords, I believe that international pressure is not without its effect on the Greek Government. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, speaks out boldly and consistently, as the noble Baroness has done to-day, on our desire that Greece will return to democratic Government. I do not share the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, that we want Greece outside NATO. We want her in. The Greek people are our friends. They are freedom-lovers. The word "democracy" and the very idea of democracy they gave to the world over 2,000 years ago. The funeral oration of Pericles to the Atheneans has been a beacon light to those searching for just Government, for something to live for, something even to die for. After centuries they won freedom from the Turks. They fought against heavy odds against the Nazis in the Second World War. It was my privilege to meet in the Isle of Crete individual civilians, sole survivors of civilian families who had been shot by the Nazis for joining the resistance movement. My Lords, a noble Lord went a

1769
long time ago from this House and this country to become the most famous Englishman in the minds and hearts of all Greeks until Churchill came to share that fame; and the noble Lord, Lord Byron, wrote:
"The mountains look on Marathon
And Marathon looks on the sea
And musing there an hour alone
I dreamt that Greece might still be free."
I would hope that this debate will convey to our friends the Greek people and to the Greek Government, the desire that Greece may return to the fold of free people.
7.33 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I am quite sure that most Greeks, or all Greeks, will be very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, brought into this debate the name of Lord Byron. In fact, I happened to be in Missolonghi in October, 1971, and was at the foot of the statue of Lord Byron, and am therefore very conscious of the strong feeling the Greeks have for Lord Byron. To turn to the Motion, it refers to "the restoration of political freedoms in Greece" and urges political influence by Governments and Parliaments of NATO countries to that end. Governing a country seems to me to involve priorities, and I think that also should include the government of Greece. It can be said, I think, that politics and economics go hand in hand and also that economic issues inevitably shade into political issues. At the outset I should therefore like to refer to that country's, Greece's, stability and economic growth—certainly matters, I think, if taken with the question of the standard of living of the people, which affect the man in the street as much as, if not more than, the issue of the immediate restoration of political freedoms.
If one starts off by considering a preceding similar period of time to that during which the present Greek Government has been in power, there were, one sees, 13 different Governments in Greece. Surely stability and continuity of purpose appear only remotely possible when a Government is in power for only a matter of months. Imaginative implementation of long-term plans in the economic field is certainly difficult to achieve. Combined with an intelligent overall economic strategy, these things have now been
1770
realised, however, by the present Government. The signs are—and I think they are certain—that at the end of five years the position of the Greek economy is stronger than it has been for quite some time. The period from 1968 to 1972 saw an average annual rate of increase in in the gross national income of about 7·5 per cent.—one of the highest rates ever recorded in Greece. In fact, recently the Financial Times carried an article headed, "Economic Oscars—The 1972 Awards—Best All Round Performance" and I quote:
"The high incomes countries' award goes to Greece for attaining a growth rate of 8½ per cent. alongside a strong payments position and an exceptionally close approach to monetary stability."
LORD BETHELL: My Lords, I wonder whether I might interrupt my noble friend for a moment. I wonder whether he is aware that Mr. Henry Tasker, the United States Ambassador in Greece, said last year to a sub-committee of the United States Congress:
"I think the economic situation of Greece is not the result of the policy the Colonels followed. I think it is the result of the policies that were followed by Karamanlis, who did a very brilliant job on the economic side."
Mr. Tasker is not usually known as a dyed-in-the-wool supporter but a dyed-in-the-wool opponent of the Colonels' régime.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bethel, that some of the groundwork for economic development was laid by the Administrations prior to April 21, 1967, but it is in effect the present Government which gave it dynamism and carried it through to the point it has reached now.
Referring to the O.E.C.D. Economic Survey on Greece of last November, under the heading "Price/Wage Policy", it says:
"Greece's favourable inflationary performance throughout the recent phase of generalised inflation abroad no doubt owes much to the policies pursued on the wage/price front."
Other encouraging signs come, for instance, under the heading "Capital Imports". To quote two: Foreign exchange deposits and real estate investments. These have increased steadily between 1967 and 1970 with a steep increase in 1971.

1771
With reference to Greece's banking system, it is interesting to note en passant that out of seven foreign banks established there, five have established themselves during the last five years. Consider shipping, my Lords, even more important than tourism as a source of foreign exchange. That has expanded rapidly over the past several years. My noble friend Lady Emmet gave some figures in that respect. Tourism, with its particularly good prospects, increased its foreign exchange earnings from around £50 million in 1968 to approximately £170 million in 1972. Industry, according to the O.E.C.D. Survey, has also expanded rapidly over the last few years, aided by Government policies. On the wages front, according to a London Chamber of Commerce publication, Commerce International, Government controlled wages have been rising at a rate of some 10 per cent. per annum without reaching the point of affecting the overall pattern of prices. The purchasing power of the country has in fact remained good. An interesting table can be found in last September's Monthly Economic Letter of the First National City Bank, which shows the following comparative indexes of value of money—
LORD KENNET: My Lords, before the noble Lord reads out any indexes, although the House is always most catholic about relevance I wonder whether the noble Lord is soon coming to the Motion, which speaks not of economic performance but of political freedoms?
LORD MERRIVALE: Yes, my Lords, but as I was saying, politics and economics are very closely linked, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will know and what I am trying to show in effect is that—
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, is the noble Lord disagreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, or the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, who said that business and politics were completely distinct?
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, let whichever noble Baroness it was speak for herself. What I am saying is that in effect politics and economics are closely allied, and the point I am trying
1772
to make is that Governments have, in effect, certain priorities. What I am trying to show now is what the Greek Government have achieved for the people of Greece over the period of time that they have been in power. Also, to my way of thinking it is possibly as important to see that the standard of living of the people is taken care of at the same time as there is an evolution towards Parliamentary democracy.
Now if I may return to what I was saying on the question of value of money, if one takes the basis of 100 in 1961, in 1966 Britain declined to 84 and Greece to 89. In 1971 Greece had only dropped to 80 while we had gone down to 64. On glancing through the recent book of Mikis Theodorakis, Journals of Resistance, I was struck by an extract from an article which appeared in Le Monde on April 23, 1969. It said
"They"—
the new régime—
"have undertaken a Herculean task in reforming the State and installing a modern technical and administrative apparatus."
Further on the article ran:
"Measures have been taken to help wage earners, public officials and retired people. The farmers continue to be the government's main concern".
Perhaps at this point one should remember that agriculture still provides a living for two-fifths of the population of Greece. Therefore at this point I am wondering—and indeed in view of the interruption I am wondering even more—whether those who are so critical of the pace taken towards a return to Parliamentary democracy sufficiently take into account the particular circumstances of Greece and what is being done for the people. The raising of living standards is certainly a pre-occupation of the Government, whether it be in terms of education, health or homes. In fact, budgetary allocations for education have trebled since 1966, to reach this year the figure of 450 million dollars, and according to the O.E.C.D. survey to which I previously referred, in 1970 Greece completed 12·9 dwellings per thousand inhabitants while we completed only 6·5 dwellings per thousand. As for doctors, Greece has 1·49 doctors per thousand inhabitants whereas in this country in 1967 we had only 1·18 doctors per thousand.

1773
I had intended to go on to the question of NATO but I think the assurances given by the noble Baroness were quite explicit. Therefore there is no point in saying much regarding the allegience of Greece to NATO, except perhaps to draw attention to an editorial which appeared in the Daily Telegraph on September 8 last and which said
"Greece, because of her key position, is one of the most important members of NATO. Her effort in relation to her capabiliies in support of the Alliance is second to none, as is also the clarity of her recognition of East-West strategic realities."
Perhaps in view of the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, I might recall the words of NATO Secretary-General Mr. Joseph Luns in December, 1971, when he was questioned on the political, psychological, military and strategic consequences of a withdrawal from NATO by Greece. The Secretary-General said:
"It would be for the Mediterranean a definite loss and that would make the Eastern Mediterranean very difficult to defend. That is a fact and you cannot escape it."
Earlier in my speech I used the words "for the people", and that is why I should like noble Lords, although they may not agree with my feeling towards the present Government, to understand that my concern also is for the people of Greece. That is one of the reasons why I have given examples of what in effect has been done by the present Government to raise the standard of living of the people and to encourage economic growth. Therefore, as this question of "for the people" is very important, and what is being done for them, I should like to refer to an editorial which appeared in the daily newspaper, Eleftheros Kosmos on January 4 last, in which the editorialist commented on the speeches of Mr. Papadopoulos of December 16 and 20 last. I should say that the article of January 4 particularly commented on the speech delivered by Mr. Papadopoulos on December 20 at Chanea, in which the Prime Minister launched his new slogan:
"The Revolution for the people, with the people, by the people".
The last three words, according to Mr. Savvas Constantopoulos, clearly implying that the Greek people will gradually assume the exercise of certain powers. He—the editorialist—goes on to say that
1774
this evolution will take place in stages with completely free political life restored in Greece by 1980.
In conclusion—and possibly this answers the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont—I feel that in this respect the Government and the Prime Minister are totally genuine, because I have had the pleasure of being received by a number of Ministers, and in fact more recently than the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, by Mr. Papadopoulos. That was in October, 1971. Therefore there is no question of my doubting the sincerity of the Prime Minister and his Government. The present pace towards achieving Parliamentary democracy may seem slow to some, but we must ask whether it suits an increasing number of Greeks and whether it is appropriate for Greece under present conditions. I go there two or three times a year and I know a number of Greek people. Bearing in mind the country's present stability and economic development, and remembering her past governmental instability, low rate of growth and Parliamentary upheavals, I believe that the answer to both questions is "Yes"—that is, if one wishes that friendly country and ally to consolidate her increasingly firm foundations.
7.51 p.m.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, not for introducing this Motion, about which I had grave misgivings, but for saying that he would seek to withdraw it at the conclusion of the debate. That saves me having to go into the Lobby to indicate by that means that I am not entirely in sympathy with him, nor even with the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, nor with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in addressing our advice to the Greeks as suggested.
When I saw Mr. Pattakos, the First Deputy Premier, with a man who was a kind of overlord for home affairs, he said, "We are always willing to hear the advice of our friends. What is your advice to us?" I said, "I am obliged to reply with another question. What is your advice to us in the handling of Northern Ireland? On that let us call it quits and talk about something else". I do not think we can absolve ourselves in this way and give instructions to others about what they should do when we have

1775
blots as great as that. I will refer later in my short speech to the quite striking remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, who has the great distinction of having pointed out and carried the day in the matter of what I would call the "whiff of the inquisition" in Northern Ireland. I will refer to that at the end of my remarks. Meanwhile, I wish to go back a little.
When we left Greece with our troops in 1941—a beaten army having failed to rescue the Greeks, who had themselves put up the first gallant resistance against the Axis forces they had halted Mussolini and forced him to summon Hitler to his aid—as the last of our generals, retreating from the South, was on a mountain top, a shepherd came up to him and, through an interpreter, said, "You are going, but you will come back. Take my crook with you and when you come back bring it and give it back to me." That was not an isolated case. Our own dispirited troops rumbling with their vehicles through narrow towns in the Peloponnese were feted with flowers and chocolates by the women and girls as heroes of a victory instead of remnants of a retreating army.
What did we do during the war for Greece? I happened to be sent as a staff officer, and shortly after as an administrator for a year, after the Germans had begun to withdraw. We were joined in Petras one morning by Mr. Kanelopoulos who had landed alone or in a Jeep or a similar vehicle in the Southern Peloponnese and had arrived in the company of a notorious brigand, the head of a force of 2,000 troops in British uniforms and carrying British rifles and ammunition. This was a Communist force and we asked Mr. Kanelopoulos, "Why do you associate yourself with this man?" and he replied, "You see that I am alone with a lance corporal and perhaps one or two others. I had even to borrow a vehicle from this man. He is the only man in authority and when I arrived he was carrying out the customary liquidation by means of the black list. Six thousand people had already been executed in this way and at my request, and in the name of the legal Government, he abstained from doing it further." He then asked me. "How many troops have you got under Jellicoe?", who was ahead
1776
with the paratroops and special boat service, and I replied, "About 100." He then said, "Here is this man with 2,000. Tell me what you are going to do with this man?".
The problem was shifted on to us. We all know about the civil war which ended only, I believe, because Tito quarrelled with Moscow and no longer kept an open door, a running ulcer, between Yugoslavia and Northern Greece, and although they were defeated I have, in following up the subsequent history, noticed and believe that there was a deep chasm between the Communist-minded in Greece and others and that every Government has been presented with this great problem and every Government has been of a rather unstable character.
The Administration is characterised by what we outsiders would call corruption and graft and what they see simply as the Greek way of life. It is anybody's guess whether that threat was there at the time when the so-called Colonels decided to overthrow the Government of Mr. Kanelopoulos and take charge. The country is unquestionably divided. What is the cause of this great division? We must acknowledge that Greece has wallowed in poverty compared with most other European countries, divided by mountains and cut off here and there. It was my task immediately after the occupation had ended to go round and see what people had to eat and provide supplies ahead of UNRA. They are a poor people. No wonder they have resorted to desperate means. I do not like revolutions. Mr. Kanelopoulos has been my friend for 29 years and I do not like coups anywhere, but we must take account of the facts of life. Power is in the hands of the Colonels and not in the hands of Mr. Kanelopoulos. I would not have gone to Athens if I could not have seen Mr. Kanelopoulos, but I was told by the authorities that I could go anywhere and see Mr. Kanelopoulos or anyone else.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, that the economy of Greece under the Colonels has been bounding ahead and that there is the prospect in the next ten years of reaching the kind of affluence which the rest of Western Europe has reached and of Greece becoming full members of the E.E.C. This has taken everyone by surprise, including, I suspect, the Colonels, and I think it is making

1777
eventually for greater stability and for the elimination of that poverty in which shism festers and has always festered.
I see with pleasure and surprise the affluence of Greeks all over the country. I am not a regular visitor like the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, but I go there from time to time. I think that the Colonels have to some extent abolished something of this corruption. I do not think they are all unpopular. The Financial Times responded to the invitation of Mr. Pattakos, to accompany him anywhere, at any time, and let him see and talk to the people. The Financial Times took him at 7 o'clock in the morning. He got out and drove off in his car. He does not have an escort and I do not think he carries weapons—I did not "frisk" him when he came to my cocktail party—but he was as popular there as he evidently was in the market with the housewives shopping in the early morning. His domed head is conspicuous and he makes it more conspicuous than it need be by polishing it, and he is immediately recognisable everywhere. He does not bear the marks of some of the dictators that one has seen, but he takes his life in his hands. He is responsible, I suppose, for the arrest of people, for keeping them in prison, and for such torture as there is.
Torture is always resorted to by security forces when the danger to their security is the greatest. We have noticed it with the most eminent of countries: with France, where there were horrible scandals of electrical tortures in Algeria. Regarding what was uncovered in Northern Ireland, I noticed that the moment that it was brought to the notice of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, it was brought to an end—even before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, had contributed his Minority Report on the subject. But we have been doing that all over the place—in Aden and Kenya—so it was said. I know nothing of these things, and it was only in Belfast that it came to light and was stopped. It is a horrifying thing and it is abominable. I do not know what information was at the disposal of the noble Lord.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, would the House permit me? I find it difficult to sit without interrupting. The noble Earl will remember that at the time of the events in Aden, and indeed at the
1778
time of the events in Belfast, this country was, and remains, a member of the Council of Europe and that proceedings against it in the Human Rights Commission under the head of torture have not been promoted by any other countries.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, I regret that I do not quite follow the point made by the noble Lord. All I am trying to say is that it was stated in one of the White Papers in connection with the events in Northern Ireland that our methods of interrogation there were the methods which had been well and truly tried in Kenya, Aden and so forth. I am not saying what anybody else said about them; I am saying only that my knowledge is what the Government White Paper said about them.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way for one moment? I apologise for interrupting, but in this country there has been a Parliamentary outcry against "hola", against some of the things that happened in Belfast, but in Greece this cannot happen. There is a tyranny of Colonels who had given their oath of allegiance to the Crown and then broke it.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, I appreciate the point, and there is a difference. I must add, however, to what I have said in somewhat adverse tones about this country. At the present time we are conspicuously sliding into anarchy and there is a quite definite risk of a dictatorship on one side or the other. We cannot boast of our security and freedoms. We are in peril. I do not think that we can join in this sort of exchange of reproaches. I want to do it, as it were, with the shepherd's crook in my hand rather than with any kind of stick or rebuke.
I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has raised difficult issues and I wish I knew more about them. I suppose that if he had been with me when Mr. Pattakos said, "Anybody you consider ill-treated, unjustly held, tell me and I will investigate." the noble and learned Lord would, I am sure, have said that that will merely lead to the further persecution of that man. I have tried to find out about this in a very immature way, and as regards totals for instance, I believe that Mr.

1779
Karamanlis had more people detained than are at present detained by the Colonels. I am not sure that the numbers in Northern Ireland do not correspond more or less.
As to torture, that is a most difficult thing. A friend of mine went to Amnesty International who had denounced the torture of some people and he said to them: "Tell me by name and I will go and see them." He went to the individual concerned whom Amnesty International had said had been tortured and my friend said: "My dear fellow, I hear that you have been tortured. What have they been doing to you?" And the man replied: "Isn't it torture enough that a man in my position is deprived of his freedom?" In one sense, that is torture, but it is not what we mean by poking things under fingernails or being held on the wall and other such things. It is most difficult and I hope that Mr. Pattakos, if he reads the Hansard report of this debate, will respond to the earnest and grievous charges made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. Whether or not it is a dictatorship out of necessity, it has the obligation to be decent, and if these things are happening they should be brought to an end quite independently of other political freedoms. It does not follow that a dictator must be a monster. My Lords, I have said enough.
8.8 p.m.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, in rising to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for introducing this subject and for asking our commendation of this Motion, I should like to make three preliminary observations. The first is that this Motion is not concerned with the project of endeavouring to dictate to any other sovereign Power what its internal affairs should be. The words are that we should use our "political influence", which is a perfectly respectable thing to do, and I seek to claim that it is a very necessary thing to do at this time. In the second place, if it can be argued that there is a slow but recognisable process on the part of the people in Greece to recover that political freedom which they have lost, then to a certain extent this debate would be invalidated. But I hope to
1780
show that that is by no means the case; indeed, that the contrary is the case.
Perhaps I may be permitted a third comment by way of introduction. It is not necessary in one speech on one particular topic too frequently to remember, and to say that you have remembered, that there are other evils in the world besides the one to which you are addressing your precise remarks. Professionally, I take a comprehensive view of sin; but in political, economic and social terms, we are now dealing with one aspect of it, or endeavouring so to do. Therefore I shall not further apologise for the fact that it could be quite easily demonstrated that similar enormities are practised in other parts of the world and were the debate on those matters I should endeavour to pass my judgments, such as they are, on them.
I now want to say something from the religious standpoint on this matter of the denial of political liberty in Greece. I do so not because I am overflowing with evangelical zeal, but because in three respects the religious issue is of paramount importance. In the first place it demonstrates the increasing tyranny of the régime. I shall try to demonstrate that in a moment. In the second place, this particular régime is ostensibly founded upon a religious culture; and to that I will refer. In the third place, there is evidence that if we are to make such representations through whatever channels which will help towards the recovery of political freedom in Greece, now is a very opportune moment because of a new development within the religious situation there.
However, to begin. Within a few days of April 11, 1967, the aging Archbishop of Athens and All Greece was sacked and a rather inconspicuous Court Chaplain named Ironimos was put in his place. He quickly called and reconstituted the Holy Synod, and from that day forward has practised a dictatorship of which there is such overwhelming evidence that I will only present a little of it, but it does represent in an acute form the problem that faces any freedom-loving person in those islands.
There are required of every would-be clergyman the answers to ten questions. I will not talk about most of them

1781
because they are the typical questions—Have you got into trouble?; Has your family been respectable?; Have you ever been associated with particular parties of undesirable nature?—but I will refer to No. 9. Any candidate for the Greek ministry—that is, the Orthodox Church—is required to answer this question:
"Are you prepared to serve our country, our national ideals and the legally established authority with faith and devotion"—
that is not so bad, but here is the end of the sentence—
"and to carry out the will of the State?"
Thereafter candidates for ordination are required to complete this specially printed questionnaire and submit it to their Metropolitans, the local Bishops.
Here is the further point:
"The Metropolitan will then send these printed forms and declarations to the general directorate of national security of the Ministry for Public Order. Metropolitans will ordain as priests only such candidates who after the relevant investigations are regarded as loyal, providing of course that they have the requisite qualifications."
I have been most careful not merely to trust my memory but to read the exact words, shocking, and from every Christian standpoint impermissible.
It is not surprising that this Archbishop Ironimos makes presentations, which were published in the Athens evening newspaper only a few months ago, that the Church has regained its authority and the liberation of the Church from restrictive dependence on the State has been achieved. If you hobble the horse there is no reason why you should not set it free. In matters ecclesiastical this is a pseudo-Fascist paternalistic tyranny. It has grown worse. And in addition to these particular restrictions there are evidences which accumulate of the practice of torture and the denial of freedom. A certain priest whose name is Kalavos and whose credentials are unimpeachable, the evidence for which I could present in detailed form, has been in prison twice and tortured once. He was imprisoned and tortured because he removed from his Church a picture of the Prime Minister which was put there by a policeman.
I went to Zgorsk, not very far from Moscow, to one of the remaining seminaries where priests of the similar Orthodox Church in Russia are trained for the
1782
Ministry. I remember quite clearly that among the various Icons and pictures, angels and archangels and some of the company of heaven, there was a largish picture of Lenin. I have no doubt that similar tyrannies to those practised in Greece are practised elsewhere. Nevertheless, it is, in my judgment, with respect, impudent to pretend that in this country to which we are directing our attention at the moment there is not an anti-Christian and a totally undemocratic denial of freedom, and that that denial of freedom is as expressive and as restrictive as ever it was in the earlier days of the Revolution.
To come to the second point, it would, I suppose, in one sense not be so bad if this particular community in Greece were dedicated to a non-Christian ideology. Let me quote the first Deputy Premier—who was not a Colonel; he was a Brigadier; his name is Pattakos, and he has been responsible for more garrulous, or eloquent, if you like, expressions of what is the true nature of the Revolution in Greece. It is called a Helleno-Christian Revolution, and it claims to assimilate and combine the best elements that belong to the Greek tradition, the great historic and Periclean tradition, and the Christian tradition. I must say, in parenthesis, that what eloquence has been expended on this very amorphous theme has largely been directed to 1821, not to any of the Periclean period at all, but it is important to realise that it is impossible to relate the principles of Plato's Republic, which is a corporative State, to the fact that the civilisation, so often vaunted, of democracy in Greece was based on slavery. These are indubitable facts.
It is, therefore, not surprising that though they make this tremendous claim to be the inheritors of the great Hellenic-Christian tradition, in fact their best friends have been telling us—and Minuzzo, the Italian historian, is one of their best friends—that the régime there is, as I said, increasingly a pseudo-Fascist paternalistic tyranny, and that the tyranny has much more in common with Spain or with the South American countries than it has, let us say, with Fascist Italy.
I believe that there is ample evidence that this particular kind of tyranny stems from an attempt to make use of a Christian faith which in its principles

1783
entirely denies it. May I give your Lordships one piece of almost contemporary evidence? I have in my hand a report of January 31, only a little while ago, of the Athens evening paper presenting a photostat of certain Christmas cards that were sent out from the Korydallos Prison on the occasion of Christmas. A number of the quotations in these Christmas cards were deleted by the censor, but it was not very effectively done, and it has been possible to read what the deletions were. Let me mention two of them:
"Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only …"
That is from James, Chapter I, verse 22. The other is an even more dangerous one, I suppose:
"Give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our way into the paths of peace".
Any community which will prevent people from reading and assimilating and being comforted by words like that is an intolerable and, in my judgment, a completely impermissible kind of régime.
It is for that reason that I associate myself entirely with the proposition that as we claim to be a Christian country, and they claim to be a Christian country, too, there is every reason why we should endeavour, by the best means we have, of persuasion, and better still, as I firmly agree, by example, to demonstrate this, in our interest and theirs, and, above all, in the interest of the very faith they pretend or claim to profess, to influence them towards the kind of democratic principles from which they have very largely and widely strayed.
But there is a practical application of this issue to which I will refer in a final moment. It so happens that on February 11 there was presented to the Government of Greece protests on the part of certain elements of the Church in Greece. Those protests were not all coming from the side of the radical priests like Davalos. In fact, two of them came from ultraconservative priests who are at this moment in a condition almost of revolt against the pretensions of Ironimos, his absence, his absentee landlordism, his existence on an island, his having practically nothing to do with affairs except to direct them in terms of dictatorship, and the fact that he has now found himself in his Holy Synod in contradistinction
1784
to and indeed in contravention of two of the decisions of the Irenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, which is the official ecumenical authority for the Russian and Eastern Orthodox Church in general. Those decisions rest upon two edicts, one of 1850 and the other of 1928, which have been abrogated by Ironimos, and the claim is that he is therefore in schism and that the whole structure of the religious edifice is now in contempt. This has been postponed. The decision of the Governing Council is that they will look at it again in a month's time. What I believe is evident is that within this situation, which is so uniformly dark, there is now the opportunity, if we are prepared to use it wisely, charitably and humbly, of appealing to a Christianity in Greece which is already revolting against the kind of tyrrany to which it has been subjected for long enough.
This is perhaps not the most important of the issues, although I think that it is much more relevant than the economic standards of a great many Greek people at the moment. I think that it is much more relevant than to compare our present troubles in Northern Ireland and say that we have no right to do anything. It is relevant because we ought to be seeking whatever opportunity presents itself to us of driving a wedge between the true demands and desires of the majority of the Greek people and the kind of tyranny under which they have been increasingly compelled to live, a tyranny against which, in non-violent ways, many religious people are now revolting. To stimulate and encourage that kind of revolt is one of the most constructive things that we can do in this country, not only for them but for democracy generally.
8.22 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I rise for only a few minutes because I think that I am the only person in this debate (which has been an extremely interesting one) who has been, and still is, a member of the North Atlantic Assembly. I have been a member of that Assembly for a number of years. It started off by being the NATO Parliamentarian Conference, and it changed a little while ago to the North Atlantic Assembly. It is a very important Assembly, and it is interesting that the

1785
noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, should have initiated this debate as a result of discussions of the Assembly, because it is the one assembly in Europe which every year brings to Europe great numbers of Parliamentarians from North America, and particularly from the United States and Canada. Therefore, for a short period every year we have a number of senators and congressmen, and Members of Parliament from Canada, debating and discussing what is relevant to the NATO Alliance.
I agree very much with a great deal that has been said in this debate, particularly with what the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, has said so admirably and also what the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, said. I think I agreed with everything that the noble Lord said. There are aspects of the work of the NATO Assembly which one must not ignore. It is an assembly which was founded on the NATO Alliance for Defence. It was founded in 1948, and still has the same number of members, except the French, who have gone out of the NATO forces, although they insist (and they are of course welcome) on coming to the Assembly, and they send their Parliamentarians there.
The first obligation of the NATO Alliance is defence, and both Greece and Turkey are important countries in the defence of that South-Western flank of Europe, which could be very vulnerable if ever there was an attack from Communist forces in that area. In 1951, the defence forces were united in the organisation called SHAPE. It is important to remember that ever since 1951, as a result of NATO and of SHAPE, no part of European territory has fallen under direct Soviet domination. We all remember the attack on Hungary. Although the Soviet domination of Rumania and Bulgaria has no doubt lessened—I have not been there, but so one reads in the newspapers—it is impossible to say that it does not exist.
I deeply regret that Greece, a very friendly country to the United Kingdom and an ally of many years, should have no Parliament. Everything that has been said here about what is happening in Greece is deeply distressing. I agree again particularly with the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, that the way to try to alter that situation is not by very
1786
severe censorship, although one may feel that strongly, but through friendship and a desire for that country to return again to democracy. That is where our influence should be pressed. I am sure that public opinion and world opinion—or rather European opinion, because we are talking about Europe—is something that people do not ignore. As many people have said, they go to Greece and they know a number of Greek people; that must also influence Greek people, even although it may be a slow process.
My visit to Greece is so far back that it is almost forgotten. I went there as a fairly young girl in 1924, and I remember the terrible conditions that existed then. I had a very close association with the late Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, and I was given the most extraordinary reception in various villages. I was simply there as a tourist, and this welcome was for no other reason than that I was a sister-in-law of Mr. Asquith. That shows that this friendship has gone on for many years. I cannot help feeling that this is something that we must not lose. We can influence them if, as I believe, the Greeks are anxious to remain our friends.
Since those days no one can deny the appalling experiences through which the Greek people have gone. They have not only had their own internal problems—which have been described much more eloquently than I could do—but they have also had terrible wars and experiences in wars. There is no doubt that it is very difficult indeed to reorganise a country in the way in which we should like to see it reorganised, but I hope and pray that what we can do to help will be done in a constructive way. Of course I hate dictatorships. Anybody who has lived, as I have done, through the horrors of the pre-Hitler and Hitler period—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, alluded to the fact that he felt that as a young man he could have fought much harder in those days against the Hitler régime, and many of us feel like that—will remember that we did not want war, and that it was one of the things that we desperately tried to avoid. We were wrong, but I do not want war now, and, above all, I do not want a war with one of our very oldest allies.
If we can, as I believe we can, through the NATO Alliance and through the North Atlantic Assembly, try to influence the

1787
Greeks to return to the kind of democratic government that we hope to see, that is what we should do. I do not believe that it will be done by shooting down everything, and anyway, nobody is prepared to use force these days. But by isolating the Greeks we shall never get them to come back to the kind of régime that we want to see. It is only by encouraging them to take part in European affairs and in the North Atlantic Assembly—they were not there last year and have not been there this year because they do not have a Parliamentary Government; if they did have a Parliamentary Government they could come and take part—that we can help them to get a Parliamentary Government.
So I would support the view of Her Majesty's Government, that what we want cannot be achieved by violence and by isolation. It must be done by trying, in every way we can, to infiltrate the good things of democracy, believing that, in the end, the people whom your Lordships all know and have met—I have not met them, because I have not been there recently—who are anxious to rebuild Greece will triumph, and that there will will be a change, as there has been many times, towards a democratic government. I hope very much that we shall encourage that line and not an isolationist line, however disagreeable we may find some of the things going on there today.
8.31 p.m.
LORD MILFORD: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for initiating this debate. Ever since I was in Athens, on that fearful night when a handful of Army officers with tanks in the streets and machine-guns on the roof tops brought Parliamentary rule to an end in Greece, I have been more or less alone in initiating discussions on what is happening in Greece, and in urging successive British Governments to exert all their powers to bring about a return to a democratic Parliament in that country. However, this debate to-night reflects the growing concern of the British Parliament at the total lack of democracy in Greece, at the distortion of justice, at the plight of the political prisoners—many of them very ill and kept in atrocious conditions
1788
—and at the continuation of martial law in Athens after six years.
Last December, the Conservative Prime Minister of Greece at the time of the coup in 1967, told journalists that the Army-backed Government had no intention of ending the tragedy of the political detainees and their families. A big trial held recently was observed in the courtroom by Mr. Paul Rhodes, M.P., and he has written in the British Press that he found that justice, and not the defendant, was on trial in that court. He described how one of the defendants was still blind and had to wear dark glasses because of the treatment he had received before the trial. The fact that many of your Lordships have shown such concern to-night will be heard and read about by thousands in Greece in the next few days, and that will give heart and encouragement to those fighting for the release of the political prisoners, to the prisoners themselves and to those determined to win back democracy. So that this debate has been well worth while.
As an original trustee of an organisation set up to do all it can to help the prisoners and their families, I stress again how much I welcome this debate. But as to the Motion itself, I find that I cannot give it unqualified support. I am convinced that the time has now come when statesmen all over the world should devote themselves to dissolving all military blocs—NATO and the Warsaw Pact. I believe, also, that this could be brought about with the present atmosphere in the world, and it should be the aim of all Governments—East and West. Just think, my Lords, of the wealth and energy and invention which will be released for the benefit of all mankind when that comes about. This Motion, as it stands, aims at perpetuating and strengthening NATO, or attempting to give it a cleaner face. It is asking Her Majesty's Government to urge the Greek Government to make it possible for it to be embraced with open arms. But it is NATO itself which was largely responsible for the coming into being of the military dictatorship. I was in Greece a few days before and during the time of the coup. Whatever Government had been elected, even if it were a Government of the people, it would not have been a Socialist Government, let alone a Communist Government. Yet from talking to people

1789
one learned that they felt that NATO was apprehensive of a more Left Government coming in, and the Colonels used that apprehension to gain power. They knew that, in a way, NATO would sigh with relief that there was not a Left Government. In other words, the military dictatorship is NATO'S baby and the Colonels use NATO quite blatantly to keep them in power. So one aspect of this Motion with which I cannot agree is in asking NATO to give its baby a spanking.
It is horrifying for those who love going to Greece, and who love its coastline and its countryside, to know that the Sixth Fleet is now in the Piraeus, and that has become a huge military base with its pollution, prostitution, corruption, camp followers and hangers on of all kinds. But I am glad—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, said—that the Greek people themselves hate this military presence and are revolting against it. The whole atmosphere is simmering against it. But, of course, to the Colonels it is wonderful. It bolsters them up and makes them feel more secure. They get more military know-how and more arms. Last summer a Minister had a holiday yachting in the Greek waters, and he has admitted that he discussed arms with the Greek régime. I am worried about this question of arms in the hands of the Colonels, for they could—and no doubt would—use them against the Greek people if the Greek people struggled to get them out.
We read every day that the Portuguese—another Fascist ally of ours in NATO—are using napalm and other NATO weapons in Africa, but neither NATO nor the British Government rebukes the Portuguese for what they are doing. Of course they are our oldest ally. Although I have made such sharp criticism of one aspect of this Motion, I support strongly the way it urges Her Majesty's Government to do all they can to restore political freedom in Greece. I think that those who have put the question of freedom for all political prisoners, and a return to Parliamentary government, right in the foreground will to-night have helped the Greek people enormously in their struggle. When I talk about the Greek people I do not mean only the Left politically in Greece. Even the Greek Right-wing Press, which is in opposition
1790
to the junta, is saying, "We have had six years of this set-up. Where are we? We are shut in and ostracised."
8.40 p.m.
BARONESS ELLES: My Lords, with some feeling of regret I must express a little sadness at the way in which this Motion has been proposed, because in the way it is worded it is asking Her Majesty's Government to exert political influence on another sovereign State—a kind of influence which must of its nature involve interference in the internal affairs of that other State. It seems to me that this is in complete contradiction to the terms of the United Nations Charter: a Charter which we all observe and the tenets of which we try to follow; a Charter recognised as a guide of behaviour, a code of conduct, in all international political forums, and indeed recognised by all civilised nations. It is indeed contrary to those rules and practices of States in their relations one with another to interfere in or comment on what are essentially domestic and internal matters of an independent sovereign State. Even more so, my Lords—and I say this with hesitation because I am a very new Member of your Lordships' House—I find it very regrettable that the conduct of one Government in their own country, whether we approve of it or not, and in relation to only certain aspects of it, should be discussed and considered in another national Parliament.
We have been talking of the rule of law. I have always understood, in all humility, that one of the essential rules of law is that if you attack somebody they should have the right to defend themselves. But in the national Parliament of one country no other country can defend themselves. They have to rely on hearsay, whether it be attacking or defending. I therefore frankly say how much I deplore the wording of this particular Motion. We can discuss the activities of one Government if the lives and property of our own nationals are involved. Indeed, it is our right and duty to do so. But here, my Lords, that is not the case. Thousands upon thousands of tourists from our own country go willingly and gladly every year to Greece and to its islands, and they move freely about from one end of the country to the other without any let or hindrance, as indeed the vast majority of the Greek

1791
people themselves do. They receive our nationals with friendliness, hospitality and courtesy, even to the extent of allowing our nationals to buy property in their country and to build houses; and they may choose to remain and live there.
There may indeed be a Government of which some may not approve, but we cannot really say that it can compare with a totalitarian Government. Anybody who has lived in a totalitarian country would not dare to compare the state of Greece as it is to-day with that of, say, Nazi Germany of some years ago, or even Soviet Russia. We should not forget, my Lords, that many of those living in Greece to-day, reading of this debate, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Milford—which I think would of itself show that it cannot be such a totalitarian State as the noble Lord wishes to make out—will be surprised at the wording of this Motion, and will be bitterly offended that some of your Lordships might suggest that they should be removed from the NATO Alliance, when many of these people remember those of their own families who died, either on the mainland of Greece or, in particular, on the island of Crete, defending their land alongside British forces in 1941, fighting for their freedom; and these very people still look to the United Kingdom for friendship and support. I do not think that we are giving the kind of support that is wanted by our friends.
I therefore do not propose to dwell on the internal matters of Greece, but just very briefly to mention three matters concerning the international aspects of this problem. First, in the field of commerce, as a result of the unfortunate reactions of part of Western Europe in 1966, I wish to refer to a negotiation which was going on between this country and the Public Powers Corporation of Greece in order to build an electric power station. That negotiation immediately fell through, and at the end of November last year we heard that a contract had been signed between the Soviet Union and Greece in order to build that very power station in Phillipoi. It involved Soviet technicians going there; and I only have to say that this place is in Eastern Macedonia, on a very vital part of the NATO frontier in that part of Western Europe, to show the importance of the kind of reaction that
1792
occurs when people behave irresponsibly. We should also be aware that other countries in Western Europe—for instance, the French—are only too ready to step in and take advantage of a growing economy; and if we were to even consider the kind of proposals put before your Lordships' House, we should be damaging the commercial and historic links between our two countries.
Secondly, my Lords, Greece, in fulfilling its international obligations—which, incidentally, includes (and this certainly cannot be applied to all our Western Allies) strict observance of Resolution 253 of 1968, banning commercial transactions and other relations with Southern Rhodesia—did, as I should like to remind your Lordships, offer homes to Uganda Asians when we were desperately seeking homes for these people. Not all countries in Western Europe offered this outlet and facility, but Greece did; in its limited capacity, admittedly, but it did offer homes to Uganda Asians through the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees. In the NATO Alliance, the United Kingdom and Greece together share responsibility in the defence and security of Western Europe. Again without going into detail—and my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie has already mentioned this, of course—the size and position of the Soviet Fleet in the Eastern Mediterranean is sufficient evidence of the strategic importance of Greece.
The Government of Greece, indeed, fully accept their responsibilities and fully perform their duties within the North Atlantic Alliance. This was recognised by Dr. Luns, the Secretary General to NATO, when he stated, speaking on the matter of Greece's contribution in December 1971—and I quote:
"Your armed forces and what you spend for them are impressive. You have about 200,000 men under arms, which is a great thing for a country of about 9 million inhabitants. You accomplish more than about 7 or 8, or perhaps 9, members of the Alliance, so in that field you deserve credit; and it is everywhere understood that Greece pulls her weight, and perhaps something more than some of her allies, in the common defence".
That seems very relevant to the Motion before your Lordships' House.
I can only repeat that I regret the form in which this Motion has been tabled, and that our own House should

1793
be asked to debate the conduct of a nation which has long ties of friendship with our country and which, we hope, by our understanding and comprehension of Greece's difficulties, will very shortly not only be with us in the field of security and defence but will join us in a wider European Community.
8.49 p.m.
LORD BETHELL: My Lords, there can surely be no Member of your Lordships' House in this Chamber who fails to share the hope expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, in her speech earlier this evening that Greece will soon be restored to political freedom and democracy. This is a hope which I imagine is shared by most people in Europe; and apparently it is a hope which is shared by the Greek Prime Minister, by the Greek Regent and by the Greek Minister of Foreign Affairs. They are the same person—Mr. Papadopoulos. For in 1968 he gave his word to the rapporteur of the Council of Europe, Mr. Max Van der Stahl; he gave his word of honour as a Greek, as a soldier and as an officer that democracy would be restored. There must have been many people at that time, and I was probably one of them, who felt that in the circumstances, in the light of the instability of Greek politics, in the light of the unfortunate political past of Greece, with its successive Governments failing to be able to maintain themselves and falling one after the other, that a strong military régime might be able to introduce a Constitution which would provide something more stable.
A year or so later we had a Constitution. It is true that some were sceptical. A commission, of which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, was a member, expressed reservations and felt that at best it could provide only a demi-democracy. But it seemed logically to give some promise that we should have a Parliament and some form of democratic system as soon as the Constitution was approved and implemented; and I feel sure that this is one very good reason why the Constitution was approved in a plebiscite. After all, Article 56, paragraph 3 of the Constitution promises that Parliamentary elections shall be carried out simultaneously throughout the country. It does not say when; but it does say they will be carried out. Paragraph 4 of the same Article
1794
promises that the right to vote shall be obligatory. The trouble is that no Greek has yet had the chance to exercise this right. Article 58(1) promises that political Parties shall be founded freely by Greek citizens having the right to vote; that these Parties, through their activities, shall express the will of the people and must contribute to the advancement of the national interest.
This was a promise of progress. Many Greeks, whether or not they approved of the Greek Government of the time, took it into consideration before casting their votes at the ballot. It was only a year or so after this that my noble friend, Lord Merrivale, was able to be reasonably convincing when he said in a debate in your Lordships' House that it would perhaps be better for us to leave the timing of the restoration of democracy to the Greek Government; that they were in a better position to decide about such things than were we foreigners; and that really it was impertinent of us to interfere in such timing.
But the months passed and the years passed; and in 1970 again we had hopes that something might be done. On June 9, 1970, Roger Davis, a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the United States of America, said to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:
"It is my belief that the assurance we have received from Athens that the Constitution will be implemented in full by the end of this calendar year will be carried out."
This was in June, 1970. A few days later, in the Congressional Record of June 29, 1970, one reads:
"The Greek Government has announced that in accordance with a specific time table to which it has thus far carefully adhered the institutional structure of a democracy prerequisite to elections will be in place by the end of this year."
That was in 1970, three years after the coup.
But what has happened since then? Very little; nothing, in fact. It is no wonder that the Greek people have become disappointed; it is no wonder that the U.S. Congress has become particularly disappointed and has become more or less out of sympathy with the U.S. Administration on this issue. It was, I think, if we look at the record, about this time that the Greek Prime Minister began to talk less about democracy; and

1795
I suspect that the reason why he stopped emphasising his intention, or his supposed intention, to carry out the promises he had made was that he realised that he would never be able to do so without losing power himself. It had surely ceased to be a matter of timing and had become a matter of retention of power by a military clique. One looked hard for signs that he was taking some initial step; one looked to see if some political Parties were being formed which would be a necessary pre-requisite to elections; one looked and hoped to find some form of local elections which normally would be expected to take place before the national elections. But no; nothing.
As the months passed and as the years passed the pressure grew on the Greek Government to hold elections. As the pressure grew, the excuse for not holding elections became more and more thin; because really the Greek Government can put a stop to all this criticism to which they are being subjected. They can put a stop to the "flak" that they are receiving from this House, from the United States Congress, from influential people throughout the world. All they have to do is to hold elections and to abide by the result and they will have fulfilled the pledge they gave and the Constitution they composed for the approval of the Greek people. They have every incentive to hold elections. If they can hold and win them, those of us in this House who have said that they are undemocratic, that they are a clique that lack support, will eat our words.
But I fear that one must say that the converse also applies, and since they have steadfastly refused to hold elections this is extremely powerful evidence for the fact that the present Greek Government does not command substantial support and that they are not capable even of winning elections which would be held under their own control—which is not necessarily quite the same thing as free elections. They do not feel that they have the confidence to plan elections or even to organise their own political Parties, to restrict political activities, to hold even any form of election and win it. One must conclude that they are convinced that were they to do this they would lose. I take the point made by
1796
my noble friend, Lady Elles (and I am sorry that she is not in her place), that it is wrong that we should interfere directly in the internal affairs of a free country. But this in no way prevents us from looking after our own affairs and from being extremely careful about the arrangements that we make with foreign countries, about the treaty arrangements and the various agreements that we have with Greece. Greece finds itself in a rather special position here. It may not be the most vicious and cruel dictatorship in the world—I can think of many crueller and, like many of your Lordships, I have spoken out against dictatorship, for instance, in the Soviet Union. I feel that this is an excellent reason why I should speak against a dictatorship in Greece.
The aggravating factor in the case of Greece is that we have our Treaty arrangement, and the E.E.C. connection, frozen though it may be. There may come a point—whether it will be before the Foreign Ministers Conference in Copenhagen in June or not I should not like to guess, but it may not be very long after that—when various members of NATO must seriously consider this issue. Are we backing a loser in supporting the present Greek Government?—not in supporting Greece but in supporting the Greek Government. Are we attempting to cash in on a short-term advantage of a Government which is trying to bolster itself up and ingratiate itself with us and which shows itself willing to accept large military bases a few miles from its capital city? Are we in danger of accepting these short-term gifts and by doing so giving up the long-term goodwill which the people of Greece have always felt for Great Britain, for Europe and for the ideals of democracy, and the hatred which, by and large, they have shown that they have for totalitarian rule. The evidence, surely, is that unless we make alternative plans, or unless the Greek Government, either voluntarily or through persuasion—which may legitimately be done in the interests of the countries which wish to have good relations with Greece—move positively closer towards democracy, we may find that we have an unreliable ally in NATO; with the Greek people becoming more and more opposed to the principles of NATO which, of course, are based on democracy, freedom and the law.

1797
I say this, my Lords, in full memory of the great and moving historical connections that bind Greece with this country—Byron, Canning, Codrington; the great affection which the Greeks felt far Churchill; the great contribution Greece made and which the Greek Army made in the fight against Fascism and Nazism against Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, and the great contribution which Greece made between 1944 and 1949 in the fight against Communist dictatorship. Unless we take a stand of some sort at this stage we may find that the Greek people will slip away from us. A note has been passed to me pointing out that only today the Greek authorities have enforced against 37 students, believed to be opposed to them, an order calling them up for military service. I feel that this sort of thing will continue; it will become more severe, and I am not in the least optimistic about the outcome if we try to go in for short-term profit. The alternative, my Lords, is that the prophecy which again was made by Mr. Papadopoulos may very well come true. In one of the very few statements he made where I think that he was talking total and utter truth, he said to a group of Members of Parliament in April, 1968:
"The Greek cannot stand a régime that deprives him of his free rights; be in no doubt of this."
9.2 p.m.
LORD SUDELEY: My Lords, reference has been made, particularly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, to the plight of political prisoners. I think that on this subject criticism should be directed not against the form of government but against the character of the Greeks. It has always been in the character of the Greeks, no matter whether it be under a dictatorship or a democracy, to treat their political opponents foully. They have always been this way, charming though they may be as hosts to their guests. Moreover, the treatment of political prisoners under the present dictatorship is not wholly without benefit. Somebody yesterday at the Greek Embassy was telling me of a man who had been sent to prison in Greece and decided that while there he would undertake a translation of Proust. The authorities promptly took the attitude, "For heaven's
1798
sake keep him there so that he may finish it".
My Lords, the Motion speaks about "the restoration of political freedoms in Greece". I gather that the kind of Government that existed in Greece before the coup was not one that was acceptable to the present political taste, but was something that conformed more to the state of affairs in this country in the 18th century than to democracy which we know existed in the twentieth. Elections were unfairly conducted. I know that it may be thrown at my head that those involved in the murder of Lambreekis, at a trial which took place some time afterwards, were convicted not of murder but merely of culpable homicide. But I have seen it stated in David Holden's book, Greece Without Columns, that Lambrakis was killed with the connivance of the police.
I have discussed the Greek elections with one of our diplomats in Athens whose task it was to inform Her Majesty's Government, so far as he could, of what he saw around him. The diplomat told me that the police were in on the elections. Furthermore, it was often known how a Greek voted. We are accustomed at English elections to voting for someone because we agree with the principles he stands for. In Greek elections things are quite otherwise. A man gets his votes on account of the material benefits he might confer on his supporters. Somebody becomes a politician in Greece by building up his own circle of private patronage in the form of christening presents, dowries for brides and so on. You could not extend such largesse unless you were quite a rich man, so that Greece never used to be a democracy in our conception of the word, but a plutocracy, in which the power belonged only to those clever and sharp enough to get money. Once elected, the politician used his seat in Parliament in order to gratify his clientele in new ways. So it mattered less to him whether his Party was of the Right or the Left so much as whether it was out or in. It was only when his Party was in that he could extend to his supporters such benefits as legal aid, examination passes, beds in hospital, exit visas and so forth.
So it should not surprise us much that half of the people, the politicians who served in the Cabinet under Karamanlis,

1799
had served previously under other Governments. The Government of Karamanlis lasted for a period of time that was phenomenal by Greek standards. One good reason for this was that Karamanlis had in hand, in the form of American aid, an excellent source of patronage for the reward of his supporters. In 1963, Karamanlis was defeated by a coalition of Parties called the Centre Union. These Parties were not united by any matter of principle so much as by the consideration that the supporters of Karamanlis had had a sufficient turn at the wheel and that it was time for others to take their place and reward their supporters.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? He has made a series of allegations against the Greek voters with no possible form of proof whatsoever. I could say that the noble Lord has blonde hair. He does not. He must prove what he is saying.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, will allow me to intervene. I could say that I can bear out exactly what he has said. I have seen it and heard it myself.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, the noble Baroness is making allegations and with the greatest respect—I have a great deal of affection for her—she has produced no evidence for the allegations whatsoever.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, I will send it to the noble Earl.
LORD SUDELEY: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, very much for supporting me as an eye-witness. I have never been an eye-witness, and I was relying on accounts of others that I have read. I was saying that at the time the Centre Union came to power the American civil aid came to an end. The new Prime Minister, Mr. Papendreou, decided to continue with patronage on a large scale, if only because he felt that his supporters had been out of office for so long that they were all the more hungry for benefits. That was as good a reason as any for the great inflation under which the Papendreou régime suffered. We are accustomed in this country to the idea of Her Majesty's
1800
Opposition; but if such an Opposition exists, it and the Government must work together: and it is worth observing that that did not always happen in Greece. Towards the end of his term of office Karamanlis found that he could not govern because the Opposition would not sit in Parliament. Ultimately, Karamanlis was defeated because he was exposed too much for his fraudulent management of the polls. But despite his defeat, he was a representative still of more than one-third of the Greece electorate, and, as such, he did not remain sitting in Parliament. Judging that his life was in danger, or at least that things would be made very uncomfortable for him, he left for Paris. So much for my criticism of the democracy.
Now, my Lords, I should like to consider the attitudes to the dictatorship which might be taken individually by the Right and the Left. There are certain points of acquiescence between the democratic Right and the policy of the Colonels. Both would share a sense of national tradition, though I think in the Colonels' case that would have to be tempered by the sort of understanding they might have of their philosophy and history. Both would support the Church; and both share a dislike of sexual permissiveness, which weakens the family. But the democratic Right such as we have in this country might resent the disappearance of the king. They would say: "Let us restore democracy, and then we shall have a king back; it is always such a pity when a throne goes". But that is not the only attitude a Royalist can take. Opinions may be divided as to whether the army has been Royalist in sentiment.
But after the coup the Colonels needed the king, if only to give to their régime that fiction of legality which it is always so necessary to preserve when you change the form of government. Even after the counter coup the Colonels wanted the king. They sent many emissaries to him in his exile, and prayers were said on his behalf in Greece. The king ought to return, otherwise the Greeks will forget that they ever had one, and that will really be the end of the monarchy. Moreover, the position of the monarchy was not inviolate even under the democracy. I have mentioned inflation under Papendreou. In the midst of this,

1801
Papendreou wanted to put his own forces with the king over the armed forces. Papendreou wanted to put his own people into the army. The king refused. Papendreou used this as a reason for resigning from the premiership. Then he challenged the king as a hereditary monarch. Once the attention of the Greeks was deflected in this way by a constitutional issue, they quite overlooked the great inflation which had been created by Papendreou as their own elected representative. The king was much afraid that if there were to be an election it might be fought and won by Papendreou on the issue of "The king or I."
Now I should like to address a few remarks to the Left, so much more vehement than the Right in its condemnation of the present régime. I think the Left should recognise that the Colonels' Government, so commonly regarded as being of the Right, is really in most important respects of the Left like themselves. The rule of the sophisticates, who were clever and sharp enough to get money, has been taken over by that of the simple Colonels, men of humble origin who kept the values of their humble origin, and so are concerned so far as possible to look after the welfare of the ordinary Greek. In this they launched an attack on middlemen and profiteers.
Under the democracy the farmers were heavily in debt to negotiators and middlemen. The Colonels have wiped these debts out. Under the democracy certain Athenians imposed an artificial restriction on the market in bakeries. The Colonels have stamped out this abuse, and after they came to power the price of bread went down. Under the Colonels expenditure on health and pensions has increased. There has been a great increase in employment, particularly, so as to reduce the exodus of Greeks going to work in Germany and elsewhere. This increase in employment has been particularly necessary owing to the ill-effects of American aid. Some months ago we had a debate in this House on overseas aid. I think certain noble Lords pointed out the extraordinary position reached now, whereby the countries giving the aid get more out of it than those which receive it. In the receiving countries there has been, in particular,
1802
an unfortunate drift of population from the countryside into the cities. The Colonels have done much to reestablish on the Greek countryside the Greek population which came in this way to live in Athens and could not find employment there.
I have concentrated on Greek domestic affairs, but I should like to conclude by supporting the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, in her powerful plea that we should not take any action over Greece, whatever we may think about it as a foreign Power. This Motion conforms to a particular tradition of the Left, that of interfering in other men's quarrels. A hundred years ago the Turks massacred the Bulgarians and the English public enjoyed one of its great fits of moral indignation. Gladstone said that we should intervene, but the greatest Leader of my Party, Disraeli, said that it was none of our business. It seems to me that there are certain members of the Left who have not recovered from the victory of the Right in the Spanish Civil War. In 1957 the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, went on a private visit to Portugal and later drew up a report on matters which perhaps were really the domestic concern of the Portuguese—matters such as who were the political prisoners; whether freedom was enjoyed by trade unions and what was the quality of their franchise. This Motion seeks to interfere with the private affairs of Greece. It does so on account of Greece's being a member of NATO. But NATO needs Greece. We cannot afford to estrange the present Government; and so I am afraid that this Motion is one that would be most heartily endorsed and encouraged by our enemies the Russians.
9.15 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, at this late hour I will try to be very brief. Unlike other noble Lords who have spoken, I cannot claim to have had a classical education. My connection with Greece began during the war when I got to know the Greek Army. Whereas many of them fought magnificently under extremely difficult conditions when their country was occupied by the Germans, yet at the same time they had a tradition of turbulence and there were two quite significant mutinies which in a way is in parallel with their civilian life in times of peace. They should not

1803
be condemned wholly because their standard did not conform exactly with the thinkings and feelings of other Allied armies. Soon after the War I became a Member of another place and in 1946 was chosen as a member of the British Parliamentary Delegation to Greece. I stayed on later to see a referendum on the restoration of the Monarchy. During most of my time in Parliament I have been a member, and, for part of the time, Vice-Chairman, of the Anglo-Greek Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union.
As a Parliamentarian, I must say that I cannot be other than distressed that the Parliament of Greece at the moment is not functioning. I am naturally as concerned with its restoration as any other Member of either House of Parliament. But there is one thing which does not help. Since the war I have noticed in Parliament and among journalists how many people are sitting in judgment upon Greece as a favourite pastime, and are quite certain that their judgment must be right. I believe that particular habit is to be found more among those of the Left than of the Right. These people cannot believe that any Government in Greece other than one of the Left could deserve respect. I can remember that when I was in Greece in 1946 the other members of the delegation held the opinion, which reflected the opinion of very many in the House of Commons, that because the Populist Party had won a general election shortly before we went out to Athens the victory could not be other than the result of some sort of fake and that conditions in Greece could not be of a kind which deserved our respect. It was an ideé fixe. I am not saying that the same sort of feelings are not found also on the other side, but they are found more often on the Left side than on the other.
Secondly, I would claim that it is an error to judge everything in Greece by the same standards as we use in judging the West—and the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, has been making that point. Greece is not a Western European country in the same way as we, Belgium and Holland are Western European countries. I say this in spite of the fact that a number of Greeks whom we meet have an international outlook and social qualities in a way that we find very easy to get on with. But the bulk of the people within Greece
1804
are different from that. They think differently; they have a different tradition, a different education and they have different neighbours—Albania and Bulgaria who are hardly Western. No one, possibly with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Milford, would attempt to judge Greece by the same standards as we should use for the Bulgarians or the Albanians. That, again, I believe to be wrong; but it is also wrong that we should be so ready to judge Greece by the same standards as those by which we judge the smaller Western European countries.
A few years ago I had an interesting experience, because I worked for a week in the Committee room in the Greek Parliament. I was one of a party consisting of two M.P.s and one of the officials of another place, who had been invited by an Anglophile element in the Greek Parliament to be present during the discussions on a Bill to amend their Parliamentary procedures. They wanted to be able to have nearby people with whom they could discuss the various points as they arose. They were people familiar with the procedures in our Parliament which they admired. That was a time when the Greek Parliament was losing respect, chiefly because of its inability to get anything done. Perhaps I could mention filibustering. We listened to debates for many hours during that week, and though we are familiar with filibustering as it sometimes takes place in another place here when we feel there is usually a strong reason, we saw these same procedures in the Greek Chamber produced night after night as a sort of routine. Some badly needed reforms of their procedures were obvious. I dared to stress only one and I did not think that it was entirely impertinent to do so. I pressed for a change to the Standing Orders to limit the speeches to one per Member per Motion, because if they were allowed two, as they did allow them, there was no end to obstruction by even quite a small group. I quote that only as one pointer to why the system was overturned.
Our interest here is to see a genuine and effective Parliamentary system restored in Greece. I should like to see the assurances by Greek Ministers which we have heard quoted from both sides of the House this evening implemented,

1805
or at least to see some movement in the right direction. Criticise the Government, yes, but why colonels should be sneered at I do not know. I was once a colonel and I do not understand why it should be assumed that if you were once a colonel you should be sneered at in public life. I am not prepared to say what support the present Greek Government does or does not enjoy. Having travelled a good deal in Eastern Europe. I would claim that if it were a choice of living either in Greece or one of the countries of Eastern Europe where the Communist Party is the single Party, there are not many people who would not prefer to live in Greece. How are we going to help bring about what we all want to see? Not, I submit, by ostracism, but by the contacts which the noble Baroness has spoken of, the contacts which lead to understanding and to the influence which grows from understanding.
9.22 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I mention one small point which I had expected other speakers would have made. One must give the Colonels credit for having calmed down the simmering pot of Cyprus. I am firmly convinced that had there been a democratic Government in Greece, with its volatile character which is traditional there, the Enosis movement would have been stirred up. There would have been a landing of the Turks in Cyprus, incidents would have occurred and there might have been horrible slaughter as a result. The Greeks have been given great credit for their magnificent fighting during the war. I do not think people realise that it is at least arguable that but for the Greeks, and our army in Greece, the Germans might have invaded Russia a fortnight earlier, and with the army divisions which were fighting in Greece it is quite possible that Russia would have been defeated, and so should we.
9.24 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, Greek liberties occupy the British Parliament from time to time. It is inevitable that they should, because when they disappear it is so conspicuous, since liberty itself was first described, to our knowledge, in the Greek language. When Greek liberties are discussed in the British Parliament,
1806
how absolutist they make us become! We always talk about Pericles; we always forget that he was the leader of a slave state. We always talk about Byron; we usually forget the kind of democracy which the Greek nation he helped to liberate was able to achieve. I shall try to be a little less absolute and, along with the great freeman of Misolonghi who is commemorated under the name of Mpuron, I will remember the second English freeman of Misolonghi, Mpephin—otherwise Ernest Bevin—who was also among the freemen of NATO.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, is very much to be congratulated for bringing up the Motion, even though it was irregularly done according to the delicate web of understandings which regulate the Business of our House. I think the wording of the Motion itself seems in human common sense and justice to be unexceptionable, and I shall end—although the Government and the Liberal Party are agreed that there shall be no vote on the Motion, and although my noble friends and I would not wish to force one—by hoping, and indeed expressing confidence, that behind the scenes in point of fact the Government are doing exactly what the Motion calls upon them to do.
The noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, speaking for the Government, used for the first time (it was often used afterwards by other speakers) the phrase "Not to dictate"—we should not dictate to the Greeks. Of course we should not, and of course the Motion never suggests for a moment that we should. It simply speaks of political influence. I am never quite sure what it is, but if we are not to use political influence to help, urge, impel the Greeks to come back to the democracy they had, I do not know what we are to do. It was perhaps setting up a bit of an Aunt Sally for the Government to huff and puff against the idea that they might be dictating to the Greeks. Of course they are not. Who said they would; and what is gained by saying that they will not? Nobody asks them to dictate to Greece. What we ask is only that they should use their political influence.
I am always sad, and I expect most Members of this House are sad, when they see military officers breaking their oath of allegiance. I do not myself mind

1807
a people throwing out their king. It has often happened. It is sometimes justified. But to see the general staffs of armed forces, military officers, who are under oath of allegiance, throwing out their king is a matter that I believe can seldom indeed be justified; and I do not believe that there is really anybody on the other side of the House who believes that on this occasion it was, because what is the value of a soldier who has broken his oath, either as a human being or as a soldier, thereafter?
We have been told by my noble friend Lord Soper how the religious liberties of the Greek people have been destroyed by the insertion in the oath enforced upon priests of an oath of loyalty to the State—not to God, not to the Church, but to the State. That takes us back to the 16th century, does it not? We have heard from my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner a detailed picture of the suppression of political liberties. He told us in some detail about how one organisation went down before the tyranny, before his very eyes when he was there. We have heard from him also about the torture. Democracy they have ended, and we all talk politely about how we can best encourage them to return to democracy. We express polite hope that the Colonels may in their goodness deign to restore to the Greek people the democracy of which they have robbed them. Is it a matter for polite hope?—I should have thought, no longer.
We heard from the last speaker but one a plea for the increase of understanding between, I suppose, our people and the Greek people, or our Parliament and—not the Greek Parliament; there is not one. An increase of understanding. Well, my Lords, there was a perfectly good understanding between us and Greece before 1967. What was wrong? What was lacking? We were two democracies. Theirs was a bit "ribby", if you like, but it was a democracy, and it was destroyed. What need is there of increasing understanding between us and the Colonels? All we need is a return to the freedom which they have, of their own mere motion, abolished.
Let me come now to the institutional question, NATO, which is what I think worries people most. I believe that the right way to look at this is not so much
1808
at NATO. NATO does not embody our conscience. It does not embody our freedom. NATO is a military alliance. There are organisations which come far closer to embodying our conscience and freedom than NATO does. They are, to a certain extent, the European Parliament, which is a reflection of West European democracy on a working level, which of course has a whole Committee existing, a permanent Committee which exists, in order to do nothing else but to try to deal with relations between member countries and Greece to see whether any means can be found of persuading the Colonels to allow their people freedom again.
And even more than the European Parliament, the Council of Europe which, with its Human Rights Commission, is the crucial body in this field. Of course many years ago now the Greek régime found it necessary to get out of the Council of Europe before they were kicked out. They were arraigned before the Human Rights Commission, which found as a fact that there was the administrative practice of torture in that country and, as is obvious, that such a practice was incompatible with membership of the body which embodies the common ideal of what human rights are, which we have in democratic Europe.
We have had some unusual speeches; rich ones. The noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, told us that there had been mistakes committed by the Greek régime "as there always are at the beginning of a revolution". It is now six years, and six years from the beginning of the Nazi revolution was 1939. Would the noble Baroness have excused Hitler's mistakes in 1939 as the kind of thing that one expects at the beginning of a revolution? She also said that she could not see anything wrong with being a colonel. Nor can I. And I can see nothing wrong with being a Member of Parliament, and I can see nothing wrong with being a king. But the Colonels could.
Then we had a speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale. He proved conclusively that the economic felicity of the Greek people was on the increase. That is not what this debate is about; it is about something else. So I presume that on this occasion the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, was not speaking, as he sometimes does, for the C.B.I., because

1809
if he had been one would have noticed that he was vying with the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, as to which of them had had the pleasure of being received most recently by these people. The noble Lord said that there was no question of his doubting the sincerity of the Greek Government; no question of his doubting the sincerity of that régime, who are traitors to their king, torturers of their people and only the latest in the sordid succession of tyrants who have robbed the people of their civil and religious liberties.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord and I was waiting, perhaps, for somebody else to say something. I was a little surprised to hear him, perhaps jokingly, describe one of my noble friends as speaking for a particular organisation. I think we speak for ourselves in this House.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I say that I did not even know what the noble Lord was referring to.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I was referring by name to the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, and the C.B.I. Of course the noble Earl the Leader of the House is quite right: noble Lords do speak for themselves; but sometimes they place quite explicitly before the House the views of certain organisations, and when they do so repeatedly one learns to associate their names with those organisations. I think it is not unfair or improper to remind the House of established associations—half in fun, as the noble Earl has pointed out—when the thought crosses one's mind.
To turn now to the question of what can really be done, I think that very much hangs on the Americans. We are not propping up the Colonels. It has not been established in this debate today that the Americans are doing so, and I am not sure to what extent it can be established; but I think there could be no one here who would believe that any initiative could be taken by our Government, although opinions will differ about what might be done in the international organisations.
I come at last to the great question of NATO. NATO is not really an alliance of democracies. I wish it were. It is an alliance for the preservation of
1810
democracy; and it is an alliance the overwhelming majority of the citizens of which live in democratic countries. The great majority of the countries themselves have fully democratic régimes. But it is, unfortunately, an alliance composed only mostly of democracies and at the edges there is always a bit of doubt. I think it is fair to say that Portugal has never come anywhere near being a democracy throughout the existence of NATO, of which it is a longstanding member. The question of Turkey varies quite frequently. The question of Greece is a glaring example of what we are debating to-day.
The unfortunate fact is, I fear, that when it is a question of choosing between a big ruffian and a small one—lest I be accused of being vague I am referring to Russia and Greece—it may sometimes be necessary to make friends with the little ruffian to secure oneself against the big one. One hopes that the little ruffian will not remain one for long and that it will never be necessary to have more than two or perhaps two and a half dictatorships in NATO, which exists for the defence of democracy. At the moment that is what we have and I think we have just got to put up with it, unpleasant though it is.
We have the Greek régime. We are reduced, as they are reduced. We are reduced only in our integrity because its existence contravenes a clause in a charter we have signed; but they are reduced in their liberty, which is their human essence. May it soon be restored to them! And in the meantime misfortune makes us sad bedfellows.
9.36 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, with the leave of the House I will briefly speak again after what I think all will agree has been an absorbing debate. Noble Lords have spoken with a great deal of knowledge and indeed affection for Greece and, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, rightly said, they have spoken in many cases in an absolute way. It almost seems that we feel so strongly about Greece that somehow we feel that we have a special responsibility for her.
I want first to deal with some of the main points that have been brought out, and in particular the serious matters

1811
raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. I am sure that everyone everywhere will deplore torture wherever it is and wherever it is proved. But the noble and learned Lord also spoke about the political prisoners in Greece, and I repeat what I said in my earlier remarks—namely, that the Greek Government know that the question of political prisoners is causing grave concern in this country. There are, however, two aspects of this question which I am bound to put to the House. The first is that where Greek citizens are concerned we have no formal standing to intervene on their behalf. Secondly—this is very important from the practical point of view—representations of that kind are unlikely to be effective because no Government wish to appear to move as the result of foreign pressure.
Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, even seemed to feel this himself because he said that one should not tell a country what to do. Yet at the same time if I may say so, that is precisely what he was doing in the earlier part of his speech. He said he thought that Greece should no longer be a member of NATO and he quoted the preamble and Article II of the North Atlantic Treaty, to which I referred earlier. Taking a contrary view, the noble Lord, Lord May-bray-King, said that we believed in NATO and we believed that Greece should be a member of NATO. I am sure he is right; and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, who thought in particular that we should try to influence Greece by contact and not by isolation, a point which was brought out clearly by my noble friend Baroness Elliot of Harwood.
The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, spoke rightly of the economic situation in Greece and how it had improved. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, told us that Greece had wallowed in poverty and pointed out that it was in those conditions that schism festered. I am sure that there is a great deal of truth in that; and the fact that Greece has been able to increase her economic strength is of great value not only to herself but also to the NATO Alliance itself.
The noble Lord, Lord Milford, on the contrary said that he thought there ought
1812
to be a dissolution of all military alliances, including NATO and the Warsaw Pact. I cannot agree that to dissolve NATO would be anything else than dangerous folly because the North Atlantic Alliance remains as necessary as at the time of its inception.
I should like in particular to refer to the speech made by my noble friend Lady Elles, because she summed up the whole case against the Motion before us. She drew attention to the United Nations principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. One can say, as noble Lords have said in this debate, all that one feels, but it is very important that we should sustain the argument that we do not interfere in an independent and sovereign State. I should like also to thank her for what she said about Greece and what the Greek Government tried to do in accepting some Ugandan Asians, because we were, as a Government, very grateful to them for what they tried to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and indeed many noble Lords, spoke in particular about the long time it is taking to restore democracy in Greece. I have already made clear the position of Her Majesty's Government on that question. We have said, and say now, that we hope there will be a restoration of all democratic processes. The fact that Greece to-day does not meet all the requirements of a democracy is not, I suggest to the House, in dispute, because the Greek Government themselves acknowledge that the full 1968 Constitution has not yet been carried out. M. Papadopoulos has undertaken eventually to hold elections and, as the Greek Government know, we have often said in public and in private that we hope this will happen soon. I do not think that I can go into the fascinating points raised by my noble friend Lord Sudeley about pre-coup politics. All that, of course, happened before we had the responsibility of government, but I agree with my noble friend Lord Inglewood, who spoke as a member of the Parliamentary delegation to Greece, that it is very important indeed that Parliamentary democracy should be restored and that the influence of Parliamentarians should be used in whatever assembly or of whatever delegation they happen to be a

1813
member. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hawke when he said that Greece has calmed down the situation in Cyprus. That was referred to also by my noble friend Lady Emmet of Amberley, and it is a matter of great importance to us at this very difficult time.
The noble Lord, Lord Soper, spoke in a fascinating and disturbing way about the Greek church—he sent me a note to say that he could not remain—but I do not think it would be suitable for a Government to refer to the state of the church in Greece. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said that NATO an alliance for the preservation of democracy. I have recently taken part with him in a debate on the whole question of security in Central Europe. I would agree with him that whatever we may feel about the necessity for the restoration of democracy in Greece, nevertheless Greece has been a loyal ally, both in the last war and as a member of NATO. Her Majesty's Government understand very well why there is so much interest and concern in Britain about Greece, but we cannot claim for ourselves the right to interfere in Greek internal affairs. Nor, I suggest, can we apply different and unique standards to Greece. There are many countries in the world whose internal politics we would not endorse but with whom we maintain normal external or defence relations. As for Greece and NATO, nothing positive is served by endangering the Alliance. It would not only damage our security but would not bring any benefit at all to the Greek people. Therefore I suggest to your Lordships that neither constant pressure on the Greek Government nor isolation or ostracism would do any good at all. We should all welcome an early return by Greece to democracy, but in the end this is for the Greeks to achieve themselves.
9.46 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, we have had a very full and a very good debate, in the sense that all views have been expressed, and I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part. I was particularly sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, was not able to take part, because I know that he would have had some very interesting things to say about the military side. He explained to me why he was not able to take part, and I express, I am sure on behalf of all of us, regret.
1814
The noble Lord, Lord Soper, has apologised that he has not been able to stay to the end.
I will not take up much of your Lordships' time, but if you will allow me there are some points to which I should like to reply. For instance, among minor points, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, put into the mouth of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, a remark which I think needs to be counteracted, since it is on the Record. He said that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, might say that he could not intervene on the part of certain prisoners because it would bring worse treatment for them. I should like to say that from the experience of all people who have been trying to help people in Greece it does not do that. I am sure Lord Gardiner would not have said it, and it ought to go on the Record that in fact to highlight the problems of individual prisoners does do good and can help them.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, may I interrupt. The noble and learned Lord is here to say what he wishes to say.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I am not particularly worried as to who did or did not say it, but merely to say that what was implied was inaccurate. I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, made a very good and sympathetic speech, if she will allow me to say so without appearing patronising. I wish I shared her optimism, because I know she wants the same thing as almost all of us do. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, in fact answered her speech with his analysis of what the situation is now, again with moderation.
The noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, said that the democracy before the Colonels came into operation was not acceptable. All I can say is that it was acceptable to a lot of good Greeks of both the Right and the Left, intellectuals and artists and politicians, and even some of the more ordinary people of whom the noble Lord was speaking; there are very many of them who would rather have that than what they have to-day. One or two people asked why we sneer at the Colonels; that colonel is a very honourable rank. Of course it is a very honourable rank. The point is that they

1815
are colonels, except, I gather, for one, who was a brigadier. We started calling them "Colonels" because they were colonels. The fact that they are oath breakers and torturers means that it is they who are bringing dishonour on the name of colonels, not we who refer to them as colonels.
May I turn for a moment to the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, because she put forward a doctrine of what she considered proper in your Lordships' House which I should not like to go unanswered. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, will correct me if I go wrong in any part of this. The noble Baroness implied that it was improper for us to be discussing this Motion in this particular way, and improper for me to have put down the Question. I know that she did not mean it personally.
BARONESS ELLES: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? I certainly did not imply that anything was improper. I merely regretted the way the Motion was worded; I certainly did not imply that it was improper.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for what she says. She made the distinction that when our nationals are involved, it is our right and duty to discuss this. But our nationals are involved. We have a defence pact with this country; we will fight for them, or with them, and it is very proper that we should examine an alliance of that kind when we are pledged to them. Secondly, I do not think that such a doctrine exists in your Lordships' House. I have not looked back through Hansard but I think that we have discussed Hungary and Czechoslovakia, and even suggested that we might be able to put pressure on Governments to do things about situations like that.
Thirdly, I would beg the noble Baroness to examine the alternatives from someone who speaks, as I do, as a democrat, and who believes that an alliance to defend democracy that includes dictatorships is improper. The alternatives that I suggest are that either we should
1816
expel Greece from NATO—which I have not suggested to-night, and which I am sure she would not wish—or, alternatively, as many people on all sides of the House have suggested to-day, we must go on trying to persuade Greece that she should come back into a form of democracy so that we can accept her as a full ally within the alliance.
Now I come to the speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, and the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale. Before dealing with them, may I say that I do not equate the State of Greece with the State of Nazi Germany, except in the sense that I personally regard all democracies, however bad, as better than all dictatorships, however good. I think that democracies have the seeds of improvement in them, whereas dictatorships can easily get worse. When I heard the noble Lord and the noble Baroness talking about prosperity and suggesting that torture was not torture, and saying that their personal impression of the leaders of Greece to-day was that they were people of integrity, I seemed to be reading columns of Hansard from the 1930s, and I wondered why someone did not say that the trains were running on time—though I suspect the reason that they did not is that they are not.
Now may I turn to the Government's position. The noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, asked one question which I thought I could well answer; she asked how would we feel if another country interfered in the internal affairs of this country. Well, if we had been hijacked by a dictatorship, I would welcome any other democrat who interfered. What is more, I suspect that the noble Baroness herself would be doing a "John MacNab" on the hills of Scotland as a freedom fighter, and would welcome any other democratic allies that she could get. I am delighted that she and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and others, have been speaking out, and saying that they wish for this return to democracy. I wish they would speak out a little louder. There is an awful feeling that we so need Greece in NATO, but we fail to realise how much the Greek régime needs to belong to NATO. Nevertheless, I think it is clear that we can send out a message from this House—certainly from

1817
all three Front Benches as well as from a large number of other Members—that it is the dearest wish of our majority that this hijacking should be brought to an end and the captive nation released to its freedoms. It is with that knowledge and with that message that I beg
1818
leave to withdraw the Motion standing in my name.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at four minutes before ten o'clock.