Lords Sitting of 3 April 1974

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Wakefield.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
The Lord Foot—Affirmed.

INDIA: UNITED KINGDOM AID PROPOSALS
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 proposals will be made by the British representatives at the forthcoming meeting of the Indian Aid Consortium in response to the appeal of the World Bank.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, the World Bank is now updating the staff study to which my noble friend refers, so there will be preliminary discussion of it at an informal Working Party of the Aid India Consortium in a few days' time. In the light of that discussion we shall decide what pledge of aid to make at the regular Consortium meeting in June. In the meantime, we have offered a £10 million maintenance loan to India. This is on top of our 1973 pledge and was signed on March 27.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while greatly welcoming that reply, may I ask the Minister this question? Would the British representative on the Consortium propose, in co-operation with the American and European approaches to the Arab Governments, that they should make more generous contributions towards India and the Third World in view of the fact that their poverty is aggravated by the oil shortage?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I think that the
910
whole world will hope that the oil-producing countries, who are themselves developing countries, will view with sympathy the needs of the rest of the Third World. There can be no doubt that it is not simply the petroleum itself that is important; things like fertilisers are almost as vital to India in tackling her problems. I am quite sure that Her Majesty's Government will view with sympathy anything India herself may do, and that anything they can do, through the Consortium, to make the situation better they will do.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government point out to the Indian Government that in order to give them any help or aid at the moment we are having to borrow abroad to provide the money?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: Yes, my Lords.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is it not the case that this new grant of £10 million is dependent upon India's buying materials from this country; and therefore will not this country benefit, as well as India?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, as my noble friend knows, a great many of our loans are what are called "soft-term" loans. We shall hope to continue this kind of loan, which is not geared to buying particular things from this country.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether she could explain some of these terms? In her last reply she used a very curious term. What is a "maintenance loan" intended specifically to do? I do not want to be tiresome, but this jargon is rather difficult.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I should think it would be to maintain the economy of India.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government prepared to take steps to ensure that an adequate supply of nitrogenous fertilisers can be made available, since, at the present time there seems to be shortage of them?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, the whole position of fertilisers throughout the world, as my noble friend knows, is extremely difficult. Without notice I could not speak about nitrogenous fertilisers specifically, but we are aware of the great danger, particularly to India, of the lack of fertilisers.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that this country has a very good tradition of stepping in with aid to India where there is a state of crisis, and that this offer will be greatly welcomed?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord.

STOCK MARKET "BED AND BREAKFAST" DEALS
2.42 p.m.
LORD CROOK: 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 will cause investigation to be made as to the prevalence of what is termed in the Stock Market as "bed and breakfast" deals, (viz. where sales of stock take place just before the Stock Exchange closes at night with re-purchase of the same stock immediately the Exchange opens next morning), with a view to establishing a capital gains loss to offset subsequent capital gains and thus reduce liability to tax payments.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, this is a matter for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I will pass on to him the noble Lord's suggestion. The Government are aware of what is referred to as "bed and breakfast" deals, but their effect is normally a deferment rather than an avoidance of capital gains tax liability.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, will the noble Lord say which stocks—
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it is customary that the noble Lord who puts the Question should have the right to ask the first supplementary.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that on the day of the Budget the Stock Exchange registered 14,737 bargains, and that the large number of those were caused by people taking out "bed and breakfast" arrangements simply because they were terrified that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would put a stop to them in his Budget?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord has the advantage over me; I was not aware of those figures. As I said in my original Answer, the effect of such deals would be a deferment, as opposed to avoidance, of tax liability.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, will the noble Lord inform the House which stocks have shown a capital gain in recent months?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have no doubt that in the ensuing months there will be considerable capital gains.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that if they took action along the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Crook, people would sell without rebuying, and the Stock Exchange would be depressed still further?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord might give further consideration to the question that he put, but the noble Lord himself will be aware that prior to 1971 deals of this kind were not possible because of the provisions on short-term capital gains. It was in 1971, when the previous Administration were in office, that the change which made this kind of deal possible was made.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, if taxpayers are to be encouraged to respect the capital gains tax, does it not behove Governments to make sure that what is taxed is in fact a real gain?—because in times of inflation many a gain on paper, which is taxed as such, is in real terms no gain whatsoever.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if the noble Lord would care to raise that point in a debate I shall be happy to debate it with him, but I do not think it arises on this particular Question.

TELEVISION: ALLOCATION OF FOURTH CHANNEL
BARONESS PHILLIPS: 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 to state the criteria on which applications would be accepted for the fourth television channel, and to indicate when they expect to be in a position to consider the applications.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said in another place last week that he hoped to make a Statement shortly about the Government's policy on the future of broadcasting. I would ask my noble friend to await that Statement.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I recognise that the Government must have a policy in this matter. Can the Minister give me some indication of whether, for instance, the fourth channel will be given to the existing companies, and whether the Open University will be given extra time on this channel?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, I am afraid that at this stage I cannot anticipate the content of my right honourable friend's Statement.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, may I ask whether a Statement will be made in the House on which we can have some information?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, I hope so, certainly.

CONCORDE PROJECT AND LOSS FORECASTS
2.46 p.m.
LORD TREFGARNE: 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 will secure that British Airways publish more detailed information than hitherto concerning their
914
forecast losses arising from the operation of Concorde.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade is discussing with the British Airways Board what more detailed information could be made available to Parliament about their forecasts of the effect on their profitability of introducing the Concorde services.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am, as always, greatly obliged to the noble Lord for his reply. Will he and his right honourable friend bear in mind, in their discussions with British Airways, the unfortunate history in matters of this kind, particularly in relation to the VC10? Will his right honourable friend also bear in mind the powers he has under Section 40 of the 1971 Act and use those powers if it seems appropriate?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord that this is an area in which it is not wise to be unduly dogmatic about future forecasts, and history supports that view.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, will the noble Lord say whether the House will be informed by means of a Green Paper or a White Paper, or is there to be a debate on this very important matter in the near future?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the question of a debate could be a matter of discussion. So far as the nature of the further Statement is concerned, there is no decision about its form, but I assume that it will be a Statement somewhat similar to the original one, with additional detail.
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord remembers the distinguished speech made in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, who has great experience in these matters, when he referred to the advantages to British industry of what he called "spin-off" from Concorde? Will the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, be good enough to encourage British Airways, in addition to giving their direct forecast as to losses, to give even general information as to the advantages that would accrue to British industry from this project of Concorde?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I remember every speech that is made by the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, and I remember what I said following that particular speech. As the noble Lord himself may recall, I wholeheartedly agreed with what Lord Kings Norton had to say.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts will be making a Statement on the E.E.C. Foreign Ministers' Meeting. This will be followed by a Statement on the Channel Tunnel to be made by my noble friend the Leader of the House.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Select Committee on Procedure of the House be appointed; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection (Second Report), the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:—

Lord Chancellor (L. Elwyn-Jones),

Lord Privy Seal (L. Shepherd),

E. St. Aldwyn,

E. Perth,

E. Selkirk,

V. Dilhorne,

V. Hood,

L. Aberdare,

L. Blyton,

L. Byers,

L. Conesford,

L. Denham,

L. Diamond,

B. Gaitskell,

L. Gardiner,

L. Greenwood of Rossendale,

L. Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,

B. Hylton-Foster,

B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe,

L. Maybray-King,

L. Molson,

L. Nugent of Guildford,

L. Shackleton,

L. Strang,

L. Tanlaw,

916

L. Wade,

L. Windlesham.—(The Earl of Listowel.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

PRIVILEGES
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That in accordance with Standing Order 71, a Select Committee for Privileges be appointed, and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection (Second Report), the following Lords, together with the Chairman of Committees and any four Lords of Appeal, be named of the Committee:—

Lord Privy Seal (L. Shepherd),

E. St. Aldwyn,

L. Amulree,

L. Beswick,

L. Brooke of Cumnor,

L. Byers,

L. Champion,

L. Conesford,

L. Henderson,

B. Hylton-Foster,

B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.

L. Molson,

L. Rea,

L. Shackleton,

L. Windlesham.—(The Earl of Listowel.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BILLS)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on the Standing Orders be appointed, and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection (Second Report), the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:—

Lord Chancellor (L. Elwyn-Jones),

E. Lauderdale,

L. Airedale,

L. Alport,

B. Bacon,

L. Cawley,

L. Derwent,

L. Douglas of Barloch,

L. Terrington.—(The Earl of Listowel.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

WESTERN EUROPE/UNITED STATES RELATIONS
2.49 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN LORD O'HAGAN rose to call attention to relations between Western Europe and the U.S.A., and the implications for the United Kingdom; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I begin, I hope that I may express deep sympathy to Madame Pompidou and the family of the late President of France.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD O'HAGAN: By his death, it is not only France which is the poorer, but Europe.
My Lords, I do not rise in your Lordships' House to-day to put forward any grand theories or any "instant O'Hagan" solutions. My aim in introducing this debate is much more limited. In this opening speech, in what promises to be a long and outstanding debate on the relations between Western Europe and the United States of America and the implications for this country, I want only to set the scene and to touch on some tender areas of decision-making, in the hope that the collective widsom of your Lordships' House may benefit Her Majesty's Government.
As a newcomer to these subjects I am reminded of the theory of continental drift, the theory that the earth's land surface is a disjointed jigsaw puzzle in which the interlocking continents split, mingle and reunite, imperceptibly but continuously. In the political counter-part of that physical continental drift I would suggest to the House that we may be at a moment of increasing movement and stress, if not fundamental change. In five weeks there will be a new French President; in five months there may be a new American President; in ten months we may be out of the European Economic Community; there is a serious possibility of a world food crisis.
I am convinced that there are no simple open and shut alternatives for Britain. All economies are much more interdependent than they used to be, so we cannot opt out of world relationships or world problems, and we cannot escape Europe, even if we break faith with the European Economic Community. But to
918
play our part and to do the best for the people in this country, all plans for the future should be based on a realistic assessment of our standing in the world to-day.
Perhaps I might mention a few cold statistics. In 1950 our share of world trade was 11 per cent.; last year it was under 6 per cent. In 1950 our share of world reserves was 7 per cent.; in 1960 it was 6·2 per cent.; in 1973 it was 3·5 per cent. Between 1950 and 1973 the value of this country's import market grew over four times; that of West Germany grew over 18 times and that of Japan nearly 400 times. I would suggest to your Lordships that we should remember these facts when looking at the options open to Britain to-day.
I believe that NATO has just had its 25th birthday. In the United States of America there is a respectable and considerable body of opinion, inside Congress as well as outside, that looks to Europe to deal with its own defence. The argument about costs must not be glossed over, if only because it tends to be an umbrella for other deep concerns. Vietnam has turned many Congressmen against having so many troops abroad: besides, "Bring our boys back !" is always a good electoral cry. The Americans may be defending America by being stationed in Europe, but it is carrying French logic a little too far to presume that every American will perceive the connection.
Again, how can American leaders counteract anxious questioners about Europe's reliability when the E.E.C. goes in for so many public cat-fights at the top? Therefore it is not surprising that Dr. Kissinger—Ariel to the President's declining Prospero—tries to cajole the member-States of the European Economic Community into some more coherent public stand. He must do so. But still, the next time he feels like questioning the legitimacy of the Governments of Europe I hope he will study what his own Vice-President has just said about that great organ of democracy, the Committee to Re-elect the President. May I in this context ask the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to say what consultations the present Government have had with the United States of America about the Defence cuts planned by the present Government?

919
Then, my Lords, there is trade. The Americans have lost ready access to our markets since we joined the European Economic Community. We remember that there was a bit of a squabble about soya beans. What is the attitude of the present Government to Article XXIV(6) of GATT? Where do Her Majesty's Government stand on the question of compensating the U.S.A. for our membership of the E.E.C? And are the Government in agreement with our partners in Europe on this question?
I believe that American grain reserves are very low. Can the Government tell us whether we shall be able to look to the United States to provide us with grain in the event of a world food shortage? Perhaps the noble Lord could say at the same time whether, if we did leave the European Economic Community, he would hope that we could acquire elsewhere the food that we acquired cheaply from Europe as a result of our being a member of the European Economic Community.
We must maintain our links with the United States of America. But alliances evolve. If they stand still they are already dead, and we must be aware that change may happen on the other side of the Atlantic very quickly. The American leadership may change any day. The President's successor may well be very isolationist and we are too small nowadays to be of real use to the United States in world power politics. I am sure that Her Majesty's Government will give a warm but guarded welcome to the febrile hand of friendship that is stretching across the Atlantic. I am sure they will remember that young Congressmen do not wake up each morning wondering what they can do for Europe or Britain to-day.
Exactly where we stand in the shifting scenario of détente and disarmament I am far too ignorant to guess; nor can I offer any perceptions about the U.S.S.R. or China, and I will leave these matters to other noble Lords who are more knowledgable. But I should like to touch for a minute on the Third World and the Commonwealth, because I hope that these countries will not be squeezed out between Europe and the U.S.A. Europe must widen its trading links with the poorer countries who are now more aware
920
of their own power and I should like to support wholeheartedly what Mr. Callaghan has called for in this context. On the other hand, I hope we are not going to hear too much humbug about the Commonwealth. I value the Commonwealth, in so far as I know anything about it, as a forum for inter-racial and international discussion; but, as I understand it, it has little economic clout.
I understand also that world prices have risen above the prices that were guaranteed for various producers in the Commonwealth who produce difficult commodities. That is not to say they will not fall again; I would not commit myself to that vain hope. I think we must recognise that many members of the Commonwealth have made alternative arrangements; New Zealand has turned towards Japan; in defence, Australia has turned directly to South-East Asia and it is no use our hoping, in a moment of post-Imperial nostalgia, that history can be re-written. We have continuing responsibilities towards the Commonwealth, but the Commonwealth countries go their own ways nowadays.
I believe that Britain's best future—not "only" but "best" future—lies within the European Economic Community and in close links between the European Economic Community and the United States of America. Can the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, say precisely what Her Majesty's Government propose to do in order to improve the processes of consultation between the E.E.C. and the U.S.A.? Do they propose formal arrangements or do they merely propose a better exchange of information, and if so, at what stage in the decision-making process?
Can the noble Lord say what our partners in Europe think of the plans of Her Majesty's Government? I would say something to your Lordships that I have said before; namely, that I challenge any Member of this House to provide a workable alternative scenario for Britain outside the European Economic Community. I hope to hear some alternatives to-day, but I have not heard one to date. I would hope that scenario would not be one that involved us in becoming the Tristan da Cunha, or something equivalent, of the North Sea. I still believe that in Europe, with our oil and our skills, we can make a better contribution

921
to the world than if we remain in self-satisfied isolation.
Your Lordships may be aware that I thought the previous Government were far too brusque and aloof, especially in European Economic Community matters. On the Continent, the British behave far too often as if they were Clive in the process of rediscovering India. I am sorry to say that Mr. Callaghan has kept up this tradition in the rather hectoring and dismissive tone of his speech at the recent Council of Ministers. I would never have guessed from that tone that some of the people he was addressing were fellow Socialists.
My Lords, this country has a great role to play in the crucial task of building links between the Community and the United States of America. I welcome what Mr. Callaghan has to say in Clause 18 of his statement to the Council of Ministers on this subject. It is important, so I will read it. Speaking of Her Majesty's Government, Mr. Callaghan says,
"We shall not always be able to agree with the United States, but the Community in devising its procedures and its common positions must always try to work with America whenever it can. Conversely America must try and work with us. Only if the Nine work harmoniously with the United States on both economic issues in the framework of the Community and on political issues in the framework of political co-operation, shall we surmount the difficulties to which President Nixon and Dr. Kissinger have recently drawn attention."
I could not agree more. Let us bury Dr. Kissinger's Declaration of Atlantic Solidarity; he will be happy to pay the funeral tribute. Let us get on with the job of improving communications.
My Lords, if we are to carry out this task, we must retain the confidence of both sides. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary's colleagues have read the Labour Party's Manifesto before, but I doubt they minded hearing it again. But I think what saddened some of the people Mr. Callaghan met in Bonn, and most of his audience in Luxembourg (I cannot say this with confidence, but I am going to Luxembourg to-morrow and I promise to check) was the almost scornful dismissal of those who hope that one day the Community will be something more than a customs union. I find this so hard to understand, because in the House of Commons the other day the Foreign Secretary talked most movingly of the occasion
922
when French and German delegates first sat down together after the war in the Council of Europe. Yet in Luxembourg, the Foreign Secretary refused even to meet the President of the European Assembly.
There are many areas of friction between Europe and the United States of America, not least their relations with the oil-producing countries. I understand from the Press that this country is now in agreement with the Community approach. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, can say how Her Majesty's Government propose to reassure the Americans in this context, and whether our standpoint is in fact in accord with the other Member States of the Community. Mind you, I do not think we want to be too pernickety about this, because the United States of America did not choose to consult its allies either about its general Middle Eastern Policy or about its declaration of a State of Emergency. So Europe need not go running to the White House.
There is so much for this country to achieve as part of Europe with a special link with the United States of America. We cannot do it on our own, but Europe must somehow learn what the Russians and the Americans between them are up to, because Europe will have a very uncertain place if the disarmament talks move forward without our point of view being taken into account. I do not want to say to the present Government, "Change your policy in Europe". I will leave that to my colleague in' the European Assembly, the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. All I am asking is, please reconsider your tone to our partners in the E.E.C., because United States' co-operation in security cannot be detached from Europe's own co-operation in economic and political affairs.
My Lords, at home I have pinned above my desk these words from Thomas Browne's Religio Medici:
"There is no man's mind of such discordant and jarring a temper to which a tuneable disposition may not strike a harmony."
The Foreign Secretary has no need of these words when he is here. But may I commend to him that he might consider putting them in his briefcase when he goes to Europe. Finally, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, "Croesaw irty hwn." My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.8 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, for giving us the chance to debate this most important and fundamental issue, the relations between Western Europe and the United States of America and the implications for the United Kingdom. First of all, I should like to join with him in paying a tribute to the very great French statesman for whom we mourn today and who I think, perhaps, will always be remembered in this country for the fact that he put his faith in Britain. He asked us to join Europe, and his faith was matched by the votes in both Houses of the British Parliament. Also, may I join the noble Lord in expressing our great sadness to Mme. Pompidou, to his family, and to the people of France as a whole.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, made a very interesting speech. I think that the tragedy of the death of President Pompidou is that it comes at a time when France and her colleagues in the Community have serious cause to question the belief of Her Majesty's Government in the political necessity of the union of the Nine. The noble Lord rightly talked about this period of movement, stress and fundamental change. I must say to my horror I heard him say that within ten months it might be possible that this country should withdraw from the European Community. But he went on to declare an act of faith himself, when he said that he thought there was no alternative, that Britain should be within the E.E.C., and should have close links with the United States. But there is without doubt a dangerous lack of confidence among our partners in the Community as to Her Majesty's Government's real intentions on renegotiation—not just because the details of Britain's demands have not been revealed, but above all because Her Majesty's Government appear blind to the essential need to work for political unity and for the strength and peace of Europe as a whole. When the Foreign Secretary says he is an agnostic on political union and seems to regard this great endeavour as no more than a customs union, he creates doubt; and where there is doubt there is weakness. Nothing could be more fatal
924
to the security of Western Europe and of the United States.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness can help us, as she is spelling this out in such firm terms: what has she or her Party in mind in terms of political unity in Europe?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, we knew about the decision of the Summit Conference, that we were to work towards political union by 1980; and I feel that the political need for Europe to unite is even greater than the economic advantages, although they too are very great indeed.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, could the noble Baroness be a little more helpful, because this is clearly the important point? Does this mean a form of federation, or what? We should like to know what the noble Baroness has in mind when she speaks of political union.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, it is not only what I have in mind but what the late Conservative Government were working towards with our eight partners. It is true that we were a long way off achieving it, but the idea was little by little to try to have a convergence of our joint ideas, so that in the end it would be natural that the nine countries would form a European Community and would be able to speak with one voice.
On these Benches we certainly welcome the Foreign Secretary's remarks on the need for good relations between the Nine and the United States. But if the United States is vital to the security of Western Europe, Europe is also vital to the United States as her first line of defence. Within NATO there is, of course, a good measure of understanding, as noble Lords know: such as the achievements of the European Defence Improvement Programme, and the most recent satisfactory German/American offset agreement on the cost of United States forces in Germany. So that when the United States Congress considers the burden of Western European Defence it is worth recalling that European members of NATO provide 90 per cent. of the land forces, 80 per cent. of the naval forces and 75 per cent. of the air forces in Western Europe.

925
Good Atlantic relations are, of course, also vital to the future prosperity of Europe. The American trade and payments situation is now stronger than that in Western Europe, and one would therefore conclude that the United States can be more helpful in its trading policy, and in its approach to international monetary reform. The United States has always wanted European nations to unite it has always said so for many years, and for many years it was impatient at our apparent inability to do so. But when, of course, at last it was achieved, for a time it appeared that there was a fear that the Community would become such a powerful trading block that it would be harmful to American interests. But when, for example, the review of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade took place, the Community as a whole took a great deal of trouble to meet the fears of the United States, particularly in relation to compulsory reverse preferences in the negotiations just starting with certain African States.
Therefore, our methods of consultation with the United States are, surely, of prime importance. For example, on the Middle East it is obvious that American power and American diplomacy are essential in the search for peace, as they are also in trying to secure our supplies of oil. On the other hand, it may not be automatically understood across the Atlantic that Europe has an historic interest in the Middle East, and is, of course, far more dependent on imported oil. Therefore, when we consider how we can consult on policy matters that affect both the United States and ourselves and the Community, we must surely ensure that we do not in the course of doing so, damage the integrity of the Nine. For example, we on these Benches do not support the idea, which Press reports claim come from the Foreign Secretary, that American officials should see the working documents of the Nine in the early stages of their preparation. That seems to us to be much too formal, and, as indeed France maintains, this would mean a Europe of Ten.
Therefore, we must develop procedures that ensure that the thinking of the Nine and that of the United States are a constant two-way exchange of ideas, so that neither of us will be given cause to lapse into our own kind of isolationism. I would, therefore, like to ask either the
926
noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, or the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, when he comes to wind up, to give us the thinking of the Government on the method of consultation which we should encourage within the Nine, remembering we are members of the Nine, and with the United States, which is not too formal but is constant and is constructive. Of course, as Europeans, we shall not, and we cannot, always agree with the United States, but do let us have our differences out into the open.
It is, I think, true that within the Community we should rather have had longer to shake down together. It may be we are going through all the stages that we used to ascribe to nations emerging to independence: the stage of dependence, after the last war very much so, on the United States; then a long struggle together of the Nine to independence, as some thought, notably France; and then, I hope, to an understanding on both sides of the Atlantic of the true nature of interdependence. Of course, we in the Nine all have inflation, enormous difficulties over energy, changing Governments and social disruption, the kind of scene that leads to nationalism. The United States has domestic problems of great gravity, and the possibility of another Presidential election. But the Atlantic Alliance is vital to all of us on both sides of what the international pilots call the "pond", the Atlantic Ocean. I would think it wise in this time of change and uncertainty to do our best to put our own house in order. Because in this country, surely, small as we are, so dependent on raw materials and imports of food, we need every good friend we can find, and we need to do our best to keep our friends. Therefore, I would only say in conclusion that it is vital for Britain's survival that we should work for the political cohesion of the Nine, because we shall be no kind of ally to America if, by default or by design, we wreck the confidence of Western Europe.
3.18 p.m.
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, may I associate myself with the condolences your Lordships have given to the family of President Pompidou and to the people of France on the sudden death of President Pompidou. I think President Pompidou will occupy a great

927
place in the history of modern France, following as he did the Presidency of President de Gaulle. It required great courage, I think your Lordships will agree, for a man like President Pompidou to follow, working, as he did, right to the end, and I think some of your Lordships will also agree that it probably required greater courage from those of his relatives, his wife and family, who were so close to him during these difficult times.
May I also extend my personal gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, for giving us the opportunity of discussing vital and important matters as to the relations between Western Europe and the United States. The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, appears to me to have significant qualifications for raising these matters. He is a Cross-Bencher and a member of the European Parliament. He is to be found regularly walking through the corridors at Strasbourg—which has no power—watching the in-fighting and the struggles that appear to take place in those corridors, without the presence of any member from the United Kingdom Labour Party.
May I, as a mere member of the United Kingdom delegation to the Council of Europe and the Western European Union, say that I walked through those same corridors, which again have no power, though they have an atmosphere made pleasant by the senators from 17 nations and not nine and they have also been made more attractive by the very strong team from the United Kingdom Labour Party, who have been most assiduous in their attendances at Strasbourg in the discussions of the Council of Europe and the Western European Union. May I congratulate four of that team who are now members of Her Majesty's Government in the Cabinet, and the other one, who is now the Solicitor General.
I hope that it will not be considered discourteous if I do not follow the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, or the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, in all the issues they have raised before your Lordships today. I propose to confine myself to one fundamental issue relating to defence and foreign affairs; namely the basis of European security and the Atlantic Alliance. I shall hope to
928
develop, so far as is possible, a method by which, at least in the short term, machinery can be developed for better co-operation on foreign policy and defence policy between countries of Western Europe, and between those countries and the United States of America.
I am encouraged to take this point with your Lordships because of the suggestion made by the noble Earl, Lord Avon, in the course of the debate on the gracious Speech. He made one suggestion. Your Lordships will recall that the noble Earl had been discussing the problems arising from détente and from defence in the light of his great experience. He went on to say and I quote from column 163 of Hansard dated March 14:
"I have just one suggestion to make about the future of Western Europe itself. We have heard many arguments about the possible reform of the Common Market."
He then said that he did not propose to enter into these possible reforms; nor shall I discuss possible reforms for the Common Market. He went on:
"If progress between the Nine becomes difficult for a while, as almost certainly it will … then it might well be that progress could be made in another direction."
This will be the theme of my address to your Lordships this afternoon. He continued:
"Could not we make more use of W.E.U.? This comparatively modest organisation was intended at the time of its formation, some twenty years ago, to take its place as a leading influence in the new Europe. It has never quite worked out that way."
The noble Earl went on to describe how he made a plea to General de Gaulle about the future of the Western European Union. General de Gaulle had been sympathetic. The noble Earl then proceeded in his speech to give a limited example of activity for the Western European Union. I would strongly recommend the Government to use the Western European Union more. As your Lordships will be aware, the Western European Union comprises seven countries which are all members of the E.E.C. Eire and Denmark at the moment are not members of the Western European Union, but I understand that there would be no procedural difficulties if they wished to join. I understand that there would be little procedural difficulty in

929
getting collaboration with the Government of the United States of America in this forum. As I shall mention later to your Lordships, the Foreign Secretaries of France and Germany have expressed sympathetic views for the use of this forum in the difficult times in which we now find ourselves.
It seems to me that the time has come where we really must be practical and urgently endeavour to establish some kind of new machinery, or certainly a modification of the existing machinery, for greater collaboration not only between the countries of Western Europe but between the countries of Western Europe and the United States. I again make a strong plea to the Government that they should support the use of the Western European Union as a forum for this matter. May I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, and ask your Lordships, rhetorically: what does the ordinary American Congressman consider is happening in Europe at the present time? They see European Community institutions apparently powerless to solve the problems which face Europe. The European Commission seems to them to be losing its role as a motive power in the European Community, and the Council of Ministers seems at the present time to be incapable of taking its place, largely because of the conflict of national interests.
The declarations of the Summit Conferences, to which the noble Baroness referred, at The Hague in December, 1969, Paris in October, 1972, and Copenhagen in December, 1973, were welcomed in the United States of America, but the normal Congressman does not see them at the moment as capable of being put into practical effect at least for some time. There appears to the American to be a paralysis of the European Community institutions, largely due to the failure of these institutions to become subject to effective democratic and Parliamentary control. The Times leader of March 18 summarised the situation so amply: Europe is seen as struggling to reconcile its military dependence with its political and economic aspirations, but is still very unclear about where it is going.
Herr Brandt, speaking on March 28, summed up the position in regard to
930
Europe, as he has been reported in the British Press, by saying that it seemed to him that Europe was a sorry tale of in-fighting and stagnation. He went on to say that there could be no system of Western European unity without the security of the Atlantic alliance. On the same day the German Foreign Secretary, Herr Scheel, who is designated to be the President of the Federal German Republic in about six weeks and who has a great reputation in Europe, and indeed the world, urged that there should be urgent consultations with the United States of America, which should not be degraded to a mere exchange of information.
France still refuses to become a member of NATO, yet at the present time it appears that the German Foreign Secretary and the French Foreign Secretary seem sympathetic to the use of the Western European Union as a forum. There has also been during the past few months a growing consensus of opinion among European Parliamentarians and in the U.S.A. that the Assembly of the Western European Union could enable, at least in the short term, effective consultation to take place between the countries of Western Europe on defence and foreign policy matters. Thus, in November last year I had the privilege of hearing Herr Leber, the Defence Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany, speaking at the Assembly of the Western European Union and urging that institutional machinery should be set up for consultations between the countries of Europe and the United States. At the same Assembly meeting we had the privilege of hearing the Foreign Secretary of France, M. Jobert, speaking about defence matters between the member States of the Western European Union, and he favoured using the Western European Union organisation as a forum for further discussions between the Western European countries. May I continue with this modern history in support of the Western European Union?
LORD SLATER: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord, to say that as an ex-member of the Western European Union, as a delegate like himself, when I was there first there were only six members—now we are given to understand there are seven. Could he tell noble

931
Lords what is to happen to the agreement that was arrived at at the termination of the Second World War concerning what is known as the British sector, the Russian sector and the French sector, bearing in mind all the time the suspicion that Russia has for the rearming of Germany itself, even when this suggestion comes from within the E.E.C.?
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Slater, for his intervention, but of course there has been a great change in the atmosphere in Europe since the time when the noble Lord was a distinguished member of the United Kingdom delegation which went to the Western European Union. He will know that the Treaty made immediately after the war was modified by the Treaty of 1954; and since then, as a matter of procedure, there have been modifications in relation to the attitudes towards the Western European Union. I was merely reciting to your Lordships the facts known to me and to many others of the attitudes of distinguished Parliamentarians from Western European countries of Europe at the present time.
If I may be allowed shortly to come to my conclusion in this matter, on November 21 last there was a debate in the Assembly of Western European Union on the wider question that consideration should be given to the drawing up of plans for a permanent consultation between the Western European Union and the United States of America. Indeed, from reports dated March, 1974, (which have not yet been published), I am in a position to say that the rapporteur of the General Affairs Committee of the Western European Union is urging, with considerable support from other countries, that it now seems that the natural forum for foreign and defence policy consultations is the forum of the Western European Union.
The matter of defence and the Atlantic Alliance is an urgent and crucial one in its implications for the peace of the world, and I hope therefore that urgent steps can be undertaken by the Government at least to consider whether, in the crisis in which we now find ourselves in foreign policy and foreign affairs, associated not only with the individual Western European countries but also
932
between the Western European countries and the United States of America, the auspices of the Western European Union with its machinery and its organisation can be of assistance to the country at the present time.

E.E.C.: FOREIGN MINISTERS' MEETING
3.33 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS): My Lords, I should like with the leave of the House to repeat a Statement that is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs about the meeting of Foreign Ministers in Luxembourg on April 1 and 2. The Statement reads as follows:
"With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will make a statement about the meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers in Luxembourg on the 1st and 2nd of April.
"Before I begin my report on my visit to Luxembourg, I should like to express the Government's deepest sympathy with the French people at the tragic death of President Pompidou. He was a great French leader who has earned a place of prominence and distinction in the history of France and the world. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has sent messages to the French Prime Minister and to Madame Pompidou and I have sent a personal message to the French Foreign Minister, Monsieur Jobert. I am certain the House will wish to join with me in offering our most heartfelt condolences to Madame Pompidou and to the people of France at this moment of sorrow and loss.
"On Monday afternoon in Luxembourg I made a statement outlining the broad scope of the issues on which the Government seek a renegotiation of the terms of entry into the Community. They include the unfairness of Britain's budgetary contribution, the effect of the C.A.P. on this country, the need to safeguard the interests of the Commonwealth and of the developing countries and certain problems of the British

933
economy. The statement has been published as a Command White Paper.
"In the discussions that followed the members of the Council took note of the position of the Government of the United Kingdom. Some inevitably saw greater difficulties than did others. But on more than one topic the response was clearly sympathetic. No one doubts that difficult negotiations lie ahead. Nor I think does anyone doubt our good faith in the conduct of the negotiations. The first step has been taken. We and the other members of the Community are now preparing for the second step when the Government of the United Kingdom will place before the Council our detailed proposals. Renegotiation has begun.
"In the course of my statement I made clear to the Council that we shall continue to participate in Community business pending the outcome of renegotiation, subject only to our renegotiating position not being prejudiced. The Secretary of State for Trade, the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and I therefore took part in the discussion of a number of detailed items on the Council agenda. I am having a summary account of the outcome of these discussions placed in the Library of the House.
"Late on Monday night and on Tuesday there was an important discussion about political relations between the Nine members of the Community and other countries, particularly the United States. Most of the members present were largely agreed on the vital need to maintain the closest relations with the United States and on the means of doing this. Unfortunately we were unable to achieve unanimity, which I much regret. There will be further discussions about this in a few weeks' time when I hope further progress will be possible."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement. I know that your Lordships would wish me to associate this House with everything that my right honourable friend has said about President Pompidou and will wish to join with me in offering our most heartfelt condolences to Mme. Pompidou and the people of France at this tragic moment.
3.39 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for his Statement, and also to associate my noble friends on this side of the House with the tribute that has been paid to a most distinguished and courageous President of France. He was a very good friend of this country. We should certainly like to convey our condolences to Mme. Pompidou, to her son and also to the people of France.
My Lords, in turning to the Statement, is the Minister aware that the mild tone of the Statement conceals the disastrous impression created by the Foreign Secretary at the Council of Ministers' meeting? Taken with the White Paper to which the Statement referred, is the noble Lord also aware that it appears that the Foreign Secretary would not regard the Treaties as binding if he did not get his way? This was described as "a breach of contract" by the President of the European Parliament, whom the right honourable gentleman rudely refused to receive. Is the Minister further aware that some changes such as those in the Common Agricultural Policy were already under discussion, and might be supported, if only we knew what they were? Therefore, we shall have to wait for the detailed proposals. Lastly, is the Minister aware that the whole tone of the Foreign Secretary's blunt performance seemed to take no account of the Community's interest, and is therefore the worst possible way in which to enlist our European colleagues' support?
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, in the course of my speech I have already expressed our condolences to the family of President Pompidou and also to the people of France. As I said, he will have a great place in modern French history.
I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement which has been made in another place. I am sure that he will not expect me at the present time to comment in any detail upon the matters in it, but I should like to ask whether he can give the House any indication of the precise reasons why the Foreign Secretary was unable to see the President of the European Parliament when he was over here recently.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity of saying absolutely categorically that no possible disrespect was intended to the President. It did not prove possible to arrange a meeting during such a short visit—and I say that on the authority of the Secretary of State. Turning to the several points raised by the noble Baroness, I hope she will forgive me, having herself been in this rather difficult position more than once, if I leave out one or two. But may I say that the Foreign Secretary's "bluntness", as she characterised it, was in fact frankness. The Statement which has been published as a Command Paper is sufficient evidence of that and, taken in conjunction with what we know about the Foreign Secretary, it should be an adequate answer to the noble Baroness. It was decided that this Statement should be frank and firm, and that renegotiation should then proceed in the best spirit on the basis of what the Government of the United Kingdom saw as being the outstanding real difficulties which face this country and its economy in conforming with the existing terms of entry.
The point the noble Baroness raised about the abrogation of treaties is arguable. I do not think anybody in this House or anywhere else would regard existing treaties of this character as impossible to change, either in title or in detail. The approach is clearly to attempt to secure fundamental changes on some four main points and only if necessary, as a long stop, to proceed to the point where the Treaty itself might have to be considered as one that was intolerable economically for this country. I hope that that posture of a reasonable approach on the basis of the four main points which we seek to change will be sustained during these negotiations with the support of all Parties in the State, and that we shall not prejudge and shall not anticipate a position of challenge which may never come about.
The other two points which the noble Baroness raised related to matters which I should wish a little more time to look at, but I promise that I will address myself to them in the fullest detail at the earliest possible opportunity.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, Mr. Berkhouwer, my personal friend, is
936
doing a great job as Speaker of the European Parliament. Will the noble Lord make clear beyond peradventure that no discourtesy was meant to the Speaker of the European Parliament, Mr. Berkhouwer, by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State's not being able to arrange a meeting with him?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I hope that what I have just said will make it absolutely clear, on the authority of the Secretary of State and certainly with the full concurrence of the Government, that no discourtesy was intended and that in fact it was a practical impossibility to fit in such a meeting.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord may not know, because he was not with us at the time, that the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, myself and others had the great honour of receiving Mr. Berkhouwer when he visited this House at the end of the last Parliament. We take the point that the noble Lord has just explained to the House that no discourtesy was intended, but none the less it would seem, unfortunately, from the Press accounts at any rate, that some ill-feeling has resulted. As a matter of courtesy to the European Parliament, will the Foreign Secretary now arrange an early meeting?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I shall certainly draw the noble Lord's words to the attention of my right honourable friend.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, the noble Lord said that no lack of consideration was intended to the President of the European Parliament, but is it not infinitely worse that Her Majesty's Government's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was rude by mistake as opposed to being rude on purpose?
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that, contrary to the suggestion made by the noble Baroness opposite and the suggestion made by the noble Earl who has just resumed his seat, I take a quite different view? Having regard to the past behaviour of M. Jobert, the French Foreign Minister, and the attitude of the French Government in general, including the late M. Pompidou, towards the United States of America, and the

937
millions of dollars that have been injected into Europe together with the vast amount of manpower and equipment that has been provided for Europe in the sphere of defence, and, in spite of that, the attitude of France in contracting out of NATO, in particular—because the whole trouble is about defence, if only noble Lords could understand it, as has been mentioned over and over again—that my opinion, for what it may be worth (and whether or not it is worth anything I shall still express it) is that our Foreign Secretary did not speak bluntly enough and harshly enough. What we require in this matter is straight speaking and a forthright attitude, because it is time that some people who disregard American concern about the defence and security of Europe, for which they have paid immeasurably, realised that it is the vital issue.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my noble friend's views and opinions are worth a great deal. He has very great experience and judgment in these matters, and while I would not wish to follow him in everything that he has said I welcome what he said about the need to be definite and frank at the start of these negotiations. Secondly, in regard to our relationship with the United States of America, I am sure he will find—if I am fortunate enough to speak during the debate which this Statement interrupted—that much of what he has said will be echoed by myself and by other speakers from this side of the House.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, while I welcome the care with which the noble Lord sought to answer various questions put to him, may I ask him to reply to a question which I put to him earlier? Does he think that the performance of the Foreign Secretary, which I called "blunt" and he called "frank", seemed to take no account of the Community's interest but only of Britain's interest? If one looks at the White Paper, one sees that it states:
"If renegotiations do not succeed, we shall not regard the Treaty obligations as binding upon us."
It goes on:
"… whilst the negotiations proceed … we shall stop further processes of integration".
This is a threat and is almost like a kind of blackmail. Does the noble Lord think
938
that this is a good way to get the European Community to help us renegotiate?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will not quote the Continental Press too freely in describing in those words my right honourable friend's approach. The fact is that it is not only a narrow British interest that is involved. Many of us believe that the durability and success of European Union does depend on there being a more rational and fairer arrangement in regard to benefits and contributions. In this sense the frank British initiative may well turn out to be of benefit to the rest of the Community.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, is it not rather regrettable that the Foreign Secretary, while trying to convince our partners that Her Majesty's Government are renegotiating from within the Community, should during the two days in Luxembourg have given the impression to our partners that the Foreign Secretary was psychologically outside Europe?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, of course the noble Lord has a right to his impressions. My own impression, and that of a great many people in Europe and in this country, is that this is not so, and that psychologically the right honourable gentleman has placed himself in the right posture; that is, to lay down frankly what is troubling us—and I suspect not only people on this side of the House—about the terms of entry. He has explained the position in frank terms and he proposes to follow up with detailed facts and figures, possibly as early as the next meeting of the Council of Ministers on the provisionally arranged date of May 7; and this is the right approach. I hope that nothing will be said which will, as it were, consign these negotiations into a posture of confrontation. This is not my right honourable friend's intention or objective. He means to negotiate on the basis of getting adaptations on these four subjects, and only if it is proved impossible to get these will he consider de novo what our attitude should be.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the bluntness of the Foreign Secretary in Luxembourg is highly appreciated by the populace outside? Is he further aware that there is a need for bluntness to tell the European

939
Economic Community how disgraceful were the terms which the Tories accepted for us to go into the Common Market and that they are not acceptable to the people of this country.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we expect that bluntness, as well as frankness, will be greatly appreciated in the part of Britain from which my noble friend comes.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, on the point of bluntness, may I suggest that we move to the next speaker in the debate?

WESTERN EUROPE/UNITED STATES RELATIONS
3.54 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I feel that I should apologise perhaps for inflicting myself so soon for a second time on your Lordships, but we turn now to the debate on the Motion, so interestingly and ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, made what I thought was an extremely interesting and substantial contribution. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, is not still in his place because I wanted to pay my respects to one or two points which he made in his speech. I may be able to do so later.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, is probably under the misapprehension that the Channel Tunnel Statement was about to be made.
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, I had an urgent matter to attend to outside the Chamber, and I thought the noble Lord was about to make another Statement.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I meant my observation as one of friendship and respect for one or two suggestions that the noble Lord made. I found what he had to say about the role of the Western European Union worth considering, and there is continuous consideration of the role of the W.E.U. What the noble Lord had to say about it was worth listening to: I wanted to say just
940
that and then observed that he was not in his place to hear the kind words I wanted to utter.
The North Atlantic Alliance, and the commitment of the United States to the defence of Western Europe which it embodies, is the cornerstone of British security. That is one point on which we and the previous Government are in complete agreement. The maintenance of close and harmonious transatlantic relations is thus a matter of fundamental importance. We must remember that both the economic recovery of Western Europe after the war and the maintenance of almost thirty years of peace and relative stability in Europe have been due in large measure to the existence of the Alliance and to the close identity of interests between the United States and Western Europe; and here of course what my noble friend had to say is most apposite. To-day, the prospects for a relaxation of the level of military confrontation between East and West, and for a more hopeful era of co-operation between the two halves of our continent, are brighter than they were in the days of the cold war. I must be cautious on this point, but I think we are entitled to cautious optimism. Since the days of the cold war these prospects for co-operation, even for arms control and disarmament, are somewhat brighter; and that, too, is due in large part to the cohesion of the Alliance and to the initiatives taken together by its member countries. For us the Alliance is important, not only as an instrument of defence but also as an instrument of détente.
Of course the members of the Alliance do not see eye to eye on every point; there are bound from time to time to be differences of approach and emphasis. No one would deny that there is a certain malaise in the Alliance and that the solidarity and unity of its members, which perhaps has been taken for granted for too long, has come under some strain. The past few years have seen a succession of rapid changes in the economic, monetary and political circumstances in which the countries of Western Europe and North America find themselves, and these changes have inevitably generated pressures in transatlantic relations. But we should not exaggerate the extent of our problems. Though some of them might express the point differently, all our

941
Allies agree that the Alliance is indispensable for the foreseeable future. We must build on that.
The foundation of the transatlantic relationship is, of course, security. The presence of substantial American forces in Europe, the outward symbol of the U.S. nuclear guarantee, is essential for the security of Western Europe and of the whole Atlantic area. We have welcomed the assurances given in the past by President Nixon that, provided the other members of the Alliance follow suit, he will maintain and improve U.S. forces in Europe and not reduce them, except in the context of a reciprocal East/West agreement. President Nixon's remarks at Houston on March 19 show that this is still his view. For our part, we fully recognise the need for the European allies to play their full part in the common defence. This does not mean of course that we regard the present level of forces as sacrosanct. Her Majesty's Government will make a positive contribution to the negotiations in Vienna for mutual and balanced force reductions.
In that context, of course, the level of ground forces will be reviewed from time to time, and given international agreement through these talks—the Vienna talks—one would hope, and indeed expect cautiously, for a levelling down. We hope that these negotiations will result in agreements that will permit a lowering of the level of the forces deployed by the two Alliances in Central Europe; but it would be wrong to preempt the outcome of these negotiations by making substantial unilateral reductions in our defences. Our own expenditure on defence must be considered, of course, in the light of our overall economic capacity. We have already indicated that we think that our defence efforts should not be out of line with those of our major European allies. This is once more the principle of reasonable equity in regard to benefits and contributions. But we have also stressed that the requirements of NATO will be the first call on the measures we can make available for defence.
We recognise in addition that the European members of the Alliance must maintain a substantial responsibility for ensuring their own defence. It was my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, as Secretary of State for
942
Defence in the last Labour Government, was instrumental in the establishment of the Euro-Group in promoting a greater degree of co-operation and collaboration among European countries in the defence field. These efforts have been welcomed and encouraged by the Americans and we hope that they will continue to flourish. We realise too that the United States Administration is concerned about the foreign exchange costs of the maintenance of its forces in Europe. This problem has been under discussion in the Alliance and we hope that a satisfactory solution can be found. That is a problem which the British Government face as well, since we also maintain substantial portions of our armed forces on the mainland of Europe.
A close relationship with the Americans is thus vital for our defence. But as my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has stated in another place, we do not believe that it is possible to sustain indefinitely a close alliance with the Americans on defence matters without parallel co-operation on matters of trade, money, energy, and so on. I do not claim, of course, that an identical attitude towards every issue will be possible or even desirable. European countries—this country included—have their own interests which in certain fields, for instance in issues of commercial or agricultural policy, may not always coincide with those of the United States. But and I do emphasise this point, the majority of problems that face us cannot be tackled on a purely regional basis. A global approach is necessary and America is a vital partner in any issue of global importance. Against this background nobody will be surprised if we emphatically reject the view that the only way Europe can establish an identity for itself is by a constant dissociation of its policies from those of the United States. We believe a spirit of compromise, of give and take, is necessary on both sides.
On the economic side the Government give their full support to the trade negotiations in the GATT. The United States Administration is also seeking a mandate to take part in these negotiations. It is essential that we should approach the negotiations constructively together with the aim of working out measures that will encourage the continued expansion of

943
international trade to the benefit of all parties to the negotiations. There is also an urgent need to press ahead with the work that is being carried out on the reform of the international monetary system. There are perhaps two ways at least of dealing with our monetary problem: we could concentrate on national measures to the exclusion of getting a more harmonious international system or we can work to encourage freer international trade and investment through co-ordinated international action. The Government are convinced that Europe must work closely with the United States in dealing with these problems. Here I would interpose that the discussions which have taken place in Luxembourg this week, and will continue, about the way in which (not whether, but how) there should be constructive and positive consultation between the United States and Europe, are of the utmost importance to both sides of the Atlantic and must succeed.
I think the House will do well to accept that there is really no basic disunity in Europe about the need for very close consultation with the United States. There are real difficulties about how to do it. I think I was asked earlier whether I could indicate how Her Majesty's Government could build up the machinery of consultation and what our approach would be. We are working on this matter, but I should like to give the House the assurance that we are working with a view to making the consultation as full and as early as possible and are hoping to carry with us our European friends and allies in the Community.
The creation of a strong and united Europe is an aim which has been welcomed by successive American Presidents. Good and close relations with the United States are in no way incompatible with the creation of a stronger and more self-confident Western Europe. Far from it: we envisage our relations with our American and European allies as complementary and we see no reason or need to choose between the two. That is why we think it is so important to develop the closest relations of cooperation between the countries of Europe. Central to this aim is Franco-German conciliation, which has been one of the most heartening developments in
944
the post-war era. It is because we wish to make our own contribution to the strengthening of these relationships that my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said in another place:
"Our approach as a Government will be to intensify the system of political consultation and co-operation and, in so far as it is possible, to work out common positions through joint discussion with the Community countries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 19/3/74, cols. 863–4.]
In this context I should like to say a word about the proposed talks with the Arab States—a subject on which possibly there has been some considerable misunderstanding. When he met his colleagues in Luxembourg earlier this week, my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary told them that the United Kingdom could now agree to the establishment of a dialogue between the Community and the Arab world. But we would not want this to cut across Dr. Kissinger's peace efforts in the Middle East, and we see no reason why it should. We believe that other European Governments do not want that, either. But we have still to work out the best means of keeping in touch with the Americans to ensure that there is no conflict in practice in the timing of their actions and our own. We shall be discussing the problem further with other Governments of the European Community. We also attach the greatest importance to co-operating with the United States and with other major consuming countries, as well as with producers, to deal with the problems arising from the massive increase in oil prices. The calling of the Washington Energy Conference was an imaginative step. We shall continue to co-operate closely with the Americans in the follow-up work of that conference.
Clearly there has recently been publicly expressed concern about the state of transatlantic relations, but this at least has had the effect of making Europeans—and we are Europeans—think hard about the fundamental nature of their relationship with the United States. I believe that this hard thinking and this frank talking will be beneficial to everybody concerned. We need to ensure that we are equipped to meet new challenges, and that Europe and North America have the means of working out solutions together. We should remind ourselves

945
that our interests put us essentially side by side on the same side of the table on most issues. There is very little that divides us apart from the Atlantic, and so much that binds us together.

THE CHANNEL TUNNEL PROJECT
4.12 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I feel that I must apologise to your Lordships' House for intervening now to repeat the Statement on the Channel Tunnel that was promised earlier in the afternoon. I did not intervene on the previous Statement in the hope that we should have received clearance for this one; and the irony is that if I had waited only two more minutes we could then have proceeded directly to this Statement and I should not have had to interrupt this important debate again. The Statement which has been made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in another place is as follows:
"On October 25 last year, my colleagues and I, then on the Opposition Benches, divided the House on an Amendment which stated that while we were not opposed in principle to a Channel Tunnel, we declined to approve the scheme in its present form and demanded an inquiry into alternative transport strategies. In line with this attitude, the Government have decided that a full and searching reassessment of the project should be carried out before any decision is taken to embark on the main works.
"The current Phase II already provides for a joint reassessment of the traffic, revenue and financial forecasts in the light of changes in, for example, the energy outlook. But I shall in addition, as a matter of urgency, consider whether the studies now in hand fully cover the points which we and others raised in the last Parliament, and I propose to seek outside advice on this. In particular, I shall examine with the French Government and the Railways Board the need to orientate the project more strongly towards through rail services.
"I have concluded that to keep open the option of eventually going ahead with the Tunnel it would be right for
946
Phase II to take its course. I shall therefore reintroduce the Channel Tunnel Bill. In order to avoid abortive costs to petitioners I shall introduce it in the same form as in the last Session. I stress that the object of proceeding with Phase II is to keep our options open. It does not prejudge any decision on the project beyond the end of the present phase.
"Before Phase II ends in the summer of next year, I shall report the outcome of the reassessment to the House. Parliament and the Government will then have finally to decide whether or not to sign Agreement No. 3 and build the Tunnel."
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for repeating this Statement; and, as this is the first opportunity that I have had to congratulate him on his new job as Leader of the House, I should like to do so, and to congratulate him equally on inheriting my private secretary. I am sure he will be well looked after.
My Lords, we very much welcome the fact that the Statement says the Government are to go ahead with Phase II and that we shall have the Channel Tunnel Bill in the form in which it was originally introduced into the House, not only because we are sure this is the right way to proceed but because, of course, there would have been very undesirable consequences for the petitioners if the Bill had not been reintroduced in its original form. However, I should like to ask the noble Lord in what way his further assessment differs from the assessments which were always allowable under the second phase of the Channel Tunnel proposals. My understanding of the position was that it was always possible for us to reconsider the matter in the light of any evidence that was produced. Is he suggesting some further reassessment, other than that for which provision was made?
The Statement refers to "alternative transport strategies", and I should like to ask what this means. It suggests something long-term, but I gather from a later paragraph in the Statement that it is going to be looked at "as a matter of urgency". I should also like to ask him what is meant by, "orientating the project more strongly towards through

947
rail services". Does this mean through rail services to London? Does it mean a rail-only tunnel? I do not think that is very clear. Perhaps the noble Lord could also indicate who are the other outsiders, who are to be asked to give advice on this matter, besides the French Government and the British Railways Board. Is he, for example, going to take into account the views of local authorities, and in particular the Kent County Council? There will be a number of people in Kent who will naturally be very concerned if there is to be further uncertainty about this project in the areas where they live.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will forgive me if I ask: is this further re-assessment really necessary? Surely nothing has been re-assessed so often as the Channel Tunnel during the last hundred years, and surely the French Government must at least have satisfied themselves on the viability of the project. I should also like to ask the noble Lord: can we be certain that in a time of chronic inflation there will not be such delay occurring as a result of re-assessment that we shall escalate the costs even further than they will be escalated as a result of inflation itself? May I finally ask him, if it is decided not to go ahead after Phase II, what is the amount of money which will have been spent and lost, which I understand will in fact be private enterprise money and not necessarily Government money?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. I am indeed glad that I have inherited the noble Baroness's private office, and I hope they will do as well for me as they undoubtedly did for the noble Baroness. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, the Statement means that the re-assessment which was always within the understanding of previous Administrations and which is provided for in the agreement with the French will proceed, and that will not cause delay in any way if a decision is finally made to go ahead. There will be no delay in such developments. My Lords, in answer to the noble Baroness, we intend that the re-assessment shall be very much on the lines which the previous Administration
948
had in mind, but we feel that there is a case for taking outside advice. At this stage I would not wish to go any further as to where or how that advice will be sought; but clearly the Secretary of State wishes to have further advice made available to him.
With regard to orientation towards through rail services, there was a very strong feeling in another place, and I believe in your Lordships' House also, that this project should be more orientated towards rail services. I am not sure how practicable it is (this is a further reason for reassessment) but certainly many would like to see more through-services from other parts of the United Kingdom, so avoiding the possible congestion, or the real congestion, that will arise in the White City Complex and also in Folkestone. In regard to the bodies with whom we shall consult, names have been specified in the Statement. I would agree with the noble Baroness that one does not wish to raise more anxieties than there have been in the past; but, of course, since the Channel Tunnel Bill is, unfortunately for your Lordships' House, a hybrid Bill, there will be an opportunity for those who have a case to put against the Bill to raise these matters. It is the intention of the Government to carry out a full reassessment as soon as possible and, as we say in the Statement, on that reassessment a further Statement will be made to Parliament.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, would my noble friend allow me to ask him not to be too easily seduced by the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Byers? That is exactly how we got into the disaster of Concorde. Those of us who in 1964 and 1965 thought it was right to cancel that ridiculous commitment were led astray, or rather overborne by colleagues—and the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack will know exactly what I mean—who argued along exactly the same lines as the noble Lord, Lord Byers. May I ask my noble friend: if this ugly beast's throat is to be cut, will he please tell us how much we have spent until now, do the blood-letting and get rid of the bloody thing?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in response to my noble friend's Parliamentary language, I am sorry that he

949
reminded me about an omission deliberately made in response to the noble Lord, Lord Byers. If we were to cancel now, the cost to Her Majesty's Government would be of the order of £10 million; but the feeling is that we should make a full assessment of this project, on the basis of which advice will be offered to Parliament. It will then he for Parliament to make a decision as to whether to proceed with the project.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, may I welcome the decision that has been made, particularly from the point of view of the railway? I believe this is quite right: it is something we pressed for when the matter was discussed previously in this House. I hope the direction will be such as to take some of the traffic away from the roads, which would certainly be very desirable. I certainly welcome the Government's decision to proceed immediately to Stage 2, and I also welcome the assurance given by the noble Lord that there will be no delay in going beyond that stage if the reassessment gives reason for believing that we should do so—and I think that we ought to, despite the fact that I have not seen any reassessment.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have a great affection for my noble friend, and I thank him very much for what he has said. However, I do not intend to be drawn further on this matter.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, would Her Majesty's Government give an assurance that in connection with the question of through-rail services consideration will not be given only to through services from the Continent as far as London but will also include services to other parts of Britain, not excluding Scotland? Unless that is so, my Lords, there will be very little support for the project from those parts of the country.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this is clearly a factor which the Government will bear in mind.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that my noble friend Lord George-Brown, with his usual perspicacity, has hit the nail right on the head so far as taking the judgment of other people regarding the costs is concerned? May I ask my noble friend to say whether the reassessment will halt the surveying and the building of a rail- 950
way and the environmental upsurge that will be caused by building a new rail centre into London? Finally, is my noble friend now reaching the conclusion that to study the possibility of building a bridge might be a better project?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, of one point I am sure—there is no alternative to a tunnel. Regarding the continuing work under Phase 2, this is mainly concerned with investigations into the possible project, the borings and the like. However, I can assure my noble friend that this does not involve any form of genuine capital development.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Leader of the House aware that the Statement he has made will give great satisfaction in the North of England as to a reassessment of this project? We have been appalled at the prospect of the concentration of earth-moving equipment and of resources, when houses need to be built. Houses must now be the first priority, and not this Channel Tunnel.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, clearly the question of resources is involved in any consideration of this matter, but I think the House will judge the Government to be right in not taking any precipitate decision and that it will permit the Government to carry forward under Phase 2 a further assessment of the situation so that a judgment may be made following the reassessment.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, when my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts was so rudely interrupted by my noble friend who has just sat down, I was not quite sure whether my noble friend had resumed his seat or not. If I may intrude upon the courtesy of my noble friend and that of the House, may I ask him a question before he does resume his seat?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am sorry but I must say that I think the noble Lord would be stretching even the endurance of your Lordships' House if he were to suggest that my noble friend had only just sat down. I think that if my noble friend wishes to put a question he should do so later in the debate. I can understand and sympathise with the noble Lord, but if we were to let him get away with it this time I fear there would be no end to it.

WESTERN EUROPE/UNITED STATES RELATIONS
4.26 p.m.
Debate further resumed.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, in rising at this moment, I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I feel a little as though I were trespassing on two battlefields of a friendly kind, where the smoke is still swirling around, not to mention the earth-moving equipment, the submarines and so on. But I will try to collect my thoughts as quickly as possible and present to your Lordships something coherent, even if it is not particularly novel. May 1 just add one word to the many expressions of sympathy to France at this moment in the loss of M. Pompidou. Not only will M. Pompidou have an honourable place in French history but he will also have one in British history, because whatever one may think about our membership of the European Community, it was M. Pompidou who gave us the possibility of joining it.
If I may, I should like to begin with a look at the map and then go on to a few points about the European Atlantic relationship and, unavoidably, to a point or two concerning the events of the last few days in regard to the unity of Europe. First, I should like to thank my colleague on the Cross-Benches, the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, for bringing up this subject at so topical and opportune a time. If the sentiments I express appear to be very similar to his, I can assure the House that we have not broken the good Cross-Bench convention of non-collusion.
If we look at a map of the world, perhaps we might begin with the Eurasion heartland, with the two Communist empires. We start with China, at the moment pursuing a quiet, consolidatory policy so far as the outside world is concerned, and also strengthening its nuclear capacity at a great rate. This has a certain effect on the policy of the other Communist empire, that of the Soviet Union, because it has a certain effect on Soviet attitudes towards Western Europe—attitudes which are both positive and negative, which I shall come to in a moment. In the meantime, the Soviet Communist empire continues its existence as a Power in which the constituent members of the empire have no independence of their own because all the
952
orders come from Moscow. Therefore, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts has so rightly pointed out. we are in a better détente situation than we were at the time of the Cold War, this is largely because the late Mr. Khrushchev had at least assured the world that in the ideological conflict the use of force was in fact useless. As against this, we are still in the presence of a country which continues to increase its armaments at great speed, to station its armed forces in different places round the world; and that still confirms what so many noble Lords have already said, that the North Atlantic Alliance must remain for the time being a cornerstone of the West's foreign policy.
We then come, when we have looked at those two parts of our world, to look at Africa and Latin America, non-committed in the aggregate. We find ourselves left with the peripheral countries of great importance like Japan, Australia and New Zealand, and we find ourselves with a central bloc—if you regard the Atlantic at the moment as a lake rather than an ocean—of the United States and Western Europe. If we then separate that aggregation into the United States on the one hand and Western Europe on the other, we have to come to the conclusion that Western Europe is going to need the United States' presence as well as support in a potential defence for a considerable time to come. Therefore all of us must welcome the assurances which the present Government have given to the importance they attach to the connection with the United States and, conversely, as Mr. Callaghan put it, the impossibility of imagining a Europe exclusive of United States' co-operation.
May I now continue on the matter of why things seem to have gone somewhat wrong lately, and whether there is anything we can do about it. I mean by that, of course, the transatlantic dialogue. In order to instruct myself a little on the difficulties of this, just after the Election I paid a week's listening visit to Brussels and Paris. If the House will allow me, I will put in a footnote to that point: that having done part of this tour by plane and part by rail. I cannot wait for a fast train which will take me from the middle of London to the middle of Paris—the quicker the better, and the better it will be for the environment, too, in terms of aircraft noise.

953
The difficulty, as we all know, of this position is the attitude of France. I took very special steps to try to get to the bottom of why in this matter we always seem to have the French in a minority of one. It emerged most clearly in this way. First, there is no doubt that our French friends have obsessed themselves with a kind of nightmare view of the United States. The famous book by J. J. ServanSchreiber, Le défi A méricain, The American Challenge, and other things have built up a psychosis in France that France is bound to be hurt by any intimate contact with the United States. That has developed itself further into what has become in many French eyes a philosophy; and the philosophy is that we must build up Europe as it were behind shuttered windows, and in due course when all of us have agreed among ourselves on what Europe is to be, then we can open the shutters and say, "Here we are" and we start talking to the United States. This is all in the intellectual name in France of Cartesian logic, in honour of the famous French classical philosopher, Descartes. Perhaps the best comment on that is the crisp remark which I had from another Latin friend who said, "I am just as Latin as my French friends, just as good a Cartesian, but I do not agree with a word of it."
In this context I can only say that the Government should continue the laborious job of trying to convince our French friends that in this they are wrong. This is difficult (I have tried it myself, without the slightest success, in my professional capacity) and it is also a difficult matter of French internal policy into which I need not go at this time. But there is a very obdurate sense behind this and there is no alternative but to go on patiently being thankful that the French remain within the Alliance, and try to convince them that at least some of their fears are groundless, and that others in Europe can maintain a perfectly good independence without shutting their doors against the United States.
One of the difficulties of this has been—and it has been mentioned—that Dr. Kissinger for once displayed faulty timing in trying to launch a doctrinal appeal to Europe in April, 1973, on the Atlantic front. It should have been understood that whereas a quarter of a century ago an appeal of that kind from Washington
954
would have had great and immediate effect on us, that time has passed. This is not necessarily to the credit of the Europeans, but it is a fact. If there is going to be this universal faith in NATO and a continuous improvement in NATO in one way or another, it has to be done by the more laborious process of quiet consultation.
This brings me to the point on which I was glad to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, said. If he had not said it, I was going to suggest it as my own idea. There should be research into the matter of machinery of consultation. Consultation is not easy; even between two Powers who agree, things get forgotten, misdirected or blurred, and there is a great deal of hard feeling over what may be purely a mechanical mistake. The machinery of eight countries consulting one, or vice versa, is going to be a very intricate one and is going to involve a great deal of mutual trust. If it is to be prompt and satisfactory it may involve among the eight or nine countries a certain delegation of authority, whether to the Secretary-General of NATO (who is also chairman of the NATO Council) or to a small group. It is easy to say that in future we will consult, but it must be done right, and I welcomed what the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, said about the thought which is being given to this matter.
If the transatlantic understanding is to remain firm, of course the question of what we ourselves do in the matter of Defence should be satisfactorily regulated and decided. Anyone who watched the Panorama "programme" on television last Monday evening will be grateful to the B.B.C. for letting us have a little longer of President Nixon without the benefit of Watergate, because he explained the point which the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, has mentioned in the American political context. It is not that if Europeans do not play their part the United States Government will say, "We have had enough of you". What he said was—and in American political terms this is a fact—"If I do not get support in a sufficient degree from Europe, I cannot present a Bill to Congress to which they will agree in continued support of European Defence." That is a political fact in American Constitutional terms.

955
Therefore, to that I must append a slight warning to the Government that they will have to be very careful about any ideas of reductions in the Defence budget. It may be possible to explain that whatever reductions they make will have no effect on the essentials of our contribution to European Defence. This does not necessarily mean, in geographical terms, confinement to European waters, but it will be important, after the emphasis which the Government have placed on their relations with the United States, that there should not be immediately a reduction in some part of the Defence budget which seems to contradict what they have been advocating on the political side.
One must inevitably turn to the events of the past few days, if only because it is no good talking about a European-American community of purpose if we are unable to participate in a real unity in Europe. I purposely shirk the question of what "unity" in that context means. I mean it in the general sense that if there is disunity in Western Europe, then there is not much sense in talking about concord between America and Western Europe. The Americans would not thank us in the very least, even in their present-day sober mood, if we could be held responsible for "busting" the Community. That is absolutely clear.
Before I make a couple of criticisms, I should certainly like to pay one compliment. I think all of us must have been impressed, and I should like to mention it here, at the very successful mission performed in Brussels by Fred Peart, Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Mr. Peart conducted this mission with great expertness and discretion, and undoubtedly great pertinacity. He came back with an extremely good result. I think that that particular negotiation, apart from being a tribute to the Minister himself, also showed that when approached in the right way there is quite a lot of give among our Community partners when they are convinced that there is some real British interest at stake over which they must help. I am quite sure that they will continue to feel that way.
I come to the more difficult part of what has happened; namely, whether
956
anything that was done this week could have been done somewhat differently. When I last intervened in your Lordships' House on the Queen's Speech, I modestly suggested that the great trap in the way of what the Government might be going to do was to forget that we are dealing with the Community from within the Community at present. We are not talking to "them"; we are talking to "us" from our position as a member. I had hoped perhaps that notice might be taken of that suggestion. But I regret to say that if one reads carefully the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary's speech in another place about foreign affairs, in the very first paragraph he speaks about, "our relations with the Community".
I am also sorry—but I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, in this matter—that again when you listened on the air possibly owing to the tenseness of the situation, there was a tendency all through to talk about the Community as "them". The Community, as I say again, are not, "them", they are our friends and partners to whom we owe some warmth, some friendship which we should express even in the middle of bargaining with the utmost polite ferocity. That is the tone in which these things should be done. I have every sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, but the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said that he is not negotiating with Nottinghamshire, he is negotiating with France, Germany and the rest. There should be a particular spirit about this negotiation because after all, and this was questioned on the programme, too, the Community have accomplished great things; to mention only one, the Common External Tariff which is a most remarkable accomplishment.
Further, if I may go on to my last points which concern the White Paper. First, perhaps in a slightly less serious vein, I found page 2 of the White Paper a little bizarre. I should just like to suggest to the Conservative and Liberal Leadership that they make sure that their Election Manifestos are communicated to the same addresses, and perhaps through the usual or unusual channels there could be an exchange of addresses. But apart from whether there is a propriety about this, I find that the White Paper is a little devalued by a load of words from the Cliché Secretariat like,

957
"root and branch", and, "draconian", and so on. Let us dispense with that. There seemed to me to be two major faults which I hope that in any further expression of British opinion may be avoided. One is that there does seem from the White Paper to be no recognition—I may have missed it—that possibly other people have problems with the workings and the economics of the Community—because they do. If on some particular point we have a problem about prices, they may have a problem about employment. We really must expressly recognise this all the time if in the process of negotiation we are going to get give and take on both sides, and not simply claim privilege on our side.
One other point. Much play is made in the White Paper of our lower rate of growth than that of some Continental countries. I wonder whether Ministers are aware what that implies? It implies that not only have we a lower growth rate now, but that we shall go on having a lower growth rate than France and Germany and others in the future. I just refuse to make that admission. I am sure we can do better than that. Our arguments should not be founded on a proposition of that kind. Particularly do I find this embarrassing when the day after the Statement we are saying to ourselves not only have we got a lot more coal, which the continentals have not got, but we are going to have a lot more oil than even we thought before. The two propositions are not, as the French say, conciliable.
I therefore plead very strongly with the Government for a more give-and-take attitude towards this matter of expressions which does not—and I repeat it again with all emphasis—preclude the hardest of bargaining when the bargaining begins. There are all sorts of difficulties about this. Perhaps I may make one very serious remark about the duty in a situation like this of whoever is the spokesman for this country, be it the Foreign Secretary or one of his deputy Ministers—and I do not think the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, will disagree with me on this. The post of Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has very great privileges and a certain flexibility of operation which his colleagues do not enjoy. As against this he has one terrible cross to bear; that is that on occasion he may be convinced that the long-
958
term and real interests of his country are such to contradict in some measure the urgent short-term feelings of a number of the people. That is his cross. It is important to bear in mind that this may happen to anyone who is speaking for this country in a context of this kind.
Perhaps my final point is fortified in saying these words of muted criticism, if your Lordships wish. It is without reference to any Party, any individual, but I just worry very much about a tendency we seem to be developing in this country of speaking rather loud and thinking rather little. I was hoping very much that we would have a little more of an affirmative reply about the Channel Tunnel. I am happy that the reply is not negative. But we really must, in our small cares which are very real, not lose the ability to think big. We probably shall have to cut down on this or that big project, probably Maplin, in the present financial situation. But we must not look at projects and say that because they are big we cannot undertake them, because that is not the spirit of our people and it is not the way we are going to get out of our present depressions. So, I hope, finally, that we may look at our relations with the United States, our relations with Europe, and our relations among ourselves, with a certain, not disproportionate, but genuine bigness of thought and ambition.
4.50 p.m.
LORD ARDWICK: My Lords, the death in office of an executive President is always an event of great historical importance in the life of a nation; for a nation with such a system loses at once its Sovereign citizen and its chief political leader. The grief is not increased thereby, of course, but the shock to the nation is twofold. So to-day we must stand apart for a moment from our unhappy relations with France and express our sympathies in the death of President Pompidou. Those of us who believe it was right for Britain to join the European Community must recall (as the noble Lord who has just spoken recalled) that it was he, as President of France, who pronounced the final, Yes. Yet his death, which he so bravely faced, and which came at too early an age, may have a constructive effect; for there is now likely to be a halt in European development over several months. That

959
will give time for the new Government here to become more familiar with the day-to-day practice of the Community; perhaps to become more sensitive about its prejudices, and to think out in greater and realistic detail the reforms proposed by Mr. Callaghan two days ago. It will also give time for the more ardent Europeans to get over the anger they were expressing yesterday.
I think that some noble Lords opposite were taking the speech, and the criticisms of the speech from Europe, rather too simply. The last thing the Europeans were expecting from us was a humble address beseeching the nations of the Community to make life easier for Britain. They expected something rough indeed. M. Jobert, more like a journalist than a politician, wrote his answer on Saturday to the speech Mr. Callaghan was going to make on the Monday. I myself, reading the speech, thought it was firm but extremely courteous in its whole approach. Some of the criticism in the Press to-day is absolutely fantastic. One French newspaper calls Mr. Callaghan, Tartuffe. It is the first time I have heard a man who is accused of being too candid called a hypocrite. Then there is Le Monde, usually so well disposed to us and so balanced in its judgment, which regards my right honourable friend the Minister for Trade, Mr. Peter Shore, as being like Marshal Malinovsky, sitting dominating Mr. Khrushchev. I do not think that or that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary felt that he was being dominated in this way.
However, one must admit that the Europeans, even if they were just reacting in the expected way with the expected rhetoric, were rather upset in the way that many members of my Party in the past were upset when we made an attempt to revise Clause IV of the Labour Party constitution: a clause which, I may remind noble Lords opposite, embodied the dream of the complete Socialist Utopia. It was an attack on a sacred myth and, looking back on it, many of us now see that we made a great political error in pressing for a pragmatic revision. Better to let myths, whether they are Socialist myths or European myths about federal union, die a natural death, or he strengthened and made into a reality by the course of events.
960
Much of what my right honourable friend said at Luxembourg was of course exemplary, especially his insistence that he wants the negotiations to succeed. And he showed some care about semantics, too. He knew that the word "renegotiation" was bitterly disliked, so he tempered it by saying, "what we in Britain have come to call renegotiation'." Of course, I have some minor criticisms. I think that on reflection he will wonder whether it was wise to include those chunks of the Election Manifesto. If I may adapt Aneurin Bevan, the language of the Manifesto is hardly the religion of Europeanism. But what has pleased me, as an ardent European, has been Mr. Callaghan's recognition of the premier importance of the Atlantic Alliance. It was this that I pleaded for in the speech I made to your Lordships in the debate on the Address. It was a prominent feature of Mr. Callaghan's maiden speech as Foreign Secretary, of his speech at Luxembourg, and again yesterday when the question of United States/Common Market relations was raised there in an immediate and practical form.
There is, of course, a limit to British Atlanticism. If anybody believes that a withdrawal from Europe by Britain could be followed by a restoration of the old special relationship, he is believing the impossible. America's interests lie not in a special relationship with Britain but with the whole of Western Europe. Mr. Kissinger's recent accusations, recriminations and lamentations, followed by his healing recantations, must be seen as evidence of the importance he puts on the European connection. A détente with the Soviet Union would have little meaning if Western Europe isolated herself from the United States—little meaning for the United States or for Western Europe, either. My own belief is that, no matter how far Western Europe is able to go in the creation of a joint foreign policy, what neither we in Western Europe nor they in the United States can afford is for us to pursue rival, divergent foreign policies. One cannot have an alliance sheltering under a nuclear deterrent and with an integrated defence structure pursuing conflicting aims. The Alliance must have a broad political strategy, and of course it must be an agreed one.

961
This does not mean, however, that Western Europe must become the client, the satellite, the acquiescent junior partner of the United States. NATO is not the Warsaw Pact, and never can be. But the United States must in turn be sensitive to the mood and the psychological needs of Europe, just as we must understand that Dr. Kissinger must always be thinking of public opinion, particularly as that public opinion is expressed in Congress and in the Senate. It is all very well for people to say, as the French are saying at the moment, that the United States is with us in Europe only because it suits her vital needs. This is a political truism which has become a banality. Nations sometimes mistake what their vital needs are. Who can say that Britain, France, the United States and the Soviet Union were properly aware of their vital needs in 1938 and 1939?
Yet the French view repays deep study by the United States and by the rest of us in Western Europe. For what they think and fear is an extreme version of what we may all occasionally think, and sometimes fear. The French view—and there is a French view, not just a Gaullist view—was eloquently put by M. Michel Debré, only about eight or nine days ago. He fears—this is the nightmare—that what the United States wants is French policy to be dominated by a European policy, which must be an Atlantic policy; and that this Atlantic policy must be a United States policy. He believes that across the United States there is a desire that there should be no French policy towards the Arab States or the Soviet Union; that France's defence should again be placed under American responsibility, and that the European States should renounce all autonomous policies on energy, agriculture and commerce. This is the state of mind in France with which Mr. Callaghan, Mr. Brandt and the other European leaders and Mr. Kissinger have to deal. Nor should anybody imagine that the situation will be eased for us if M. Mitterand becomes President of France. The Parties of the Left have no greater love for the United States than M. Jobert himself has; perhaps they have even less.
Yet the French, by their logic, are already in danger of losing an important objective. Eight of the Nine nations in the Common Market are agreed that
962
there should be advance consultations with the United States on major foreign policy initiatives. M. Jobert's view seems to be that as the E.E.C. is not a sovereign State, and as its policies cover only certain, limited areas, it cannot be given an automatic mandate to consult with the other nations. What one suspects is that France is unwilling to make such a concession in favour of the United States lest it should impair what it pleases her to think is her special relationship with the Soviet Union. So, as a consequence of all this, France's proposals for a Euro-Arab conference on cultural, technical and economic co-operation cannot go ahead. I thought that the British Foreign Secretary was quite right to point to the danger of cutting across Mr. Kissinger's Middle East peace initiatives and the decisions of the Washington Energy Conference; and everybody in Europe except the French agreed with him. That is the position to-day. That is the position of the American and European leaders who will meet in a few days' time across the bier of President Pompidou. It is a sad and needless confrontation that we have had in recent weeks. Leaders in most countries have spoken words which it would be wise for us all to forget. Perhaps in the pause while France seeks a new President we can think out a new beginning of the United States European relationships.
5 p.m.
THE EARL OF CROMER: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to those already expressed to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, for giving us the opportunity to debate this important subject today. I think it is rather symbolic of the times in which we live that he drafted the Motion in these words:
"To call attention to relations between Western Europe and the U.S.A., and the implications for the United Kingdom;".
Not so many years since, the debate would almost certainly have been on Anglo-American relations, and this shows the degree of change which has already taken place in our world.
I am sure the noble Lord the Leader of the House will forgive me if I say that I was most interested in the expressions of Atlanticism uttered by the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, which I find myself wholly sharing. In point of fact, in my notes I put down exactly the same words as he used. I can assure

963
your Lordships there was no collusion on this. One element slightly surprised me and that was the tendency to wrap up defence, finance, monetary and trade into what the Americans call "one ball of wax", which is an approach to these matters that hitherto we have been trying to avoid, because although they obviously inter-relate and inter-react, to try to negotiate them all in one bundle, so to speak, which is what the Americans proposed at one point of time, would be very difficult for all of us from the purely administrative point of view to know what team of Ministers and officials should be mounted for such an occasion.
Recently there has been a tendency for the wringing of hands about transatlantic relations and the like, and I think it is worth trying to identify one or two of the causes. To go on wringing hands and saying "It is all terrible" is not going to produce the cures. One of the reasons for the differences that have arisen has been the rate of change in so many fields. There has been the rate of change in the economic side, attempts to find a new international payments system, the M.B.F.R. discussions, SALT, the trade discussions in the GATT, and the like. All these areas have been particularly active in the last year and the very activity has tended to bring to the fore the differences of approach which, perfectly understandably and naturally, exist between us.
On top of this we had the Year of Europe and the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, rightly said that Dr. Kissinger's timing was unhappy in this respéct, particularly as it happened to coincide with the first year of the enlargement of the Community. I think his timing was unfortunate from the European point of view, and the results and the reactions were disappointing from his point of view. On the other hand, I think the motives were wholly laudable. He felt that people of my generation (if I may say so) were getting older, and that we who were brought up with the Atlantic community concept were finding our places filled by younger men who were not brought up with the same automatic identity of interest, and if one could create some appeal which would capture the imagination of the younger generation this would be to the advantage of the future of the
964
Atlantic Alliance. I think the motives there are difficult to criticise, although whether ringing calls of this kind are any substitute for concrete action, I should doubt. However I think the motives were reasonable.
The effect on the year of the enlargement of the Community was quite interesting in that I think it brought about greater speed on the part of the members of the European Community to react politically with one voice, which was symbolised at the meeting in Copenhagen in September. But there were bad sides to it as well, notably the way in which it showed up the inadequacy of the machinery, both for formulating policy within the Community itself and for consultation with our most important ally and trading partner. I think a lot can be learnt from this, and I have been interested in the various views expressed in your Lordships' House this afternoon on this topic. At one stage the difficulty was that the Americans could not understand why we could not sit down, so to speak, 10 at the table, which would really imply that they were full members. This naturally and automatically produced a strong reaction from the French, but it would have produced more or less the same reaction from anybody else to whom it had been put.
So there is a great difficulty here. Whether the W.E.U., as has been suggested this afternoon, offers a possibility, I have my doubts. There is one suggestion I should like to make as a possible means of improving communications, namely, that the various European institutions and gatherings might issue more pressing invitations (if I may use that expression) to the Americans, to ensure that American diplomatic representation at these gatherings was on a level and an authority that (a) could report effectively to Washington and (b) conversely could express in these gatherings what the American interests might be.
A number of other noble Lords have expressed a view which I wholly share, that the key interest of the United States in the integration of Europe is for the future of NATO, and as they see it, only by such integration is it likely that the European members of NATO will play their full part, both in the military sense and in the financial contribution. I was very glad to hear the noble Baroness,

965
Lady Tweedsmuir, quoting the figures of the contribution that is already made by the Europeans, including ourselves—figures to which those to whom we are really addressing them seem extraordinarily deaf; they do not want to hear them because they do not give them any joy.
But across the board there have been a number of areas of contention. In trade, and the GATT xxiv (6) negotiations, I think it is probably fair to say there has been a lack of flexibility on both sides of the Atlantic and that rather rigid positions have been taken, to the extent that at one stage in time Ministers were having to discuss into the small hours the subject of pineapple chunks, which one would have thought might have been delegated slightly further down; apparently the machinery did not allow it. Of course also in this area the Americans are very ready—as I suppose we all are—to see the faults of the other people, and the fact that they may have discriminatory trade practices themselves tends to be conveniently forgotten. For instance, the credit that should be given to Europe for the fact that the Common External Tariff is the lowest industrial tariff in any major trading bloc in the world is not something which gets across to the Americans.
Against these various areas of difference it is extremely difficult to know what is the best policy for Her Majesty's Government to follow at the present time. I certainly share the view which has been expressed by many noble Lords that to weaken the progress of European unification would be wholly unwelcome to the Americans. The course of history is such that none of the individual nation States of Europe, including ourselves, can offer to the Atlantic Alliance individually what is possible collectively. This provokes the rather unattractive phrase one sometimes hears in America, "Is Europe likely to move towards Balkanisation?" It is a real fear on the part of some Americans that we will be unable to stand together in the way they would wish.
My Lords, I hope to end briefly. Within what the Government style as renegotiation, but what I prefer to refer to as the continuing evolution of the European Community, we should work hard at improving the existing machinery. I think we would all share the view that
966
within the Commission's relations with both our allies and the Third World generally, the machinery leaves a lot to be desired. I am convinced however that it is not possible to attempt to better Anglo-American relations at the price of worsening Anglo-European relations.
5.11 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, may I begin by adding my expression of sorrow to that of other noble Lords on the sad loss to France of her President. There is much one could say about this tragic occasion, but others wish to speak this evening, and I am sure that the House, the people of France and the family of the President will recognise that all of us here extend our deep sympathy to them.
May I also add my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, for giving us the opportunity to debate this most important area of defence and foreign policy. In the light of the fact that I follow him immediately in the order of speaking, may I extend a welcome to the noble Earl, Lord Cromer, on his return from his mission in Washington, where he has represented Her Majesty with such distinction and success.
I should like to concentrate on one special area of this debate; that is, defence policy. It seems to me that the whole framework and philosophy of Western defence is summed up in the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, to-day: relations between Western Europe, the United States of America and the implications for the United Kingdom. If we take those in reverse order, it is possible to say that the security of this country is inseparably bound up with that of Western Europe, and the security of Western Europe is in turn linked inseparably with that of the United States of America. In my view, there can be no question of Western Europe, and of this country in Western Europe, ever attempting to form anything like a third force, some kind of neutralised bloc standing between the United States of America and the Soviet Union. We stand alongside the United States, and in the Free World there should never be any room for doubt about that.
My Lords, on that particular issue I found the gracious Speech, which outlined the policy of the present Government, most encouraging. It seemed to

967
me that the gracious Speech indicated a clear commitment to the Western Alliance and to NATO. That commitment has been underlined and emphasised again in the debate in this House to-day by the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts. Although he is not for the moment in his scat, I think that when he reads the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, the noble Lord will accept my welcome to him to this House. This is my first opportunity to do so, and I greet him, congratulate him, and express my condolences to him that the result of the election in his constituency followed so soon after the speech which I made on the eve of poll.
My Lords, tomorrow is the 25th anniversary of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. For that reason, I think we should be regarding its future with a good deal more interest than its past. It is true that the Alliance and the relations between the United States end of the Alliance and the European end have been under considerable strain recently. For one reason and another there has been a failure of communications. I do not think that that great peripatetic Secretary of State from the United States, Dr. Kissinger, can be entirely exonerated from blame in this matter. We have heard a little about the timing of his initiative on a new Atlantic Charter. I would offer this mild criticism to him in the friendliest terms: that perhaps he finds it more difficult to understand Europeans than almost anyone else in the world. He seems to be thoroughly at home with the Arabs, the Israelis, the Chinese and with the Russians, but as soon as he sets foot in Western Europe the friction seems to begin. I cannot understand why this should be, but it does seem to be true. It is summed up in the remark which he is alleged to have made, perhaps apocryphally, to a Western European statesman who was expressing some doubts and fears about the forthcoming crisis in a certain area of the world, to which Dr. Kissinger replied, "There will be no crisis next week; my diary is already full."
Whether or not this is true and symptomatic of his approach, I believe the real need now is to restore the confidence that used to exist between Europe and the United States of America, to set
968
the Alliance back on its feet and to keep it in good repair. My submission is that this country has a very great part to play in this operation. Although we should regard ourselves now as being a part of Europe, we have a very special responsibility in keeping in good repair the relationship between Western Europe and the United States.
My Lords, I now come to the part of my speech which deals specifically with defence policies. It is terribly important that this country, of all countries, should not be seen to be cavalier or in any way thoughtless or irresponsible about the military defence of Western Europe. There is a persistent threat to the integrity and survival of the Free World. There is the continuing nuclear arms race between the super-Powers. Those of us who have followed the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks will know that at a recent meeting between Dr. Kissinger and the Soviet leadership, the future of the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks came in for a good deal of questioning, and must now be regarded as a matter of some doubt. The two super-Powers are still engaged in a nuclear arms race.
If we take the simple example of the recent announcement of the American Defence Secretary that certain American missiles have now been retargetted so as to aim at Soviet missiles and not at Soviet cities, we can see the seeds sown of what might be a dangerous development if the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks should fail, because although I do not wish at this stage or in this debate to go into the whole theology of the nuclear confrontation, one of the possible results of it is that the Soviet Union might regard this as the first step in an American attempt to gain what is called a first strike capability; that is, the ability to knock out your opponent's missiles before he can retaliate. I do not suggest for a moment that this is the American aim, but there are two Powers at work here. If that is what the Russians think the Americans are doing, their next step could be a dangerous one indeed. It would be particularly dangerous for Western Europe.
I believe we should all bear this in mind and set it alongside the very real fact that outside the nuclear sphere, the armed strength of the Soviet Union is

969
growing monthly and daily. It is growing especially in its power in Central Europe. It is growing, too, in the Mediterranean, in the Indian Ocean, and wherever the Soviet Navy now patrols. But most of all it is growing in central Europe, where the balance of forces between NATO and the Warsaw Pact is not moving in favour of the Free World. This is one of the main areas upon which the military security of the Free World depends.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him for one moment? I agree very much with what he is saying. Could he give us some figures of the disparity in weapons between the Atlantic bloc and the Soviet bloc? I think it very important that it should be brought home as loudly as possible.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I do not keep the figures in my head. I can only say that it is not so much a question of disparity in numbers, although the disparity in numbers is sufficiently disturbing: the real difference lies in the quality and quantity, and type, of the weapons deployed. The areas in which the Soviet Union are now so much stronger than the West are the areas of armoured regiments, tanks, which are the basic weapons of aggressive or attacking warfare; in ground attack aircraft, which are similar; in artillery, and, of course, in the fact that their lines of communication, which cover a land area from Eastern Germany back into the Soviet Union, are shorter and more effective than the lines of communication of the West. It is not simply a question of disparity in numbers but also a question of disparity in certain vital types of equipment. The figures have been published recently by the International Institute for Strategic Studies and I commend the appropriate document to the noble Earl's attention.
It is I think essential, in the light of this confrontation and this imbalance, that the defences of the West should be kept always in good repair, and in this the British contribution is vital: of this none of us should be in any doubt. Most military experts on the Continent, whether they be German or French, American or of any other nationality, will subscribe
970
to the view that, taken all round, the British Army of the Rhine, which is the British contribution to the Northern Army Group and the British contribution to the defence of Western Europe, is the best Army in Europe. Not only is it highly trained, not only is its morale at a very high level (it has no problems of drugs or the other manifestations of modern Western society which afflict other Armies in Europe), but its leadership is first-class; its equipment modern. It is a tightly knit, highly professional Army. All our Allies in Europe recognise it as such and recognise it as an absolutely essential link in the defence of Western Europe.
It has been said in the arguments that are adduced for making cuts in our own defence spending that we make a larger contribution, in terms of percentage of our gross national product, than other Western European countries. Statistically, that is true, but I believe it to be also basically misleading. It is misleading in the first place because, although we supply, in terms of gross national product, a larger percentage towards Western European defence, our gross national product is growing much more slowly than that of other Western European countries, as the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, has mentioned.
The other fact is that the whole business of calculating the strengths on percentages of G.N.P. can give an entirely false impression. The total strength of the ground forces in the defence of Western Europe is 770,000. Of that, the British contribution is less than 60,000. I make that point simply to show that although the British Army of the Rhine is in my view the best Army in Europe, it cannot be said with any degree of seriousness that we are contributing a disproportionate amount to the defence of Western Europe, upon which in the long run the security of this country depends. In any case, if there is a disparity between our percentage of G.N.P. and theirs, is it not equally arguable that they should be raising theirs and not we lowering ours?
My Lords, this business of the amount of money we spend on ensuring safety against attack is not an absolute matter; it is a matter of what the threat is and how much we want to guard ourselves against that threat. But I think the real

971
point here is that, whatever the arguments about levels of forces in Europe, any defence decisions made in this country, now more than ever before, must be on the basis of the closest consultation with our Allies, both our North American Allies and our Western European Allies, in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
We have already had some cuts made in our Defence Budget by the previous Government, and they are to be carried on—or a promise has been made that they will be carried on—by the present Government. I believe, and my advice is, that those cuts can be sustained within the present establishment of our Armed Forces. It will probably mean delay in certain equipment programmes, but the cuts at present proposed, provided they are intelligently applied, need not affect our defence capacity or our capacity to contribute to the defence of Western Europe. But we are promised another Defence Review quite soon. If this Defence Review should mean further cuts, if this should be the beginning of a progressive reduction of our Defence Budget, the percentage of the G.N.P. we spend on defence, then I believe that the very effectiveness of our defence forces would be put at risk, and with it, inevitably, the security of Western Europe. I recognise that here we have to speak "the language of priorities", if I also may quote from Aneurin Bevan (it seems to be the statutory thing to do on this side of the House): the language of priorities must be listened to; and of course we cannot spend all we should like to on our Armed Forces. But it seems to me that before we do anything which affects the military safety of Western Europe, we must consult fully with our Allies in the Alliance, with our European Allies and our North American Allies.
It has been said that we need some kind of new machinery for consultation. I am not sure that we do. I believe that the machinery for consultation already exists. It is the will to consult which perhaps does not. In Europe, for example, we have only to choose between a number of possible instruments of consultation. There is the Eurogroup, which has been mentioned this afternoon. The Eurogroup is an extremely useful, valuable instrument of consultation. It has
972
of course the major defect that it does not include France; and this is a critical defect. We have the Western European Union, which does include France but not the Scandinavian members of the Alliance. We have indeed the European Economic Community. There is no reason why that should not be used as a forum for political consultation. It is true that it includes one country, the Republic of Ireland, which is not a member of NATO, but I have never believed that the presence of Ireland in the Common Market should be allowed to militate against adequate consultation about political and miltary defence in Western Europe.
Then, outside Europe, for consultation with the United States of America, there is the North Atlantic Council, and that is exactly what it is there for: to enable the countries of Western Europe, perhaps having first discussed matters among themselves, to enter a process of consultation with the United States. All these instruments already exist. It seems to me only a matter of deciding how to use them and of having the will to use them.
The main thing is that there must in my view be no unilateral reduction of our ability to defend Western Europe. I say that not only from the point of view of Europe but from the point of view of this country, too. If we decide that we must make cuts which will affect our contribution to Western Europe, then we must consult with our Allies. If our Allies, in consultation with us, decide that there is to be a lowering of the level of military forces in Europe, then we must consult with the Americans; and in consultation with them we must exact concessions from the Soviet Union in the consultations on mutual and balanced force reductions. I believe that if we make unilateral reductions in the already critically low level of conventional defensive capability in Western Europe we shall be running into a period of very grave danger indeed.
I believe that this subject which the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has brought before us is one of vital importance. I share the view that has already been expressed this afternoon: that in the relations between Western Europe and the United States of America a high degree of integration, economic and military, is essential in Western Europe. This has

973
always been my view and I have never sought to conceal it. I also believe that the future relationship with the United States, as the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, has said, will be a relationship between the United States of America and Western Europe. That is the new "special relationship". But I repeat, in that relationship this country has a very special role to play. We must play that role intelligently, powerfully and imaginatively. We must not be led into that ancient belief that the only language which foreigners understand is English spoken very loudly. That is not so. It may have been so at one time, but this is a new world.
We must show in our defence and foreign policy four things. We must show that we recognise fully the dangers to the integrity and the survival of the free world. Secondly, we must show that we are prepared to co-operate fully with our partners in Western Europe in meeting those dangers. Thirdly, we must demonstrate that we will have no truck with neutralism or ideas about third forces; we are of the Free World, and therefore, fourthly, we must demonstrate that we are four-square within the Western Alliance alongside our Allies, the United States of America. As I have said, I was encouraged by what was written in the gracious Speech and spoken about it, which set out the policies of the present Government. I have been further encouraged by the words of my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts this afternoon. I believe that so long as the present Government pursue the policies that were set out in the gracious Speech, and in his speech this afternoon, they deserve the support of all Members of your Lordships' House.
5.32 p.m.
LORD LYELL: My Lords, I would first of all seek to associate myself with the messages of sympathy and condolence that noble Lords are sending to the people of France in their sad and tragic loss. Secondly, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, for giving us the opportunity of discussing what is an extremely important subject, one which over the next 20 or 25 years will become increasingly important. I have a minimal interest in the subject under discussion in that I am lucky enough to sit as a member of the North Atlantic Assembly which, as your Lordships will
974
know, is an association of Parliamentarians of the North Atlantic Alliance. The list of speakers we have this afternoon is so impressive that I am relieved to find that there is a juvenile element in it—the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, possibly the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and myself—and I think that it is incumbent on us to maintain the progress that has been made in the first 25 years of the North Atlantic Alliance, and incumbent on us to keep this progress going for the next 25 years.
I ask myself what is inconsistent with membership of the European Economic Community and a good and working relationship with the United States, because I believe that certainly for the last ten years at least there seems to have been an element of doubt in our good faith towards Europe. I do not necessarily believe that this doubt is the feeling of a strong, confident, and united Europe at all. It is sad that proof of good faith in a strong European Community seems to entail a reduction in good relations with the United States. I should be very sorry to see relations with the United States in any way diminished, or even remaining on the present level; I would hope to see them improved in every way possible. We heard a clear and excellent speech from the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, who stated that in his opinion there was no need at all to choose between Europe and the United States, and I am grateful and relieved to hear that this will be the policy of the Government in the years to come. I believe that relationships that have been forged over two world wars are not easily broken off; they are far more easily maintained through any temporary or minor difficulties that might appear.
I wonder why France, as one member of the European Economic Community, should seek in any way to dictate standards of behaviour of other members of the European Community, either newly joined or who have been part of the Community since the Treaty of Rome was first signed in 1957. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, was clear, concise and very coherent, and he emphasised all of this very well indeed. We in the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe do not see any reason for turning anti-Americanism into some form of virility symbol showing our fitness to

975
become good Europeans even in the broader sense as was envisaged by General de Gaulle. I just cannot see that this is relevant to any improvement of relations either across the Atlantic or indeed around the world. I wonder why it is that France, of all nations, who should appreciate the help given in and after the Second World War, should seek to believe that the United States, and any help and influence coming from the United States, is in any way harmful. I have not found this at all easy to understand, in spite of the great logic that we always find in all French thought.
Defence in Western Europe against any possible aggression, from wherever it might come, is immensely aided by the United States. Without the United States I believe there would be no coherent and credible defence capacity in Europe as such. I do not believe that the United States carry out their defence treaty obligations in Europe just for their own pleasure or edification, but very much more because they believe it to be a political necessity. Many institutions and politicians within Western Europe desire to maintain these close links that already exist with the United States, and I think that they look to us, and to other members of the Community, to continue these links, whatever the cost, and to continue for the next 20 years as various Governments have for the last 20 or 25 years. I do not think that these institutions or politicians have any fear of us becoming a Trojan horse, as infiltrators of the United States money and influence into Europe. I believe that that is not the truth at all. Indeed, the United States Congress looks at Western Europe and to the United Kingdom, and holds out the hand of friendship to us. It is foolish and unconstructive to spurn these expressions of friendship and the help that we have obtained from the United States.
The United States Congress, and everybody in the United States and Canada, wish to see a strong and, so far as is possible, united Europe able to put its case politically anywhere in the world where it can be of influence. Yet somehow we still feel self-conscious in strengthening our relations with the United States and Canada, and with any other nations with which we choose to maintain links. I believe that this is
976
rubbish. We must maintain these links with the United States, and I believe that this will grow ever more important. I cannot see why there is any reason why Atlantic relations should not be strengthened. As the noble Earl, Lord Cromer, has pointed out, we can do so much as a team within the Alliance. That team spirit is not, and never will be, destroyed by one member, or more than one member, dictating to the other nine, ten or eleven members what should be the policy. That is the main point that I believe we should seek to prove and this is why I am so pleased that the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has given us the chance to discuss it this afternoon.
5.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, the only reason why I am venturing to intervene very briefly is that I happened to be in Brussels yesterday attending a subcommittee meeting of the North Atlantic Assembly, that body to which the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has referred. I thought that I might pick up from my colleagues there some ideas that would be of interest to your Lordships, but I have to confess that everybody was, if I may use a neutral term, so much affected by the Foreign Secretary's speech at Luxembourg the previous day that it was a little difficult to get clear ideas that were not mixed up with some reference to that situation.
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie said, it is very necessary to keep our friendships in repair. This is specially necessary in times such as the present which are so difficult for all of us, for them as well as for us, although indeed we should keep our friendships in repair at all times. One of our great and most important friendships must always be our friendship with the people of the United States of America. The Motion speaks of the relations between the United States and Western Europe, and this is quite right because even if Western Europe was not collectively organised—and we must confess that at the moment the organisation is not perfect—the United States relationship would have to be of a collective nature.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont (or was it the noble Earl, Lord Cromer) in his very interesting speech, referred to the fears in America of Balkanisation. This

977
is a very real fear. If Europe were to get into disarray there would be nobody with whom they could have relations. That may sound rather a foolish statement but I believe it to be so. They could not now have special relations with us or special relations with France or with the Federal Republic of Germany. They need to have a European focus with whom their relations can be carried on. And so it must be of a very great concern to us that there has been a schism in these relations, that points of tension have grown up.
I was much impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, said about the importance of finding a method of meeting our American friends which does not involve a confrontation. I brought back from Brussels something which I thought was rather interesting. It was a contribution by one of our colleagues referring to the difficulties because we were discussing this very subject of transatlantic relations. He said, "The escalation in public statements scarcely contributes to easing the situation." That splendid under-statement ought to have been made by an Englishman, but in fact was made by a Frenchman (in French, of course). I think this is one of the great troubles that faces us to-day in international relations. I suppose secret diplomacy was buried 30 or 40 years ago, but I must say that open diplomacy has terrible pitfalls.
I do not know whether the Secretary of State's speech at Luxembourg was blunt or whether it was frank, but it certainly was taken as an aggressive speech. Of course one can only take up impressions about the reaction. I read two newspapers in Europe and I thought that they were perhaps rather overstating their objections, but I read newspapers in England when I got home and they seemed to take very much the same view. Certainly among ordinary people whom I met and Parliamentarians from the different countries there was a feeling that this was not the way to set about it. The noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, in his very interesting speech said that the Secretary of State believed that our proposals were in the interests of the Community. I believe so too, but why on earth did he not say so? Why did he not present these suggestions not as demands from outside but as suggestions from within that this would improve the
978
Community? It seems to me that the manner in which these proposals are put forward makes all the difference. Of course he had to make a statement which expressed the views of the Government, but I would have thought it much wiser if he had made precisely the same statement in private to the various Foreign Ministers. It was not necessary to make a public statement unless—and this is one of the great things which I believe of what our French friend called, "this escalation in public statements"—they are not made for the purpose of trying to reach agreement but for the purpose of satisfying people at home.
I was interested in another thing I picked up in Brussels. There was a visit recently by a group of American Congressmen and in the course of private conversation they said that we should not take too much notice of the sort of remarks that were made by Dr. Kissinger and by the President, because they also have to consider what the public at home wants to hear. So I must say that I would very much favour the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, that we should go back to what he beautifully described as, "the laborious process of quiet consultation". I believe we should get much further in improving our relations if we could do that. I recognise how difficult it is in the social climate in which we live to-day where the newspapers, radio and television want to get instant reactions when anybody says anything at all. I deplore that because I think it creates confusion and leads to confrontation when the aim of all of us must be to try to find some common ground. The reaction of people to blunt or frank statements is very often an over-reaction. I suspect that to be the case with the reaction of Europe to the Foreign Secretary's speech in Luxembourg. But this I am afraid is what human beings do. Even in your Lordships' House we sometimes react rather violently to provocative statements from the other side of the House.
I am going to make only one other point and it arises also out of my visit. In his splendid speech the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, ended with a peroration which I greatly enjoyed when he talked about our working things out alongside our European allies and the United States. My Lords, do not let us forget that

979
another member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is Canada; and I do not think I have heard Canada mentioned in this debate at all. Our relations with the United States, the subject of the Motion, are very much linked with our relations with Canada. We tend sometimes to forget them in the various forums suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, on the Continent. Some of the forums include some nations, some include others, and it is difficult to make a choice as to which is the right forum for discussion of these problems. Western European Union has been proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. Again there are others not represented there. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is the only one which includes the United States and Canada, and it also includes Norway which is not in the Nine.
So that in many ways, because it is almost impossible to separate the strictly military issues from the economic issues that lie behind them—and no military alliance is of any use unless it has the economic power to support it—it is difficult to find a place where we can discuss all these matters; and we do not want to discuss them in too many different places. That leads me to wonder whether we should seek for this purpose—I shall not suggest a take-over bid or anything like that—an amalgamation of some of the rather numerous bodies which take up the time of their members, including noble Lords in this House, which might well be streamlined if there were a single organisation within which these problems and the tensions that arise could be discussed.
I do not think I have anything more to say that would be of interest to your Lordships, except that I should like to quote from the French source to which I have already referred. That Frenchman said that no one—and that means no one nation—
"… can save himself alone. The essential aim for our countries must be to seek at every opportunity the necessary consensus. If leadership is intolerable"—
and I had some difficulty in extracting his meaning, but he meant that if the concept of the United States leaving the group is intolerable, if partnership is difficult to achieve precisely because of
980
the tensions which develop, we must seek the necessary concensus. Then he concluded, very sensibly:
"This is far easier to write than to achieve but, above all, it is a question of will."
5.53 p.m.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, this debate into which the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has so excellently thrown us is one of singular timeliness. It is about what might be called the dilemma of Europe and what we do about America. The fact is that at the present time Europe is not in a happy or a united state. References are continuously made to "Europe", as though the European Economic Community were the same thing as Europe. But it does not amount to one-half of even Western Europe and is certainly much less than one-half of Europe as a whole. It would be wrong and unwise for us to talk of Europe without realising that Europe is something bigger and wider than is thought of in the narrow terms of the Economic Community. But that does not mean to say that the Economic Community is not something that has to be taken into consideration and discussed, because it obviously must be.
The fundamental problem with which we are faced is that we are unable in Europe, even in a narrow part of Europe, to reach on almost any matter at all any policy which is consistent and coherent. We cannot reach agreement among ourselves on a monetary policy, we cannot reach agreement on an energy policy, we cannot reach agreement on most matters of economic policy, and it is therefore not surprising if we find that we ape unable as a European Community to reach any agreement with America. I do not propose to go into the whole question of how Europe can be organised, because I do not believe that one ever reaches the organisation of a continent by sitting down and drawing up pretty schemes for it; that is something which necessarily works itself out and it can be done only by extremely hard struggling and work. It may be that we shall not reach it. It may be that some other solution will be attained. But in the meantime we have problems which we have to tackle concerning the relationship across the Atlantic, which I regard as a matter of very great importance.

981
Unless we have some sort of agreement across the Atlantic, it is no good at all talking about the unity of the Western world.
The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, who has just referred to Canada and the United States as members of the North Atlantic Assembly, has well illustrated the point I want to make, as did the noble Lord, Lord Lyell; that is, the significance and importance of the North Atlantic Assembly. In Parliament in this country, as well as in the country as a whole, little serious thought is given to the North Atlantic Assembly. If you ask most people in the community as a whole what they thought of the North Atlantic Assembly, they would ask, "What is it?" You would then have to be inaccurate and say that it was NATO, although it is not the same as NATO but is its Parliamentary side. Most people have never heard of the Assembly; but if you asked them about NATO they would say, "Yes, that is a military organisation to fight the Russians", and that is as far as they would go.
But that is not the point of the North Atlantic Treaty. It is true that the North Atlantic Treaty was formulated, first of all, in order to ensure that the North Americans—let us call them that, so as to include the Canadians—remained active in the defence of Europe. But the Treaty goes far beyond that and specially refers to all those things which can build up a Western community, an Atlantic community, which is worth defending. Because of that we have within the North Atlantic Assembly a military committee, a political committee, an economic committee, a cultural committee and a committee on science and technology. That means that almost the complete range of our activities as human beings, as political beings, is covered.
Therefore one would have thought that the North Atlantic Assembly, which represents a far greater number of people and a far wider community than does the Common Market—after all, it represents Scandinavia, excluding Sweden and Finland, and also represents this country, Turkey, Canada and the United States—could do a great deal more. But there has so far been no successful attempt at institutionalising the North Atlantic Assembly and, consequently, it lives from hand to mouth. It does good work; it
982
carries out splendid activities. But it is not institutionalised, and this is because the various countries which form part of it do not take a sufficiently active interest in what it does.
I will make an exception of two countries, the United States and Canada, which do take a great interest in it. Since I have been attending meetings of the North Atlantic Assembly, I have been jotting down the well-known American Congressmen who have been fairly regular attenders. There is Wayne Hays of the House of Representatives; Javits, a Republican senator from Now York, who has been chairman of the political committee; Senator Percy, from Illinois; Edward Kennedy, the senator for Massachusetts; Peter Rodino who is now chairman of the House Judiciary Committee; and we have also one much younger who is well known by name, being the son of the famous boxer Gene Tunney, Senator Tunney from California, an extremely active, keen person who is chairman of the Committee of which the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, is a member in his rapporteur capacity. These American Congressmen take an active part; they take the trouble to turn up. The American delegation is always bigger than any other delegation present at the North Atlantic Assembly.
I have no doubt that if we had the wisdom to use the North Atlantic Assembly we could get a lot done there in the way of co-operation with the Americans. They are anxious that this should be so and they play an admirable part in the Assembly; but we will not. I believe, get any effective co-operation with America by setting up a body in Europe which pretends to represent Europe and which lays down certain rules and then throws them across the Atlantic telling the Americans that they have to take them or leave them. We will never get any sort of agreement in that way; we will get it only if we are prepared to meet them somewhere where full, free discussion exists. I regret that I do not entirely agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, about keeping discussions secret. I agree that the preliminary stages may have to be secret, but one must have free and open discussions.
My Lords, we come to the very important matters which were raised by my

983
noble friend Lord Chalfont. He made a speech which I am sure we all found most interesting, on the problem of defence. He realises better than most people that the defence of Western Europe is absolutely and entirely bound up with NATO, that without NATO there is no defence in Western Europe. I think that my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts made it clear in his speech at the start—I made a note of what he said and I think I have it right—that the
"requirements of NATO will be a first call on our defence expenditure".
This, I think, must clearly be the case. It is impossible for us to talk sense in the matter of defence if we think that each country is to have its own defence force and has to be able to look at the rest of the world and take it on. We last were anywhere near that position back in the 1920s, when we still had a navy that was the biggest in the world; but when the Americans started building ships they rapidly overtook us, much to our annoyance at the time. Since then there has not been a hope of our having anything effective on our own and our only way of having an effective force is in combination with other countries.
Here we come to something which is rather sad in European terms. In spite of our talk about Europe we absolutely fail to get any form of common procurement of materials. The matter has been raised several times; nothing is done about it. Even when it comes to the point of wanting to build a new advanced aircraft, the M.R.C.A., a highly costly weapon, France would not join in the project; she would have nothing to do with it. The result was that that aircraft is being built jointly by Germany, Italy, this country, and I think Belgium has also joined the project. France will not come in. Therefore when it is built, this highly expensive, highly elaborate aircraft, apparently capable of doing remarkable things—it is a retractable wing aircraft capable of low flight as well as long range flight and at high speeds—probably will never get sales which are adequate to pay for its whole production. Yet it is something that is wanted.
984
When my noble friend Lord Chalfont talks of keeping our defence in a state of repair I do not think that he is really telling us the real facts of the case. It is not possible with our present methods within Western Europe to keep our defences in a state of repair. It is no good saying that one wants to do it, that one would like to do it. It is no good saying that by holding our expenditure where it is we can do it. I do not believe we can. I do not think it is possible. If we are asking ourselves how much effort we have to make to build the weapons of defence and in having the manpower to use and to maintain them, we must ask ourselves, "Defence against what?". If the expenditure somewhere else is on a vastly greater scale, it is no good thinking that by polishing up our peashooter we will be able to keep up our defences.
I believe that we are faced with a much greater problem than any of us is really admitting; that is that we cannot maintain an effective defensive posture unless we are prepared to do what I do not believe any country in Western Europe is prepared to do: spend a very much greater portion of its total resources upon defence. Therefore I think that we are in a dilemma. That is why I said at the start that the debate into which we have been thrown is the dilemma of Western Europe, and I think this dilemma is one that is going to cause us a great deal of heart searching. We either say that we are going to sacrifice an enormous amount for defence, or we say that we do not really go any further along these lines, that we cannot pursue the matter in this way, and so we can gradually—I do not say unilaterally—reduce our defence expenditure. I do not think we ever stay on a plateau. We either go up or we go down. I believe it is inevitable that we go down.
6.10 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, we have had an extremely interesting debate this afternoon and I have listened to every speech so far with very great interest. I think that all noble Lords have in their own way made a contribution to the debate, which makes it of very great importance. We are very much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, for introducing the subject and I have listened with great

985
interest to what he had to say. I appreciated what the noble Lord who has just sat down had to say. We have been colleagues at the North Atlantic Assembly for many years. I hope I am not wrong, but I think that he is being unnecessarily gloomy about the cooperation there can be in Western Europe and which can be achieved through the E.E.C. I agree that it is not at all easy and does not appear to be going very smoothly; nevertheless, so long as it does not break down, so long as the nations of the Western European continent are working together, surely that is a big step forward for those of us who have, as I have and as the noble Lord has also, lived through two world wars. God knows! that is the last thing we want to see ever happening again in Western Europe. This combination, this work, done through the E.E.C., done through NATO, is a very big step forward from the happenings in the last fifty years, happenings which we all pray will never occur again. The greatest insurance against such a happening is the formation of both the Community and NATO. Those are the two great combinations which must, certainly in our lifetime and I hope in the lifetime of people as young as the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, and the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, also prevent wars. For that reason, if for no other, I shall support every effort to make the E.E.C. and the North Atlantic Alliance work closely together.
Those of your Lordships who heard the noble Earl, Lord Avon, the other day in the first speech that he has made for many months in this House, on the Address, must have been enormously impressed by the feeling that here was someone who had in his lifetime actively taken part in two wars and had been himself Foreign Secretary in the last war. He said that the frontiers of the North Atlantic Assembly, of the North Atlantic Group, the Americans and the Canadians, were in Europe just as much as the interests of Europe must be allied to the United States. Coming from the noble Earl, that seemed to me to echo something of real depth and importance, because although people of other generations may talk like that, the man who was actually leading our foreign affairs in all those events is someone who, in saying that, seems to me to give a stamp
986
of great importance to the efforts which we in this generation are trying to make in order to bring about a permanent state of peace in the world—if the word "permanent" can be used.
I strongly support what has been said by both the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, on the importance of the North Atlantic Assembly. This group which brings together Members of Parliament—both Senators and Congressmen, Members of the House of Commons and Members of the House of Lords—once a year, and sometimes more often, to meet in the European capitals and to discuss the relationships between countries on the other side of the Atlantic and the countries in Western Europe, is an extremely important group. I was glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, made reference to Canada, because although your Lordships may possibly know this—though some perhaps may not—the start of this group, which used to be called The NATO Parliamentarians, was in fact made by Senator Robertson, who was then the Speaker of the Canadian Parliament. and my husband who was then still a Member of the House of Commons and who, very shortly after the formation and the signing of the NATO Alliance, thought that it was extremely important that Members of Parliament should realise what this meant in the world. So they started together this very small group—as it then was—which has grown into the North Atlantic Assembly. It is a matter of enormous importance that we should have an Assembly in which the Americans play an active part because in all the other groups we are talking about—the W.E.U., the E.E.C., and all the others that have been mentioned—the Americans are not present. They may be listening, they may be reading what is being said, but they are not actively taking part; and that, I am sure, makes the North Atlantic Assembly extremely important.
Another curious and perhaps significant aspect, because France is such a very difficult country, is that the French, although they have now contracted out of NATO, have remained members of the North Atlantic Assembly. You will meet the members of the French Parliament—both the Senate and the House of Representatives—taking an active part

987
in the discussions in the North Atlantic Assembly, although France has contracted out of NATO. It is one of those curious, illogical facts which make the French nation so difficult to work with. My Lords, let us face it, the French are, and always have been, very difficult to work with. On this occasion they want to have their cake and eat it, which is something many of us have wanted but have never been able to achieve. That does not mean that we should not let the French take part in the North Atlantic Assembly. It is quite right that they should. But it makes it even more regrettable that they should have contracted out of their NATO obligations. Perhaps the fact that they still want to stay in the political Assembly, the political arm of NATO as it were, means that they may want to become involved again in the defence commitments of NATO.
We are also fortunate in the present leadership in Germany and that Herr Willy Brandt continues to try to obtain a détente with the East Germans and with the Russians. It is a very brave attempt, my Lords, and it is going very slowly, as we know, but from the accounts that we read in the Press it still exists and they are trying very hard to bring about this détente. The need for the European alliance and the alliance with the United States is just as great to-day as it has been at any time, because in spite of Willy Brandt's efforts the Warsaw Pact countries are not making any very generous moves towards the détente that they are seeking.
But to-day a new problem is arising with the change of Government here and the change of policy of the Government towards the E.E.C. Although the United States is not involved with the Community I do not think that they will be impressed if the European nations, in-instead of speaking with one voice and coming together, should start arguing and quarrelling once again with each other. The Statement issued by the Government on the renegotiations has, I know, created a considerable amount of alarm and despondency among the European nations. It was interesting that we should have heard a contribution from the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, who only yesterday was in Brussels, where he was talking
988
to these very people whom we have been endeavouring to work with all the time.
I was very much impressed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth (there is, I suppose, no greater expert on foreign affairs in this House than the noble Lord), when he stressed the importance of realising that we are at this moment part of the E.E.C. and that, although it may be the present Government's idea to renegotiate and to try to change the Treaty (and the words which have been read out from this Paper are fairly disruptive, I think, of the E.E.C.), we are already inside it. We ought not to behave as though we were talking at these people, when in fact we are part of that Assembly. This point was put by the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, in, I thought, very tactful language. I am sure that many members of the public do not realise the damage that can be done by taking the opposite course and by speaking, as the noble Lord said, very loudly in English when they should be speaking rather quietly—certainly in English, if that is the language in which they want to speak, but not in an aggressive and attacking manner—if the Government want to get people to work with them.
My Lords, we have many friends in the E.E.C., as we know. They are people whom we do not want to hurt, people whom we do not want to depress—the West Germans, in particular; the Belgians the Dutch. These are all our friends and Allies. They are struggling just as much as anybody else to make this thing a success. As the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, has said, they have had many successes, although their failures have probably been more emphasised than their successes because, as we all know, bad news is always carried faster and is always more newsworthy than good news. But I am quite sure that if we want to make the Common Market a success, if we want to build up the influence of the European Parliament, the right way to go about it is certainly not to start off by antagonising people.
Of course, the European Parliament is only a beginning, but I believe that it is a great conception. I am not a member of it and I have never been to it, but from reading the accounts of what takes place at the European Parliament it seems

989
to me that the contribution British Parliamentarians have made has been of considerable importance, and I only wish that the present Government would send their delegates to the Parliament so that they can take part. There is no reason why they should not. This kind of attitude of "I am holier than thou" is to me quite inconceivable in a democratic society. We want people of all political Parties to go to the European Parliament; and I beg the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Goronwy-Roberts, who in many ways seem to me very anxious to co-operate, to urge upon their colleagues that at least they could send delegates from the Government to the European Parliament.
I was so shocked, as I think many Members of this House were, by the reactions of the E.E.C. to the Foreign Secretary's speech that I thought I must make a rather violent protest, but the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, has rightly said that sometimes one protests too loudly about these things and one does not get anywhere. As someone who has worked in one or two Assemblies—I have certainly been a long time in the North Atlantic Assembly, where I have worked with many Parliamentarians; and I was three years, I think it was, at the United Nations working under different Foreign Secretaries and with different Ambassadors—I can only say that I have never read anything which shocked me so much as the account of the way in which our present Foreign Secretary went over on Monday, of what he said and of the impression he gave. That really will take a lot of living down, and it will not make it any easier for the Government, who want to renegotiate. If you want to renegotiate, you do not make enemies in the first five minutes of the people you are trying to renegotiate with, because that makes the situation really impossible.
I read a report in The Times of the words of one of the other Ministers who was over there, Mr. Hattersley. He said:
"Anyone who expected us to return to London with the cheers of Europe ringing in our ears must have based that optimism on the belief that we did not intend to begin a serious process of negotiation".
My Lords, I never expected anybody holding the views of those people to return with the cheers of Europe, but last weekend I was a delegate to a quite
990
unofficial conference which took place in Edinburgh. It was the Köniwinter Conference, an Anglo-German Conference, which generally takes place each year in Bonn or in Königsberg, opposite Bonn, across the Rhine. There we met a group of very distinguished delegates—Parliamentarians, journalists and businessmen—and on our side we had a similar very distinguished number of delegates at this conference, including, I may say, Mr. Hattersley, who made a speech.
They were all desperately anxious about Monday: Monday was the great day. Would this be the moment at which they would get some encouragement from the present Government to carry on and work with them? Because, my Lords, many of those people are Social Democrats. They are not Conservatives; they are the Social Democrats. They are the supporters of Willy Brandt, all anxious to work with the Government that is now in power. They will be absolutely shattered by what happened on Monday. I cannot think of anything that can have disappointed them more; and to me it is a great sorrow and a great mistake. I only hope to goodness that it is the last time the present Foreign Secretary, whom I admire—he is a very able man; I know him, and he is a very able person—behaves as he did last Monday. It really was a terrible let-down for the whole way in which we conduct our diplomatic affairs.
My Lords, this debate is not of course about the E.E.C. alone, but is about Western Europe and the United States. I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, when he said, "Do not let us think that there is only the E.E.C. in Europe." Of course there are other countries: Western Europe is more than the E.E.C. But I am quite certain that if we can get the E.E.C. countries to work together the rest of Western Europe will also co-operate. There is no reason why the co-operation between the E.E.C. and the rest of Europe, with the influence of the United States, should not be very powerful indeed in building up the Free World—the world that we really want to defend.
After all, the Congressmen and Senators who have the foreign policy of the United States to administer depend, just as our Members of Parliament depend in the administration of our foreign

991
policy, on getting support from the voters in their own country—voters on the Pacific Coast, in the Middle West and on the Eastern seaboard. If those voters see the European situation deteriorating, or if they see nations quarrelling, they can very easily say, as they have said many times in the United States of America, "Let them get on with it; it is nothing to do with us. Let us withdraw our troops and let us have America for the Americans". An isolationist policy is not something we do not know the Americans to have had in past years, and it would be a tragedy if such a thing were to happen and if American foreign policy were to be changed because of it; that is to say, because those responsible for foreign policy, finding that they could not get support from the American people, began to think they must withdraw from Europe. That would be a real tragedy. It is up to the European nations to show the American public and people that they can work together, that they do not want to quarrel and that the United Kingdom does not want to throw spanners into the works at the present time. It is up to us to help the European nations to work out a united policy in peace time. Twice in my lifetime we have had to make tragic sacrifices in war. Surely we can make sacrifices in peace to prevent such things ever happening again.
6.31 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has put down his Motion with a macabre sense of timing which could hardly be equalled. I should like to join several other noble Lords in saying how much we regret the death of a great Frenchman, President Pompidou. According to my right honourable friend, Mr. Heath, speaking on the wireless this morning, and to my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, speaking earlier to-day, he was a great friend and admirer of this country. May I, who has loved France since my days as a callow youth at the Sorbonne, add my personal condolences to France and to the late President's family.
Europe and America have got themselves into the most appalling muddle. The United States President is fighting
992
for his political life, surrounded by scandals which would have brought down in dishonour and disgrace most democratic Governments. Even if the President himself is soap-powder white, which necessitates a view of human nature requiring a saintlike charity, or, as some would say, naivety, most of his closest advisers have been indicted for high crimes or resigned in disgust. Luckily for us and for the United States, he still has his newly married Doctor Kissinger as Secretary of State, who has been compared to Metternich. Personally, I think a comparison to Talleyrand is more apposite. Unfortunately, the stubborn arrogance of M. Jobert has produced a counter-irritation in Doctor Kissinger, which has exacerbated European/United States relations further than was absolutely necessary.
The Italian Government is either non-existent or scandal-ridden. There are scandals of oil companies bribing political Parties—not one of them but all of them. There is the scandal of the money voted to save Venice, which seems to have vanished. Denmark has recently been through a period of political instability. We in this country have a minority Government, whose approach to foreign affairs has the finesse of a lame carthorse—possibility that of a Percheron as well.
Mr. Callaghan makes reasonably sensible remarks in another place, and then charges into the Council of Ministers, demanding this and demanding that as if he were Palmerston threatening the Greeks over Dom Pacifico—only, unlike Palmerston he stops sending a gunboat to Greece and practically everywhere else that he disapproves of. Here I must reiterate what I said yesterday. The barbarity of the present Greek Government is apparent to all. The Chilean Junta is also a form of government which cannot possibly commend itself to any lover of liberty, but before Her Majesty's Government get too upheaved about that Junta, I think they ought to remember and not shut their eyes (as some of their more myopic supporters have) to the contemptible disregard for liberty, for the rule of law and of property which was shown by the late Allende Government.
These examples of instant "twitch" reaction and selective disapproval can in no way be in Great Britain's interest. I say this not as a carping criticism but

993
in an effort to help Her Majesty's Ministers and also to try to explain to them that diplomacy and foreign affairs are best done when carried out softly, quietly and with the minimum of gestures. Castlereagh, Talleyrand, Metternich, Kissinger, my right honourable friend Sir Alec Douglas-Home—and Ernest Bevin, above all—understood this with great clarity. Of course, gestures are sometimes essential but they must be well thought out and used very sparingly. They must be used only when they will work and when they are going to be effective.
On behalf of Her Majesty's Government, the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, and the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies—and I hope I have pronounced her name correctly—reiterated what was said in the Queen's Speech about support for the Atlantic Alliance. How can this coincide with the pledge contained in the Labour Party Manifesto—and we all know that the right honourable Mr. Harold Wilson, as Prime Minister, is the custodian of the Labour Party Manifesto—to remove the Holy Loch bases? This question has been asked in your Lordships' House by me at least once, and also by my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir, and there has been an ugly rush to cover by noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite, because they have not really wanted to answer the question.
President Kennedy had a noble dream: that the defence of liberty and democracy rested on the twin pillars of the United States and a United Europe. If we in Europe continue to show the bad-tempered selfishness based on individual weakness that seems to be personified by M. Jobert, and also if France, through the tragic events of yesterday, worsens the factor of disunity by not really having a working Government until late May, at the earliest, together with chaos in Italy and the "barging" tactics of Her Majesty's present advisers, the outlook for this great ideal is grim indeed.
Let us, my Lords, remember that at the time of Queen Elizabeth I. Russia was a small Grand Duchy subject to the great Khans. Let us remember also that in the time of the Napoleonic Wars her population was smaller than that of France and that in the 300 years since
994
Elizabeth I, right up to Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, Russia has pursued a persistently aggressive policy. The Russians, either as Romanov Czars or Leninist Czars, have annexed and grabbed either Westwards or Eastwards. Admittedly, there was a pause brought on by the Treaty of Brest Litovsk and the Peace Treaties of 1918, but 20 years later they annexed Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. They then tried to re-annexe Finland and partition, for the fourth time, Poland. These were post-war annexations of Imperial Russia—and I used that word advisedly and leave no comment.
In Western Europe there is this terrible disunity of purpose. The Americans are making troop withdrawal noises, amid demoralisation at home. The morale of some NATO Armies appears not to be too good. The British have cut their Defence Budget, but luckily it is still possible to agree with Marshall Foy and say that the British Infantry are the finest in the world—he then added "Thank God there are so few of them." I say it is unfortunate that there are not enough of them. But if I were Czar Brezhnev I would be sitting in the Kremlin licking my lips, seeing America demoralised and Western Europe behaving like a collection of spoilt children.
In spite of our childish behaviour and our economic troubles, in spite of some of the pettiness of some of the actions of this Government—in spite of all these things, this country is still by far and away the best country in the world to live in. This must be preserved. Our liberties and institutions can only be safeguarded by the surrender of some of our sovereignty to our partners in Europe, and they will in turn retro-cede some of theirs to us. We must not let this precious heritage of English liberties and European civilisation fall into the maw of selfish, tyrannical, brutish Russia, or possibly by our own internal failures let it fall to an internal Maoist, Trotskyist or Fascist tyranny—call it what you will. England has several times saved herself by her own exertions and will, I hope, pull herself together again and save Europe by her own example.
6.40 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, deserves our thanks and congratulations on three

995
counts. First, the subject that he has chosen for this debate, which manifestly is at any time a highly important one; secondly, as has already been stated, the timing of the debate, which could not have been more apt; and thirdly, for his admirable speech which initiated the debate. At the same time, I should like to offer my congratulations and welcome to my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts. It is very good to know that he is back again in the Foreign Office, and even better that he is among us instead of in another place.
I do not know how many of your Lordships watched the television programme, "Panorama" on Monday night, but those who did will remember that when the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary was asked what ambitions he had as Foreign Secretary he replied that he would like to achieve, or help to achieve, three things: the first was to bring Europe and the United States closer together; the second was to bring the countries of Europe closer together—and he made the point that that included not only the countries of the Community, not only the countries of Western Europe, but all those which made up the Continent of Europe—and thirdly, to develop the ties between the Commonwealth, the developing countries and Europe. Those were his three major ambitions. I am sure we all agree wholeheartedly with them and hope that he will achieve them, or go a long way towards achieving them.
The question is: how can this be done? It is one thing to say what you want; it is quite a different thing to know how best to set about achieving it. Of one thing I am quite certain: these admirable and laudable ambitions cannot be achieved by this country alone, in spite of the fine sentiments of the noble Earl who has just sat down. We are still a great country, it is true, but we are not a great country in the sense that we were fifty or one hundred years ago, or perhaps even twenty years ago. We cannot impose our will upon other people; we do not have the military strength, we do not have the economic strength, to achieve these things single-handed. But we still have our greatness; we still have our beliefs; we still have our experience; and we still have our
996
ideals. Those must not be lost to the world. It is my very firm conviction that all these qualities can only bear fruit if we meld them in with other countries of Europe which, although they may have differences to some extent of history and outlook, are essentially of the same civilisation as we are.
It is only through the Community, the enlarged Community and the yet to be enlarged Community, that these things for which Europe stands—and which we, above all, in our somewhat chauvinistic manner believe we pre-eminently stand—can be achieved and the Community can make their mark upon the rest of the world. It is the greatest and most dangerous self-deception if we believe that we can go it alone and have this influence simply as one country, however great its history, however high its ideals. Surely the experience of Suez will have taught us where the limits of our influence is at the present time.
The Community is the means which is ready to hand for achieving this. I think we all accept that. Most of us would not for a moment say that the Community as it is constituted to-day is perfect and needs no alteration. All of us know it can be improved, and that it must be improved. Its faults have been shown only too clearly in the past few months. At one time I thought that it was harsh and unfair that the great test for the new Community should come so soon in the shape of a common policy for energy and how we should react against the Arab threat. We reacted badly to it as Europe and as a Community; and as an Atlantic Alliance we reacted badly.
But I am not sure this was a bad thing, because it has concentrated our minds on sonic of the greatest weaknesses of the Community and the Atlantic Alliance. While at the moment we are in the throes of self-analysis about what happened and how it can be changed, I believe that if we are wise—and there is no reason to think we shall not be—we can learn a very valuable lesson from this. It is not only in energy—that is the most recent and vital crisis which has arisen. There is the equally vital, somewhat lower crisis—if we can have such a thing—of the world food situation. Here we must have a concerted European policy, not just a Common Agricultural Policy for the Nine

997
in Europe, but a much wider world food programme in which the enlarged Community can play a very vital part indeed. And there are many other things: trade and help to the developing countries, and so on. In all these matters Europe must work and improve itself and become a vital and effective power.
It is good to know that the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs recognises this and has views which I am sure command the support of almost everybody in this House. We have heard to-day many criticisms of what happened on Monday. But those criticisms tend to mask some of the actual words used by the Foreign Secretary. Let me remind your Lordships of some of them. He says in the White Paper:
"We shall negotiate in good faith."
He says later:
"I would stress that I do not hope for a negotiation about withdrawal, I would prefer successful renegotiation."
He quotes from the Labour Party Manifesto:
"Britain is a European nation, and a Labour Britain would always seek a wider co-operation between the European peoples."
Later, he says:
"My country wishes to remain a member of an effective Atlantic Alliance."
These are all things with which very few of us—even those who just now evinced some doubt about what I was going to say—would disagree. As the Foreign Secretary so rightly said in his "Panorama" interview, words are not enough in these matters. There can often be, with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, too many words in diplomatic dealings—so many words that they can mean anything to anybody. We want words which are clear and unequivocal, and which are followed by action.
My noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts said that the Foreign Secretary spoke frankly—some people suggested it was bluntly, but I do not think that matters. I think that frank speech and blunt speech, particularly in diplomatic affairs, is valuable, and I am glad we have a Foreign Secretary who uses frank and blunt words. But that being so, I am sure he will not object if some of us use frank and blunt words, too. I suggest frankly and bluntly that while in some forms of negotiation it is good tactics to
998
start tough and to appear intransigent so that any subsequent softening is regarded as a great victory by one's opponents, in this particular case we are not negotiating with opponents; we are dealing with colleagues and with partners.
Some of our colleagues and partners are already suspicious of us; some of them are difficult people to deal with; others—and I would say especially the Germans and the Dutch—are very anxious to be friendly and helpful and to go along with us and support us in many of the reforms that we wish to bring about. They are close friends politically, and many of them are close friends personally with many of us. I believe that my right honourable friend runs a real risk of losing their help if he pursues the sort of approach which he adopted on Monday. With a different approach he could ensure that they work with us; and in that way he could take a great step towards the achievement of his ambitions as outlined in his "Panorama" interview. But if he fails in his renegotiations, if we fail in our renegotiations, if we fail to get the good will and the support of our friends and our colleagues in the European Community, then, my Lords, it is idle to think that this country on its own can bring Europe and the United States closer together any more than without its partners in the Community it can help to unify the whole of Europe, or even to strengthen the ties of the Commonwealth and the developing countries. It is only a strong Europe, with us as a full and powerful member, that can bring about all these good things.
6.52 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, I should like to start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, on the extremely well documented and interesting speech with which he started this debate. He gave us the best possible start. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, upon the way in which he dealt with this now somewhat controversial question. I warmly agreed with most of what he said. I do not want to add a great deal to what has been said of the great importance of relations with the United States, though I am sorry that not more has been said about the Commonwealth. I should like to say that

999
politically we have the same ethos and outlook as the United States in so many matters which are of great importance to both our countries in world affairs. In defence we are really totally dependent on the United States, although we make the best possible contribution we can to collective defence. I agree very much with the interesting speech which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, made on that subject.
Economically the situation is equally striking. My Lords, if you take the world economy and divide it down the middle, about half consists of the Communist countries and the rest of the world; the other half consists of O.E.C.D. It is a fact that if you take all the countries of O.E.C.D. together—that is, the whole of free Europe, Canada, the United States, Japan, Australia and New Zealand—and add up their Gross Domestic Products, the United States comes to 44 per cent. of the whole. It is a very remarkable fact. That is at current prices and current exchange rates.
This is something we must never forget, because in the future, relations with the developing world are going to be vitally important. My Lords, people talk as if the developing world consisted only of extremely poor nations. That is a gross distortion. Japan was in the developing world not so long ago, and for years now they have been giving aid. Similarly, Italy gives aid. There are many States, like Lebanon, Mexico, Formosa, and a number of others, who are in a stage of economic take-off. But the prosperity of all these countries, and their livelihood, depends on the trade which they have with the developed world; and if we in the developed world are going to fall out as between America (with 44 per cent. of the gross domestic product), and Europe and the others, it can only spell disaster not just for ourselves but for a great many countries for whom we should feel a continuing sense of responsibility.
I am one of those who is a very great believer in a better and a closer relation with the United States on all economic, commercial, monetary and financial subjects. I think that O.E.C.D. has a continuing value; and that the relationship between the European Economic Community and America is of continuing
1000
and vital importance inside that framework.
My Lords, I do not agree in the least with the Gaullist attitude towards America. I think it has done infinite harm to Europe. I had very much the same experience as the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth. I have had many arguments with my many French friends about this. But when I was in France, about two weeks ago, I detected a new wind beginning to blow. There are thinking people in France who are beginning to say. "Yes, that was all very well in de Gaulle's time, but it has now become clear that we cannot make Europe without America". My Lords, this, I believe, is the beginning of a glimmering of a real truth. I think that this is something that we should try to bring home to our French friends and our European partners. In my view, it is the prime duty of Britain, inside the E.E.C., to oil the wheels and facilitate Atlantic understanding on the broadest possible front. We cannot do this if we quarrel with our friends in Europe and offend them.
I want to express, in the most carefully chosen words, the deepest anxiety about the course the Government are following in talking of even the possibility of withdrawal from the E.E.C. Britain is obviously heading for a major round of cost inflation: the soaring price of oil, with V.A.T. now added; the soaring costs of imports of food and raw materials (with other raw materials producers about to imitate the oil sheikhs, so far as one can judge); the miners' settlement, with ASLEF, N.U.B.E., A.U.E.W., and others as runners-up; all these factors are going to work right through our economy, with higher domestic prices for coal, electric power, gas, transport and so on. It can only affect prices. There must be another wage round. It is bound to affect exports and the balance of payments. I think that, important as the Government's policy is in this respect, subsidies can be only a palliative. Yet, my Lords, already we have borrowed extensively abroad and are now borrowing much more.
I am not suggesting that these factors are all the fault of either the present or the last Government. But is this a time to get separated from the rich and

1001
successful countries with which we are now after ten years of negotiation, so closely allied in the E.E.C.? Last year, our first effective year in the E.E.C., our trade with Europe increased by 37 per cent. Surely we must give that some weight. I must say, having for years been United Kingdom delegate to O.E.C.D., and also Chairman of the Economic Policy Committee there, that my mind boggles at the possible consequences for this country, for our countrymen and for our economy, if we are now separated from the E.E.C. After all, EFTA has gone; our relations with the Commonwealth are not what they were; our own people show almost no concern for their firms' delivery dates and contract commitments. Mr. Joe Gormley is only the most recent example. What will happen if our creditors lose confidence in an isolated and friendless United Kingdom and demand their money back? What about the pound? How do we buy our food and raw materials? I am blessed if I know! The Government seem to me to show no adequate appreciation of these major considerations of policy in even talking of possible withdrawal.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, since the noble Lord is developing this point, could he inform the House what was the deficit between the United Kingdom and the E.E.C. for 1973?
LORD HANKEY: It was a pretty considerable one, my Lords, but I have not the figures with me. Perhaps the noble Lord could tell us.
LORD SHEPHERD: One thousand million.
LORD HANKEY: In current trade, my Lords. I think that is fairly considerable, but that is probably our fault rather than theirs. After all, I recall that in 1973 we lost 400,000 motor cars owing to strikes, and in the previous year we lost 23 million working days. How you can expect anything but a deficit of £1,000 million on that basis I just do not know.
I must say that I am profoundly shocked at some of the things that were said in Luxembourg. I do not disagree with the Government over all the things they want to alter. The Common Agricultural Policy obviously needs amend-
1002
ment: I thought Mr. Peart was well received on that. The butter nonsense is totally absurd. On economic and monetary union, it is admitted in Mr. Callaghan's speech that much new thinking is going on in Brussels. The budget could obviously be discussed. The Government, in my view, have acted in such a way as to impugn Britain's good faith by talking of renegotiating an agreement which was so recently signed and ratified—and that after an Election! They have deeply offended and wounded some of our closest friends, neighbours and associates. They have prejudiced the influence which we have so carefully built up with these friends and associates, and which we shall need in order to settle these very questions.
And then, not once but several times in his speech, our Foreign Secretary says he is engaged in a root-and-branch review of these issues and will be making proposals. My Lords, would it not have been far better to decide first exactly what we want? Some of the others are just as worried on some of these issues, and I think we would certainly have found allies who would help us obtain satisfaction, and we could then have organised major pressure on each on these issues inside the E.E.C. I am all for standing up for British interests—I have personally had to do so for years. But surely that would have been a wiser method than all this talk about renegotiation, and even negotiation for withdrawal, which probably has no proper legal basis anyway.
There is something very difficult that I want to say now. We have been speaking about bluntness. I have something that I really must say rather bluntly. I am the more disturbed about this because I feel that the major interests of the United Kingdom are being endangered, and may even be sacrificed, in order to cover up some of the more ridiculous political somersaults which the Labour Party have performed on these issues in recent years. I strongly suspect that the Labour Party are leaning over backwards in this, and perhaps in other important national matters, in order to oblige the extreme Left Wing elements who have been allowed to get into a number of key positions which are very important to the Party. Let no one say that our people approved their Party Manifesto. I am personally deeply offended that the

1003
Foreign Secretary should quote it to his foreign colleagues as if it were the national Bible. It most definitely is not; and the percentages of electoral votes proved that, if they proved nothing else. What more are the Left-Wing elements going to be allowed to impose on our country? And as for having a referendum on issues as profound and complicated as these. I fail to see any sense or responsibility in the idea. What on earth is Parliament for if it is not as an elected body to settle questions of these dimensions? Do the Labour Party really want to diminish its authority? I refuse to believe that. Yet I do not see any other possible result from this section of the Foreign Secretary's speech.
It is rare for a Cross-Bencher to say hard words; I do not like doing it. But I want to say that I speak as one with many Socialist friends, having served several Labour Governments with real loyalty, enthusiasm and energy; and I speak out of deep anxiety and real friendship. I should like to see Labour take their proper place at Strasbourg. It is only too apparent to any informed observer that they no longer understand their colleagues on the Continent or know what happens at Brussels. I am really sad about this. I have been personally delighted, even when serving a Conservative Government, to facilitate such contacts abroad between the members of the Labour Party and foreign Labour Parties in the past, and I have been impressed by Labour's wide knowledge and understanding. Their distinguished leaders have shown an enormous knowledge of Socialist Parties all over Europe, not only on this side of the Iron Curtain, and I hope the Labour Party will not fall into "Little Englandism". There is no future in "Little Englandism."
Look at the situation we are all in. The huge Soviet thundercloud overhangs central and Western Europe with East European satellites most strictly kept in order, and a most impressive, if at present not quite monolithic, discipline at home. Vast nuclear arms resources—whatever for? A vast Fleet—again, whatever for? One thinks of Kaiser Wilhelm; one thinks of Hitler. We discovered what their Fleets were for. It just makes me shiver a bit when I look at the number of Soviet nuclear submarines. They have an
1004
enormous Army, and we saw it move with a pantherlike spring on Czechoslovakia. And here we have a new situation in France—I agree of course that it has arisen since the Brussels Meeting. We have the German Government notably less sure of itself; weak political situations in Italy and several other E.E.C. countries; an American President who may not even see the year out; even a minority Government here. Is this really the good moment to go calling in question the European Economic Community's very existence? It is surely a gift offering on a plate to the enemies of Western Europe, and everybody knows who they are.
Yet, my Lords, look what needs to be done. Cannot we all together in Europe develop a good regional policy? Of course we can. Cannot we reorganise and improve the E.E.C.'s very unhelpful method of commercial negotiation? We ought to be able to do so. I agreed most warmly with the interesting observations of the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, on this problem of improving the methods of negotiation and information as between the members of the E.E.C. and the United States. Cannot we all together, and with our partners in O.E.C.D., find a solution to the obsessive monetary problems, exchange problems, inflation problems, which afflict our civilisation and undermine its stability? It is sure we cannot do it alone; nor can America. But surely these problems merit real diplomacy. Should not we preserve our influence with our friends in order to make a real approach to these vital questions on which the prosperity of the whole world depends?
There are the problems of oil and raw materials. There are aid problems—they must look quite different to the developing countries with the present raw material prices. Surely the Government, with their great understanding of these problems, will want to organise a joint approach to them. I liked very much what the Foreign Secretary said in his speech on these subjects. What about pollution problems, and what about a co-ordinated energy policy? Our friends are certainly ready to discuss all these questions with us in a progressive and constructive way. All I am concerned to say now is that we ought to be making an approach to these problems, instead of bringing forward these stupid questions

1005
of butter nonsenses, as if the whole world depended on them. I implore the Government to raise their sights to these much larger issues. There was only the slightest recognition of them in the Foreign Secretary's speech at Brussels, but I thought the references to them were good, so far as they went.
Finally, I want to sound a warning against to-ing and fro-ing in high places. I think this can be said only from these Benches. Lack of consistency and determination to see things through has done our country infinite harm for years. I think we have been under very poor management. I remember that when I went to O.E.E.C. in 1960 I had instructions to get myself and the United Kingdom out of the Chair of the Council. So after I had been there some time I very discreetly sounded my colleagues and I got universally the same slightly humorous reaction: "Oh no, you don't!", they said. "Shortly after the United Kingdom started O.E.E.C., for some reason we never could understand they turned sour on the whole enterprise, so we pushed the United Kingdom into the Chair in order that they should be shamed into making the running, and there you be and there you bide, my friend". So there I had to remain until we started O.E.C.D. with a Ministerial Chairman in the person of Mr. Kristensen, a former Danish Minister of Finance.
So history repeats itself. We spend years of effort getting into the Common Market and turn sour on it for what seem to me the most questionable motives, and in a very questionable way. We spend hundreds of millions of pounds on developing new aircraft, one after another, and appear to lose interest at the end. We spend countless millions on nuclear energy, in which we lead the world. We make a mess of industrial engineering. We lose interest at the highest levels, partly because our Government wanted to oblige the miners—and look how Mr. Gormley has rewarded us! We talk for years about a new airport and a Channel Tunnel and appear to reach conclusions; but no decision ever stands. We have over the years completely mucked up our steel industry and the industries which supply it with capital equipment by to-ing and fro-ing and political Party manœuvring. No wonder businessmen mistrust politicians!
1006
—and so, for that matter, do the trade unions. One could not run a village confectionery shop on that basis. So I implore our Government, and Governments of all Parties, when decisions are taken, to stick to them. See them through, for God's sake! The resources of this country are really quite large. We can do it if we choose well, but we must not waste a great deal of money building things up and then scrapping them.
So, my Lords, I conclude with the big issues. If Europe falls apart over questions like butter or the Community Budget, which can perfectly well be discussed quietly and sensibly, will the Americans still support and defend it? I do not believe they will. Without America Europe can be crushed like a cockroach. If the United Kingdom separates itself from its friends, with a real crisis of inflation straight ahead, can we expect to go on borrowing money, or even to keep the money we have borrowed? If we go on to-ing and fro-ing, putting Party bickering before national interests, or making ceremonial posturings to impress Party extremists, can we expect anyone to respect us? If ever there was a time for consensus policies, it is now. If only we will act together, nationally, the United Kingdom will survive very well; otherwise I cannot see the bottom of the pit.
7.14 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I must not be provoked by the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, because I intended—and I still intend—to make a moderate and a constructive speech. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, will be well satisfied with a debate that has been always thoughtful—in fact it has been a model of what foreign affairs debates should be. I believe that to a certain extent this is due to the fact that we have sought to concentrate on one particular aspect of foreign affairs as opposed to having a wide-ranging debate over all aspects of international affairs.
It seemed to me that the debate centred on concern as to the future of the Alliance and the future of the European Economic Community, and the United Kingdom approach, particularly to renegotiation of terms. If I may say so, not only must I thank the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, for introducing this debate, but also all other noble Lords who

1007
have participated, and in particular the noble Earl. Lord Cromer, who has now given up his heavy duties in Washington and has returned to your Lordships' House. I am sure that we shall look forward to hearing from him on many other occasions.
Before proceeding, I wish, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government and myself personally, to join with all other noble Lords who have paid tribute on the occasion of the sad passing of President Pompidou. We may have had our differences—the United Kingdom and France—and no doubt President Pompidou had his own role there but, there can never be any question that President Pompidou was a great Frenchman and one must honour him for his attitude and his support for his country. We all send our message of sympathy to Madame Pompidou and to the son, and also to the people of France in this moment of sorrow.
I thought it right, too, that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and others, reminded us that this year is the 25th anniversary of NATO, and in the light of some of the speeches, particularly that of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, who always enlivens us, and also the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, it is well to remember that NATO was formed under a Labour Government, under a very great Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, and was a consequence of long-held beliefs of the Labour Movement that the peace of this country and the stability of Europe depended upon collective security. That is what we worked for, and when we seized the opportunity that the United States offered, it was possible for NATO to be formed; and I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, and to other noble Lords that the Atlantic Alliance and NATO remain four square in this Government's policy, both in the field of foreign affairs and defence. That is why throughout the Queen's Speech and in the speeches that were made in another place we have stressed the need for strengthening the Alliance.
My Lords, if I may, I will detain the House by reading a few words taken out of the speech made by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to his col- 1008
Leagues at the Council of Ministers. He said:
"The image of the Community in the United Kingdom is not good. My country wishes to remain a member of an effective Atlantic Alliance; and there is therefore concern about the degree of disagreement between the Community and the United States. Surely this is not inevitable. If the British people thought it was, it would adversely influence their attitude towards the development of the Community.
We shall not always be able to agree with the United States but the Community in devising its procedures and its common positions must always try to work with America wherever it can. Conversely America must try and work with us. Only if the Nine work harmoniously with the United States on both economic issues in the framework of the Community and on political issues in the framework of political co-operation, shall we surmount the difficulties to which President Nixon and Dr. Kissinger have recently drawn attention.
We should all like to work with you to produce a stable, healthy and co-operative relationship with all those countries or groups of countries with whom Europe's life is intimately connected, for example with Japan, Canada and other industrialised countries; with the Commonwealth and the Community's Associates; and with the Arab countries; and with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe."
I should have thought those words would put the position of Her Majesty's Government beyond any form of question.
My Lords, my noble friend, Lord Chalfont, quite rightly drew attention to the threat to the West by the Soviet bloc countries. This is potentially a grave threat. But clearly there can be no question that we should seek a détente and that we should move cautiously but constructively. It was again the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary who was quite clear in his speech in another place as to the intentions of Her Majesty's Government in this matter. In defence matters, such as within NATO, there was concern for the degree of consultation which has developed. I think it was last November that the NATO countries resolved to see how this could be remedied. Steps have been taken, but clearly we shall need to watch the matter.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, said that the Government need to be careful that they do not adversely affect United Kingdom/United States relations by a reduction in the Defence budget. I have already spoken of the great importance we attach to the maintenance

1009
of the North Atlantic Alliance. The Reykjavik Declaration of 1968 recognised that the Alliance was aimed towards mutual trust and confidence, which must exist if there was to be lasting peace in Europe. But until a full détente is achieved, an effective alliance, defence will remain essential. We in Britain shall play our full part in consultation with the Alliance as a whole. However, we shall work to find better and more efficient ways of using scarce resources in a common effort, and to ensure that the burden which Britain bears is not out of line with that of our major European allies. I do not think there can be any question (whatever form of statistics or weight one gives to one figure or another) that Britain, of all the European countries, bears not only the heaviest burden, but the heaviest burden across the exchanges. At the present moment we have our own economic difficulties, particularly balance-of-payments difficulties which the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, would attribute to all politicians; he carefully avoided putting it at the feet of the previous Administration—
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, I do not think I was blaming either Party for that. Please forgive me.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, of course the noble Lord does not blame either Party for that because he does not want to blame his friends on that side. Incidentally, I do not want to be provocative, but we have considerable economic difficulties, and shall need to deal with those. I am sure we all agree that, unless Britain is economically strong, her military and political contributions to Europe must suffer as a consequence.
In defence co-operation there seems to me much misunderstanding of European attitudes to NATO and the United States. Here I can speak with some personal experience, because the week-end before last I had the honour of leading the British delegation to the Anglo/United States Parliamentary Conference, when one had an opportunity of discussing all these matters with leading members of the American Congress. I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, who quoted figures, that they were figures which I used to very great effect at one
1010
stage in our discussions. Those figures were not known to members of the American Congress. We must find ways and means by which we can get a wider recognition, not only in the political circles of Congress, but in a wider sphere amongst the electorate, of the contribution that Europe is making, not simply to the defence of Europe but to the defence of the Western World. That in itself could be a subject on its own for a debate.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, asked me whether I could say something about W.E.U., and whether this would not be a useful vehicle for consultation. I accept that this is an interesting idea. I have not had an opportunity fully to consult my colleagues on this, but I believe that this Government support contacts in all spheres between Governments and Parliaments on both sides of the Atlantic; and W.E.U. is included in this organisation.
My Lords, I think also of the NATO Parliamentary Conference which the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, attends. I used to attend with her. I know the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, also attends this Conference. I believe this may be the vehicle for a greater exchange of knowledge and experience. I must congratulate the noble Baroness, and the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, upon taking part in this debate and for using their experience of this Conference. One of the criticisms of recent years has been that those who have been members of these Parliamentary associations have not always participated in matters of foreign policy and defence.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will forgive me for adding to what he has said, but I would point out that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, are also representatives from this House.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, that just shows how quickly one gets out of date. I apologise to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. This is even better—four representatives from this House.
My Lords, there has been discussion to-night about misunderstandings between the United States and Europe on the question of consultation. We attach very

1011
great importance to this matter. These are early days. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, that what we are working towards is the achievement of the fullest and earliest possible consultation—and I stress "earliest possible" We hope to have the support of other members of the Community in this. We are determined that past failures in communication shall not be repeated.
On the question of co-operation, we cannot expect to deal successfully with the global trade and energy problems which we now face without the active co-operation of the United States. We cannot expect the continuation of a close defence relationship with the Americans unless we ensure there is adequate and timely consultation between the countries of Europe and North America on all the major problems with which we are faced. In reply to my noble friend Lord Ardwick, I do not think in our consultation we face the question of having to choose between what will be to the benefit of Europe and what will be to the benefit of America. We need to seek for approaches to problems which will help to serve the interests of the countries on both sides of the Atlantic.
The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, drew attention to potential food shortages. This is a considerable risk, particularly in the developing countries, as a consequence of the shortage of oil. In my view, this is a matter for the United Nations. They are the only organisation, in association with the World Bank, which can cope with such a catastrophe. In the field of other trade, multilateral trade negotiations in GATT, all these must be proceeded with, and I would suggest, too, that we need to take a more sympathetic view of the position of the United States in these negotiations.
The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, and the noble Earl, Lord Cromer, asked what was the attitude of the Government to the negotiations under Article XXIV(6) of GATT and to the principle of compensation for the United States. Do we agree with our European partners in this matter? The GATT requires third countries to be compensated for increases in tariffs. Naturally we support that. But the level of compensation is one which has to be reached by, to quote GATT, "a process
1012
of negotiation and agreement". The Community has instructed the European Commission to explore alternative means of settling these negotiations. We attach great importance to the negotiations being settled on a mutually satisfactory basis and as soon as possible.
My Lords, the only discordant feeling I had towards the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, was when he referred to discussions of relations with the Commonwealth in terms of "humbug". I have always attached the greatest possible importance to the Commonwealth.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I did not say the Commonwealth was humbug. I did not say I thought the Commonwealth was humbug. I said that I attached importance to the Commonwealth, and all I hoped was that there would be no humbug in our discussion of the Commonwealth to-day in this House. That is the only way in which I associated the word "humbug" with the Commonwealth.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am glad I provoked the noble Lord to his feet, because he has made the point I was hoping to make. Here we have a community of people that goes right across the whole broad structure of the world—all the races, all the religions, people of many different sorts in varying economic circumstances. They can make a very great contribution to stability. I am glad the noble Lord intervened, because I think it would be quite wrong for it to go out, or appear to go out, that we were questioning the value of the Commonwealth.
I come to the Labour Government's attitude to the E.E.C. The noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, made forceful criticism, echoed in more muted ways by others. I hope that this is not a sign that the noble Baroness intends to proceed in this way, because when I was standing opposite her I was always most conciliatory in my approach. She criticised the tone of the Foreign Secretary's speech. I have no doubt at all that its effect was what was intended. It was meant to be firm and it was meant to be frank, and I do not believe that the Ministers at the Council of Ministers, the other Eight, would have expected any different approach from Mr. Callaghan, whom they have known over

1013
very many years. Mr. Callaghan speaks his mind and he has been honoured as a consequence. I believe that had we sought a diplomatic approach, and I use the word "diplomatic" in quotation marks, it would not have had the constructive effect that I believe will be a consequence of that statement which was made on Monday.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Walston, who reminded your Lordships of what the Foreign Secretary said as to what his approach was in terms of these negotiations: that we were negotiating in good faith and that we were seeking conditions that would make it possible for the United Kingdom to remain a member within the European Economic Community. I can say to the noble Baroness that the Labour Government have no intention, and no sense of purpose to seek to destroy the integrity of the European Economic Community, even if circumstances made it necessary, and the British people were so to decide, that we had to leave that Community.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, if I may clarify the very important statement that the noble Lord has made, may I ask him whether the Labour Government in principle are still in favour of membership of the European Community?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, our position is set out in the Manifesto. We have made it clear, and my right honourable friend, I thought, made it clear in his approach:
"For our part we have made clear—in the Labour Party Manifesto for the recent election—that Britain is a European nation, and a Labour Britain would always seek a wider co-operation between the European peoples."
I think in a speech in another place the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary was more specific. I can say to the noble Baroness that we are seeking terms that are satisfactory, that are fair and are acceptable to the people of this country, so that we can remain within the Community.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I was just hoping that the noble Lord would say "yes" or "no".
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if I have satisfied the noble Earl I must have dropped into a trap.
1014
My Lords, I will throw away the notes in relation to Lord Hankey. He spoke about the economic difficulties of this country into which politicians had led us; but I will deal with the noble Lord on another occasion. The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, asked about the Labour Party sending members to the European Assembly. This is a matter to which the Labour Party itself will give consideration as we see how renegotiation is proceeding.
I come back to the question of renegotiation. I am sure we would all accept that if the European Community is to have any real meaning, any meaningful future, it must be that all the partners to it are satisfied with the terms. That is all we are seeking. Again because of time, I am not going to ask the noble Baroness to tell me what the Conservative Party have in mind for the political unification of Europe. One of these days I shall be very pleased to know. At present I do not know.
In conclusion, may I say that our aim is to intensify the system of political consultation and co-operation, and to ensure that Europe and the United States work as closely as possible together. As the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said in another place, we emphatically reject the view that a united Europe can emerge only out of a process of struggle against America. The Government believe that the frictions and misunderstandings which have characterised transatlantic relations in recent months must become a thing of the past, and that Europe and North America must work together to support the common beliefs and ideals and the basic human freedoms and values which they share. Only by so doing can we hope to win the economic benefits and lasting peace for both sides of the Atlantic.
7.40 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I have learnt a great deal to-day, which is one way of showing that from this standpoint it has been a most useful and excellent debate. I should not dream of offering prizes to all the speakers in it, because with a few exceptions I should want to offer a prize to everyone who spoke. I make clear my own attitude to the way the debate has gone by saying that the speech I envied most, the one I should have liked most to make, was that of the

1015
noble Lord, Lord Walston. I say that deliberately to dissociate myself from some of the mockers and knockers on this side of the House. The way the noble Baroness used the term "disastrous" for the Council of Ministers' meeting, and some of the Callaghan baiting that went on, I felt was a little excessive. My own criticisms were entirely levelled at the tone and approach of his opening gambit, in what is always a very abusive meeting place. The Council of Ministers of the E.E.C. is really a horse-trading affair rather than a respectable international forum, with leak and counter leak, rumour and counter rumour, Ministers dashing out and feeding the Press with their own side of the story, and of course everybody is insulted at some point during a negotiation conducted in that way.
Your Lordships may have read in the Observer some rather petty-minded articles about this House. What the writer had to say about our work was really characterised by his insults to the food here, which I myself enjoy very much. If there is a message that goes out to him to-day, it is: "We shall not invite you to eat here again, because you do not appreciate what is good for you". More seriously, I believe that at this stage of the Government's dealings with the Community we may have done some good by drawing together all the various strands of expertise that exist in this House. Perhaps with a little acrimony from time to time, certainly with different points of view, we have coalesced what wisdom there is here. In so doing, I think we have shown one thing absolutely clearly. That is that the relationship of this country with the Community and with the United States is part of a complicated web of an interlocking network of international relationships which hinge one on the other. Anybody who has crude, thrusting notions of doing something unilaterally, without taking into account all the ripples and side-effects, will, I hope, if he bothers to read today's debate, think a little more cautiously. Perhaps I might suggest to the Govern- 1016
ment (and if they are not going to do it I will do it myself), that an account of to-day's debate might be a suitable gift to send to Acapulco for Dr. Kissinger to read on his honeymoon. On all sides, whatever we have disagreed about, we have all stressed the importance of strengthening the links of this country and the Community with the United States.
I should like to say one final word. I originally had down for to-day a Motion calling attention to the advantages and disadvantages of Community membership, but I withdrew it from the Order Paper because I felt that it was a little early for us to see what the Government were going to say and in fact, they have said nothing at all. Therefore, I thought that we had better wait before discussing that subject. When we do discuss it, either as a country or in this House, what we have been talking about to-day will not swing the balance. I do not think that there are many votes in what we have been talking about to-day. I suspect that it would not influence a referendum a great deal. All I am saying, in conclusion—and now I am using this as a platform—is that whatever our standpoint on membership of the Community, we have a right to expect that this Government will inform the people of the country, in a way that the last Government failed to do, about what membership of the Community means. Referenda are all right, but they are unreal and can be misused if there is not sufficiently widespread dissemination of information that is beyond question.
I hope that the relative harmony that has emerged from to-day's debate can be translated into a continuing process of dialogue between those who are for, those who are against and those who are doubtful, so that we can take account of each other's point of view, not become polarised, and if it does come to a referendum make sure that everybody in this country decides knowingly what choice he is making for Britain's future. I thank all noble Lords very much, and I now beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

AYR COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL ST. ANDREWS LINKS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL RENFREW COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
CRUDE OIL TERMINALS (HUMBER) BILL [H.L.]
Reported without amendment.
ZETLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.