§ Bill, pro forma, read 1ª.
§ ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH
§ The Queen's Speech reported by The LORD CHANCELLOR.
§ 3.44 p.m.
§ Lord BethellMy Lords, I beg to move, That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty in the following terms:
Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament".My Lords, I am sure that I speak for the entire House when I say how much we welcomed the appearance of Her Majesty and members of her family today in our midst, and how much we welcome the speech that we heard this morning. The dedication and service of our Queen is an inspiration to us all and an example to a democratic assembly such as we have the privilege to belong to. It was a particular privilege, I believe, for us to be able to welcome for the first time in this House at such an occasion the Princess of Wales.
§ Lord BethellMy Lords, Her Royal Highness has endeared herself to millions of people in this country and to hundreds of millions throughout the world through her warmth and beauty. It is not only her personal qualities which have come to be appreciated by us at home and abroad but also I believe the symbol of having for the first time for many decades a Princess of Wales able to attend the opening of Parliament because since the early part of this century there has not been a Princess of Wales and we have lacked the symbolism of a Princess of Wales in the continuity of the hereditary Monarchy by which we set such store.
This occasion was also a mark of Her Majesty's concern with the Commonwealth, the European Community and with the North Atlantic Alliance. I think that we can all wish Her Majesty well in her forthcoming visit to the Commonwealth Games in Australia. I am sure that she will fulfil her function there, with the same brilliance and dedication as she showed a few months ago at the Commonwealth meeting in Australia.
My Lords, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and my noble friend the Chief Whip have done me the honour of inviting me to move this humble Address, I believe mainly because I have the honour to be a member of the European Parliament as well as of your Lordships' House. For this six months 5 we have the presidency of the EEC Council of Ministers. It is typical of my noble friends on the Front Bench that they should approach our European enterprise with such generosity and concern.
The House of Lords has shown particular concern and interest in our European enterprise. Your Lordships have given access to this Chamber to my colleagues in the European Parliament who are not members of either House and this act of generosity is I know most appreciated by them.
The deliberations of the House of Lords committee on European affairs are of course deeply appreciated in Europe, not only by our British members but by our European Continental colleagues as well. I only wish that their proceedings were available in languages other than English because these documents are of such high quality and are the result of such keen research and hard work that they should be made available to a larger audience. If that were the case, it would increase their effect. Indeed, I can think of no matter on which your Lordships have shown greater wisdom than that of European enterprise, unless perhaps—speaking entirely personally—it be a matter of whether or not the people of Gibraltar should be entitled to British citizenship. But that is behind us.
We have had the opportunity over the past few months, and will have it for a few more weeks, to see what can be done by a president of the Foreign Ministers of our 10 countries, representing as he does not only our country of 55 million but a community of 270 million. My noble friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary is in Riyadh and he is there to discuss a proposal for peace in the Middle East. He speaks there not only on behalf of our country, but on behalf of the Community of 10. This is not the first time that he has done so; in the early days of his presidency he flew to Moscow to put to Mr. Gromyko the proposal for a neutral and non-aligned Afghanistan, to which the gracious Speech refers. A few days ago the question was discussed by the Foreign Ministers under my noble friend's presidency as to whether or not it might be possible to get together a European force to police the Sinai Peninsula after the Israeli withdrawal from that territory early next year.
The point I want to make today is that these are ventures, movements, initiatives, which have been undertaken by our British Foreign Secretary, which could not have been undertaken on his own. It would not have been possible for him, in his capacity as British Foreign Secretary to have done that on his own. It is by virtue of his having the support of nine colleagues in the Community that he has the power to take these initiatives, to push them forward and to speak on behalf not of tens of millions but of hundreds of millions. I believe myself that, as a result of this, European political co-operation will begin finally to mean something, particularly if the Sinai force can be got moving, and that the result at the end of the day will he a more sensible and more equal relationship between Western Europe and the United States.
This is not before time, because it will not have escaped your Lordships' notice that in Western Europe there are signs of growing neutralism and unilateralism, a craving for disarmament and peace—one might say peace at any price. How are we to react to this? It is tempting, perhaps, to some of us to dismiss the 6 marchers and demonstrators as either extreme or disloyal. Personally, I do not share that view. I believe that among millions of people in Europe today, particularly among young people, there is a genuine belief that unless something is done, and done quickly, nuclear war is probable or at any rate possible.
It is, I believe, understandable, though incorrect, that they seek refuge in neutralism and unilateralism. I welcome, therefore, the commitment given in the gracious Speech to preserve the North Atlantic Alliance and our economic and political alliance within the European Community. It is far more sensible, I would suggest, for us to maintain our alliances and to shore up our defences in the face of the threats to peace that we see around us. It would not help us to disarm on our own, or to seek refuge in neutralism, in spite of Mr. Brezhnev's generous promise that he will not drop nuclear bombs on countries which declare their neutrality or disarm unilaterally.
One has only to look at recent history to see that neutralism in the First World War did not help Belgium and in the Second World War it did not help Holland. For that matter, it did not help the Soviet Union against the aggressions of Hitler, and of course it did not help Afghanistan nearly two years ago, when the Soviet Union invaded that country—a matter to which the gracious Speech also refers excellently. Indeed, in Sweden, that temple of peace and progressive thought, neutralist par excellence, they have also in the last few days had good reason to feel that neutralism is not necessarily a protection against the violation of their frontiers by the armed forces of another country. I hope that the Government, who have declared in the gracious Speech their adherence to the Helsinki Final Act and the Madrid review of that agreement, will seek an early opportunity to point out that Principle 1 of that agreement demands respect for sovereignty; Principle 3 demands the inviolability of frontiers; Principle 4 refers to territorial integrity; and Principle 6 refers to non-interference in internal affairs.
My personal view is one of surprise that the captain of that Soviet submarine is not under arrest and being subjected to police questioning in Sweden. That, after all, was the fate which befell the American pilot, Gary Powers, who was charged with espionage in 1960 and then exchanged for an admitted Soviet spy, Rudolph Abel, a few years later. I believe that it would be appropriate to exchange the Soviet captain for that great Swedish humanitarian, Raoul Wallenberg, who has spent decades in Soviet camps on charges concocted as a result of the great achievements he brought about in Budapest at the end of the Second World War and who is widely believed still to be alive today, nearly 40 years later, in some dreadful Soviet camp.
The gracious Speech also refers to the enlargement of the EEC. There are those who may say that this is not in point, because it is suggested that the newest member of the EEC, Greece, has just elected a Government which speaks of withdrawal from the EEC. Indeed, there are Members of another place and of another political party who also speak of withdrawal from the EEC. What will happen in this country, of course, we will have to see; but a "withdrawalist" Government have supposedly just been elected in Greece. My only comment on that, knowing as I do 7 several members of the new Greek Government who were until a few days ago my colleagues in Strasbourg, is that I can predict that their promise to withdraw front the Community falls into the category of words written rather more than 2,000 years ago by one of their great Greek dramatists:
"hi gloss' omomot', hi de phrin anomatos,"which I know I need not translate for the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack but which, for the benefit of any other old Etonians who happen to be present, I shall render as:"a promise made by the tongue though not by the heart".That I think applies to various other undertakings in that area which have also been made. I therefore suggest to your Lordships that the Community will not lose members: on the contrary, it will gain members over the next two or three years. It will survive and it will move towards unity; and its ideals will gradually become clear and acceptable to the British people.An indication of that is the fact that so much of the gracious Speech is closely linked with Europe. We had a commitment to the European ideal in the gracious Speech, and also references to the Arab/Israeli conflict, to Afghanistan and to the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe: they are also very European. That is no coincidence, because this treaty is gradually instilling itself into our way of life and becoming part of the natural pattern of events.
Even in the realm of transport we have a European dimension. I commend and delight in the statement in the gracious Speech that state involvement in transport will be further reduced. The gracious Speech may perhaps have been referring to the Greater London Council—I do not know—but I suspect it was also referring to the question of air travel within Europe. I believe there can be no movement towards the greater unity of peoples in Europe until those peoples are able to travel from country to country at a reasonable cost. The Treaty of Rome, I believe, guarantees this right and forbids the sort of monopoly price-rigging which is the order of the day at the moment. I have in my pocket a ticket from London to Strasbourg and back, which I have to make use of at the end of this debate. I had to pay £189 for it—or rather, your Lordships and the other 270 million taxpayers of Europe had to pay that amount for it. I put it to your Lordships that this is a wholly unrealistic price to pay for such a short voyage to Europe and back. One can fly across the Atlantic and back for such a price.
I think I have detained your Lordships long enough, and also I have to cast my vote on a budget in another Parliament. I wish to conclude by saying that I see no paradox and no conflict between the idea of being a Member of an hereditary Chamber and a supporter of the democratic parliamentary institution that we revere and which we have developed. I see no conflict, no paradox, in our reverence for the memory of the barons who line this hall and the oath of allegiance that we have taken to the Queen, and the reverence and loyalty that we owe to Her. An act of defiance some hundreds of years ago has been turned into an act of loyalty and great esteem. Likewise, I believe that the loyalty of your Lordships and of our people 8 to Britain and to the British Crown is in no way in conflict. There is no paradox involved in that loyalty, and loyalty to the treaty of the European Communities, which was debated by your Lordships in 1972 and by another place, which was signed by Her Majesty and was then implemented, and which may, perhaps—who knows?—in the next generation move towards the ideal of European unity. My Lords, I sit down now. I leave you. I go to play some tiny part in the movement towards that ideal. My Lords, I beg to move the Motion for a humble Address to Her Majesty.
§ Moved, That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
§ "Most Gracious Sovereign,
§ We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—(Lord Bethell.)
§ 4.2 p.m.
§ Lord Fairfax of CameronMy Lords, I beg to second my noble friend's Motion for a humble Address in reply to Her Majesty's most gracious Speech. Before I do so, I must express my sincere gratitude to the Leader of this House for having invited me to undertake this task this afternoon. Although it is the first time that I have attended this occasion, I appreciate the great honour which it entails and I hope to justify her faith in me.
When I got down to preparing what I was going to say this afternoon, I realised immediately that the greatest problem would be to confine my remarks to a succinct scale. For it cannot have escaped anyone's notice that we live in troubled times, when great problems impinge very hard on the Government and people of this country. The headlines often paint a dour picture of our domestic front—unemployment, recession, inflation and the continuing dark hand of murder and maiming associated with Northern Ireland.
But, yet, we in this country do have an abiding light; it is the unifying light that is cast by the constant example of our Royal Family. This was shown never more strongly than this summer, when, once again, we were all drawn together to derive joy and a great sense of belonging and purpose from the wedding of their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales. For a while, the country forgot its ills and spontaneously came together in a surge of happiness that was the envy of the rest of the world. Feelings of pride, that may have had cause to flag a little recently in some hearts, were revived.
This is not to mention all the other untiring daily efforts of the Royal Family, which we may sometimes take for granted, but which always provide a brilliant focus for us and for other countries. This gruelling schedule is well illustrated by Her Majesty's proposed tours of Sweden and Australasia, which were referred to in the gracious Speech. So may I very warmly reiterate—I know on behalf of us all—our acknowledgement of our continuing debt of gratitude to Her Majesty and all the Royal Family.
Now that I have ridden the swings, I must also try 9 the roundabouts, in the shape of the Government's domestic proposals for the country that we have just heard outlined. I am conscious that a speech on this occasion must not attempt to make too many contentious points, but in the nature of things that may prove a little difficult from time to time. So if I sail a little close to the wind from time to time, I hope that the House will bear with me and will not steal my wind.
Having said that, I first note with interest the Government's intention to introduce further legislation on employment and labour relations. I am sure that several noble Lords on all sides of the House will have noted that with interest as well, no doubt in anticipation of many highly contentious sittings well into the small hours throughout next summer, if my recollection of our last tangle with this thorny problem serves me correctly. I only hope that the thorns do not cause too many punctures along the way!
Secondly, I welcome the Government's continued determination to set themselves against unemployment and inflation and their effects. We are all pleased that the rate of inflation is standing lower than it has been, although of course still not low enough. But we are all also dismayed at the obstinate refusal of that scourge—unemployment—to do likewise. The Government find themselves under acrid attack—and not just from the usual expected quarters—on that account, although there can be no one who is not delighted that British Leyland has gone back to work this morning.
I hope to set the problem in a wider context altogether. It must be emphasised that this is not just our own parochial problem. The spectre of unacceptably high unemployment is looming over the whole of Europe and the United States as well. There are more than 9 million people unemployed within the EEC, of whom too many are under 25. We know the causes all too well. But the critical point of reference must, of course, be the 1974 oil crisis. Companies and countries in the western world are now suffering the full ravaging symptoms of the infection that set in then.
There is a danger that an unemployment culture may be developing, with the loss altogether for some of the work ethic and all the problems that go with that—increased juvenile violence and vandalism, coupled with a growing disrespect for the law and those who attempt to uphold it. But rather than rage at each other, I feel we must recognise that the western world may be held at the moment in the process of a fundamental and irrevocable sociological change, bringing with it a revolution in attitudes. So that while I strongly welcome—and I must reiterate this—every effort that is made by the Government to create the conditions for genuine employment (and I must emphasise the word "genuine"), may I emphasise also the nature of our times? Unemployment affecting many people, sired by microcomputer technology out of recession, may need to be tackled in a different frame of mind. It may be that we have reached that point in the 20th century when our headlong rush into ever-increasing material progress is slowing down significantly.
If leisure is therefore to become more widespread, it must no longer be stigmatised as socially undesirable, 10 as it may have been up to now. It is the task of those who are concerned with these things to recognise this change and to explore new ways to forge the path to the future, in such a way that the quality of our people's lives may not necessarily be damaged by that change. The word "compassion" is often bandied about. What in fact may be needed is not just compassion, but a whole change in attitudes on the part of many people.
Thirdly, on what undoubtedly must be recognised as a related topic, I welcome also the Government's continuing determination to uphold law and order in the fairest but firmest way. I am a little anxious that the right lessons have been learned from the civil unrest that manifested itself this summer.
Our aim must he two-fold: To ensure that the police have confidence in themselves and, secondly, and just as importantly, that they have the confidence of our citizens, too. This means that the police must be seen to be not only an effective force, and to have confidence in their own effectiveness, but also an impartial force. Their job must surely be one of the most delicate in this heterogeneous society of ours in Britain in the 1980s. They more and more frequently come under attack, and unfortunately I am no longer able to say mere verbal attack, from the extreme poles of our society, and their duty to appear impartial becomes more and more difficult but at the same time more and more crucial. We are fortunate, however, that our police force undoubtedly has within its ranks several far-sighted men who appreciate fully the delicacy of their position and who lead accordingly.
I regard it as being of fundamental importance that the faith of the British public in their police must be maintained. The cases of Blair Peach, Winston Rose and the analogous case of Barry Prosser only provide ammunition for those who strive to undermine their authority. It is not entirely satisfactory when one all too frequently sees the slogan daubed on walls: "Assist the police—Beat yourself up." So let the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, be a catalyst to restore the position of the police in the esteem of the British public. But at the same time let us restore the confidence of the police in their own effectiveness. I warmly welcome the steps being taken to equip our police properly in a way that is appropriate to the conditions under which they sometimes now find themselves. A bee-keeper does not tend to his bees without the benefit of common sense protection. If innovations, that may seem anathema to tradition, have to be grasped in order to maintain the traditional effectiveness of our police, then so be it. In these ways, we can all continue to have confidence in our police, and they in us.
I now turn briefly to a subject on which all sides of this House are usually at one—for once. We all anticipate with some measure of hope, tempered by bitter experience, the Government's proposals for progress in Northern Ireland, set out in Her Majesty's gracious Speech. We have recently experienced three times within these shores the first-hand horror of what the people in Northern Ireland have had for a daily diet for the last 12 years. I hope it will not be thought irreverent if I say that it may not be altogether a bad thing for us to experience that proper sense of shock and outrage ourselves in order to understand at all the facts 11 of life and death that they have undergone since 1969. In a very small way I felt those feelings myself four weeks ago when I heard and saw from a distance of 500 yards the explosion at Chelsea Barracks. And, as is often the case, those perverted men of death, whose blood surely runs cold in their veins, claimed two wholly innocent victims on that particular occasion.
When proposals have to attempt to appease men such as those, it is not surprising that initiatives attempted over the last 12 years have often been scorned by one side or the other. The panacea still remains elusive, which is why I welcome with quiet optimism both my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland's proposals in response to the end of the hunger strike, and at least as much the Government's continuing dialogue with the Republic, begun with Mr. Haughey and continued by Dr. Fitz-Gerald. Surely two of the most important requirements to pave the way for greater peace in Northern Ireland are, first, to obtain the disaffection of the Catholic population from the IRA and, secondly, to assuage the Protestants' nervousness about the intentions of the Republic. I believe that the two initiatives I have mentioned tread that path, so I know that reasonable men everywhere will join me in welcoming them and in hoping that they might fall on fertile ground so as to give the people of Northern Ireland a chance to start to mend their broken lives.
Although I have been supposed to confine my remarks to our domestic problems, at the risk of repetition there are three reasons why I am unable to resist straying on to the international plane. In the first place, I have just been looking at international law for a year at Cambridge University. Now I know that some people do not think much about international law, about its effectiveness in particular. Indeed, when I was at Cambridge there was a lecture notice put up on the board announcing a lecture to be given under the title, "International Law: How it works", to which somebody added the postscript, "Next week: How to nail jelly to the ceiling"! Nevertheless, I do hope that my year there has given me some insight into international affairs which I did not have before.
Secondly, I am not really English at all but American. My grandfather sat in this House as an American citizen after six generations of our family had lived in America, which makes me feel a little more transatlantic than I imagine most noble Members of this House. The topic which leads me astray deeply concerns the Americans.
The third reason is that the subject itself is so important that it defies being left alone. I am of course talking about the nuclear arms balance, or perhaps I should say "imbalance", because that is what it is. It is rather topical at the moment, as every self-respecting idealist seems to be out on the hoof clamouring for the West to disarm unilaterally. How the Soviets must he congratulating themselves on this public relations exercise being waged on their behalf. Their weapons and their rate of deployment hardly get a mention, poor things.
It is sometimes lost sight of that we are all after the same goal—the avoidance of any nuclear war. We are all disarmers together. But those who grasp the nettle and are intellectually honest must realise that it is only 12 through multilateral disarmament that the possibility of avoiding nuclear conflict can be maximised. Distasteful as it may seem to most of us, the deterrent of mutually assured destruction in the meantime paradoxically gives the world its securest insurance against the holocaust.
I rejoice in the fact that the majority at least of those who are concerned with these decisions seem determined not to repeat the mistakes shown by their predecessors' slide into war in the late 1930s, through weakness. I therefore fervently welcome the Government's continued commitment to NATO and their commitment to maintain peace through deterrence and the full-blooded promotion of genuine multilateral disarmament. In particular, like the Government, I welcome strongly the impending negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union on the limitation of theatre nuclear weapons. Let us hope that that is a genuine start to meaningful multilateral limitation. I remember that Gandhi was once asked what he thought of Western civilisation. "I think", he replied, "that it would be a very good idea". I think it is a very good idea and I intend to support its being maintained in peace.
Finally, may I thank your Lordships for listening to me with such courtesy and I beg to second this Motion for a humble Address.
§ 4.20 p.m.
§ Lord PeartMy Lords, we have been privileged to hear two speeches which I think have reflected great credit on your Lordships' House. In the year in which Britain holds the presidency of the European Community I believe it was appropriate that we should hear from one of our distinguished representatives there, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, has done marvellous work in the Community. He is a man of many parts but we particularly admire his contributions to the literary scene of this country, not least his fine translations of so fine an author as Solzenitzyn, whose work has been an inspiration to so many.
It was a pleasure to listen to a speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax. Incidentally, we are delighted to recall that his ancestor led the Parliamentary forces to victory at the Battle of Naseby. I do not think that the noble Lord would, though, with the views that he has expressed today. Nevertheless, his youth as well as his obvious qualities I hope will commend him to your Lordships. He is a barrister—he mentioned this himself—who has a postgraduate degree in international law; but he also has, I understand, a fine sense of humour. Perhaps when we meet him more often, when he comes to this House over a period of time, we shall enjoy all the qualities which I know he has. As he pointed out, he has read international law. I think that is something to be welcomed, but I hope it will not prevent him coming to this House. I am sure that the whole House will wish him well in his new work in international marine law, but we hope that we shall have opportunities to hear him many times in the future.
It therefore gives me great pleasure to congratulate the mover and seconder of the humble Address. My Lords, I now move that this debate be adjourned until tomorrow.
§ Moved, That the debate be adjourned until tomorrow. —(Lord Peart.)
§ 4.22 p.m.
§ Lord ByersMy Lords, I rise to support the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Peart, and to add my congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the humble Address for the competence with which they discharged these duties and the pleasure which they gave to the House in doing so. I congratulate, too, the Leader of the House on her selection of the two noble Lords entrusted with this task. I must tell her, however, that I am somewhat confused as to the basis on which this selection is made. In my days in the other place this honour was reserved for those who were destined for high office. Perhaps this is still the aim—let us hope that it is—but I have not noticed in this Parliament that movers and seconders of the humble Address have found themselves suddenly the holders of important portfolios, worthy as they all were. In fact a study of those selected by the Government for this signal honour shows a strong sense of conservatism.
I would not of course suggest that the Government are living in the past, although when one looks at the economy of this country one wonders whether it would not be a good thing if they were. Their selections were: in 1979 a seventh Baron and a seventh Earl, in 1980 a tenth Earl and a fourth Baron, and today a fourth Baron and a fourteenth Baron, partly American. I do not know what is par for the course but I think there must be some sore hearts among the Life Peers of the Conservative Party, and it crossed my mind that perhaps it had proved impossible for the noble Baroness the Leader of the House to find two Conservative Back-Bench Life Peers who are fully in support of the Prime Minister and her policies. But of course that would be an unworthy thought and it would not really do to pursue that on an occasion such as this.
The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, has already held office as a Lord in Waiting. He is an assiduous member of the European Parliament—I have seen him at work there—and I am delighted to see the contributions that he has made on so many different subjects. I am sure that in this volatile political world he is right to hedge his bets and we shall follow his career in this House and in the European Parliament with the greatest possible interest. I shall be very interested to see which wins.
As to the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax of Cameron, who seconded the Motion, I applaud the manner in which he discharged this duty. The House will also follow his career with great interest. He and I are both members of Grays Inn. He is more distinguished than I am; he was actually called to the Bar; thanks to the War and politics I am still a student of Grays Inn. I am quite sure that I am the oldest student, and apart from congratulating the noble Lord I can only tell him that at his age he has entered on the political scene at a most exciting moment and at an age when he is young enough to engage in what may well be seen by historians as a watershed in British politics. If, as some of us sincerely hope, the mood of the country is really changing and this new alliance is acting as a catalyst, his future political life in British politics should at least be far more interesting and 14 eventful than it has been for many of us up to now. We shall watch with great interest the way in which his political life develops. I congratulate both the mover and the seconder, and I support the Motion.
§ 4.26 p.m.
§ The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Baroness Young)My Lords, it gives me very great pleasure for the first time as Leader of the House to follow the noble Lords, Lord Peart and Lord Byers, and to add my own congratulations to what they have said about the mover and seconder of the humble Address. I think we all appreciate the significance of the great ceremony of the State Opening of Parliament and expect to enjoy two excellent speeches at the start of our debate on the Address, and today we were not disappointed. I offer to my noble friends Lord Bethell and Lord Fairfax my warmest congratulations. I only hope that the thought of their impending fate has not seriously interrupted their enjoyment of the Prorogation break in parliamentary affairs, or indeed this morning's magnificent ceremony.
It is particularly fitting that during the period of the United Kingdom's Presidency of the Council of Ministers the mover himself should be a Member of the European Parliament. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Bethell is one of only a very few Members of either House who have been Members of the European Parliament both before and since the first direct election in 1979. I must he careful not to venture on to controversial ground, but I believe deeply that membership of the European Parliament is a most significant and valuable way to serve the interests of both Britain and the Community.
In this context, noble Lords will have noted the Government's reaffirmation of their commitment to Europe and their wish to help solve the Community's more pressing problems. I was glad to hear my noble friend's remarks about the Select Committee of your Lordships' House on European Communities, which will of course be reappointed in the next few days. This Committee, which actively involves up to 80 noble Lords, plays a most important role, not least, as your Lordships will appreciate, in reducing the mass of paperwork which the Community inevitably produces into clear, concise and very readable reports to the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, is a past master of the Strasbourg-Brussels-London shuttle but he somehow finds time for other activities. He is in his own right an author of distinction and has been a Lord in Waiting and a scriptwriter for the BBC Radio—though, I must stress, not at the same time, just in case some of my noble friends on this Bench may be tempted. He is probably one of the few Members of the House who could, had we given him a little more time, have made his speech today in any one of four different languages, though quite where that would have left many of us or, for that matter, our friends the Hansard writers, I should not like to say.
I also wish to congratulate my noble friend Lord Fairfax of Cameron on his very thoughtful speech. Some noble Lords will recall his father, who, as a Lord in Waiting, I am assured enjoyed widespread affection and respect in the House. Both noble Lords opposite referred to my noble friend, and I hope he will 15 not be embarrassed if I refer to his age. Whether or not he is the youngest Peer ever to have proposed or seconded the Address, I am unable to confirm. My office in the Lords warned me that the research involved would be immense, and noble Lords will know that this Government are anxious not to incur unnecessary expense. But I suspect that he is the youngest, and his speech was all the more refreshing for that reason. I am sure that the House will agree that we must do all that we can to encourage young noble Lords to take as full and active a part in our proceedings as their busy lives outside the Chamber permit. The noble Lord already holds a postgraduate degree in international law, and this will equip him with a formidable expertise in your Lordships' House. It is, I gather, almost two years since he made his maiden speech, and I really do hope that we shall hear more from him in the months to come.
My Lords, if I may now turn to the legislative programme, as usual we shall in this Session have a good deal to do in considering the legislation necessary to implement the proposals set out in the Queen's Speech. But after two busy Sessions I can certainly say that the volume of legislation will be less. I hope, too, that the programme will maintain the better balance between the two Houses which we saw last Session. The House will be sorry to hear that I cannot promise a Bill to occupy us for anything remotely approaching the time taken by the Wildlife and Countryside Bill. But I can say that the Government will introduce important and interesting Bills in this House in the next few days, one of which will reform aspects of the law on mental health.
I am conscious of my responsibility as Leader of the House to ensure that your Lordships are given a reasonably balanced programme and I will do all that I can in this direction. I am sure that there are other areas as well where I can rely upon the two noble Lords on the Benches opposite to educate me in the proper responsibilities of the Leader. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Byers—who made some almost very kind remarks about myself—did refer to me, and he will be interested to know that, shortly after my appointment, a Swiss friend sent a cutting from a Basle newspaper which described me as Herr Oberhausfuhrer. I felt I should give this warning to the House on this occasion. But seriously, my Lords, I should like to send a special message of affection to the Opposition Chief Whip today.
Perhaps I may say a word about how it is suggested we should proceed in our debate on the gracious Speech this week and next. Tomorrow it is proposed that the principal topic of debate will be home affairs. and it is intended that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack the Lord Chancellor shall open for the Government and my noble friend Lord Belstead shall wind up. On Tuesday it is proposed that the House shall debate foreign affairs and defence, with my noble friend Lord Carrington, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, opening for the Government and my noble friend Lord Trenchard concluding. Finally, on Wednesday and Thursday next, 11th and 12th November, it is envisaged that our debate will concentrate on economic and industrial affairs, with myself opening for the Government on Wednesday, 16 and my noble friend Lord Cockfield opening and concluding on Thursday. I should just like to add that it has been agreed that the first Wednesday for Back Bench Short Debates shall be Wednesday 25th November, and the ballot for that Wednesday will be held on Tuesday of next week, 10th November, which is perhaps rather earlier in the Session than usual.
Before concluding my speech this afternoon, I would like to say a brief word about the late Lord Hood, who died last month. He was not only a distinguished public servant but in more recent years had been chairman of the Works of Art Sub-Committee of your Lordships' Offices Committee. He fulfilled this task from the sub-committee's first appointment in July 1971 until the beginning of last Session. I know that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to his notable service to the House in this capacity. Indeed, I think it right that we should thank all noble Lords who serve on the various sub-committees of the Offices Committee, not least the respective chairmen of these sub-committees, who all put in an enormous amount of work on our behalf.
My Lords, let me end as I begun, by thanking my two noble friends on this side of the House, Lord Bethel and Lord Fairfax of Cameron, for two such notable speeches in moving and seconding the humble Address.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly until tomorrow.