Lords Sitting of 22 May 1985

Preamble
The House met at a quarter-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.

Lord Elliott of Morpeth
Sir Robert William Elliott, Knight, having been created Baron Elliott of Morpeth, of Morpeth in the County of Northumberland and of the City of Newcastle upon Tyne, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Nugent of Guildford and the Lord Eden of Winton.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
Stanley Eric Francis, Lord Bishop of Manchester—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford and the Lord Bishop of Carlisle.

Nicaragua
2.37 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have noted that the Nicaraguan Government has sent away 100 Cuban military advisers, and whether they have any evidence of Nicaraguan attempts to destabilise neighbouring governments within the last six months.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, we have seen reports that 100 Cuban military advisers recently left Nicaragua. But we remain deeply concerned by the substantial number that remain and by Nicaraguan policies aimed at destabilising neighbouring governments.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, do the Government not have an ambassador accredited to the Government of Nicaragua? If so, why do they have to rely on seeing reports, presumably in the press? Is there not a First Secretary resident in Managua who can inquire about the matter and make an authoritative report to the Government? Secondly, what are the policies which seek to destabilise the governments in neighbouring countries to Nicaragua?
Baroness Young: My Lords, our ambassador who is resident in Costa Rica also looks after Nicaragua. However, we have diplomatic representation itself in Managua. Naturally, we have reports, both from the ambassador and from our representative in the capital of Nicaragua itself. On the second point that the noble Lord raised, he will know that the Honduran ambassador at the United Nations Security Council on
288
10th May reported the arrest the previous week of six Sandinista Front members who confessed that they had been trans-shipping and hiding weapons in Honduras for the use of subversive Honduran groups being trained at present in Nicaragua. Some of them had been involved in such activities since 1979.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Baroness be kind enough to say briefly what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards Nicaragua, and specifically with regard to making loans to Nicaragua? Did she see the article in the Observer newspaper on 12th May which purported to publish Foreign Office documents showing that, while on the face of it the Government were anxious to make loans and to help Nicaragua, they were in practice blocking loans to that country?
Baroness Young: My Lords, regarding the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards Nicaragua and Central America, we wish to see an early and comprehensive negotiated settlement of the regional tensions. To that end, we have consistently supported the Contadora proposals. On the second point about aid to Nicaragua, the view is that all these matters, and indeed loans to Nicaragua, have been decided on technical grounds.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness will answer my question. I asked whether the Government are in favour of making loans to Nicaragua, and whether there was any merit in the report in the Observer newspaper which published exchanges and letters from her department. Is it the case that we are making loans to Nicaragua and that we are in favour of doing so? Or are we blocking these loans?
Baroness Young: My Lords, we have supplied £450,000 in bilateral aid to Nicaragua since 1980. Community aid to Central America in 1983 totalled £25 million, of which Nicaragua received about £9 million, the largest share. As the noble Lord will be aware, we contribute to the Community budget about 22 per cent. As to the Observer article, I can confirm that we are not blocking aid. We consider all new multilateral projects on their technical merits and in relation to the recipient countries' standing with the international financial institutions.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Baroness says that the Government support the Contadora proposals. Does she not agree that they contain an injunction against the use of the territory of any state in the region for hostile action against its neighbours? Will she therefore condemn the use by the American State Department of Honduran and Costa Rican territory for the operations of many thousands of armed terrorists who are killing and destroying property in Nicaragua?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I can confirm that we support the Contadora process. What we have said, and I have said on many occasions in your Lordships' House, is that we support the aims of United States policy in Central America; namely, to promote democracy, political stability, national security and economic development.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, do the Government support the means by which the United States pursues that aim; namely, the financing and supplying of insurgents to carry on a civil war, which has cost about 8,000 lives over the past four or five years, against the Government of Nicaragua, which is now democratically elected?
Baroness Young: My Lords, in answer to the first question that he asked, the noble Lord will know the situation in Central America is very complex. I have set out the Government's position on this matter.
Lord Oram: My Lords, does that Government position include a refusal to support the United States embargo on trade with Nicaragua?
Baroness Young: My Lords, with regard to the United States Administration, we have not been asked by them to join in imposing sanctions.

The Strategic Defence Initiative
2.43 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question is as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what further communications they have received from the United States Government concerning the star wars research programmes.
Baroness Young: My Lords, we remain in close touch with the United States Administration regarding the latter's strategic defence initiative research program me.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Does she not think that both Houses of Parliament and the people should know what these communications are? Can she say why we are being kept in the dark? Is she further aware that the new wisdom enunciated by Sir Geoffrey Howe, the British Foreign Secretary, has taken root in many political parties in NATO countries and has also been deeply admired in the United States itself? It may be a consequence of the success of the wisdom of Sir Geoffrey Howe that the Government are not too keen to tell us what is happening.
Baroness Young: My Lords, the British Government's position on SDI is clear. It is set out in the four points agreed between the Prime Minister and President Reagan at Camp David just before Christmas. As the noble Lord has said, my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State set out our position in his speech in March. Nothing is being hidden on these two public documents. They make quite plain our view on this important matter.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, have the Government anything more to say yet in answer to the question, "Who is to answer the 15 questions set out in the Foreign Secretary's speech of 15th March?" to which the noble Baroness has alluded?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I do not think that I can add anything in answer to the noble Lord's question following upon the important debate that he raised in this House last week.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the fundamental questions posed by the British Foreign Secretary have been commented upon in Europe among our allies and in the United States? As there have been official comments on the vital points that he made and the questions of paramount importance that he posed, can the noble Baroness assure the House that we shall be given the answers to the Foreign Secretary's questions which the House and the country ought to know?
Baroness Young: My Lords, my right honourable and learned friend set out a number of questions on matters that need to be considered. They are being considered not only in this country but also in other countries in Europe. They are matters among others that we are discussing with our allies.

Funeral Costs and VAT
2.46 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any plans to remove VAT from funeral costs.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the services of funeral undertakers are already exempt from value added tax. The Government have no plans to extend the existing relief.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. However, is he aware that, following the latest imposition of VAT on newspaper obituary notices, funeral furnishing costs for coffins, fittings, floral tributes, motor expenses and monumental inscriptions add to the list of funeral charges that bear VAT? Is the noble Lord aware that the death grant of £30—the woefully inadequate death grant—is exceeded by the amount of VAT that the Treasury claws back? When will the Government increase the death grant or abolish VAT, or preferably do both?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, VAT exemption associated with burials and cremations applies to the services of the undertaker, including making arrangements for cremation or burial, disposal of ashes, transport, the supply of the coffin and associated goods. However, as the noble Lord says, it does not cover discretionary expenditure on flowers, wreaths, gravestones and other items. Successive Governments have looked at this matter since 1973 and have decided not to extend the relief. The death grant is under review in the current social security review, and noble Lords will have to await the outcome of that.
Lord Morris: My Lords, from the point of view of the deceased, where lies any value added?

Less Favoured Area Scheme
2.48 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they hope to inform those who have applied for inclusion in the extended Less Favoured Area Scheme of their decision to be included or excluded, and what criteria or constraints will be used to determine such applications.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, farmers have until 31st July to make representations against exclusion from the Less Favoured Areas. Each representation will be tested against the land quality, economic and demographic criteria which Less Favoured Areas are required to satisfy. Any subsequent adjustments to the LFA line will then have to be agreed by the European Commission, and I cannot therefore yet predict when we shall be able to tell farmers of the outcome of their representations.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for that Answer. I should also like to ask whether it is true that there is a 1 per cent. ceiling put on this extra land that could be included in the Less Favoured Areas, and that if this 1 per cent. is exceeded we have to go to Brussels. I should further like to ask whether this ceiling, or possible ceiling, is in fact being transferred by the Government to the assessors, so that the assessors are taking (shall I say?) a very mean view of including other farmers in the area.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, let us be clear that the extension of the Less Favoured Area Scheme in the United Kingdom was 1.2 million hectares last year, within a total of 9.8 million hectares. It was a very considerable extension. But my noble friend is asking me about appeals from those who wish to be included and who have not been included. It is the case that if the European Commission—at that level—is to decide any extra representations, those have to be within 1½per cent. of a member state's territory: otherwise, we have to make our representations to the Council of Agriculture Ministers. Finally, let me make it clear to my noble friend that we are considering all representations.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, we all know the difficulties in deciding where the line of the Less Favoured Areas should begin. I have had experience in EC work and in the ministry. Does the advisory committee help the assessor? I know that that is the case with local farmers. It helps the situation considerably if the advisory committee helps or advises the assessor, who has a very difficult job.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, farmers who are unhappy about the exclusion of their area may write to their divisional office giving appropriate details and asking for reassessment. With the exception of Northern
292
Ireland, where all representations will be considered by an independent panel, representations will be considered initially by officials. However, any farmer whose representation is rejected on land quality grounds, will be able to make a further appeal to the regional panel of his area.
Lord Gibson-Watt: My Lords, while commending the action of the Minister of Agriculture in getting the Less Favoured Areas in Britain greatly extended, will my noble friend agree that, as in the case of the hill cattle subsidy some years ago, to get the delineation of the boundaries correct is an extremely difficult exercise? Therefore, will his right honourable friend have consultations with such other bodies and perhaps the regional representative which he has in each region?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it is precisely because of the reason which my noble friend has outlined that we have set up the representations procedure to enable these problems to be resolved. Let me repeat that that procedure includes the absolute right of a farmer who is unhappy with a decision to go to the regional panel if he has been rejected on land quality grounds.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord give the House some indication as to the amount included in the Community budget for 1984–85 or any payments under this head? Will he give some further indication of any amount that may have been earmarked for the United Kingdom?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord but I do not know the answer to his first question and, if I may, I shall write to the noble Lord and put my reply in the Library because I think that it is of importance to the House to know the answer to the question and I apologise for not knowing it.
As regards the noble Lord's second question, 53 per cent. of the United Kingdom is now designated as being less favoured and that, of course, is of very great importance to us when one bears in mind that the vast majority of the farming businesses in the Less Favoured Areas would have found it exceedingly difficult to continue to trade if they had not benefited both from the capital allowances and from the hill livestock compensatory allowances.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, is it true that the original designation of these areas was based on very old maps and also on a very old ministry land classification map which does not now correctly reflect productivity?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the exercise was undertaken with very great care. The case which we put to the Council to extend the Less Favoured Areas in this country, which, as I have said, was a very successful operation, was the result of what was called the "marginal land survey", which began in 1980. That involved looking at poor quality land near to, or contiguous with, the original LFAs. It included desk work, relying on maps and local knowledge, but it also involved physical inspection on the ground. Therefore, I hope that I have made it clear to my noble friend that the map work was only a part of what was a very closely done exercise.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, the Minister has said that 53 per cent. of the United Kingdom is now classified as less favoured. Will he give us the proportions? Will he tell us the proportion of the 53 per cent. which is applicable to Scotland?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it is getting towards 90 per cent. Some 5,717,000 hectares were originally designated in Scotland as less favoured, and another 74,000 were added as an extension of Less Favoured Areas last year. I have to admit to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, that I do not have the exact percentage, but it is very near the percentage that I hazarded. It is very high indeed and I am very glad that that is the case.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I say a word at this point about the arrangements for this afternoon's short debates standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parry, and my noble friend Lord Chelwood. It is customary in short debates that the mover is allowed approximately 15 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate. In the case of the short debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Parry, that means that all other speeches should be limited to a maximum of 14 minutes, and in that of my noble friend Lord Chelwood, 10 minutes. If any noble Lord should speak at greater length it will be at the expense of subsequent speakers in that particular debate.

Tourism and the Economy
2.56 p.m.
Lord Parry Lord Parry rose to call attention to the significance to the changing economy of Britain of the support given to the British Tourist Authority and to the national tourist boards for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my father, who was a Baptist minister in West Wales, used to tell the story of one Member of your Lordships' House—Lord Kilsant—causing consternation in a little inn, The Boar's Head, at Templeton when he asked to stay the night. There was no service of any kind inside the hotel and the stablelad was pressed into service. He was rehearsed in what he had to do in the morning. He had to go up the stairs carrying the boiling water for his Lordship's shave, tap on the door and say, "It's the boy with your water, my Lord". In fact through his nervousness and lack of training he arrived at the door, hammered on it and announced, "Tis the Lord with your water, my boy"! It was, I think, a turning point in the economy of Wales—a small milestone when, in the rural areas, one skill became at least partly another!
The Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper gives me the opportunity:
"To call attention to the significance to the changing economy of Britain of the support given to the British Tourist Authority and to the National Tourist Boards for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and to move for Papers".
294
In retrospect, the Motion should have read:
"To call attention to the significance of tourism to the changing economy of Britain",
and then:
"and to the support given to the British Tourist Authority and to the National Tourist Boards".
Perhaps those noble Lords who are to speak in the debate, with their very real expertise, may feel Free to treat the Motion in that manner. I thank them very much for putting their names forward. I wish to thank them and I also wish to refer to the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, would have been among the speakers this afternoon were it not for the fact that Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Gloucester is opening an extension to Britain's tourism at Beaulieu—another "act of faith" in the changing economy of Great Britain and the importance of tourism to it.
Nineteen eighty-four was Orwell's year. It is the year to which some of us in our youth were taught to look forward to misery and mayhem and to the loss of our freedom. In fact there were moments during 1984 when we all felt from our respective points of view that very real things that we very much cherished were at stake. During 1984 we had the creeping paralysis of unemployment and the awful palsy of the coal strike. However it was during that very difficult year of 1984 that this country earned £15 million a day from the tremendous industry of tourism about which we are to speak. I wish to read some figures into the debate so that people will understand why it is that some of us feel that not sufficient attention is paid to the achievements of the tourism industry in Britain and to the work that is done by people involved in the trade.
In 1984 13·8 million overseas visitors came to Britain. They spent £4,194 million in this country. They spent nearly £1,125 million with British air and shipping lines on fares for travel to and from Britain. Britain's total foreign currency earnings from tourism in 1984 were more than £5,300 million, and that of course adds up to the fact that I have already given that the equivalent of all but £15 million a day from tourism was reaped for this country during the past year. Every day, my Lords! Overseas visitors are estimated to have spent some £1,150 million on accommodation alone in Britain in 1984, and to have spent another £620 million on eating out. That brings a smile to those involved in the business. Another £190 million was on entertainment, and yet another £480 million on transport within this country.
There is, furthermore, little doubt that in 1985 the earnings will top £16 million a day. I want to compare that briefly and in passing with North Sea oil revenue. Our much vaunted and much mortgaged North Sea oil brings in a similar amount of money to that raised by tourism. But much of it is already earmarked for export abroad, when so much of the product of the indigenous tourist industry recycles within the economy and is totally at home here.
If we look in real terms—and it is time for one of the institutions to do the sums—at the money raised by tourism against the money raised from North Sea oil, with all the benefits reaped by other countries from that investment, then we shall find that in real terms tourism is beginning to overhaul North Sea oil as a revenue producer for this nation.
The money spent by overseas visitors spreads throughout the whole country. I want to pick this up as my noble friend—although he sits on the other side of the Aisle—Lord Mackie of Benshie might wish to refer to it because we laid the trail for this in an earlier discussion on the rural areas. I had hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, might have been in his place—he was a moment earlier—so that I could say that there was no conflict between us when we were talking about the development of the rural economy.
More than £1,500 million annually is spent directly in the nations of England, Scotland, Wales, and the region, the province, of Northern Ireland. What is more, a large proportion of the money spent by overseas visitors in London goes on making arrangements for travel and accommodation in other parts of Britain. More than one third of all the money spent in Britain by overseas visitors each year goes on shopping for manufactured goods.
Where is the dichotomy between the redevelopment of the manufacturing industry of Britain and the impact upon it of tourism revenue? Of course there is no conflict. I hope that no one will believe that anyone arguing for the development of tourism and support for the service sector of the economy in this House or elsewhere is simultaneously arguing for the decline of the heavy industrial base or the manufacturing product. They are complementary.
One of the biggest beneficiaries from tourism—and I am sad about that—is the national exchequer. In 1984 overseas visitors are estimated to have paid more than £600 million in value added tax—and we had an amusing intervention earlier on VAT—and in taxes on such things as liquor, tobacco, and petrol. That is nearly as much as the Government receive from the road tax fund each year. That is the contribution which tourism is making to Britain's economy at this immensely difficult time.
Last year the Government gave the British Tourist Authority approximately £16.8 million to promote travel to Britain from abroad. How does that compare, one wonders, with the vast amounts of money which are taken out of the real economy in support of industries which perhaps are not able to bring home the bacon, or the egg, in quite precisely the same way. The British Tourist Authority raised over £10 million from its own publishing and promotional enterprises to promote Great Britain overseas.
Some 1.3 million people throughout the whole of Britain depend directly, or indirectly, upon tourism for their livelihoods. And each year tourism creates some 50,000 new jobs. Its role as a job creator is one of the most important aspects about it, and those jobs spread throughout the length and breadth of Britain. Not only does tourism currently employ four times as many people as the motor car industry in Britain, it earns four times as much in foreign currency. Tourism earns more than twice as much foreign currency each year as the export of new British civil and military aircraft. I am sure that that is a surprise. It earns more than three times as much as the export value of British iron and steel.
In fact, tourism earns as much for Britain each year as the combined overseas sales of Britain's passenger cars, her aircraft, her beverages, her tobacco products,
296
and her textiles. Within Britain one overseas visitor spends as much as five British holiday makers. That is no comment on the British holiday maker, but it is a fact. The average foreign visitor spends over 50 per cent. more in Britain than the average Britain spends abroad.
Britain's biggest single market for overseas visitors is Western Europe. Over seven million European visitors came here in 1983. They spent £1,271 million in Britain. The largest single contingent of European visitors in 1983 came from France. They were 1,516,000, and they spent £170 million here. It is not my habit as a rule to read figures of this nature into a debate, but I believe that the figures I am reading are so impressive that they should be understood not simply by your Lordships but by every man, woman and child who is worried about the future of the economy of Great Britain. After Europe, the United States of America provides the most visitors to Britain each year. In 1983, 2,317,000 American visitors spent £784 million here.
The following remarks may give your Lordships a little relief from all that pounding of heavy statistics. Visitors list these main reasons for coming to Britain. They come to meet the people; they come to see the countryside; they come to enjoy historic associations; they come to see colourful pageantry—and your Lordships' House has stood well this afternoon in colourful pageantry. They come for business conferences; they come to see old buildings; they come to study the English language; they come to go to the theatre, and to see the arts.
How many times have we debated in this House grants to the theatre and to the arts? How many times have we debated tourism? In the whole of my nearly 11 years in this House, my Lords, it is three times. We have debated the sustenance of the arts over and over again; and there would probably be no theatre in London today if it were not for the tourists who come and patronise it, and the captive loads of visitors who are deposited outside the theatres in their coaches night by night.
They come to visit historic houses; they come for rural functions; and—cheering again for our manufacturing industry—shopping for world-famous British products. They like British courtesy and hospitality. We may be selling ourselves short, my Lords. They like British courtesy and hospitality; they love the pubs and the countryside, the greenness of the grass. They do not mind the weather and although it may surprise you, my Lords, they like the food.
I want to draw attention quickly—I have three minutes left so I can do little more than wave some things about—to these matters. First, if your Lordships want to follow up those facts, if you want to use them the British Tourist Authority—I nearly said British "Tory" Authority, forgive me, my Lords—will be glad to let you have the details. The paper was published in April 1985.
I have here a short paper on tourism in Wales. I shall just read one quotation from it. It is the Welsh Office's own memorandum on the importance of tourism. It says:
"Tourism is a major provider of jobs and contributes significantly to the economy of Wales. It is the Secretary of State's strategy that tourism opportunities should be actively developed in co-ordination

297
with those in other sectors of the economy and that the efforts of interested bodies and the resources available are harnessed to the best advantage taking account of the need to preserve and enhance the natural and historic attractions of Wales".
Your Lordships would not expect me to put Wales down in one go. I am going to quote from the Welsh Tourist Board regarding touring in' Wales. They estimate conservatively that employment in the tourist industry is now of the order of 90,000. They say that to give some idea of relative scale, this is double—and it is more than double—the combined employment in the coal and steel industries (some 23,000 jobs, as I remember) with which Wales is traditionally mainly associated in popular perception. They continue:
"Income generated by tourism in Wales in 1983 was in the order of E510 million. This includes an estimated £450 million spent by the 12 million British residents who spent a holiday, took an overnight business trip or came on a visit to friends or relatives during the year".
If your Lordships want to liven the evening, read Croeso i Gymru, Welcome to Wales—
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, clywch, clywch!
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Clywch, clywch, my Lords!
Lord Parry: I am delighted with the way that the Welsh language is spreading along the Front Bench! I read here, my Lords (I nearly said "my friends": I am sure your Lordships are):
"Blaenavon is a bedpan of the world".
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Tut, tut, my Lords!
Lord Parry: This was said by a Welshman. It is a print off from The Economist. It says:
"It stands on the eastern rim of the South Wales coalfield. The landscape is rainswept and windswept and scarred. Yet 120,000 visitors come there each year to put on helmets and lamps for a tour of the Big Pit. Their guide is one of the redeployed former miners at the pit, which was closed in 1980. Underground, the tourists are asked to douse their lamps to appreciate how fearfully dark and lonely it is in the bowels of the earth. Above ground, they visit the pithead baths… Yet when the Wales Tourist Board in 1978 put together a posse of statutory agencies and local authorities to establish an independent charitable trust to develop and manage the Big Pit museum, hoots of laughter filled the valleys. Turning it and other industrial 'eyesores' into tourist traps was seen as a waste of public money. The sceptics stand confounded. It is only by such bold initiatives that Wales will protect and increase its share of tourist spending".
I could quote from The British Hotels, Restaurants and Caterers Association saying similar things about the need for a Tourism Act-style development for the areas of Britain that are in difficulty. I should prefer to turn quickly in my last seconds to the words of Duncan Bluck, the current chairman of the British Tourist Authority. He was speaking to the British Tourism Society on 29th April, almost anticipating this debate.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, the Tourism Society.
Lord Parry: The Tourism Society, my Lords. What did I say?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: The British Tourism Society.
Lord Parry: My Lords, the words of the president guide me. Duncan Bluck forecast 17 million overseas visitors by 1988 and a revenue of more than £8 billion annually. He went on:
"By the end of the century we shall certainly be welcoming more than 25 million overseas visitors a year".
He had some guiding words, too, for friends in high places:
"Whilst Government acknowledge the importance of this great tourism industry, this acknowledgment certainly is not always so obvious in their funding policies, particularly of the statutory tourist boards. We are talking about an enormous industry with an overseas visitors spend, as I have mentioned, of the order of £6 billion per annum in 1985 and probably a similar figure in domestic tourist spend".
He also had a personal word for the noble Lord the Minister without Portfolio, Lord Young of Graffham, who is to reply to the debate. He said:
"We particularly welcome Government's recent decision to form a ministerial committee chaired by Lord Young which will look at the barriers to the growth of the industry and hopefully come up with fresh proposals. The fact that this influential group is due to report in July also shows the degree of urgency and priority which would have been highly unlikely a year or so ago. The setting up of the group recognises a reality. The reality is, as I have mentioned, that we are talking about an enormous and successful industry which can continue to create wealth and jobs throughout Britain provided it is properly supported. We must not allow this opportunity to pass us by without fully exploiting the opportunities that it will create".
I have one question. Will the noble Lord, as soon as he comes to the conclusion of his examination towards the end of July, give us Government time so that we can have a sustained debate on this matter of the greatest potential industry in the service sector? I believe that, while the world does not owe us a living, there is one out there waiting for us to pick up. I beg to move for Papers.
3.16 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, Lord Parry deserves great credit for initiating this debate, but he deserves greater credit for the way in which he has expounded the case. Figures are not normally very amusing, but he has battered the Front Bench with very effective figures one after another, all proving an excellent case. He diverged a little towards the end, when he started to speak about Wales, but as I shall talk particularly about Scotland perhaps he had a right to spend a few minutes so doing.
The case of the colliery as a tourist attraction was particularly interesting to me because for many years I was chairman of a small glass factory in Scotland. We quickly found that the tourist was the most important customer we had. We eventually found that a third of our whole income was coming from tourists. As they came to the factory and bought direct, it was probably the most profitable of all the income we received in that factory. Originally, this factory was up in Wick—a long way away. One of the things we have to do for tourism is to try to spread it away from the main centres, or make it in addition to the main centres.
It is interesting that the Scottish figures show that we take about £1,000 million a year, and, of that, £250 million comes from overseas visitors. This is not nearly our share of the total if the total is £5,000 million, as the noble Lord, Lord Parry, said. There is a large job to do to make people realise that there is not only London: there is a vast stretch of very attractive

299
hinterland to which tourists can go and to which people increasingly want to go to enjoy the peace of the countryside, to take part in the life of the countryside and not merely to enjoy the attractions of lying on a beach in the sun. More and more this has become important. It certainly is important to Scotland, and will be even more important when we consider the decline in agricultural income, which is inevitable in view of the surpluses we have in Europe today. With this decline there has to be some substitute. Without doubt all the agricultural policy-makers are looking at a countryside which must be supported, or, rather, which must support itself, in some way other than simply by agriculture.
Tourism is enormously important in this respect. Already in Scotland the farmhouse scheme has had a certain amount of success and a large number of people in remote estates derive much of their income from the letting of empty cottages. This could be extended enormously—again, it needs Government help and the scheme needs education—for in Scotland there are large numbers of farm cottages which are empty and which could provide excellent holiday homes and bring in much needed income to those farms.
The tourist boards have much to do throughout the whole country making our areas really attractive to tourists. On odd occasions we still have the attitude which the noble Lord, Lord Parry, illustrated by what he said about the boy bringing up the hot water. In that respect I do not understand why, in Scotland, we do not have an official inspection scheme and a standard mark which says that not only the hotel accommodation but the bed and breakfast holiday accommodation is up to a certain standard. It is absolutely essential that we have a national inspection scheme before anybody receives the mark of approval. I know many areas which have excellent services, but there are others which can give a generally attractive area with good tourist services an extremely bad name. That is an essential part of the work of the tourist boards.
I come back to the question of extending the area to which tourists go, particularly to the hinterland. It was a good thing that the Government eventually saw the common sense of allowing the Scottish Tourist Board to promote Scotland overseas itself. But I think that more money needs to be spent on particular promotion. I do not think that one can ever "blanket promote" for Britain and attract the whole of the business that is there to be had. I think that one has to allow the specialists, whether in Wales or Scotland, to spend and to promote overseas themselves. We have always had in Scotland the anomaly of the Highland Development Board being able to do so while the Scottish Tourist Board has not.
Now the anomaly has been put right and, as always, the cry, I suppose, is that the Government should spend more money. But in this case the Government should spend more money because it is absolute nonsense not to invest in something which is going to bring in money. In this case we are not giving a handout; we are actually doing something which has already created a very large industry and an industry which can be a great deal bigger. With our appalling
300
record in the export of manufactured goods and our dependence on oil I think that the case has been made very strongly that this is not a handout, that this is money well spent and that without putting some money out, we will not take any in.
The budget for the Scottish Tourist Board, I think, is about £5 million, to which I suppose must be added the grants that it pays out; but if that is bringing in £250 million of foreign business, let alone the £1,000 million of total turnover, it is a very small sum to pay for that amount of extra business.
I think that the arguments put forward by the noble Lord have been extraordinarily well made. I hope that the Minister is not going to give the usual answer that, of course, we have got to save money; because in this case we have got to spend, and we will get it back. Already the figures show that it is coming back and the case appears to me to be totally logical. I feel that the noble Lord the Minister cannot possibly give any other answer than that the case has been made and that the money will be forthcoming to promote this excellent industry.
3.22 p.m.
Lord Forte: My Lords, personally I welcome the purpose of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Parry, in drawing attention to the significance to the changing economy of this country of the various tourist boards and I thank him for giving us an opportunity to consider this important subject. I thank him also for his very entertaining speech.
I have worked in this industry for over 50 years. I believe I can now claim that I know something about it. My message to your Lordships today is simple. It is this. The tourism and leisure industry, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Parry, has become vitally important to the economy of the country. I am not here in your Lordships' House today to advocate indiscriminate expenditure—in fact, it would be very much against my principles—but to say that to miss the opportunities that tourism presents, either by financial constraints or unnecessary control, would be absolute folly. Apart from the wealth that tourism creates within itself it, in turn, generates wealth in many other areas of the economy. Tourism must now be recognised, as we have heard, as one of Britain's finest investments. We could well be welcoming overseas visitors here long after the oil wells of the North Sea are dry and forgotten
I wish to emphasise the case for encouraging enterprise, renewed effort and greater initiative by all those concerned in the tourist business as well as ensuring that the tourist boards are enabled to perform their proper function in this connection. Some might accuse me of having a vested interest; indeed, I have. But I could say, so, too, has the country: it is in everybody's interest for Britain to have a prosperous and healthy tourist industry. Everybody is now climbing on the bandwagon; it is becoming fashionable. But it was not so long ago that the industry's role was regarded with some scepticism.
It is a good and healthy industry. Its record in recent years is a wonderful story of success. Investment, private investment, has been massive. The result, as your Lordships may know and as you have heard—the noble Lord, Lord Parry, unfortunately has stolen all my figures, for I think they come from the same

301
source—is that 13·8 million overseas visitors were given hospitality here last year, and in 1985 we can expect, I am told, a record 14·5 million. If you will allow me to say so, I believe that over the years the industry has risen well to the challenge.
What does this mean for the country? Last year tourism contributed—and these are figures that your Lordships have heard many times already—over £5,000 million in foreign currency earnings, and, apart from this, the even greater sum of £6,000 million from domestic sources. This again demonstrates the efficiency and capability of the industry. It is over £11 billion.
Now I turn to jobs. Some 1.4 million people are directly employed in tourism, and they are among the finest working population of this country. I say so without fear of contradiction, though with due respect to other industries. They are working 365 days of the year, day in and day out, from early morning till late at night, to serve the needs of the industry. Without them, there would be no tourist industry; it would not exist. I would also add that it has been said that, for every one person employed in the industry, five more are employed indirectly outside it and because of it. New jobs are being created at the level of about 50,000 per annum. And it is not just new jobs, either. There are first-time jobs for youngsters leaving school and college; and I am very proud to say that my own company provides training and career opportunities for up to 2,000 young people every year.
I ask your Lordships' indulgence to dwell for a moment on the beneficial effects of a successful tourist industry on other areas; and I am not including some of the more obvious professional services, such as those of the solicitor, the banker, the accountant, the architect and many others. This industry, in fact, generates employment and wealth in virtually every other area of service and manufacture.
Our shopping list is vast. We need everything from coffee pots to computers, fittings and furnishings of every conceivable kind, kitchen equipment, cutlery and crockery and vehicles. We buy and use almost everything produced, supplied and grown in this country. We use every form of power and we must be the largest retailer of newspapers.
Just as an example, what would the dairy industry do without us? My company alone, a fraction of the industry, a mere fraction, reckons to use 41 million pints of milk and 90 million eggs annually—a lot of milk and a lot of eggs. Imagine then, my Lords, the total requirements of 39,600 hotels, motels and boarding houses, 76,000 licensed premises and the tens of thousands of restaurants.
Ours is a national industry, working in the national interest, largely within the framework of free enterprise. The dividends to the country are enormous and cannot be overstated. Moreover, the industry, in a relatively short time, has become a great national asset. The tourist boards referred to in the Motion are central to the successful marketing of our national product. They have done a very good job, and are doing a very good job; and if they are to perform their function properly, they need all the support that we can give them. That means, of course, financial support; they must be adequately funded.
302
At present the British Tourist Authority's grant in aid, as your Lordships have heard, amounts to £16.96 million, which is virtually £17 million; that is only £160,000 higher than last year. The English Tourist Board receives £8.8 million, which is only £40,000 higher than last year. It may sound a lot of money perhaps, but, as I have indicated, the investment gives an excellent return. In real terms the allocation of funds to the boards has dropped over recent years, due of course to our usual enemy—inflation.
I would assure your Lordships that the industry generally believes that the case for more is justified; that is, the case for more money for the boards, and of course I would support the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Parry, to that effect. Who pays? It seems that the Government always pay, and in many cases they do; but in this case the industry itself pays out very heavily in all kinds of rates and taxes. It is a major contributor to the Exchequer. My company alone last year—and I repeat that we are a fraction of the industry—paid in levies for rates, taxes and duties a total of over £140 million. That is not an inconsiderable sum. Therefore, the industry helps to pay.
Members of the industry in many ways support the various tourist boards, and will continue to do so, even moneywise. We feel that we get a return for our money, but we would not wish to see the boards grow into unwieldy bureaucracies. What we must have are tourist boards which will adopt a positive and active approach and react quickly when necessary.
Finally, it is easy for me to talk about what others should do without acknowledging the responsibility of those engaged in the industry itself. We do have a responsibility to give value for money to our visitors, and I believe we do give value for money. At a time when the market was clearly in our favour and we could have taken advantage of the situation we did not do so.
How else does our tourist traffic keep increasing? Currency fluctuations have indeed helped, but such advantages have also been enjoyed by our European competitors or partners—call them what you will—and in the main we have done better than they have; in many cases much better.
Therefore, we can look at the prospects for the future with confidence. We are talking about millions of airline seats in British carriers, millions of shoppers in British shops, millions of theatregoers in British theatres, millions of visitors to our museums, our art galleries and our stately homes, and, of course, millions of meals in British establishments and millions of bed nights in British hotels. Therefore I hope we shall see enhanced currency earnings, more and more jobs, and substantial profits, too, for the industry and the country. Travel is one of the great freedoms of our world today. Let us enjoy it and, as a country, take full advantage of its opportunities.
3.34 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Parry, for introducing this Motion today. I feel rather like a minnow following a whale, if I may say so, speaking immediately after my noble friend Lord Forte, who has made an enormous contribution to the tourist industry. My own contribution is absolutely minute in that we open our

303
home to foreign paying guests and therefore have a very small trickle of tourists, unlike the thousands and thousands he has. But I have this involvement and we have had experience of the British Tourist Authority. We believe that they do a fantastically good job and they have first-class people who work hard. They have proved to be extremely helpful in the setting up of our very small business.
The Government have been emphasising the growth of service industries over the past months. We have all heard and read about this, and I believe it is very important. Surely, tourism is one of the service industries that is growing very fast indeed. Whether or not this is the age of the train I would not comment upon, but it is certainly the age of the tourist, in my experience. We have heard not only how financially advantageous is this for the country, but also that it is so very positive for the growth of employment. I am amazed, in running our home, just how many regular employees we have who are being paid for by tourists. Some of them, certainly, are seasonal, but others are employed for 12 months of the year, and they would not have the jobs if it were not for the tourists. If that is true of us, in our very small way, how much more true is it of the bigger and far more effective agents of tourism? For these reasons I believe that this debate is very apposite, particularly now when the tourist season is just getting under way. It is very labour intensive and therefore very important.
I should like to refer to the United States, which is where my wife and I have had most experience of the BTA. There are there four offices, the largest of which is in New York. My wife walked into the Chicago office of the BTA on one occasion and there was a man in charge and one young lady manning the whole office. So while the young lady was talking to visitors the man in charge had to be the telephonist because there was nobody else to do it. But they were doing a first-class job, though people sometimes had to wait a long time.
The New York office has working in it some 20 people and it is far and away the largest. But even there there are times when everybody is engaged on the telephone or in talking to people and so new inquirers ringing up cannot get through on the telephone and new callers just have to sit in a queue and wait. I am sure, from my experiences in the States, that more American tourists would come to this country if it was easier for them to get the information they require from the BTA in the United States.
Everybody so far has asked the Government to provide a little more hand-out. I should like to emphasise what the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said: that we are not asking the Government to give money away; we are suggesting that they should invest it, because they would get a very good rate of return on that investment. They have been receiving money from the sale of other investments recently and will be receiving other capital sums in the same way. Just a very small extra investment would produce a very good return for the Government accounts.
As I have said, there are four offices of the BTA in the United States, in New York, Chicago, going round Los Angeles on the West Coast, and Dallas. I should like to recommend that there should be another office
304
between New York and Dallas; somewhere such as Atlanta. There is an enormous area there where Americans are a long way from any BTA office. Just a few more staff in the United States, I believe, would produce a very good return for this country.
It is sometimes said that American tourists will come here because of the weak pound. In my experience that is only a partial truth, because other currencies are also weak against the dollar. We have a lot to sell, but we need to market ourselves, and I am talking particularly about the United States, which is the one place where I have experience of marketing. I believe we need to do that.
I should also like to say that I must apologise for the fact—which I regret—that I shall not be able to be present to listen to my noble friend the Minister's reply at the end, because I have to depart in order to open a block of flats for old people. But I shall read with great interest afterwards what he has to say.
I should like to make a point about Wales—and I say this with great fear and trepidation in view of the Welsh experience of the noble Lord, Lord Parry. In my conversations with the foreign tourists with whom I have contact, they seem to me to go first and foremost to London; and then to Scotland or the West Country. I live in the South-East and I am trying to do battle to show them that—although it is impossible to drive down to it—the South-East is still not a forgotten area. I have asked why they do not go to somewhere like Wales where there is a great need for increasing employment and financial input. It is not the distance, because I do not believe that Wales is very much further away from London than Scotland.
But I should like to recommend that there be an increasing measure of co-operation in trying to promote that fabulous Principality of Wales to foreign tourists. It would also help, I am sure, the intervening area of the West Midlands through which tourists would go, and there are wonderful sights like Caernarvon Castle. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Forte has a hotel nearby where American tourists could stay, but they want places of interest to visit and they want to meet the people. I believe that there could be much more done to sell an area like that to foreign tourists. It needs the opening up of hotels. It needs the opening up of people's homes—because we find that Americans and others enjoy meeting the people in the area where they are and staying in their homes, not sitting by themselves at dining room tables in hotels all the time.
I believe that there could be improvements made in roads. I regret that that would undoubtedly cost money. But I should like to see more co-operation between the BTA, hotel industries, road authorities, and other people in order to sell those areas of this marvellous island which are not so well frequented by tourists as others are.
We are today discussing a success story; and what fun it is to do that. I hope to see tourism continue to expand in this country and the BTA continue to provide the first-class service that it is now giving to this industry.
3.43 p.m.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, I should like first to join with others who have thanked the noble

305
Lord, Lord Parry, not only for initiating this debate but for giving us those extremely impressive figures which were fortified by my noble friend Lord Forte. It occurred to me when he told us of the consumption of milk—I did a rapid calculation—how fortunate he was that he had not decided that his hotel industry should be self supporting and keep a sufficient herd of cows to supply this milk, because, if he had come up against the quota which has been imposed, he would have been in dead trouble.
It is perhaps not insignificant that of those taking part in this debate one-third of the number are from Scotland. That may be necessary in order to compete with the eloquence of Wales. Indeed, it has alas!, on occasions been true, I fear that it has taken three Scotsmen to every Welshman at Cardiff Arms Park, if not at Murrayfield. But we shall do our best.
It is true that tourism is enjoying—and will enjoy, I suppose, due to the exchange rate—its best ever season. From what I and others have read it is even better than last year's record. How very encouraging it is, as my noble friend Lord Brentford has remarked, when things really are going with a swing. I felt some of the enthusiasm within the office of the Scottish Tourist Board when I looked in this morning. They seemed to be busy; they are radiating enthusiasm; and the industry has without doubt really taken off.
I suppose that my interest in Scottish tourism stems from 1960 when I took part in a tour that was organised—and the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, will remember these names—by Mr. William Nicholson and the late Lord Fraser of Allander. In those days there was no statutory Scottish Tourist Board. The tourist board was, if I remember the noble Lord's description of it, self-perpetuating. There was no Highlands and Islands Development Board in those days. Mr. Nicholson laid the foundations for the tourist industry in Scotland as it exists today; and I pay tribute to him now, if it be needed. He kindled Lord Fraser's interest and as a result of that Aviemore now exists as a conference centre and ski resort.
I clearly remember on that tour going to hotels that are now given praise in international guides and which were quite literally then only being built or, if they had got past the building stage, people were putting up the wallpaper. Even then there was an air of enthusiasm. The noble Lord will probably remember that the enthusiasm went to the heads of Scottish Ministers, who fell for the idea of what was known as a Kur-tax; a tax on staying at a hotel every night, as happens, and I think has happened for a long time, in Switzerland. So far did Scottish Ministers fall for this that a Bill was introduced, and it was only after the Bill had been introduced and had had a Second Reading, I think in the Scottish Grand Committee, that the indignation of the hotel industry exploded. As far as I remember, though I have not looked this up, it was the only Bill which ever had a Second Reading and was withdrawn—I do not know if it even went to Committee stage—because of the total opposition to it.
In Scotland we have always had beautiful scenery. That is not to disparage Wales, because, when I was a Minister at the Ministry of Agriculture, one of my
306
pleasures every year was to spend two days in Wales. They were the two days I looked forward to most because the scenery there is unparalleled. In addition, in Scotland now we have a very good railway system bringing people from South to North, with their cars if they want them, or, if they do not bring their cars, there are cars parked beside the platform or at the airports to take them on to a marvellous road system. Everything now seems to be knitting together in a way that I find absolutely splendid. How wise it is of the two boards—the Scottish Tourist Board and the Highlands and Islands Development Board—to have organised their network around the lower tier of local government and to have, over and above that, insisted on the trade interests holding a majority stake in the area tourist boards.
For example, the size of Strathclyde would have made it totally impossible to do for the City of Glasgow in the tourist field what the district council of Glasgow has done for itself. I am bound to say, although I represented a constituency of the City of Edinburgh for 15 years—and the City of Edinburgh has undoubtedly been a very big tourist draw—that Edinburgh has to look to its laurels, because Glasgow has put itself on the map touristically in a very big way in the last two or three years.
Another point about the wisdom of having the tourist network down within the lower tier is that within the regions—Lothian region is an example—there are different districts where the tourist potential is totally different. Therefore, it is difficult for the region to do the job nearly as well as if it is down closer to the ground.
As I said, I visited the Scottish Tourist Board office this morning and the whole organisation seems to me to be first-class. The brochures put out for the different districts in—what one would hardly have imagined 20 years ago—not only good English, but in French and German as well, struck me as being absolutely excellent.
There are two things still to be done, one of which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie. I think that hotel classification is essential. I believe, from what I heard this morning, that it is on the way. The other point is that direct flights into Scotland would help the tourist trade immensely. I believe that at the moment only two airlines cross the Atlantic to Prestwick. I dare say that it is a question of economics, but I have never been convinced.
It has been said to us that Scotland is virtually a spin-off from London. People come first to London and then perhaps after that they can be persuaded to go to Scotland. I am not at all so sure that, once one has been through what I do not think are the greatest pleasures of landing at Heathrow, one wants to go back to Heathrow again in order to get to Scotland, but I may be wrong. I think that if we had more flights into Prestwick there would develop a market for people who really want to go to Scotland in the first place.
I started by saying, as others have done, that this is likely to be a record year. I think we have to be careful. I always remember the words of a friend who opened a small hotel which turned out to be extremely successful—and still is. I remember her saying:
"One bad meal takes 50 good ones to recover your reputation".
So let us not rest on our laurels.
3.54 p.m.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, we are all very grateful indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Parry, for introducing this debate and for that welter of impressive figures that he gave us. When I heard the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, suggest that they needed more tourists in Wales, I began to wonder, after having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Parry, where they were going to put them. I hope that his arithmetic was better than that of the noble Lord, Lord Stodart. He said that a quarter of the people speaking in this debate were Scots—
Lord Stodart of Leaston: A third.
Lord Ross of Marnock: I have it written down. But if the noble Lord says it is a third, let him have a third. However, there are 10 speakers and five of them are Scots. I hope he does not forget that the noble Lord, Lord Forte, is a Scotsman. He, like many another Scotsman, delved his field very successfully in England.
We have a very big stake so far as tourism is concerned, and when we talk about the changing economic climate it seems to be all bad news. There are the railway workshops in Glasgow and all the other places that have closed down or are closing down. We pride ourselves that we had a pulp mill in the Highlands, the aluminium smelter was there and all of this we felt would add up to a new prosperity. The importance of tourism is that it can bring jobs, and can bring people who spend money to areas where it is so much needed. If we have one hotel opening and employing 50 people, that is a great industry in certain parts of Scotland. I do not think that the Scots can complain.
We had a debate on the Highlands and Islands Development Board itself and another one just under two years ago on tourism in Scotland, because we had a Bill before us. The Scottish Tourist Board was given new powers—I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, will be interested in this—for direct representation and spreading the word of tourism in Scotland overseas for the first time. I think that the sum involved was £200,000.
I look at what Scotland is to get next year. By the way, it is not £5 million. They are getting £9·2 million this year, excluding the Section 4 factor. But next year they are to get only £8·8 million, which is a 5 per cent. decrease. Almost the same is true of England. I think that they are virtually standing still. So the need for that support which has been urged here, and which seems to be taken up and accepted here, has not yet got through to the Government.
The places that need it most are, unfortunately, the places that are furthest away. That has implications for Scotland, for Wales and for the North of England. It has implications for the railways, for road passenger transport and for all sorts of other things which are outside the tourist board's immediate concern. So there has to be co-operation between the whole lot of them if we are to get the best out of tourism. I do not think we always do.
I was in Arran just a week ago. They were not talking about the high-faluting things that we talk
308
about. They were talking about the cost of the ferry from Ardrossan to Brodick. They were talking about the timetable and how one ferry was to be taken out at the start of the summer. I am glad to say that that decision was changed as a result of the objections of local people. But there has to be far more concern shown by those who are not consciously dependent on the tourist industry, about getting together with the local people to see how they can help.
People used to go down from Glasgow to Arran for the day. I am a member of the Brodick Country Park, representing the National Trust of Scotland, and I sent my wife to get the tickets. When she came back she said, "I was standing beside a husband and wife and the husband said 'We will not be coming many times to Arran for a day now' ", and he told her the cost for a husband, wife and two children. We want a little more imagination shown by those who run the ferries, to make it possible for people still to go off for a day to some of the islands without it costing almost as much as a month's holiday.
As regards the Highlands and Islands, the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, will remember that he was very pleased with their organisation of tourism. They got about 15 area tourist organisations, with their local offices, in touch with the trades and with the local authorities and everything was going well. He said, "This is the pattern for the whole of Scotland". We had a Bill and we made that the pattern for the whole of Scotland. I think it started early in 1983. I was appalled to read a report on the Highlands and Islands by the Scottish Select Committee in which the Scottish Tourist Board actually argued with the Government and with the Higlands and Islands Board because it wanted to take over all those authorities which really pioneered the work that it is now doing. I thought it was impossible.
The Government are greatly to blame for this because the Government suggested it. The words are quoted in that report of December 1982. The Minister of State and Mr. Martin of the Scottish Economic Planning Department suggested that it was the Government's way forward for the Scottish Tourist Board to take over this part of the Highlands and Islands Board's work. I am glad to say that in evidence to the Select Committee the noble Lord, Lord Gray, modified that view and said that this would not be done—I want the Government to stress that this is their position—unless the local people wanted it done, unless the local area boards in the Highlands wanted it done, unless the local authorities wanted it done and unless the Highlands and Islands Board thought that the time was right. It is nonsense that at a time like this, when there is a chance to do so much in Scotland, one can have this type of argument with time being wasted by people who should know better. That is the one sad point that I wanted to mention.
I want to emphasise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, that Edinburgh must look to its laurels. Glasgow, with the courage that came from the generosity of a private individual and help from the Government, put up a new museum, the Burrell. It is incredible but it is true that more people have gone to that museum in one year than to all the museums and national galleries in Edinburgh put together. People are coming to a wonderful building architecturally to

309
see the Burrell Collection, which is displayed in the building. It shows what, with some imagination, can be done.
I hope that we in Scotland will appreciate the money spent on tourism and on attractive buildings. If you have to build something, make it attractive and not something that sickens you when you see it twice. I am not going to mention any buildings in Edinburgh of recent times—even those occupied by Ministers—which let us down from an architectural point of view. There are buildings that are worth visiting for themselves. I am glad to say that we are beginning to see the Victorian architecture of Glasgow cleaned up, just as we have cleaned the Houses of Parliament.
What a difference it makes! The money spent by the local authorities in that way is giving a new look to Glasgow. It is part of Glasgow's tourism. I do not believe that people realise that they can be in the centre of Glasgow one minute and half an hour later they can be at the Loch Lomond side. It is a tourist centre. People are now beginning to appreciate it. Apart from that we have not only the Burrell Collection but the Kelvingrove. I do not know about other people who are interested in art but I remember going to Vienna to see just one picture. It was the only place I could go to see it. The same is true of Glasgow. It has probably the finest collection of impressionist paintings in Britain. If you want to see Salvador Dali's picture, The Crucifixion of St. John, it is in Glasgow and you will not need to pay a penny to see it. All these things are worth while.
Sectional interests are also catered for. I am glad to say that they are getting down to it in Scotland. Golfing holidays are available, and the Highlands and Islands Board is working hard in respect of marine holidays. Winter sports holidays in Scotland are also being promoted. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, mentioned these aspects because it did spring from Lord Fraser of Allander, Sir Hugh Fraser as he then was.
I want to echo something that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Forte. It is not enough to get people to visit Scotland or any part of England; you have to persuade them to visit again. In other words, they have to be impressed during their first visit by the hospitality and by the friendship. We cannot do very much about the weather; but even rain in Scotland is a blessed thing at times. There is the scenery in Islay and in Skye, and the changing weather and the changes of scene. That is part of the beauty of the whole thing. We have all these potential magnets for the tourists but we have to sell them to the tourists. I hope that the Scottish Tourist Board and the Highlands and Islands Board will stop jockeying for position, and that the Scottish Tourist Board will stop empire building and get down to the job properly to sell Scotland and increase the tourist value to the country.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he not agree that the beauties of Scotland must be protected because if you get hundreds of thousands of tourists straying all over the hills they spoil what they come to see? There have been many instances of that.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, the number of people we have in the Highlands area is 24 to the square mile. I think that we are able to absorb quite a few tourists without them spoiling it. I have heard the noble Viscount on this subject not only in relation to Scotland but to a village in England that is nearer to his heart.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the tributes paid to the noble Lord, Lord Parry, for the characteristically erudite speech with which he opened this very important debate. I have had lying fallow on the Order Paper for about three years a debate on the hotel and tourist industry, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Parry, has presented the case with rather more conviction with his own experience than I would have done.
I think that we are in danger of playing the nationality game because for my own part I was born in London and christened in Scotland, but my mother and grandparents were all Scots. I declare a family interest in which I am completely non-financially involved in that I have relatives on my side and on my wife's side in both the hotel and catering industry in England and in Scotland.
I should like to devote my few remarks mainly to the hotel industry. I should first of all like to pay tribute to one person in particular, the chairman of the London Tourist Board, Sir Christopher Lever, whom I have known for some years being a Livery man myself. I knew him particularly during his year of office as Lord Mayor of London when he spoke so expertly on the very important subject of tourism.
One very important aspect of this is communications in the hotel industry. Of course tourists have to stay somewhere. It is usually in hotels or in boarding houses or, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said, in cottages which do a thriving trade, do it very reasonably, and do it particularly well in Scotland with its characteristically splendid cooking. It is the reasonableness of cost that needs to be emphasised.
The manager or proprietor of a hotel is more than a front man or front woman. Very frequently overseas tourists, particularly Americans, who are very friendly people, want to meet the manager or proprietor. Visitors like to meet the owner or manager of the premises in which they are staying, and that is understandable. Obviously it is not always possible to do this, particularly in a big hotel. But we were enriched by the speech of my noble friend Lord Forte, with his lifelong experience in hotels. It is the friendliness which one experiences in the hotels he and his family run which makes them so inherently successful.
The other point I should like to dwell on for a moment concerns catering. In this country we have in hotels Spanish weeks, Italian weeks, French and German weeks, and so on. I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister, if he is willing and if it is within the purport of his reply, to say whether British weeks are sufficiently sponsored overseas. After all, British tourists go to France, Germany and America. Sometimes they would like to sample the way in which British food is offered in those countries. In Denmark,

311
there is, or there was 12 years ago, when I was last there, in Copenhagen one restaurant which served British food, and it was extremely well patronised. That kind of two-way traffic is all-important.
Another matter which has not been touched upon but which is very important is safety. I declare an interest as honorary vice-president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. More and more tourists, particularly Americans, visit our country, bringing with them young families and old people. Much has to be done in British hotels, compulsorily, of course, as regards safety precautions. For example, fire doors have to be installed. This places a large cost on the owners or proprietors of hotels.
I have a question to ask my noble friend. I have not given him notice of it and so he may not be able to reply this afternoon. I should like to know whether any grants or loans are available for people setting up new hotels, in particular people who are doing so privately as opposed to hotel chains, such as those owned by the Rank Organisation. Hotel chains, too, are put to great expense when they are required to fit safety devices. It is absolutely right that they should be required to do so, but if no help is given to them, so often the cost is passed on to the consumer and all the benefits tend to be lost. This is an important point to consider when we are discussing hotels overall.
In conclusion, I should like to pay tribute to those people who have produced the reports of the various tourist boards. These are concise and to the point. This is particularly so of the small leaflet Plain Facts of Tourism, which should be taken as an example of how facts and figures can be presented concisely instead of in large volumes. This debate is to be welcomed and I hope that the subject will be discussed again before too long; tourism is universally regarded as being one of our growth industries.
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Parry, on introducing this debate. As he was recently chairman of the Welsh Tourist Board, the House is particularly fortunate in being able to have the benefit of his advice and experience today.
Sometimes it is contended that regardless of how the British economy may change, the role of tourism remains fairly static and limited; thus good results and increased revenues from tourism are explained away as simply reflecting the present disparity between the pound and the dollar. And it is argued that current favourable trends, which are claimed to be cyclical, do not show that British tourism is moving forward but instead that the industry is only regaining the position it held in the early 1970s.
It is further alleged that since United Kingdom travel expenditure abroad still exceeds income from abroad—and the travel account balance of payments deficit for 1984 was still about £0.2 billion—then tourism cannot as yet have made a significant impact on the Btritish economy. However, these observations, although quite useful in themselves and when taken separately, when taken together do not amount to a case which undermines at all the present significance of British tourism.
312
Regarding tourist income from the United States, the lion's share is coming to Britain. As my noble friends Lord Forte and Lord Brentford both observed, this is despite the fact that the dollar is hardly any weaker against the European currencies. And in each successive year over the past 10 years Britain has retained 60 per cent. of the number of visitors from the United States for the previous year. More to the point, when considered against other sectors of the economy, as noble Lords have already illustrated, tourism emerges better than almost all the rest, accounting for more than 1 million employees and showing a 1984 cost of job creation per capita in the region of just under £5,000.
Nor is it anything but desirable that United Kingdom travel expenditure abroad should continue to grow. This does not work against the interests of tourism expenditure in Britain. And it is not inconsistent that the BTA's minimum forecast of successive annual increases of 50,000 jobs per year and of 17 million visitors to Britain by 1988, representing £8 billion in annual revenue.
If it is agreed that tourism is a major growth industry, it should be asked what part the Government can now play to stimulate that growth, and hence also, as this Motion implies, how far the present level and nature of support received by the statutory bodies should be altered, if at all. It is to be welcomed very much that the Government have launched an interdepartmental tourism policy review, chaired by my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham, and that this review is designed to remove obstacles to the industry's rapid expansion. However, this year has seen a drop in real terms in the financial support given to the BTA and the ETB. Can my noble friend the Minister indicate whether, arising out of his current review, this drop in financial support might be corrected? In the absence of a ministry for tourism, can my noble friend further indicate what system of arbitration may be able to operate in this and in future years to protect financial levels for the industry?
The main purpose of the review itself is to identify new methods of encouraging the industry. Regarding the need to assist the development of hotels, restaurants and tourist attractions in towns and inner city areas, can my noble friend reveal what measures the Government are prepared to adopt to ease excessive town planning regulations which conflict with that aim?
More obvious restrictions confronting tourism reflect the case for extending the opening hours of national museums and galleries and improving the speed and efficiency of immigration and Customs controls at ports of entry. In regard to liquor licensing restrictions, there is now plenty of evidence to suggest that flexible drinking hours do not lead to bad behaviour. This is so whether one finds oneself in Scotland, on the continent of Europe, or even in the refreshment areas of your Lordships' House. However, in considering the question of drinking—and as my noble friends Lord Forte and Lord Stodart of Leaston have reminded us—we should take into account also the consumption of milk.
Turning to the question of good communications within the tourist industry, there is of course the priority that the trade should become fully aware of

313
the quality and standards demanded by the consumer. The Scottish Tourist Board has already embarked on a scheme of voluntary registration. This enables the verification of accommodation and more detailed grading, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and my noble friend Lord Stodart of Leaston have referred. That in turn can assist a larger turnover of business and hence also lead to lower prices for the consumer. Can my noble friend the Minister affirm that the adoption of similar schemes to the one initiated by the Scottish Tourist Board will be encouraged as soon as possible for the rest of Britain?
The Highlands and Islands Development Board also has an excellent record in relation to tourism, and it is in no small way owing to the efforts both of that agency and the STB that Scottish tourism is in the healthy state that it is. However, there is always the danger of too much complacency within the trade. One of the main objectives should be to raise the percentage of occupancy over the different types of accommodation that are offered both in and out of season. Another should be to give more guidance to small tourist-related businesses in Scotland on what facilities they should try to develop.
Then there is the importance of training and education in tourism. The ETB is now taking steps to improve publications and information on career opportunities. Does my noble friend agree that the Government should take some direct initiatives? What plans do the Government have to promote to a greater extent education and training in tourism in schools and in centres of further education?
If we consider the part which the Government and the statutory bodies can both play to help British tourism, there are many areas for action and co-operation, which include maintaining financial support, removing unnecessary restrictions, raising quality and standards and improving training and education. Provided that those matters are tackled, the British tourist industry will continue to make a major contribution to the economy, to the creation of jobs and to the opportunities for leisure and recreation.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am a little reluctant to intervene in this debate, especially as my name is not mentioned on the list of speakers, because I am neither a Scot nor directly involved in the tourist industry. However, I am very interested in our balance of payments, and I happen to be a member of your Lordships' Select Committee on Overseas Trade. We had the benefit of the evidence from the British Tourist Board on the great contribution that the tourist industry is making to our balance of payments. I am also keen to intervene because the noble Lord, Lord Parry, who so eloquently introduced the debate, is a colleague of mine on the "Keep Britain Tidy" group; and the noble Lord, Lord Forte, who made such an important contribution, is a great supporter of that campaign, the objective of which is to improve the quality of the land in which we live for those who live here and to make it more attractive for those who visit us.
I have one point that I should like to put to the Minister, and it is this. I believe that the
314
encouragement of tourism can be linked with the encouragement of our trade in manufactured goods. Are we satisfied that we have a sufficient supply of adequate exhibition centres in this country? We have the important exhibition centre in Birmingham, we have the old established exhibition centres in London, and there are a number of others. But I believe that if we were to improve the quality and quantity of our exhibition centres to vie with a number of such centres on the Continent, we could as part of our tourist operation attract people here not only for their holidays but also for business reasons: to come to see our products displayed in the best conditions.
We could provide them with a good holiday in the process and show them some of the wonderful sights in Wales, Scotland and elsewhere which have been so lauded today in our debate. I believe, therefore, that the promotion of tourism can be given an additional dimension if we take a close look at how it can be linked with the promotion of our trade in manufactured goods.
I thank your Lordships for allowing me to intervene although my name was not on the list of speakers and to make the additional point of how we can add to the benefits already provided by tourism.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, as other noble Lords have done, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Parry for introducing the debate today. His experience as chairman of the Wales Tourist Board has contributed much to our discussion, and his contribution to its work has done much to improve the tourist attraction of the Principality. His forceful presentation of the industry's progress, I feel, was just the right tone to set for our debate today. This is the first debate specifically on tourism since I was fortunate, like my noble friend today, to secure a place in the ballot some seven years ago. The problem then was the same as it is now: the Government do not sufficiently recognise the size of the contribution that tourism has made and is making, not only to our overseas earnings but also to employment within the United Kingdom.
The question which must, with some starkness, face the present Government, with the political philosophy that they hold, is why they should give any money to the tourist industry. Why should not the private sector fund the national effort to promote tourism? I would answer the question in this way. The tourist industry is widely fragmented, involving thousands of operators, many of whom are very small and who cannot come together in a meaningful way to promote the industry. Secondly, it is a national industry—a national asset that we cannot do without. The Government have a duty to see that the economic climate is one in which the industry can flourish. It is an economic climate which, I would say, is fiercely competitive in an international field.
That not only involves the Government in giving grant-in-aid to the national boards, but also in encouraging the industry in the country. For example—and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, quoted this—the Government need to take action on hotel building, particularly in central London. As the Minister will well know, all three central London

315
boroughs have had a ban on new hotel building for some years—in the very areas where we need more reasonably-priced hotel beds to be available. I wonder whether it is possible for the Minister to ease the path of such planning consents in the central area; or, indeed, if the hotels cannot be built in the central area, to see whether money can be made available for local authorities outside the central area, whose spending is inevitably capped at the present time, so that they have the wherewithal to attract hotels to their areas. I particularly have in mind the infrastructure necessary if we are to encourage hotel building in areas where hoteliers do not immediately want to build.
I should like to say a word about the Government's grant-in-aid to the British Tourist Authority. Many noble Lords have already mentioned the fact that it has increased by roughly 5 per cent. in cash terms over the past four years to £17 million in the current financial year, 1985–86. But, of course, in real terms that amounts to a substantial decrease. The figures conceal the fact that there has been a decline in the value of the pound in this period. The British Tourist Authority now has to spend 44 per cent. of its grant-in-aid, as opposed to 28 per cent. four years ago, on its overseas offices. Even with that increased share of its budget being devoted to overseas marketing, the amount in fact available to maintain its operation overseas, and particularly in the United States of America, is considerably down. The effect of this has been that the number of staff in its overseas offices has had to be cut and, for example, it has had to cut its overseas advertising campaign by some £600,000.
Perhaps I may put the amount of Government support to industry in some kind of context. The noble Lord, Lord Parry, commented that overseas visitors were expected to contribute some £600 million to the Treasury in VAT receipts in 1985. The Government pay only about 10 per cent. of that to the tourist industry. The noble Lord, Lord Forte, commented that his company contributed some £110 million in rates and taxes last year. The Government contribute only about half of that to the tourist industry at the present time. Lack of money within the industry means that a number of jobs are not being done. Inspections of smaller hotels, as has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, are not being adequately carried out for these reasons. Policies of telling people about new attractions, which have again been spoken about by a number of noble Lords, are not being carried out.
In this particular debate, I am in a minority, not being a Scotsman or a Welshman, but being a Londoner. What concerns me particularly is the image of London, which I regard as being very important since it determines the choice which visitors make for their holidays. Suggestions that London has dirty hotels, is overpriced and does not care, are not good for tourism. The Government must be concerned that London has the ability to maintain standards and to maintain its image.
Those people who complain about crowds should remember that without tourists London would not be the same place. Tourism is a part of our infrastructure. If the tourists' support of many aspects of London life were withdrawn, London would be that much poorer. In London 380,000 jobs directly depend on tourism.
316
Forty per cent. of theatre tickets are bought by tourists. Twenty per cent. of taxi rides are paid for by tourists. If these particular sales were not being made, there is a danger that those services would not be available to Londoners as a whole. As has been said, nationally 1·3 million jobs depend on tourism. As the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said, this will increase each year by 50,000 if tourist spending increases by three per cent. Of course, this includes jobs only in hotels, restaurants, public houses, nightclubs, tourist attractions, and so on, but not in related services like manufacturing goods which are bought by tourists.
The structure of the national tourist boards is as was laid down in 1969 by the Development of Tourism Act. It has created a number of problems, some of which the present Government have tried to overcome by the amalgamation of the roles of the chairman of the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board. It is certainly to be hoped, although the two organisations continue with separate chief executives, that this will lead to a lesser amount of duplication of their work. It does not underestimate the feeling that I understand is being felt by the other national boards towards the combined BTA/ETB network, that these two boards working so closely together will mean that the English Tourist Board is likely to benefit disproportionately by the amount of grant money available to it.
However, the figures do not bear out this particular fear. The proportion of grant-in-aid, including Section 4 money, allotted to the Scottish Tourist Board and the Wales Tourist Board has gradually increased over the years, while that allotted to the English Tourist Board, and for that matter to the BTA, has decreased. I understand that part of the reason for this is that the Scottish and Welsh offices are responsible for the funding of the STB and the WTB, whereas the Department of Trade and Industry, where funds are more scarce, are responsible for the funding of the ETB and the BTA.
There has been a very competitive situation among the national boards for some time. Each board has tried to prove itself better and more forceful than the other with the result that the same job was being done more than once. During my time as chairman of both the London Tourist Board and the London Convention Bureau, my experience taught me that there was a danger in more than one organisation trying to do the preliminary work which was necessary before a conference or convention could be arranged and handed over to the private sector for processing. It led to a considerable degree of confusion within the industry. This is something that has to be dealt with. The new arrangements have already led to a cutting of duplication. Work is being done more effectively within the BTA and the ETB. This needs to be extended to the regional boards.
The present Government have adopted, as one of their themes, the theme of taking services nearer to the people. This is not a view with which I disagree, although I disagree with the extent to which I believe the Government have achieved anything in this area. I see as important the need to put more emphasis on the work of the regional boards.
Almost every year, since I first became involved with the work of the London Tourist Board in 1970,

317
the amount of grant-in-aid paid to the board as a proportion of the amount of grant paid to the English Tourist Board has decreased. This is the case with the work of the other regional boards. The English Tourist Board in the past has given priority to its own work over and above that due to the regional boards. I am glad to see that there is some reversal of the trend now and that money is to be diverted to the regional boards for hotel registration and verification. The English Tourist Board is hard at work on this aspect and it is hoped that a strong scheme will emerge.
I hesitate to mention this on what would appear to be a holiday from discussing the Local Government Bill, but another factor which faces the work of the regional hoards is the effect of the loss of local government funding and the problem of local government support in the future arising from the abolition of both the GLC and the metropolitan authorities. If funding in London is left to the individual boroughs on a voluntary basis, there will be little funding available to the tourist board (which of course has been recently renamed the London Visitor and Convention Bureau).
This is because the inner London boroughs feel that they have enough tourists, and that the London Visitor and Convention Bureau should be encouraging tourists to go into the outer London areas and not encourage them to come into central London, or servicing them in central London. However, the outer London boroughs are, in many cases, doubtful about the advantages which they themselves would reap from having more tourists in their particular areas. As we have said, there are a great number of jobs at stake in London and it is important that this should be put on a proper basis in the future and should not be neglected during the passage of the Local Government Bill.
In the past, I have spoken about the need for a Minister of Tourism. I have not changed my mind on this. I feel that the main reason for having a Minister of Tourism is so that the Government of the day can show that they regard tourism as a serious contributor to our national well-being, and also the fact that the Government of the day regard tourism as something important and not as an ephemeral contributor to our national welfare.
Perhaps I may take what may appear to be a trivial example in relation to London. One of the sights which tourists flock to see in London every day is the changing of the Guard. This happens every 24 hours during the summer schedule, but during the winter schedule it happens only once every 48 hours. I am told that the Ministry of Defence has decided that this year the winter schedule should start in early August. I am sure that if the noble Lord the Minister who is to reply had the responsibility of being the Minister of tourism, he would promptly and politely have made it clear to the Secretary of State for Defence that such a decision was not in the general tourist interest. I should add that every other year the winter schedule has started very much later than it is proposed this year.
I apologise for focusing these remarks on London, but London is, of course, the part of the country that I know best. It is the focal point for the tourist industry. Over 85 per cent. of our overseas visitors use
318
London and the immediate area around it as their point of entry into the United Kingdom. Over two-thirds of them stay in London for some part of their visit. It is true now, as always, that for the rest of the country to benefit adequately from the tourist industry, the position of London is crucial. It is therefore, I think, regrettable that the only British tourist information centre in St. James's should have been closed at the instigation of the present Government. We have in London an England centre at Victoria Station. We have separate Wales and Scotland information centres in London, but no centre where information can be obtained about all of Britain. Proposals were put forward for an all-Britain centre near Piccadilly. Those have fallen through for lack of funds. Should not this be reviewed in the interests of spreading tourism throughout the United Kingdom?
I have reread the contribution that I made to the debate in 1978. I see that I then said:
"Because we have just experienced a bumper inflow of tourists, we must not be lulled into a false sense of security about the future health of the tourist industry. We must remember that constant efforts are needed if we are to remain an attractive venue for overseas visitors". [Official Report. 25/1/78; col. 401.]
That is as true today as it was then. In fact, the number of overseas visits declined in 1979, partially owing to the strength of the pound at the time, partially owing to bad publicity and partially as a reaction to 1977 and 1978. Thankfully, our foreign currency earnings are now, in cash terms, about twice what they were in 1977. However, in real terms they have hardly recovered in London to that figure. We must be vigilant on behalf of the industry. We must remember that tourism is a fickle industry. Nothing should be taken for granted. Noble Lords will recall that three or four years ago tourists were flocking into Miami. Now very few British tourists go there.
Noble Lords will also be aware that the drop in the number of tourists expected to go to Spain this year is about 20 per cent. So we do not need reminding that we cannot automatically expect to see an increase in the number of visitors each year. I hope that the debate today will have been helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, who is to reply, in his inquiry to determine the statutory or other obstacles that hinder enterprise and employment development in the tourist and leisure industries.
4.44 p.m.
The Minister Without Portfolio (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Parry, for his enthusiasm and his restraint in introducing the Motion. His enthusiasm was infectious. Indeed, I do not think that I should burden your Lordships' House with any more figures. The noble Lord has given all that are required to show the enormous growth in tourism. His restraint was even more commendable. For fully 12 minutes of his 15-minute speech he spoke of the United Kingdom and fell into temptation only in the last three minutes to talk about Wales. He fell finally from grace utterly, in my book, in talking in the last few seconds about money. I am grateful that we have had such a useful and timely debate, in the view of my colleagues and myself on the committee that I chair, to look at the progress and the course of possible future development of tourism within the United Kingdom.

319
Tourism on the scale that we know it today is a comparatively new phenomenon. The development of air travel in the 1960s and the 1970s has opened up the international market in a way perhaps paralleled only by the manner in which the introduction of the railways in this country opened up domestic travel. I recall occasionally, I must confess with a little nostalgia, those days 25 years' ago when London in August was deserted. Most of the restaurants were shut. We could certainly park our cars. London was almost a desert. Indeed, in those days the Oxford Street shops used to see their sales decline sharply in the middle of July and recover only in September. It is only the enormous growth of tourism that has brought about such a tremendous change.
The fact that strikes me most vividly is that since those days in the mid-1950s the number of tourists coming to the United Kingdom has increased by 14 times. United States citizens holding passports number barely 8 per cent. What will this country be like if and when 16 per cent. of Americans hold passports and then 24 per cent? Will they come to this country, or will they pass us by on the way to Europe? This is a matter to which we should give considerable thought. I am not sure that this has anything to do with the amount of financial support that the Government give to tourism. We have heard of enormous figures. We have heard of the comparatively small scale of Government spending that has generated those figures.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said that Scotland had not had its fair share. I have looked up the figures. I find that in 1984–85 the Scottish Tourist Board and the Highlands and Islands Development Board had in excess of £15 million. We, the poor English board, had £17·5 million. So, in proportion, Scotland has, I think, had rather more than its fair share.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I said that Scotland did not get its fair share of overseas business and that it must attract such business. I did not say that we did not get a fair share of Government money.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I do not wish to debate individual points. I wonder even then about this. It seems to me that Scotland has enormous advantages that are now being used. I am aware that the River Thames now contains salmon. I do not believe, however, that we would choose to go fishing in the Thames. Many of the evident attractions of Scotland have led, for example, to the growth of the electronics industry there. But that is another story. If, however, we are talking about the money that the Government spend, we should not simply be concentrating our attention on the amount spent through Section 4 grants or through the various tourist boards.
I had the privilege, while at the Manpower Services Commission, of introducing the Community Programme. It spends £600 million a year. This will be up shortly to about £1 billion. Many outdoor museums today owe their existence to the Community Programme. They are becoming substantial tourist attractions in their own right. Ironbridge Gorge industrial museum has contributed enormously as a result of the Community Programme and the Youth Training Programme. Ellesmere Port boat museum
320
and the Manchester museum of science and technology and railway preservation societies around the country are other examples. During my time with the commission I visited innumerable industrial museums which are now becoming tourist activities in their own right. This shows once again that tourist attractions are not confined to any particular part of the United Kingdom. They are not confined to any part of the United Kingdom with supposed benefits of climate. They can be seen to be spread universally.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Forte and I pay tribute to his 50 years in the industry. I am looking forward to being 50 years a customer of the industry. I greatly appreciated my noble friend's description. I thought at one time that he said "a land flowing with milk and eggs". My noble friend Lord Forte demonstrated beyond any doubt the way ahead in tourism. He told us that he had introduced training for young people and that some 2,000 young people a year are benefiting. I hope very much that the two-year youth training scheme will enable that situation to be accelerated.
However, I suspect that the real difficulty that we shall have in tourism, and, indeed, the real opportunity that will be presented to us by tourism, will lie in the ways in which we are able to develop the education and training systems. We must once and for all lay to the ghost that service is somehow equivalent to servile. We must recognise for all time that the profession of a waiter is an honourable profession, that giving good service in a restaurant or hotel is an honourable way in which to earn a living. We must recognise, just as we do with exports overseas, that if we are to win and build up a real tourist industry in this country, we must earn it, and we must earn it through service.
My noble friend Lord Brentford talked of the United States and of the activities of the British Tourist Authority in that country. Of course it is a marketing organisation and not a direct selling organisation as such. It is through the travel agents that the various packages and information about this country are delivered. However, all the advertising, all the packaging and all the marketing will be wasted if visitors who come over here have bad experiences and go home and tell their friends. It is service and quality of service which restored the fortunes of the Jaguar Motor Company by ensuring that they had a product of good quality. It is service and the quality of people's stay in this country which will cause the word to be spread back in the United States, in Europe, in the lands overseas, and that will bring people to this country far more than will any amount of advertising.
We have heard much of figures. The exact number of those employed in tourism and the leisure industries is difficult to measure because the estimates vary. However, when looking at tourism I hope that we shall also look at and take into account leisure itself and the internal tourism of those of us who go away for one day, two days or even on day trips. That type of tourism is an enormous job generator.
Much was said during the course of the debate about the future of industry in this country. I suspect, hope and anticipate that industry will be a great wealth producer in this country. However, neither I nor many of us foresee that it will be a great employer. It is the

321
wealth which will be generated and which will be spread, I hope, through the service sectors, through restaurants and through hotels which will benefit not only tourism but also our own native people as well as employment.
My noble friend Lord Stodart drew attention to the dangers of a hotel tax. Part of my job is to look at the burdens that are placed on, and the obstacles that are put in the way of tourism. I hope that we shall never be tempted to consider placing too many obstacles in the way of attracting people to come here. My noble friend also drew attention to the growth and development of Glasgow and said words which have been repeated as a theme many times throughout the debate: namely, let us not rest on our laurels. We have seen a great growth in tourism. Whether that growth continues, as I know it can, depends upon all of us and not—and this is the theme to which I should like to return—necessarily upon the amount of money which the Government will give to the tourist boards to help the industry to do it.
The noble Lord, Lord Ross, drew attention to the great importance of jobs in rural areas and particularly in those areas which the wave of industry has now passed by. The noble Lord is absolutely right. A hotel employing 50 people in an area of great scenic beauty is a permanent source of employment not only to those 50 who live in the hotel, but also to the many others who work on estates, in shops and in restaurants around that area. I suspect that such places are much more likely to be an enduring source of employment than those industries which have their time and then go. I hope that we shall see throughout the length and breadth of the land the continuation of the enormous growth in country hotels and tourist projects. We have the great advantage of having not only a beautiful country and a well developed countryside but also probably one of the world's great commercial languages which is of as much help in attracting tourism and foreigners to this country as it is of help to our businessmen overseas. I hope that we can put the two together and see them develop.
My noble friend Lord Auckland asked whether we have "British weeks" abroad. I have seen British weeks abroad. Indeed, they are still continuing. I very much hope that they will play a part. However, as I have said time and time again, it is a small part of the task of actually marketing tourism in this country. The noble Lord drew attention to the cost and difficulties of regulation. Every regulation has a price. The price may be worth paying. However, excessive regulations certainly have a price and the price probably lies in someone else's job. Part of my task is to look at the obstacles which are placed in front of those who are engaged in the hotel and tourist industries and to see whether they are truly needed. In another place only this week the restriction on shops' hours was debated. I hope that in the course of time that will be seen to be not only a great job generator but also an attraction for the tourist industry.
The question of fire precautions has been mentioned. I do not think that this is an appropriate time to debate the essential nature of fire precautions, save to say that we must ensure that we have suitable and adequate precautions for the protection of our
322
tourists. However, we must also ensure that there is not so much bureaucracy that we slow down the working of the system and lay too much cost on those new industries and new businesses which are starting. I hope that when I and my colleagues consider the situation we shall be able to have a good look not necessarily at fire regulations, but at the many regulations that actually exist and see whether or not there are some which can, with safety, be relaxed. It is a question, time and time again, of getting the correct balance between licence and the liberty of the individual—not allowing the licence to abuse our fellow man. I suspect that if we look more and more at the opportunities which are offered in this country, we shall find that they are developing fast.
I have already made reference to the number of country hotels which have expanded and grown in the last few years. I was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for mentioning another aspect; namely, conference and exhibition centres. We already have a great new exhibition centre in Birmingham—though I suspect that it is not now quite so new—which is going very well. I recently read that some of the London centres were talking of expanding. I hope very much that perhaps the Docklands 'could even have an opportunity to expand. I know that the market for conference and exhibition centres is growing fast and I suspect that they will become available before much longer. We have a valuable opportunity.
However, I slightly regret that no one this afternoon has mentioned that other activity which has been so much a source of not only tourism but also leisure activities generally. I am referring to the many large amusement centres that now exist throughout the country. This area has grown immensely and is achieving standards of professionalism comparable with any country in the world. I know that there have been plans for some of these centres in the London area and if they go ahead, there will be great employment opportunities. I hope very much that they proceed.
I now come to one of the problems which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that of planning. Incidentally, perhaps I may say how grateful I was for the remarks of the noble Lord opposite, for at least I felt that we two were holding the Standard of England among so many speakers from Wales and Scotland. Planning is a difficulty and a problem. There are some authorities which still perhaps, and alas, do not recognise the real employment potential of tourism in hotels. I suspect that there will be a shortage of hotels before too long; but let us remember that the last time the Government interfered with the market and encouraged hotels there was considerable over-provision for a period. I suspect that it would be as well to see that we have slow but steady growth in the provision of hotels.
I hope that the great growth of tourism in the past few years has shown that there is a demand for hotels. Many small ones have been built in London, and I hope many more will be. We must ensure that where there is a demand for hotels but the planning system causes delays we do our best to ensure that within the system planning permissions are granted where appropriate as quickly as possible.

323
This has been an interesting debate. It has brought forward many messages which I shall certainly pass to my colleagues—messages from which I hope we shall learn. I hope that we shall see a growth in income and employment in tourism which is an honourable industry in which to work, and I hope too, that the nation will see it as a real activity.
If I am to make a forecast—and it is silly for someone standing at a Dispatch Box to make a forecast—it is that when your Lordships' House again looks at this matter, either this year or next year, we shall again be talking about an increase in figures. The figures will continue to increase for as long, and only as long, as we remember that it is service and only service, which brings back tourists, provided that they have an enjoyable time when they are here.
I hope that the training and employment measures on which the Government have embarked, together with the great encouragement which your Lordships' House has today given to tourism, as well as the Government's review will be seen and noticed, and that tourism will continue to grow.
Lord Parry: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Young, who has just sat down, has described this debate as useful and timely. I think it has certainly been a pleasant and well-informed one. There has been no contribution this afternoon which has fallen in any sense below the standard of the challenge to us to get the funding and the preservation of this industry, and its expansion, correctly in balance.
I was perhaps being a little too reluctant to mention Wales, or I should have mentioned the Sun Centre in Rhyl. I accept the noble Lord's rebuke. That great institution there is the largest attracter of visitors in the whole of Wales, and it is vastly important. I also fell, in pure monetarist terms, slightly below the noble Lord's level in mentioning money at all. I only do it because it is a necessary dimension when one is talking to Governments. We have to talk money, and to talk about good government and the good use of money, because investment in redevelopment is as important as controlling the money supply to cure historical ills. I think we need not go any further into that.
I would not want to go down the whole list of people speaking in the debate; that would be no use to us at this stage. I say "Thank you" to everyone for the quality of the contributions. Nor am I going to neglect the fact that the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, intervened to ask: are we going to go on counting heads, and, when we substitute feet for heads, are we not going to do damage to the environment? It was absolutely right and important that that intervention should have been made.
We have to see that the tourists' contribution to the economy and the presence of the paying guests in the country do not disturb the quality of life for those who live here, nor detract from the culture which has been built up over the generations. That is absolutely right, and the history of the industry proves that it has that message as much to heart as anyone in the country, and works with the grain of conservation and preservation.
324
In thanking your Lordships for a splendid debate I ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn,

The Arab-Israeli Dispute and the EC
5.4 p.m.
Lord Chelwood Lord Chelwood rose to call attention to the case for the European Community to make more effort to narrow the gap in the Arab-Israeli dispute; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is three years, almost to the precise day, since I was last lucky in the ballot and we debated this very subject. Since then we have to admit that little progress, if any, has been made towards peace in the Arab-Israel dispute. Rather, I fear, the reverse.
The West Bank and Gaza settlements have been added to and consolidated. Lebanon has been invaded, with the death of over 15,000 people, at least half of them women and children, and with presumably double that number wounded. How little resemblance there is today to the Palestine of 1947, when we washed our hands of the mandate and America engineered partition! So much territory has been occupied or annexed by Israel as a result of the 1948 and 1967 wars; and there are still—and this is an awful figure—six out of ten Palestinians (of whom there are over four million altogether) who are refugees or in exile.
It was ten years before the 1967 war that President Eisenhower asked a very pertinent question. He asked:
"Should a nation which attacks and occupies foreign territory in the face of United Nations' disapproval be allowed to impose the conditions of its withdrawal? If so,"
he said,
"I fear we will have turned back the clock of international order".
That was a very good question.
I am well aware, as we all are, of the size and difficulty of this problem. It is a daunting one. There are no easy answers at all. But meanwhile the situation is both hardening, I suggest, and fermenting. The only way that it will ever be solved is step by step, and not in one fell swoop. There must be a great danger in further drift. The parties, as they are so often called, will not come together on their own. I simply do not believe that. There have to be external catalysts. I propose to speak about the situation today and in the immediate future, with only an occasional backwards glance where it seems to be relevant.
First, I must mention, of course, the European Community's Venice Declaration of five years ago. No praise can be too high for the work that my noble friend Lord Carrington did to get the nine countries together to make this declaration. The work was brilliantly done. I think we can all congratulate him on that. Yes, the Nine said, they wished "to promote the implementation of the two principles universally accepted by the international community". That is, of course, Israeli security and Palestinian self-determination. Yes, they declared their readiness to participate in a "comprehensive settlement" under "binding international guarantees". Yes, they said they would determine the form of their next initiative. And since then, my Lords? There has been plenty of

325
rhetoric but little else. Therefore, the Community's credibility in the eyes of many people is much less than it should be in this context.
We were warned of the danger, I think by my noble friend Lord Soames, when he was a commissioner, that the Community might become a political pygmy—the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, will remember this—and be an economic giant. It did not look like going that way, but it is looking a bit like it now, I am sorry to say.
Certainly only America can turn the key, but we can oil the lock. The Community has a deeply vested interest in solving the Arab-Israeli dispute, the tap-root cause of which is surely the agony of the Palestinian people. Moral obligations apart—how one can put them apart I do not know—the Community has crucial political and economic interests in the Middle East which are being put at growing risk through inaction. We think, of course, of the free flow of Gulf oil, among other things, which matters so much to Europe and really not a bit to the United States.
Britain alone enjoyed a £3 billion trade surplus with the Arab countries last year, with our exports close to £5 billion. Exports like that mean a lot of jobs. I do not know the Community figures, but I am sure that they are very impressive. So, far from giving America a lead, as I see it there has been some positive backsliding from the principles of the Venice Declaration.
Briefly, I should like to give five examples to my noble friend who is to reply. The European Community froze a 40 million dollar aid package in 1982 after Israel invaded Lebanon and sought 10 assurances from Israel, none of which was given. I was told this in reply to a parliamentary Question. But this loan was released one year later because Israel and Lebanon signed a peace agreement which proved worthless not within hours but within days. Secondly, Israel's invasion led to the Community saying that it would ban the export of military equipment to that country and review its policy after Israel's withdrawal. But when I asked a Written Question in the House recently about whether the retention of a buffer zone by Israel occupied by the South Lebanese Army, as it is called, would amount to withdrawal—we should not forget that the SLA is under Israeli command—the question was evaded. The answer was definitely evasive and I press my noble friend to be kind enough to tell me whether the retention of such a zone will mean that Israel has withdrawn from Lebanon.
Thirdly, I am sorry sometimes that there is so much talk on our part about freezing the West Bank settlements. They will have to be frozen if there is to be a withdrawal and they are illegal. The Venice Declaration talks about them being withdrawn. Now we are talking about them being frozen, but not about them being withdrawn. I am sure there is no backsliding in that respect but I should like confirmation of it.
Next, the Community will have to sign a trade agreement and renew it with Israel after enlargement. Israel depends heavily on exports to Europe and I hope she will not automatically get everything she wants without a very careful look indeed at the way in which Israel is defying mandatory Security Council resolutions at a time when Europe is discriminating
326
against exports from the occupied part of Palestine, on the West Bank, produced by the Palestinians. I should like a comment on that. I do not see why it should be absolutely automatic that all these advantages should flow to Israel without looking carefully al it. I remember well when there was agreement with Turkey that it was put into reverse for good reasons which were understandable at the time.
Finally, was it not really a mistake for the Government not to vote for the Security Council resolution on 5th March which outspokenly condemned Israel's treatment of the civilian population in Southern Lebanon? The reason given for not doing so was not at all convincing, and we found ourselves in a somewhat equivocal position. I suggest that it is high time that the Community sought to narrow the gap between Israel and her Arab neighbours and thus give a lead to America which I think would be privately welcomed at the highest levels in Washington as well as by the governments of all the moderate Arab countries. If political co-operation is in the doldrums in the Community, as I fear, why cannot Britain and France as permanent members of the Security Council give a more positive lead?
I turn now briefly to the tragic situation in Lebanon: torn to shreds by internal dissent, deliberately stoked up by Syria and Israel to suit their own expansionist purposes. This highlights another serious problem to which the Community seems also to have an equivocal attitude. I am thinking about UNIFIL's role. Its mandate was defined in Security Council Resolution 426 which was proposed by the United Kingdom. It requires that force to confirm the withdrawal of all Israeli forces from Lebanese territory and then to control all movements in its area of operations fully to restore Lebanese sovereignty. The force is required to assist the Lebanese Government to establish its authority in the south in peace and security. The Lebanese Government wish for this and has said so recently; but Israel said that they would be better off without UNIFIL. It was Mr. Rabin who said that. Yet at the same time Israel insists on a buffer zone and threatens a "scorched earth" policy (Mr. Rabin's words again) to support their mercenary force, the SLA, if they are in the difficulties which they are bound to be in.
I think, and I hope noble Lords agree with me, that UNIFIL is in a humiliating, intolerable and very dangerous position. I ask my noble friend when she comes to reply to take the lead with our European Community partners to ensure either that UNIFIL, can carry out its very important mandate, which would provide Israel and Lebanon with the security to which they are fully entitled and which they deserve, or to use their influence to ensure that that force is not kept in this very difficult situation. There are good precedents for United Nations peace-keeping in the Middle East in the Golan Heights and in Sinai. We are apt to forget what a good job is being done in those two areas and I hope those precedents can be followed.
The path to peace is strewn with failed plans and hopes unfulfilled. I shall not go through all of them, but today much the most significant move of all has come from King Hussein with Yassir Arafat which, when read in conjunction with the Fez agreement, offers some hope for the future. This initiative of the

327
king is still on the table—only just, though—proposing a Jordanian-Palestinian federation, not all that different from the 1982 Reagan plan for Palestinian self-government in association with Jordan. There are not great differences between them. It is true that both these plans were scornfully rejected by Israel but I fear that was to be expected in the circumstances.
How courageous and statesmanlike King Hussein and the Crown Prince have been. I admire them enormously and I think we all do. Now that President Mubarak backs their initiative it must be the right moment for the Reagan plan to be re-activated in a revised form. That was promised in 1983 when we were told by the State Department that it had been put on the "front burner", but the stove obviously was not alight.
How self-defeating and shortsighted it would be for the PLO or the Palestine National Council to reject such an American move, if it were made, because it failed to meet all their rights and aspirations at once. They have done this far too often. Step by step must be the right way, and in any case the Palestine National Council, whether or not it is regarded as the sole representative of the Palestinian people, cannot commit Palestinians after they have regained some form of self-government. So we should not make too much of this. When the day comes that the Palestinians have some form of self-government there will be no PLO because there will be nothing to liberate.
I am urging Her Majesty's Government to use every scrap of influence they can to persuade the White House to renew the Reagan initiative before it is too late. This is without doubt a highly propitious moment. All the moderate Arab countries are in a settling mood. Syria at present is completely out of step. The "peace for territory" movement in Israel gets stronger every day. There was a public opinion poll the week before last when 60 per cent. of those consulted said that they were in favour of negotiation with the Palestinians in order to exchange territory for peace. The Israelis learnt a bitter lesson in Lebanon. Israel's economy is flat on its back with inflation running at 750 per cent., judging by last week's figures. That is almost incredible. Defence expenditure is crippling, but Mr. Peres is a man of honour who could take advantage of the mood of his people and lead them out of their present political and social turmoil.
President Reagan will never be freer to adopt policies guided solely by his country's national interests and international obligations. There are obvious reasons for that. American aid for Israel is on such a mind-boggling scale that as The Times put it recently,
"Israel is in a condition of total dependence".
Finally, although it is easy to over-estimate Russian influence in the Arab-Israel dispute, there are some straws in the wind that are disturbing even in Jordan, and in Kuwait as well, that as Western moves towards a peaceful settlement collapse one by one, Moscow is quick to seize its advantages cashing in on our failures.
I come towards my conclusion, sticking strictly to my time. I make no apology at all for my criticisms of American and EC policies. I hope that I have been fair
328
and I hope that I have been constructive because I did not wish to overstate the case. But I am very critical and I am very disappointed. I want to see a joint initiative by the United States and the Community supported to the hilt, at least by Britain and France as permanent members of the Security Council if not by the whole Community, in a major effort towards a step-by-step peace between Israel and her neighbours. This would require a joint working party, I suggest, at the very highest levels.
I end by telling your Lordships what President Reagan said a few months ago on the 40th anniversary of the Yalta Agreement. He said this:
"We do not deny any nation's legitimate interest in security. But protecting the security of one nation by robbing another of its national independence and traditions is not legitimate. In the long run, it is not even secure".
I think that he was absolutely right, although he was speaking in another context. President Reagan we all know to be a man of very high principles and great courage and I conclude by saying that I think that we in your Lordships' House are entitled to look to him for a lead for action.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Caradon: My Lords, I think that we should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, for having raised this issue, which I think is inadequately discussed in our House. I think that it is very necessary that we should recognise the great danger that exists in the Middle East, the danger of local conflict and indeed the possibility of a wider war. Therefore, I think it is right and necessary that we should look to the contribution of Europe; and if we look back on recent years then I think we can only conclude that the record of Europe has been one of inactivity and, indeed, shameful inactivity. Therefore, I think that it is extremely opportune that this should be raised now in the context of the European contribution.
The argument that I should like most to urge upon your Lordships is that this is an international danger and that there is no possibility of a successful settlement without an international intervention. It has been recently suggested that all we need is to bring the two parties together. It is suggested that the representatives of the Arabs or the Palestinians should be decided by Israel—which seems to me rather a strange approach to a proposal for a joint discussion between both sides. But I would suggest that the possibility of agreement if both sides are brought together is practically non-existent. The reaching of a settlement by joint discussion between both sides is, in my opinion, not within the realms of possibility.
We should think of the issues involved. Let us take one of the issues, maybe one of the most important, the question of the future of Jerusalem. The Palestinians, backed by the Arabs of course, are asking for the restitution of their rights over the sites of Islam and Christianity in Jerusalem, whereas the Israeli Government has repeatedly declared its insistence upon the annexation of the whole of Jerusalem to Israel. This is the sort of issue on which it is not possible to get agreement by exchanges between both sides. I use the illustration to emphasise what I am putting to your Lordships: that there is no possibility

329
of advance in this most dangerous international situation except by international action.
If it is not possible to achieve results by bringing both sides together, as has recently been repeatedly suggested, then I would also say that it is not possible, in my opinion, to get any agreement in this desperately dangerous situation merely by the intervention of one great power even if that is a very powerful power. It is not, I think, to be accepted that the United States can provide the answer to the problem of the Middle East. It has already, by massive supplies of arms and money, backed one side; it has shown that in almost every aspect of the dispute it takes one side. If we are going to get a settlement, it must be obviously impartial and obviously international.
Therefore, I put this argument to your Lordships: that we should use our utmost influence in Europe with the initiative coming from Europe, maybe, but all the time moving towards an international intervention and an international solution. It is necessary, of course to deal with all aspects of the situation, which are complicated and difficult, as we know. But, when you put three purposes together—that is, the full independence of the Lebanese, the freedom of the Palestinians in their own homeland and the security of the Israelis in theirs—you realise that there is nothing contradictory in the three purposes. They run together; they are dependent upon each other. Therefore, I believe that the reference should be to the Security Council of the United Nations. There has been some talk of an international conference and, yes, I can see some arguments for it but I can see some arguments against it. The trouble with conferences is that people come but they also go away.
The great advantage of the Security Council of the United Nations is that it can embark, with the cooperation of everyone in the council and others, to where the Israelis, the Palestinians and the Arabs can be given full opportunity to participate in a continuing discussion and a search for peace. It is surely amazing that, for so many years with this danger growing, as we all, I think, realise, there has not been a reference of this issue to the Security Council.
There has been opposition to the actions of the Security Council—and I think this is a very serious situation indeed—on a wider aspect. We are now getting to the stage where we expect from the United States that they will oppose the Law of the Sea, where there is the question of the future of the United Nations agencies and where you get a constant opposition and a rufusal to use the instrument which was created and which can successfully deal with a situation as dangerous as this.
I should like to put it to your Lordships that it is a matter not of asking the United States to deal with the matter or expecting that it can come from a joint conference. No, it must come from a worldwide effort in the Security Council established for that purpose in order to find a way in consultation, certainly with the Israelis and with the Palestinians and with every one else concerned to find a plan which neither side could initiate but which both can eventually accept, and to find a way in which the decisions then taken are hacked by a great range of international opinion to put
330
into effect the decisions of the Security Council This is the action which I believe should be called on now.
The freedom of Palestinians, the security of Israel, are not in conflict. One is dependent upon the other. So what chance have we now of seeing the leadership in the world in the Security Council, in which I would hope that our country would take a leading part" What chance have we now of seeing a new proposal after the discussions with all concerned and, indeed, with the consistent and continuing discussion among those concerned? What chance have we got that this, the finest achievement of the United Nations, could now be made effective? I should like to think that it is possible—and why not? I do not forget the occasion when, years ago, I looked to my right in the Security Council of the United Nations Assembly and rejoiced to see the vote of the Soviet representative for the British resolution, thus making it unanimous Why should it not happen again? Why should there not be leadership in the world to find an answer to a problem which, it is true, is affected by malice, hatred and obstruction? Why is it not possible that we should see this triumph now in international relations?
I like to think it is not necessary to assume that the two super powers will be more intent on their enmity than on their interests. I like to think that the Israelis—encouraged greatly, it is true, by massive support from the United States—will not wish to spend their time achieving the subordination of their neighbours. I like to think that the Palestinians will not be condemned indefinitely to obstruction and great suffering. I think all those things are possible; and I like to think, too, that Europe can take the initiative and can indicate a way in which good sense, mutual benefit and the yearning of the people mainly concerned for peace can at last prevail.
5.32 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I have no personal experience which equips me to contribute to this debate. I do so because the debate is about a calamitous conflict with a religious dimension. It is not primarily a religious conflict but a political one, between the State of Isreal, whose overriding need arising from the history of the Jewish people is for security, and the Arab nations and communities, united by a desire for territory for the Palestinian Arabs.
Inevitably, the polarisation into two bodies, one with a Jewish history and ethos and the other with a common Moslem allegiance, gives the conflict a religious dimension in which passions—not political only but religious also—run deep. No outsider can hope to say anything about the situation without misunderstanding by one side or the other. Yet each body can be understood from within as being right in its basic conviction.
To read the history of the Jewish people and the Zionist movement leading to the establishment of the State of Israel is to enter into a passionate and powerful story. A major factor in that story is the element of anti-semitism within the European people, of which I have to confess that the element of anti-semitism within the history of the Christian Church is a part. The Jews from Europe went to America and

331
established a secure position and a financial base. They went to Palestine to seek a national homeland. The British handling of the mandate in the 1940s and the United Nations intervention brought about the transformation of this homeland into a national state. To hear the story from Jewish lips is to listen to a record of suffering, agony, hope and fulfilment. But the cost to the Palestinian Arabs was terrible, with the loss of their lands and properties, and the hopeless regime of the refugee camps.
The Arabs felt, and feel, betrayed, dispossessed and bereft of their land and holy places. To hear the story from Arab lips is to understand that the Arabs now sit where the Jews have so frequently sat in the past—in the place of dispossession and ignominy. We listen in these stories to two proud peoples, trapped by their histories into an apparently irreconcilable hostility and conflict. In the face of this conflict, any comment sounds trite and superficial. Nevertheless, our British history is intertwined with their histories and we cannot avoid sharing the task of reconciliation, without which there will be further and deeper bitterness, and perhaps greater bloodshed.
The guidelines which I offer from the British Churches are intended as a modest contribution to that task of reconciliation. They are derived in part from a speech made by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, who took part in the visit of an ecumenical team to the Middle East in 1981. They are derived in part from a statement of the British Council of Churches on the Middle East last year.
The first guideline is the need to enter understandingly into the fears and hopes of both sides. I have already spoken of listening attentively to both stories. The passions expressed in those stories must be recognised. We must not take sides without first grappling with the power of each story to grip its people with a sense of their own rightness. I believe that to affirm both sides in this way is not the same as to assert that there are no failures on each side. From the outside there are wrongs on both sides: the use of terrorism, violence and counter-violence. At the heart of this there is a failure to recognise—and I believe that this is recognition not only in the political sense but also in the human sense—people as people. It is when Jew meets Arab and Arab meet Jew and they look eye to eye and affirm one another as human beings that attitudes change. I believe that in the human sense as well as in the political sense recognition is necessary. That recognition is made possible by affirmation from without of the rightness of the stories that we hear.
The second guideline that is offered is the need to maintain relationships with the Christian communities in the Middle East, many of them ancient churches whose histories go back to the beginnings of Christianity. Members of these Christian churches have suffered and continue to suffer in the conflict. They are mostly Arab churches, but if they were to recognise their Jewish inheritance they could become builders of bridges over the religious gulf. The noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, has already referred to the necessity of a political catalyst. Maybe there is a need also for a religious catalyst—a person or a community who can be present to bring about new attitudes between those of different and hostile religious
332
communities. Such changes of attitude must surely come before any agreement or consensus about the custody of holy places, however important that may be.
The third guideline from the British Churches is a theological one: to be wary of giving political support solely on the basis of theological understanding, particularly biblical prophecy. There is a kind of Christian fundamentalism which uses biblical exegesis unwisely and, I would argue, unsoundly. Instead of leading to reconciliation, which must involve compromise, such a fundamentalism evokes intolerance by making political objectives into religious absolutes. To quote the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York:
"How can essentially religious people, whether Jews, Christian or Moslems, express their religious commitments politically without thereby transforming politics from the art of the possible into the pursuit of the absolute?"
Finally, I share a word of warning from others more experienced than myself in the Middle East. The failure to find a resolution of this conflict is producing an increasing religious extremism among all communities. This extremism makes life increasingly difficult for those who seek the common ground. The resurgence of fundamentalist Islam, in Iran and in Lebanon, the influence of some religious parties in Israel, even Christian groups seeking a Maronite enclave in Lebanon, all make for difficulties in reaching a negotiated settlement. I believe the British Churches have a part to play in bringing about a state of affairs in which the religious resources of the Middle East—Moslem, Christian and Jewish—are used not to further conflict, division and hatred, but to bring about mutual recognition and just settlement.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon has spoken with eloquence and with justice. Which of your Lordships, and which of our ancestors over the last thousand years, have not seen or read of the orthodox Jews standing with their hands or their foreheads against the Wall of the Temple lamenting their exclusion in "the place of dispossession and ignominy" to quote the Bishop of Ripon? All of us who have must realise that around the frontiers of the present State of Israel, annexed or real, there are Arabs who are internally in that place of dispossession and ignominy but there is no symbol for them to lean upon as the Jews lean upon their Temple, which is now a mosque.
When I read the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, I thought he was going to say that it is time we came back to the Venice Declaration and that the European Community should throw its weight about a little more in search of a Middle Eastern settlement. I was surprised to find that he did not say that at all but that the European Community ought to pool its diplomatic efforts in order to persuade President Reagan to have another go at producing a settlement.
I have to say I agree rather more with the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, when he says that if we can continue a unified European Community policy it will be wiser to press the United Nations to do what is best rather than to invite the Americans to try yet again. The reason for this has been stated already by the noble Lord, Lord Caradon. It seems to me that both

333
the great world powers are in fact excluded from any hope of assisting progress. The Soviet Union is a very long way from the Middle East. Its total civil aid to Syria since 1955 has been about 806 million dollars. Nobody can tell what its military aid has been because they do not trade in a way which is visible in money terms; but it is very large. I have been there, as I am sure many of your Lordships have, and have seen the Syrian army and air force. It is large. Compared with the population of the country, it is very large. It is well disciplined; and the equipment is modern, but not super modern. The Soviet Union is out as a mediator because it is the patron of Syria, which is one, as I shall argue in a moment, of the two chief contestants.
To return to the United States, we find that since 1948 United States civil aid to Israel has been 7·2 billion dollars, which is nearly 10 times the Soviet civil aid to Syria to a country with a population of about one-eighth of that of Syria. We find that during that period United States military aid to Israel has been 16 billion dollars, which is no less than 17 per cent. of all the military aid it has given to anybody in the world since 1948—and that to a population of two and a bit million. We make the comparison of 806 million dollars of civil Soviet aid to Syria with 7·2 billion dollars of United States civil aid to Israel. I think The Times is right in saying that there is approaching a total economic dependence on the United States in Israel, and to formalise this they have recently declared what amounts to a customs union.
The United States is disqualified for the equal and opposite reason why the Soviet Union is disqualified. Its partisanship for one of the chief contestants is even more intense than the Soviet Union's for the other. It is even further away than the Soviet Union from the Middle East.
The United Kingdom has not taken any of the contestants under its wing or given noticeable military aid to anybody, but we have a great political aim in the world. That is to build up the ability of the European Community to come to common foreign policy positions. I think that this country, it is fair to say, has done better than some of its continental friends in achieving this. It was carried forward very sharply during the time when the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was Foreign Secretary. Great steps were made then in political co-operation. The main fruit of that period was of course the Venice Declaration, which we are by implication debating today.
Is it time for this country to do something? No. We should do it through the European Community. Is it time for the European Community to do something? Yes, it is, through the political co-operation machinery. What should it do? I think that the condition of all progress is for anybody who seeks to lend a helping hand to get away from the 19th century picture of the sovereign independent nation state. Of course, there are nation states in the Middle East, but they are not nation states as we are in Europe, or the United States or even the Soviet Union.
There are the so-called Arab countries, which consist of large numbers of people of the same religion, language, appearance, "race" if you like, and the same history, who happen to be divided up in a way not at
334
all of their choosing. They used to drift around the Middle East in the Bedouin ages declaring their allegiance to any sheikh the quality of whose justice appealed to them. They were free to do this wherever they were. The habit dies hard. We can see this once again in the case of the Palestinians who have had to leave Israel. They have nothing else to do. They give their allegiance to a sheikh who pleases them, whether he happens to be in Tunis, Amman or even Tripoli, or wherever he may be.
Let us see, then, whether the State of Israel has something of the same quality. It is an emanation or concentration of the world's Jewish people. It reflects Jewish characteristics which were formed all over the world, and the quality of its links with outside countries is quite different from the quality of out links with outside countries—and even more so, shall we say, from German links with outside countries. It is porous in feeling and in history. It is a mere concentration of Jewry, just as each Arab country is a mere division of "Arabry" (if there is such a word) into an arbitrary geographical unit.
These are the states which have to make peace in the end. Do what we will in this country, in the European Community, in the Soviet Union, in the United States, we can only help them do what they want to do. They want to make peace: we know that. At the moment it seems to me—I think it is hard to deny—that the matter lies between Israel and Syria. Lebanon no longer exists. It has been destroyed by many actions over many years, all of them the unhappy and unwished-for result of the establishment of the State of Israel.
Jordan has had only a shadowy existence at the best of times. Its frontiers are rather vague in the West. There is no Jordanian people. A Jordanian sort of Arab is not as different from any other sort of Arab as a Syrian sort of Arab is. Half the people who live under the rule of King Hussein at the moment are "Palestinians". Of course, they are all Palestinian really. Palestine used to include Jordan, if the name meant anything. But half of them are those who have had to leave what was their home before, either in undoubted Israel or on the West Bank, the status of which is disputed. There is nothing that King Hussein can really do when only half of his people owe allegiance just to him. He is the prisoner of the other half.
Egypt, by a sublime and blessed act of imagination, offered peace to Israel and found that offer met promptly with generosity, and successfully. It is an amazing achievement. The moral is there for all other Arab countries to see. Who knows whether they would be greeted with as much imagination and generosity as President Sadat was? We have no reason to think that they would not, but they are not as well placed to do it as he was. If there is a unified Arab country, it is Egypt. He had his own people with him, or controllable—rather a homogeneous people.
Lastly, there is Syria—and here is the point. Israel is withdrawing from Lebanon after three years. There is much press coverage of the effect of that on Lebanon and on Israel. We must not forget that Israel is also withdrawing from artillery range of the capital of Syria. For three years Israeli guns have been on the Lebanese heights within range of Damascus. It could

335
have been bombarded. We all know that in the age of rockets it does not matter as much as it used to, but as a psychological factor it is very strong.
There is then the phenomenon of the Golan Heights. We say "Golan" because we are so familiar with the Israeli point of view, but the Arabic name is "Jolan". Syria contains a great many refugees from the Syrian province of Jolan, who are more of a political force in Damascus than the others because they are Syrians and the others are not; they are Palestinians, Lebanese or whatever they might be. This is the silent conflict which is not discussed enough. A solution lies in a settlement between Israel and Syria above all others, and that settlement depends above all other factors on a settlement of the Golan/Jolan question.
I should like to say one last word about the Camp David procedure. Some people say that it will solve all problems: some say that it can solve none. It has solved one problem, but I do not believe there is much chance of it solving any more. So, to sum up, I am for Britain's initiative towards the EEC to get an initiative towards the UN which will help the countries on the spot to get together, and principally Israel and Syria.
5.53 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, it gives me the greatest pleasure to welcome this debate this afternoon, which was so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, almost exactly three years after his earlier one, and it is delightful to see so many noble Lords who took part in that debate speaking again this afternoon.
The Motion directs us to consider what efforts can be made to get the European Community to bridge the terrible gap between the Arabs and the Israelis. I feel there is very little that European countries can do, either collectively or individually. Our own country, we know, is still held in high regard and yet, unfortunately we do not cut a great deal of ice, either in the Arab world or with Israel. France, no doubt, cuts rather more ice. Italy has won a round of applause recently for the splendid performance of its peacekeeping contingent in Lebanon.
But, of the other European countries in the Community, what do they achieve, what do they know and what are their concerns and their interests in the Arab world?—really very little. So can we really see these countries making any positive attempt to breach this terrible gap between the Arabs and Israel or to pick up the shattered pieces of the Lebanese Humpty-Dumpty? Like the Carpenter in Alice in Wonderland, I doubt it and I "shed a bitter tear". The only country with any real power and real pull, as the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, said, is the United States. But then, as the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, has indicated, and as other noble Lords will probably indicate too, their massive involvement with Israel is a gravely inhibiting factor.
Let me give your Lordships just one example. Very recently, the Americans established a Voice of America transmitter in Israel, and the people running the programmes that it transmitted were told that in no circumstances whatever were there to be any broadcasts in any way critical of Israel. The Americans have tried, they have tried again and again to get the Israelis
336
to exercise a more conciliatory policy. They have tried to restrain the Israeli settlement policy, about which I want to say more later, but they have failed. Indeed, one almost feels that the situation is rather like that of the Sorcerer's Apprentice. The Americans are unable, like that apprentice, to restrain the wonder child which they took such great pains in bringing into being.
But I must return to reality. As the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, said, the last three years have seen a distressing hardening of attitudes. On the Israeli side, we find continuing obduracy and intransigence, which I suppose stems mainly from fear, while on the Arab side we have growing hatred leading to desperation. Nevertheless, I know that many moderate Arabs and many moderate Israelis deplore the present trends and would like to see more moderate policies pursued.
May I refer to an article in Time and Tide last year by Gerald Kaufman? (I refer to him thus, rather than in his ministerial capacity, because he was writing privately and not officially.) He deplored in very forthright terms the aggressive, expansionist policy that is now being pursued by the Government of Israel, which is so greatly at variance with the pacific aims of the founding fathers of the State of Israel.
One point that one has to bear in mind is that Arabs have elephantine memories. They ponder politics to a much greater extent then we do in the West. Just as they have not forgotten the Balfour Declaration, so they have not forgotten that Israeli attack on Lebanon in June 1982, that monstrous massacre which was master-minded by Sharon—and, indeed, it was a monstrous massacre; make no mistake about that—with 17,000 people killed in the first few days and 60,000 to 80,000 wounded, so we understand.
The memories of that will not die. Nor, indeed, will the memories of what the Israelis have been doing in Lebanon with their "iron fist" policy, and also the gradual encroachment of the Israeli octopus in the West Bank area. It is that area that I want to deal with particularly, because it is of crucial importance. There are several other aspects with which I want to deal, but I must concentrate on that.
One thing which stands out a mile is that the Government of Israel has no intention whatever of relinquishing its hold on the West Bank. Another very sad aspect of the situation is that Shimon Peres, the Prime Minister, who we had hoped would pursue a conciliatory role, has not realised that hope, and this expansionist policy continues. It is very difficult to get reliable figures about what is going on on the West Bank, but I can produce certain information and I am fairly sure that it is correct.
Let me deal first with land. Israel now controls 52 per cent. of the land on the West Bank, according to a recent report from the West Bank data base project. Furthermore, the study shows that, of this 52 per cent. 41 per cent. has been brought under direct Israeli control and the other 11 per cent. has been declared a forbidden zone for building and farming and is therefore under the effective control of the Government.
I come now to settlements. A great deal has been said about the Israeli settlement policy. No one quite knows exactly how many they have, but there are probably just about 200 now. The point here is not so

337
much the number of the settlements but the policy behind their establishment. Whereas formerly these settlements were being established in agricultural land because they were predominantly agricultural settlements, they are now beng established in hilly land. They are being built on little hills, and they are being built, it seems, for strategic reasons. Indeed, some of them seem to resemble Kitchener's blockhouses or even miniature Crusader castles. They attract very few people. Some of these settlements have fewer than 30 settlers. But, despite the country's growing economic problems and quite apart from the reluctance of many Israelis to live in such a harsh environment, the Israeli Government is pursuing this policy of settlement expansion.
Another very important aspect with which I shall deal briefly is justice or lack of justice to Arabs. Last year, for example, 5,222 West Bank Gaza residents were convicted in military courts; 64 per cent. more than the 3,339 in 1983. It is quite clear that the Israeli attitude towards student troubles and towards offenders in universities and so on is hardening. It is an interesting and important point that a survey conducted two years ago revealed that Jews convicted of drug offences were receiving sentences seven times less severe than Arabs convicted of similar charges.
Then there has been Israel's policy of depriving Arabs of water, Yes, indeed, they have been doing just that. For example, there is a regulation which says that every Arab must have a permit before he digs a well and that no well may exceed 30 feet in depth; whereas the Israelis have unlimited access to water.
Finally, there is the road construction policy. The Israeli Government has embarked on a massive policy of building roads in the West Bank. These roads are designed to link the Israeli settlements, by-passing the Arab centres of population.
So I feel very strongly that, however we proceed in our attempts to solve this Arab-Israel problem, Her Majesty's Government must exert the greatest possible influence on the Israeli Government over its settlement policy. This was reflected in a speech which the Secretary of State made on his last visit to Israel. They must exert all possible pressure on the Israeli Government to get it to modify its repressive and oppressive policy in the West Bank before there remains in that area not a single square yard of territory to put on the negotiating table.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Kagan: My Lords, anybody who has visited Israel is fully aware that Israel not only wants peace but desperately needs it; but it does not know how to achieve it. A third of its national budget goes on military expenditure, at a tremendous cost to the standard of living, to employment and to all the aspiration of the Israeli people. This is not being done voluntarily and when the world exhorts Israel to rely on internationally binding guarantees every Israeli schoolchild will refer you to the fate of Czechoslovakia; it did.
The Israelis are reconciled to living under a constant threat. It has been the declared policy of Yassir Arafat, of the Syrians, of Khomeini and of Gaddafi in Libya to
338
drive the Israelis into the sea. It is easy to give advice, but one must take into account that the Jews remember what happened to them in the concentration camps and how far they could rely on morality in international politics, on good will and on security provided by others. If it comes to the ultimate, the Jewish aim is, if they cannot live in peace, at least to die in dignity. That is the reason for the militaristic role which Israel is supposed to assume. That is important.
No Israeli mother sends her son into battle willingly; no mother has ever allowed her son to join the army more willingly; and no Israeli wants to lose his young life. But they think they have no choice. In fact there is a Hebrew expression "Ein Breira". It is the secret weapon of Israel. Do noble Lords know what it means?—"No choice". That is their view.
I should like to quote a speech by Gaddafi which was made as recently as the middle of May. He declared:
"It is legitimate for our entire people to liquidate its enemies abroad and quite openly".
The speech was made only a few weeks ago. The resources of the world, which has to buy Libyan oil, are going to help him in this.
I do not think that I need waste your Lordships' time in referring to Khomeini. Khomeini is quite willing to take children away from their mothers to send them to certain and horrible death in a fight between Moslem and Moslem. Could the Jews in Israel, if ever someone such as Khomeini got the upper hand, expect understanding, mercy or justice? Israel wants to negotiate. Israel wants to come to an accommodation. But with whom? Moderate voices by Israelis—noble Lords have referred to them—are heard and may be criticised, but moderate voices by Arabs are murdered—Sadat.
People talk about the freedom of the Arabs; but the Arabs have lost far less freedom to the Israeli Government than they have to the coercion of the PLO. No Arab can proclaim a point of view which conflicts with that of Yassir Arafat or the PLO and survive it.
The holy sites have been mentioned here. When Jordan was in occupation in Jerusalem the wailing wall and the Jewish holy sites were not accessible to the Jews. Nobody can say now that religious worship is inhibited by the Israeli Government. It is encouraged. Israel is a democracy. Of course it has its factions, but on one thing the nation is united: it cannot for a second time in its history leave its fate to the good will of other nations. As I said before, the memory of the concentration camps is still very strong in people's minds.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon came closest to understanding the position there when he referred to a land being taken away. When the Jews came to Israel it was an arid desert. Bedouins wandered across it. If one flies over Israel today, one does not need to look at a map to identify Israeli territory, because it is a flowering garden. But on the other side it is still desert. The native population of Israel before the Jews went into it were Bedouins who never stayed more than two or three months on the same spot.

339
I must not exceed my time. I shall conclude by saying this. The Jews are supposed to be a logical people. When I was last in Israel I asked this question: where will it all lead to and where will it end? The reply I received was, "Once upon a time we believed in miracles; now we may have to rely on them". And so they will.
6.11 p.m.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, your Lordships greatly appreciate this opportunity which has been afforded us by my noble friend Lord Chelwood to discuss this whole subject. We rarely have such an opportunity and so it is with particular pleasure that I join in this debate. In considering the events of the past 48 hours it is perhaps of great significance that more than 1,150 prisoners—mainly Palestinians—have been exchanged for three Israelis. This is the second exchange of prisoners within about two and a half years, since in November 1983 some 4,500 PLO prisoners were exchanged for six Israelis. I understand that the latest exchange was arranged by direct negotiation between Yassir Arafat and the authorities in Israel. Surely this is of very great significance.
One must pay tribute first, naturally, to the mechanics of these negotiations—and particular tribute to the Committee of the International Red Cross which effected them. One must pay tribute also to the two governments concerned. One must most particularly pay tribute to the fact that the negotiations culminated in an exchange.
While many of your Lordships would agree with the deep doubt cast by the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, on the possibility of reaching an agreement of any sort, nevertheless a negotiation achieving an exchange of prisoners, while not considerable in terms of the overall negotiations, is in itself a very satisfactory step. After all, it is in accord with the step-by-step approach which my noble friend Lord Chelwood said he favoured when making his opening remarks. He spoke of a hardening and fomenting situation; one which calls upon the EC to make greater efforts. In the light of the agreement, and exchange of prisoners, it is timely that a further initiative should be taken. I hope that my noble friend Lady Young will feel able to respond in very positive terms when she comes to reply.
I was interested by what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in regard to the possibility of an initiative in respect of the Syrian-Israel situation at the Golan Heights. Naturally I was very disappointed by what he said about Jordan, as I was by what the noble Lord, Lord Kagan, said, who gave the impression that Jordan consists of a desert. It is of course true that today Amman is one of the greatest capitals in the Middle East. It is a major centre of population. It is a joy for all those friends of Jordan to see the success of many irrigation and fertilisation schemes and other projects which have been attracted to that country over the past 25 years—and most especially in regard to the areas more beneficial to cultivation.
I should like to recall the words of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister when she said in another context that:
"Programmes and initiatives always produce better results if more sharply focused".
340
We are focusing on particular areas in this dispute. It is often the case that when one initiative produces success it may lead to another. Before Mr. Henry Kissinger started his whole range of shuttle diplomacy, who would have believed, before that remarkable period began, that it could have achieved what it did? Negotiations can often build on their own successes. I hope very much that there is a possibility something may be achieved along the lines suggested.
In concluding my brief remarks, perhaps I may say that the work of the United Nations relief work agency now based in Vienna, so far distant from Beirut, should receive the further assistance of all the countries of the United Nations. It is very notable that throughout its existence the Russian contribution to this very major project of sustaining the unfortunate victims of this whole problem has been little, if anything.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I believe that I agree with every word spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, when he introduced this debate. I would particularly urge the noble Baroness the Minister, when she replies, to give specific answers to the very specific questions that the noble Lord put to her, suggesting a weakening of the British Government on a number of important issues.
I should like to speak about the security of Israel, which was spoken about very eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Kagan. It seems to me that the European Community has shown quite plainly that self-determination for the Palestinians would serve the cause of peace, and would of course be in the interests of the Palestinians. Sometimes I wish that the European Community would also press on the Israelis and the Americans that self-determination is also in the vital security interests of the Israelis themselves. This is understood by a small but growing minority of courageous Israelis; namely, that self-determination for the Palestinians—whether it takes the form of a Palestinian state that is independent or a federation with Jordan—is in the security interests of Israel far more than the current conduct of Israel in international affairs, which actually detracts from her security.
The argument is that a Palestinian state, whether independent or federated, would undermine Israel's security. That belief is sincerely held by many Israelis—as those people, like myself, who have been to Israel and discussed this matter, know. However, that belief is wholly irrational from the military point of view. One look at the map shows that this small, open territory is surrounded on three sides by Israel; that the one air strip is within artillery range of Israel; and that the one port—Gaza—is at the mercy of the Israeli Navy. A glance at the map shows also that, from a military point of view, Palestinian self-determination would give a hostage to Israel rather than be a security threat.
So far as terrorism goes, the same is true. There is already, unfortunately, a terrorist threat inside Israel and against the settlers in the occupied territories. Self-determination is in a number of ways likely to lessen rather than increase that threat; first, and most obviously, by modifying the bitter sense of outrage felt

341
by young Palestinians about the humiliation, oppression and deprivation of their people.
Then also of course the Palestinian leaders in these circumstances would have something that they do not have now and have lacked in the past—namely, police, prisons and a judiciary—with which to control the minority of extremist terrorist groups which have done all the harm in the past. I believe that Europe should convey some of those points very strongly to the Americans and the Israelis, and should also offer peace-keeping in the event of a settlement between the boundary of Israel and any new Palestinian entity.
But, above all, I believe that it is a fatal illusion to think that Israel's present policies in any way offer her long-term security. The idea that military dominance and the unconditional aid that she now gets from the United States can give her a long-term guarantee of security is a very dangerous illusion. In the short term that may be so, and in the short term, despite the military setback in Lebanon, the new hostility of the Shiah Moslems and the lower morale of the Israeli defence forces—in spite of all those things—in the short term of course Israel has the military dominance in the region.
But the gap is closing as far as the military balance of power is concerned. It is masked a bit by the Gulf war and a bit by the precarious neutrality of Egypt, but the balance is plainly closing; and in economic and financial power the balance is going firmly against Israel in the long term; and so are the facts of demography, which may be the decisive factors in the end. There is the differential birthrate between Jews and Arabs inside Israel and between Israel and the Arab and Islamic world, the increase in net immigration from Israel and the assimilation in the Jewish Diaspora. All those things are important if one takes not just the immediate view. In the immediate view the cause of the Palestinians seems hopeless; but if one projects existing trends 10 or 20 years, a totally different picture emerges.
It will be argued that the Americans will always bail the Israelis out. That may be true, and a number of speakers have said already that in fact Israel is extremely dependent on the United States. I would add only that Congress is also extremely dependent on the pro-Israeli lobby in Washington. My information is that 50 per cent. of the Democratic Party's funds and 25 per cent. of the Republican Party's funds come from pro-Israeli sources.
But all the time in the long term the gap is growing between Israel's requirements from the United States and the national interests of the United States. Her unconditional support for Israel isolates her at the United Nations. It alienates from her the Islamic world and a large part of the third world. It makes difficulties sometimes between her and her European NATO allies. It gives openings to the Soviet Union. One day quite certainly voices will be raised in the United States calling for an American rather than an American-Jewish policy in the Middle East.
Even supposing that Israel succeeds in what appears unfortunately to be her present policy and succeeds in incorporating the West Bank and Gaza into Israel, perhaps with the expulsion of many, many more refugees into Jordan, it will not solve the problem. It will only increase the stakes. The problem will be
342
deepened because, having thrown aside the option of two Palestines co-existing, which is the European concept and the concept that surely offers the best hopes, the Israelis will simply have raised the question: who is to own and control the whole of Israel? Is it to be the Jews or is it to be the Arabs? They will have created a zero-sum situation.
I would say that Israel was more secure before her victories in 1967 than after. I believe that she was more secure before her victory in 1973 than after. I am sure that she was more secure before she invaded Lebanon than after. If therefore she continues in that way, relying solely on fire power and the Washington lobby, I do not believe in the long run that there is much hope for her survival—that is to say, hope that she will survive as an independent Jewish state into the next century.
Her own security demands that she must grant Palestinian nationalism some expression—that she must grant self-determination to the Palestinian people. I should like to see the Europeans laying a good deal more stress upon that, trying to reasure the Israelis that it does not mean undermining their security, but that what the European Community recommends—namely, self-determination for the Palestinians—is in the interests not only of the Palestinians but also in the long-term interests of the Israelis themselves.
6.25 p.m.
The Earl of Oxford and Asquith: My Lords. I join with other speakers in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, for giving us the opportunity for this debate, and I do so the more readily because I agree with so much that he said and indeed with what many other speakers have said this evening, including in particular the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, who has just sat down.
For 50 years and more the Arab-Isreali conflict has proved so intractable that there is now the danger that we may be learning to live with it. There have been so many attempts in the past to reach a settlement and so many failures to achieve one, that we are tempted to wash our hands of the problem and, if there is to be any solution at all, to regard that as the sole responsibility of the United States. Historically of course it is a European problem and more particularly a British one. That is one good reason for not washing our hands of it, though it is not the most important one.
The most important reason is that, while no solution can be achieved without the Americans, no solution seems likely if it is to be left to the Americans alone. The question, after all, is one of mediation, and for a sole mediator to be successful his impartiality must gain the acceptance of both parties. The Americans, to use an Americanism, lack credibility in that vital respect. The well-known Zionist pressures in their home politics, the massive military and economic aid given to one of the two parties out of all proportion to the other, the equivocal American attitude towards the West Bank occupation and the West Bank settlements—all these and many other factors cannot fail to arouse suspicion in Arab minds. Europe, with fewer pressures, is better placed to take a more balanced view, and if America neglects the advice

343
which Europe could offer in this matter it is very hard to believe that she will have greater success in the future than she has had in the past.
The recent past has indeed shown a succession of failures—the sterile outcome of the Camp David accords; the intervention in Lebanon which had so ignominiously to be abandoned; the so-called Reagan plan, which seemed to offer some hope, which indeed might be revived but which was not at the time pursued with the necessary flexibility or determination. Arab disunity is sometimes blamed for such failures, and it is of course one of the difficulties in the whole situation. But I have the impression that America often uses it as an excuse for doing nothing.
Time, I am afraid, is not on the side of peace, and I do not believe that one of the options is a peaceful stalemate. Frustration breeds extremism and not peace, with all the instability that extremism in that context could bring. One of the obvious dangers here is the growth of Islamic radicalism, which in its political forms has already caused so much disruption in the Middle East. It has not so far succeeded in undermining the moderate Arab regimes, but it is all too possible that it may one day do so.
The alternative to stalemate, apart from war (which God forbid!) is compromise, which is a very different matter. In spite of all the dashed hopes of the past, I, like the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, believe that it is still possible to see some hopeful signs. On the Arab side there are the increased contacts and growing rapprochement between moderate Arab leaders. On the Israeli side, there is evidence that currents of moderate opinion within Israel are now somewhat stronger than in the past. The ever-growing strains on Israel's economy caused by keeping the country on a war footing should also prove favourable to a climate of compromise.
Against this background, with elements on the one hand of increasing danger and on the other of increased hope, there is surely opportunity for Europe to renew its attempts at mediation while there is still time. As your Lordhips well know, and have been reminded, such an attempt was made five years ago and resulted in the Venice Declaration, to which our Government subscribed. Cold-shouldered at the time by the United States, the impetus petered out in what I can only describe as a pusillanimous failure of the European will.
Much has happened since then; none of it has been good, nor can any of it be of much encouragement to the Americans, who must surely appreciate the threat to their own position in the Middle East as indeed to ours, if extremism should prevail. If we add to this President Reagan's concern for the Atlantic Alliance and his fear of the threat of Communism, we may well expect him to be now more receptive to a European participation in the dialogue. It would certainly be best if all countries in the Community could be included in such an approach, at least eventually. However, in case the machinery for this proved too slow moving and a European consensus now more difficult to achieve, then I fully agree that a firm Franco-British move could well be the most useful start, France and Britain being the two permanent European members of the Security Council.
344
As the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, has said, it is to the Americans, especially, that our action should at present be directed, since their role is indispensable if progress is to be made—and at present no progress is being made. The Euro-Arab dialogue is also of importance and should be resumed. By encouraging a gradualist rather than an all-or-nothing approach; by seeking and encouraging the voice of moderation wherever it can be heard (for example, taking advantage of the new Jordanian-Palestinian accord and preventing it from falling apart); by consulting more actively with all the parties concerned (not excluding the Syrians, who, like it or not, will remain an essential factor in the equation but with whom the Americans are barely on speaking terms), we should in all such ways be making it possible for proposals to emerge to which Europe can lend its weight—proposals which America may find hard to reject or encourage Israel to reject and in which the PLO, or a substantial part of it, might acquiesce.
These are generalities. Your Lordships may think that one ought to be more specific in one's recommendations. I have one particular suggestion to offer. There are two major stumbling blocks which in recent years have stood in the way of any constructive dialogue between the main parties concerned. On the Arab side, there is the question of an explicit recognition of the right of Israel to exist within its 1967 boundaries, coupled with the Arab insistence that no dialogue would be meaningful unless the PLO took part in it or at least were in some way associated with it. On the Israeli and American side there is the refusal not merely to recognise the PLO but to allow them any direct participation in a dialogue unless they first explicitly admit Israel's right.
The result is an impasse because both sides are stuck in positions from which politically and psychologically they are unable to retreat. Both sides are in need of a third party to help them extricate themselves. This is just one instance where European mediation could play a valuable part.
In conclusion, I should like to ask the noble Baroness if she will give us information on two points. First, can she confirm that the principles embodied in the Venice Declaration are still recognised by the Government as the ultimate basis for an acceptable solution, despite America's reluctance to accept all of them at the present time? Your Lordships have been reminded already of these principles, so there is no need for me to repeat them now. Secondly, I ask the Minister if she can give an indication that our contacts with all parties concerned will be more actively pursued. The final articles of the Venice Declaration called for this as a prelude to determining the form which our contribution towards a settlement could most usefully take. Our contribution during the last four years has, in my view, been much less effective than it could and should have been. Is it the Government's intention that our efforts should be increased?
6.37 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I should first like to put on record the thanks that we all owe the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, for his endeavours, over so many years, to find a peaceful and just settlement to the horrendous

345
situation that exists in the Middle East, where murder, butchery and slaughter go cheek by jowl with religion. One used to think at one time that it was only the Europeans who behaved like that, who slaughtered and butchered, stopped for a few hours while the padres got together to say a few words to the Almighty, and then again set about butchering and slaying each other.
We had all hoped that that had finished. Then the 1966 war started. That was another war without a declaration. There were standards even in wartime. I have witnessed it twice in my life: in 1939 and then again in 1966. Since then the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, has maintained a very balanced and courageous view. He has sometimes stated something that was terribly unpopular, which was that the Arabs, too, had a case. He has stuck to his guns. I think that should be put on the record. Slowly but surely people are taking the line that even the Arabs have a point of view. That is good because it might compel the Israelis to listen to their courageous minority who have always declared that the Arabs have a point of view.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon said that the terrible atrocities inflicted on Jewish people by European Christians were horrendous. They were horrendous. We all know about them. The point the Bishop should have made very strongly was this; and I shall make it for him. There was no particular Arab involved in that appalling holocaust, none whatsoever. We must take full cognisance of this because young people, half my age, in both America and Britain are taking cognisance of it.
For example, the noble Lord, Lord Kagan, mentioned Czechoslovakia. I can understand his point of view. We did not do very much about it. I hope that there are not many Israelis who condemned us because we did not act against Czechoslovakia, because when we acted, whether or not it was to save our own skins, we did a massive job in saving world Jewry. I shall stand and say that for as long as I have breath.
Another matter that hurts me is this. Some young men who I knew were called up almost in the last hours of that war in which we defeated fascism that was dedicated to wiping out world Jewry. They then left to go to the Middle East because of the problem there. They ended their lives at the bombs of the Jewish terrorists. That has always to be put on the record. If we can acknowledge these things with courage, we can move to understanding.
My noble friend Lord Kagan mentioned Gaddafi and Khomeini. I do not know how many Israelis are having a go at that pair of boys. They are very unpopular people. But they are not suffering a great deal. The people who have suffered, by and large, are the Lebanese and the Palestinians—not Gaddafi, not Khomeini. I do not hold any score for them. That should be clearly understood. They are just about as despicable as the Israeli Minister of Defence, who said that it was his aim to wipe out every Palestinian, man, women and child. He is a villain, too, along with the other pair.
We have also to consider what is happening in Israel. I get my information from Israelis, who are shocked. They went to that country, some of them from America, some from Europe, in some cases never having been there before in their lives—it was a
346
brand new world for them—and some from my own tiny little nation, Wales. I hope that my noble friend Lord Kagan acknowledges what I wish to say next. I know that my noble friend Lord Caradon does. If the world had listened to the wonderful speech of my noble friend Lord Caradon when he was British Ambassador at the United Nations in introducing Resolution No. 242, we might have groped forward much more swiftly than we have done in trying to find peace in the Middle East. That is why I must now say to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and to my noble friend Lord Cledwyn, on each Front Bench, that if they were not quite sure what my noble friend Lord Caradon said at the United Nations, I hope that they have listened to him today. If no action is taken on his suggestions, and the suggestions of some other noble Lords, by the noble Baroness and by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn, we should never have started the debate in the first place; it will have been a complete waste of time.
I am told by young Israelis coming here how appalled they are by the racialism that is occurring in Israel where Arabs are third-rate citizens, where they have no national insurance, no health insurance, nothing whatever. We also have to consider, as my noble friend Lord Kagan rightly said, the case of those who are imperilled by the activities of their extermists. It seems that the Middle East is almost a land of extremists. I should like to put to the House the most powerful argument that the Palestinians possess. It is this. If this country, this island of ours, had been successfully invaded by the Nazi forces, I know that under Winston Churchill, Ernie Bevin, Nye Bevan and a few others I would have gladly served as a terrorist. I would have been proud to do so. I am not going to say, however, that patriotism and love of one's country is to be found only in the breast of a Scotsman, a Welshman an Irishman and an Englishman but can in no way develop in the heart and bosom of a Palestinian. That is a form of intellectual treachery. We have to have the courage to acknowledge that. The Palestinians have lost 90 per cent. of their land. They are being used as cheap labour for Israeli industrialists.
It is acknowledged that the EC has tried in its Venice Declaration to find a solution to the massive paradox of the Middle East and the agonies that have occurred in Palestine and in the Lebanon. Do we not realise that our Chamber could be filled to its gorgeous roof with the corpses of men and women, Israelis and Arabs, who have been slaughtered in the appalling argument that is going on? If we were able to understand that someone dear to us, a child, a mother, a brother or a sister had been slaughtered in that chaos, we would arrive perhaps at the frontiers of understanding. We cannot wait for that. We must try to exert our great influence now. The noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, has said that we must appeal to Europe. That is a good thing. Like the Palestinians, the people of Europe know what it is to be invaded without a declaration of war. Like the Palestinians, Europeans know what it is to be hounded all over the place. It was worse if they were Jews, but even if they were not Jews, they were living under an occupying force that did not know the meaning of the word "compassion". It is right and proper, therefore, that they should do something to end this dreadful situation.
I am not at all happy that it can be done through the

347
European Economic Community. It has never done anything much of any use since it was established. I shall tell your Lordships what I believe to be a much better and more worthwhile organisation. If any noble Lord wants the absolute proof, I will provide it. A better contribution to bringing Europe together and to dealing with the realities of grim world situations has been made by the Council of Europe than in the case of anything done by the EC. I had the privilege of serving on the Council of Europe and also had the privilege of introducing, as chairman of its social services committee, the principle of reciprocity in the Health Service. It is something magnificent that this island has done. Of course, the father of it all was the great Aneurin Bevan. He was not killing anyone. He was not slaughtering anyone. He was not blowing anyone up. Yet he was daily attacked by the capitalist press of this nation, week in and week out. But he triumphed. He triumphed through his goodness. I believe that we should try to triumph with our goodness. If the EC is to make a reality of the Venice Declaration, it can be done only by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, urging this upon Sir Geoffrey Howe and the Prime Minister, and by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn saying that he will give them every support. In this way we can go to the EC and at the same time ask for the help of our colleagues serving on the Council of Europe.
It was in the Council of Europe—I beg your Lordships to listen to this—that we brought Israelis from Israel and Arabs and Palestinians from Arab countries to Europe and to the Council of Europe. For the first few days it was touch and go. I thought that we would see some of the incidents that I used to see when a couple of miners bumped into a couple of dockers at ten o'clock on a Saturday night in Swansea. There was the danger at one time of fisticuffs. In the end, however, there were talks and discussions. Those talks were held not in the EC but in the Council of Europe. There were proposals that were examined, but unfortunately a new outlook emerged and sanity was once again done away with.
I should like to mention, before sitting down, the courage, the sense, the intelligence and the bravery of Mr. Gerald Kaufman. He has examined this situation in great depth. He has reason to be concerned. He is no one's fall guy. No matter how many millions the Americans pour into Israel, he knows that this, in the long run, is not for the benefit of Israel but is to its detriment. All of us know that this American money is not poured in there to help Israel. It is because each American President is afraid that he will lose the Jewish vote. That is why it is poured in. And they do not mind how many Arabs are slaughtered and killed. This is what our Front Bench must tell the likes of President Reagan and some other senior Americans. We should set as our target, as Mr. Kaufman has urged in Europe, through the Council of Europe and the EC, to help Arab and Jew to escape from the hatred of their own creation and to realise what would be perhaps the most mighty paradox for them. It was in the Middle East that the greatest of the desiderata of mankind was enunciated in the declaration of peace on earth and goodwill towards men.
I believe that we, in Europe, have enough experience to show this and to make our voice heard, to bring
348
about peace, to stop the slaughter and not necessarily to take sides, but where one side is behaving in an appalling manner to have the guts and the courage to stand up and say "What you are doing is wrong". There have been times when the Arabs have been wrong. More often it has been the Israelis who have behaved abominably. However, on both sides there are courageous people. There are wonderful Israeli people and wonderful Arab people who know that the way in which they are behaving will not guide them down the road for peace.
Let us through our own endeavours and, as a nation, through our membership of the EEC and our membership of the Council of Europe add our voice and our pressure to bring peace to that very troubled and dreadful part of the world where, as I have said, peace on earth and goodwill to mankind was first enunciated. It would be to the honour of our nation and, indeed, to the honour of mankind if we could make a contribution to the success of that endeavour.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, has once again drawn the attention of the House to what I can only describe as a running sore in the whole of international relations; namely, the terrible situation in the Middle East. Like the noble Earl, Lord Oxford, I should like to devote just one or two minutes to making a few general remarks before coming to any proposals.
The most depressing feature of the present situation in the Middle East is that we have now reached a total impasse. The Israelis, it seems, will not take part in any negotiations over Palestine in which the PLO, however disguised or indirectly represented, will take part; and the Arabs, of whatever persuasion, will only agree to negotiations if there is at least some semblance of PLO representation. Thus no progress can for the present be expected as regards any form of Palestinian settlement; and meanwhile Israeli occupation of the West Bank—for, as the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, has said, that is what the construction of ever more Jewish settlements amounts to—proceeds apace.
For their part the Americans, even during the first part of President Reagan's second term of office, are not prepared to put any form of pressure on their friends, who remain their chief—perhaps their only—ally in the Middle East. Indeed, they are actually stepping up their aid to the Israelis, whether military or economic, and that in spite of the fact that the Israelis show no inclination whatever to pursue the policy which the United States Administration strongly supports. That is a fact. Outside the West Bank, moreover, there still remain some millions of Palestinian refugees who absolutely refuse to be incorporated in the states to which they fled after being evicted from their homeland and are, therefore, presumably biding their time in the hope—desperate though that may well be—that one day events will result in the removal from over Israel of the United States umbrella.
The end of the entirely disastrous Israeli advance to Beirut and their evacuation of most of Southern Lebanon has, unfortunately, only exacerbated an already depressing situation. The Lebanese Christians—in principle the best friends of Israel in the

349
past—have as a result of this adventure suffered appalling losses, being largely driven from their homes and made to travel northwards. The Shia proletariat—hitherto a rather dormant element in Lebanon—has suddenly sprung to life in the shape of a passionate anti-Israeli "Jehad", or Holy War, thus seeming to constitute an enemy potentially even more formidable to the Israelis than the PLO, which anyway is now apparently split into at least two warring factions, some of which are now engaged in furious Beirut battles with the Shi'ite "Amal" supported by the Syrians.
Meanwhile, the position of the Israeli-Lebanese frontier remains most disturbing. The Israelis want, it seems, to institute some kind of buffer zone under their indirect control, but it is by no means clear what, in such circumstances, will be the continuing role of the United Nations forces—UNIFIL—in that area, some members of which, I believe, have already become casualties as a result of the total confusion surrounding them, from which only the revolutionary Shi'ites can possibly benefit. And all this time the general economic situation, notably in Israel, seems to be getting worse, which can only add to the general unease in the whole area.
On the positive side—and I suppose that one must always think that there is a positive side—I imagine that one can point, as I think my noble friend Lord Kennet pointed, to the at least tolerable relations between Israel and Egypt, without whose active support no concerted Arab action against Israel could possibly succeed; and, more generally, to the apparently rather cautious attitude of the Syrian Government—presumably the chief friend of the Soviet Union in the area—who do not seem to want to profit, at the moment at any rate, from the Israeli withdrawal by occupying even the southern part of the Bekaa Valley. It looks, too, as if the Syrians were doing their best to put an end to the fratricidal strife in Beirut itself, although, as the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, said, whether the Lebanon can ever now be reconstituted as a single viable entity is open to considerable doubt.
I suppose that one might add to the positive side the fact that at least the Iranians do not seem to be winning their war with Iraq, which would clearly have been a total disaster from the point of view of any general Western interest, and that there may even now be substantial signs of reaction against the murderous and fanatical regime of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Might we not also, if we want to be optimistic, suppose that the Russians will not be inclined, given their present difficulties with the other super power, to do anything to inflame the situation in the Middle East, still less to give rise to justified suspicions that they may be trying to advance their centuries-old desire to advance their empire to the warm waters of the Persian Gulf, as indicated in the famous exchange of views in 1940 between Mr. Molotov and Herr von Ribbentrop?
What, then, in all this distressing confusion, can Her Majesty's Government—and more significantly, perhaps, the European Community—actually do? Here I am afraid that we must have some regard for certain facts. We do, indeed, have two "sovereign bases" in Cyprus, but they are really only the
350
equivalent of look-out posts; and the French have a small force in Djibouti. I believe that, in addition, a frigate or two occasionally visits the Persian Gulf. However, apart from this pretty meagre military presence, the Europeans do not have much physical means of making their influence felt. I do not suppose, in any case, that the Israelis care very much what the Europeans do or say; and although we in the Community compete with each other in selling large quantities of arms to various Arab states, I doubt whether we are thus enabled to put any particular pressure on them, either. Whether we can put any pressure, as a Community, on the United States is another matter with which I shall deal in a moment.
Are we, then, depressingly enough, reduced to giving unheeded advice? We did that some five years ago, as so many noble Lords have said, in the Venice Declaration, to which nobody, I am afraid, paid very much attention. I do not think that it was our fault that they did not do so, but that was the result. I am afraid that they may not pay much more attention to any similar initiative now, although I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, that at least we ought to try to induce the Americans to have some regard now to the Venice Declaration and, indeed, perhaps to insist on the famous Reagan plan, which is something very much on the same lines as that put forward by ourselves.
Of course, if we were really willing and able to contribute substantially more to help the United States in what they consider to be their necessary effort to defend the Gulf against possible Soviet attack, we might have more success in advancing views on how best to handle not only the Israelis but the Saudis, the Iraqis, the Iranians, or even, conceivably, the Soviet Union itself. But at the moment, I fear, we are in no such position. Nor are we likely to be. Better, no doubt, to satisfy the Americans that we are doing more to strengthen the "conventional" defences of Western Europe, thus enabling them, in theory at least, to strengthen their own forces in the Middle East.
There is, however, one direction in which we might, as a Community, make our collective influence felt—and it would naturally have to be a collective initiative if it is to do any good. That lies in getting support in the Security Council of the United Nations for a real enlargement and reinforcement of the United Nations force, UNIFIL, in southern Lebanon, which is so urgently required. With due respect to what the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, said, in order for this to be accomplished there would have to be some kind of super-power agreement in the Security Council. In other words, both the Russians and the Americans, urged on no doubt by the European Community, would both have to agree on any such proposal. My impression is that the Russians, for their part, quite possibly might agree.
What is necessary, therefore, is for us to direct all our efforts as a Community to impressing on the United States the necessity to back up some initiative at an early date, and also to face the fact that if they are going to vote for any such proposal with the Russians they will have to meet, and overcome, the objections of the Israeli Government. If they are so disposed, I believe, with the noble Lords, Lord Caradon and Lord Kennet, that at least a beginning would be made to

351
solving an international situation which is becoming increasingly desperate and on which some advance must be made to solve it at the present time. For if some kind of reinforced United Nations authority was put up in this area to the north of the Israeli frontier—between that and the Lebanon—it might lead eventually to the much-sought-for agreement with the Syrians and for general international agreement on some long-term solution of the awful problems of the Middle East.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords who have paid tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, both for his Motion and for the excellent speech with which he set the scene for our debate this evening. We are indebted to him. The continuing turmoil and conflict in the Middle East is deeply distressing and dangerous to world peace, as most speakers have pointed out. It is for that reason that we have our debates upon the situation there. Anything which poses a threat to peace is of immediate concern to us, and we have every right and, indeed, duty to debate it in this House and in the House of Commons. We also have historic links with the Middle East and, with many other countries, we are customers in the purchase of their oil.
Despite these interests, there is not a great deal that this country can do alone to resolve the almost intractable problems which bedevil the area, or to eradicate the underlying bitterness between Christian and Arab, between Arab and Israeli, and between Muslim and Muslim, to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon referred in his speech. But, as many noble Lords have said, all this should never deter us from making every effort to help and, with our friends, to seek new avenues towards a solution to one of the most difficult problems facing the world at this time.
Of course we recognise that whatever the Community proposes must be seen side by side with any initiatives taken by the United States, and I shall return to that in a moment, but certainly the Reagan initiative, to which the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, referred is important and significant in this context.
The Venice Declaration did not please everybody, but we should not forget the two principles on which it was based—namely:
"the right to existence and to security of all the states in the region [including Israel]"—
and it is important to stress "including Israel", because anyone who knows the history of the area and knows the suffering of the Jewish people must be sensitive to the feeling of the Jewish people on this matter. Secondly,
"justice for all people, which implies the recognition of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people".
The second part of the declaration caused some apprehension at the time, as noble Lords will recall. There was in fact another significant sentence in the declaration which read as follows,
"The Nine"—
as they were at that time—
"noted the importance which they attach to the Euro-Arab dialogue at all levels and the need to develop the advisability of holding a meeting of the two sides at political level",
352
as a contribution to,
"the development of co-operation and mutual understanding between Europe and the Arab world".
I do not think that that has been followed up during the last five years as was intended. Perhaps the noble Baroness will comment on it. This is a point on which the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, had some doubts, but I recognise that the Community has in fact discussed the Middle East fairly regularly since the Venice meetings, and in the context of the noble Lord's Motion I think we should bear in mind what in fact the Community has been doing, or at least been saying. There were two statements in 1981; a further two in 1982. The one in June 1982 referred to,
"the practical possibilities available to Europe to make an effective contribution towards a comprehensive peace settlement in the Middle East".
Again, in June 1983 they said:
"They remain convinced that a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the Middle East can only be secured on the basis of the principles which they have stated many times in the past"—
that is, the principles of the Venice Declaration. The Community continued to express similar views in later meetings. These views are unexceptionable, there is nothing wrong with them, but unhappily they have not led to anywhere near a concrete solution to the problem thus far. This was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, and even more strongly by my noble friend Lord Caradon.
During this period there have of course been other initiatives, to which noble Lords have referred. The most serious in its consequences has been the phased withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon, which has triggered off the most appalling violence in the southern part of the country. I agree with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Caradon about the importance of the Security Council in all this, and of the United Nations generally. I believe that the Security Council debate at the end of February up to the beginning of March was of considerable importance.
What is interesting is that the United Kingdom abstained in the vote on the resolution sponsored by Lebanon. I have read the speech made by Mr. Maxey, Britain's deputy representative at the United Nations, and also a speech made by Mr. Richard Luce in the House of Commons on 14th March, but it might be helpful if the noble Baroness, when she winds up the debate, summarises the reasons for Britain's abstention on that crucial vote, as it has been suggested that we should have been more sympathetic, especially to the principles of the Motion moved by the Lebanese representative.
There are two other points on which the Minister may like to comment. The noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, spoke about the future of UNIFIL, whose mandate was extended by the Security Council for a further six months from April onwards. As time will pass quickly, do the Government see the possibility of a further extension and of participation by British forces in UNIFIL? Can we be told the Government's view on the talks between Israel and Lebanon on the withdrawal of Israeli forces? Is it not here on this very question of withdrawal and the vacuum—the most dangerous vacuum—which obviously has been left behind that the presence of UNIFIL becomes of great

353
significance in any resolution of the problem and in the search for stability in the area?
Other important developments include the alliance between the PLO and Jordan, the visits of Mr. Charles Murphy, the United States Under-Secretary, and especially the visit by Mr. Shultz, the Secretary of State, to the Middle East—the first visit he has made for a period of two years. And, of course, most important of all—a subject which has not been referred to a great deal in the debate—there are the projected United States-Soviet talks on the Middle East. These are not to be dismissed out of hand. The talks are of basic importance because we know that, if confidence and goodwill between the super-powers could be achieved, the conflicts in the region could be brought under control. But without their co-operation, without some understanding between the Soviet Union and the United States, the prospects become very bleak indeed.
The talks will give the first practical experience of Mr. Gorbachev's willingness and desire to achieve progress in dealing with the United States and with the West generally. Thus they are of the first importance. The Soviet influence in Syria, to which noble Lords have referred, and the United States influence in Israel are crucial in reaching a settlement. If the Soviet Union and the United States wanted to, they are capable of working for a solution to the Lebanese crisis and of bringing the Iran-Iraq war to an end. If they did, it would greatly increase their reputation with the rest of the world. The importance of this meeting between President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev, if it is properly prepared and accompanied by goodwill and an intention to succeed, cannot be overestimated. The immediate and urgent objective must be to help in making these talks a success.
To return to the noble Lord's Motion, this is probably where the Community has a rôle to play. We must not underestimate Europe's rôle. I think the United States now believes that a more active European Community rôle in the Middle East peace process could be valuable. We recall that the United States did not care very much for the second part of the Venice Declaration. But all that is now in the past and we must hope that the United States and the Community can work with a common purpose. Perhaps the noble Baroness can confirm that that is the position today.
The last meeting of Heads of Government in Brussels did not in fact give a particularly strong lead. It may be that the Heads of Government at that time were preoccupied with other important matters such as the accession of Spain and Portugal, but it was slightly disappointing that the Middle East was not given more serious attention.
The question is asked in these debates, and very properly asked: what can be done? What can we do? But, having started on this road in 1980, I believe that the Community has a duty to pursue its initiative as hard and as effectively as possible. There are great diplomatic skills in Europe. We frequently forget that. There is great political experience and great experience of the area in question in Europe. The countries of the Community should bring all these diplomatic skills to bear upon the United States, upon the Soviet Union
354
and in the Security Council as well to seek a solution to the problem. There is no gain, no advantage, either to the Soviet Union or to the United States in the continuation of war, suffering and destruction in the Middle East. The creation of stability there would be a boon to the Soviet Union, a boon to the United States and a boon to the rest of the world. I support the noble Lord's Motion and I hope that the noble Baroness can tell us that the Government are working hard with our Community partners to bring this about.
7.14 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is grateful to my noble friend Lord Chelwood for introducing this debate this afternoon. The need for a solution to the Arab-Israel dispute is in our view increasingly urgent. We share with our European partners a firm belief in the importance of encouraging early practical steps towards a settlement. The conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbours has become one of the most lengthy and intractable disputes in the world today. I am sure that we all listened with great interest to what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon said on this matter and the observations that he made in this dispute. We also noted with interest the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kagan.
The conflict has become one of the standard focuses of international diplomatic activity. It is a daily personal tragedy for the many thousands of people directly involved in its consequences: military occupation, rootless exile, deprivation of rights, physical conflict. It has repeatedly threatened, and continues to threaten, the right of all people in the region, Jews and Arabs, to the normal certainties of civilised existence, to live their lives in peace. For them it is no esoteric matter of the minutiae of peace plans but a question of their unsatisfied right to safety and security such as is enjoyed by every citizen in the United Kingdom. For our part, we must not allow familiarity to breed inertia.
The human suffering which this dispute has caused requires an urgent solution. There have been five wars between Israel and its neighbours in less than 40 years, each made more devasting than the last by the advances in the sophisticated technology of destruction. The dispute has had other equally serious consequences for the world at large. It has made the Middle East dangerously susceptible to tension and insecurity. Its poison has spread far beyond the few countries directly involved in the territorial dispute. It is a major threat to the stability of the whole region, a region with which we maintain close, traditional links of friendship and which is of vital economic and political importance for all Western countries. It has had important and well-known consequences for international economic stability but even more seriously it retains the potential to explode without warning into wider conflicts on a global scale. It is not a problem which we can responsibly regard as remote or inessential to our own national interests.
It is for this reason that the Government are fully committed to the continuing search for a just, peaceful, negotiated settlement; something to which I think every noble Lord who has taken part in this debate has referred to. I should like to make that statement very firmly.

355
It is our belief that only through a process of negotiation can a lasting peace be achieved and the rights of all the parties be safeguarded. We and our partners in the Ten believe that a settlement must tackle the fundamental questions at issue in the dispute. For this reason we are convinced that it must be based on two central principles, as we and our partners have repeatedly stated in the Venice Declaration, and in later statements of our position.
The noble Earl, Lord Oxford and Asquith, asked a question on the Government's view on the Venice Declaration. I hope that I make the Government's position absolutely plain. The declaration says that the first is Israel's right to exist behind internationally recognised and secure borders. There is no doubt of our commitment to Israel's security which is unwavering. The second, and no less imperative, principle is the satisfaction of Palestinian aspirations to self-determination. In our view this means that the Palestinians should be able to choose what attainable constitutional arrangements they can willingly accept. How the Palestinians should achieve their aims is a matter for them to settle through negotiation; but if the eventual settlement is to be just and effective, their rights must in one way or another be achieved. It is not for outsiders to decide who should represent the Palestinians in the negotiating process. But whoever these representatives are, they must accept the need to achieve a peaceful settlement which safeguards the two basic principles that I have mentioned and must renounce unequivocally the use of violence. I hope that that reassures those noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Chelwood, on our view on this Venice Declaration.
However, many noble Lords have asked what more we can do. There are many ways in which progress towards peace might be achieved. I would not wish to lay down hard and fast rules. The history of the dispute urges a healthy mistrust of blue-prints of solutions to be imposed by outsiders. But that said, we should not seek to opt out; the role which the United Kingdom can play in co-operation with our Community partners is an important one. We wish to help, not interfere; support, not cut across. We have a responsibility and an interest to be active as a force for moderation, assisting the various parties and encouraging flexibility and practical moves. We can assist at a later stage in providing guarantees as we already do in Sinai. But we must also be realistic and recognise the very real limitations of our own ability to determine the course of events. It is for this reason that I would emphasise that the prime need is for action by parties directly involved in the dispute. Nothing can substitute satisfactorily for this. We therefore attach particular significance to recent signs from within the region of growing realism and moderation, of a readiness for peace and a corresponding commitment to work towards an overall solution by negotiation. These are welcome developments.
I think in particular of the agreement on joint action concluded between the King of Jordan and the Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organisation on 11th February, which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Chelwood. This is a highly significant step, which contains important and constructive new elements. It deserves the full support of the
356
international community. Essentially, it represents a commitment by the Palestinians to go forward in collaboration with the Jordanians towards a process of peaceful negotiation. It envisages ultimately the exchange of territory for peace, with Palestinians and Jordanians living in a confederate state which would include territory at present under Israeli occupation. Much has been said in the Arab world about this agreement: it has not received as much explicit endorsement as King Hussein would like. But it has been welcomed by a wide cross-section of Palestinians both within the Occupied Territories and outside. Their opinion should be given particular importance. In our view the agreement is a basis for the start of a substantive dialogue. This requires the active support of all the parties. It is all too easy for outsiders to criticise, when what is needed is encouragement and backing for those willing to make a bold move.
We have welcomed the practical and procedural suggestions put forward by President Mubarak of Egypt as to how negotiations might be set in train. We have also noted the positive Israeli response to some of his ideas. We regard it as particularly encouraging and important that there should be this continuing discussion. Unless the search for peace is regarded as a dynamic process, there is a danger that the positions of the various parties become rigid and inflexible. This in turn induces despair which provides a fertile breeding ground for extremism and violence. A cycle of violence and retaliation is easily started, but difficult to break. Let us be in no doubt that unless the international community makes the most of the new opportunity presented by King Hussein's courageous move the consequences of failure will be prolonged suffering for those most directly affected, continuing instability and damage to our interests and those of our friends and allies.
In our own diplomatic activity we must take account of the key role which the United States has to play in assisting the parties. This, I think, was a point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, and the noble Lords, Lord Mayhew and Lord Kennet. The uniquely close contacts which the Americans have with the main parties to the dispute give them a particular responsibility. We maintain a close and high level dialogue with the United States Administration about these matters. President Reagan has made clear that he accepts the special nature of United States responsibilities. He has acknowledged that the time is ripe for fresh efforts and the Americans have been active in recent weeks. The United States Assistant Secretary of State, Richard Murphy, made in April a two-week tour of the countries most involved. This was an effort to explore various possibilities for progress arising from recent Arab initiatives. Mr. Shultz has taken this a stage further during his own visits to Israel, Jordan and Egypt. King Hussein is due in the United States later this week. We and our European partners continue to attach great importance to our contacts with our American friends. They are fully aware of our views on the need for United States participation to further favourable developments, and share our objective.
We maintain a constructive dialogue with the principal parties to the dispute. We have regular talks with King Hussein, a frequent visitor to London, who

357
is here this week, and my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will be seeing him tomorrow. President Mubarak paid a successful visit here in February. My right honourable and learned friend visited Israel in October. We look forward to welcoming the Israeli Deputy Premier and Foreign Minister, Mr. Shamir, to London on an official visit on 3rd and 4th June. We value highly these full and friendly exchanges.
We also maintain close contacts in the Occupied Territories and are fully aware of the problems of those whose lives are directly affected by Israeli occupation. We value the links which we maintain with leading Palestinian representatives from the West Bank and Gaza. The Israelis are well aware of our profound concern at the difficulties under which they live. We have welcomed the commitment of Prime Minister Peres to improve conditions in the Occupied Territories. We look to the Israelis to translate this urgently into substantive changes which would create confidence among the Arab neighbours of Israel's intentions. Nothing would do so more effectively than a decision by Israel to freeze her policy of establishing settlements in the territories, which we regard as illegal. That would demonstrate that Israel does not intend to prejudge the outcome of negotiations.
On a practical level, we have substantially increased our own modest aid programme. This concentrates on improving the medical and educational facilities available to ordinary Palestinians. We make a major contribution to the work of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees, both nationally and as part of a contribution by the European Community.
Time presses very hard. May I say one word on Lebanon because several noble Lords have referred to the continuation of the appalling violence there. We have every sympathy with the long-suffering population and are pleased that the Israeli Government have announced the imminent completion of the withdrawal of their forces from Lebanese territory. We hope that this will make a major contribution to the cycle of violence and retaliation that we have witnessed. We continue to believe that UNIFIL still has a role to play in the restoration of stability in Southern Lebanon and therefore regret that Israel and Lebanon were unable to agree on the co-ordination of security arrangements for the border area which could have given UNIFIL a wider mandate. It is all the more important for stability that Israel should not maintain any residual presence on the Lebanese side of the frontier. That would be inconsistent with United Nations resolutions and an unacceptable infringement of Lebanese sovereignty and, by provoking retaliation, increase regional tension. What is needed is a period of calm in which all the Lebanese communities can concentrate their energies with renewed vigour on the vital task of learning to live and work together in peace to restore the shattered unity of their country.
I have been asked many questions. May I respond first to my noble friend Lord Chelwood who asked why Israel is given favours by the Community when still occupying Arab territory. I should say that the Community maintains with Israel, as with all
358
Mediterranean states except Albania and Libya, agreements allowing for mutually beneficial exchanges of trade. The prime requirement for a solution to the Arab-Israel dispute is the political will to move towards a settlement. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, that the right time for an international conference could make a major contribution to a negotiated solution to the Arab-Israel problem and the Security Council might also need to be involved as, for example, in the provision of guarantees for a settlement. The United Nations has a vital role in the provision of peace-keeping forces but at present the two sides remain deeply divided on fundamental points and it is difficult to see an international conference leading to a constructive negotiation.
May I conclude by saying that we and our Community partners are actively engaged in the search for ways forward. We maintain close contact with the leaders of the parties to the dispute, and in doing so we seek to support the favourable developments which have recently occurred in the region. We would not give the impression that action by outsiders can substitute for moves by the parties directly involved. There is an urgent need for the parties to engage fully in a process leading to direct negotiations.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, can she explain the qualification she attached when giving the assurance that the Government still support self-determination for the Palestinians? I believe she said that that meant the Palestinians had the right to choose whatever constitutional arrangements were available, whereas I would have expected her to say that they could choose whatever constitutional arrangements they wished.
Baroness Young: My Lords, that is indeed what I said. I said they should be able to choose what attainable constitutional arrangements they could willingly accept.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, we have had a good debate. It has certainly been a very well-informed one, and naturally I wish to thank all noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate for being good enough to take part in it. I do not think it is very often that in a short debate noble Lords from the Conservative, Labour, Social Democrat and Liberal Benches, the Cross-Benches and the Bishops' Benches all take part; but that is what has happened today and there has on the whole been a remarkable consensus of view which I have found very encouraging.
I am also very encouraged to have had it confirmed that Mr. Shultz has just completed, as we have read in the newspapers, his Middle East tour, his first tour of the Middle East for a couple of years. I hark back to the evidence of Mr. Shultz given under cross-examination in front of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate when he made it absolutely clear that he strongly favoured an initiative in the Middle East and that—here I use my own words—he wanted to get off the Kissinger hook. Noble Lords, I am sure, will know what I am talking about; in other words, talking to the Palestinians is an absolutely essential feature of finding a satisfactory answer.

359
I also find it very encouraging, as I am sure we all do, that King Hussein is meeting the Foreign Secretary tomorrow and will be meeting President Reagan next week. So perhaps the timing of this debate, through a little bit of good luck, was just about right and we have quite good reasons for being fairly optimistic.
I should also like particularly to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for her very encouraging speech. She did not in fact have time to answer two or three questions which I put to her. They were not very easy ones and of course I would not expect her to give answers to them off the cuff, but if she will be good enough to write to me about them, I shall very much appreciate it. I said just now—and I repeat it—that it is hard to be optimistic, but I think we must be. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Tobacco Products (Advertising) Bill [H.L.]
7.33 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
It is accepted knowledge that there is a causal relationship between lung cancer and cigarette smoking and that that causal relationship extends also to bronchitis and emphysema, coronary heart disease and the narrowing of the blood vessels in the limbs. Mothers who smoke during pregnancy give birth to smaller babies than do mothers who do not smoke; they also have a greater chance of losing their children in the period around birth and of producing handicapped babies. Moreover, recent education has been focused on the possible hazards of passive smoking; that is, breathing in other people's tobacco smoke. Recent research has suggested that the non-smoker inhaling other people's smoke may be at some small risk from health hazards similar to those which affect smokers and that passive smoking can be harmful to those with heart and lung disease, in addition to those who are allergic to cigarette smoke and who get asthmatic attacks if they find themselves in smoke-filled rooms.
Therefore, we are dealing with a very serious health problem. It is estimated that tobacco accounts for 15 to 20 per cent. of all British deaths. In addition, there is the misery to the cigarette smokers who suffer prolonged ill health and to their families. There is the loss of working time and the cost to the nation, and there is also the direct cost to the National Health Service.
Since this mortality and morbidity is related to cigarette smoking it is preventable, and it is our duty to do everything possible to prevent it. The independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health, which was chaired for 10 years by our distinguished colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, advised the Government that the important step was to get a reduction of tar levels across the board. That has been successful in reducing the levels of tar, and since there is evidence that lower tar levels can help in reducing the incidence of cancer of the lung, this is a step in the right direction. But there is no evidence that low tar levels reduce the incidence of coronary heart disease, or any of the other cardio-vascular catastrophes.
360
I was therefore appalled, when reading Hansard of the 7th May, to discover the complacency of the Government in this matter, as revealed by the Answer to the Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. Nowhere in that Answer would one have got the impression that the Government realised that they were dealing with a very serious matter. Apart from the legislation to ban the sale of tobacco goods to children under 16 and the ban on cigarette advertising on television, the Government have so far refused to legislate on this matter and have relied on the voluntary agreements made with the tobacco companies.
The voluntary agreements were probably a useful first step in dealing with the question of tobacco promotion, and they have certainly helped in reducing the tar levels of cigarettes which are sold in this country, but they have disadvantages. For example, they have converted the DHSS from a health executive agency to little more than an arbiter between the conflicting interests of health and the sales of tobacco. That is not the proper role of the DHSS. Also, by offsetting the threat of legislative controls, they help to maintain an environment which supports smoking as a socially acceptable activity, whereas the opposite is what is required.
Today many adults are, with difficulty, giving up smoking. Unfortunately, their places are being taken by their children. A great deal of valuable work is being done by the Health Education Council in combating the habit and in trying to prevent children from starting to smoke. But, my Lords, it is the status of smoking rather than its dangers that decides whether or not a youngster begins to smoke. Therefore, what is required is a social atmosphere in which being a non-smoker is more respectable and worthy of emulation than is being a smoker.
Creating that atmosphere is difficult. It requires several things, but one of the most important, to my mind, is the non-advertising of tobacco products. To understand this it is necessary to study the present advertisements. Although they carry the health warning, the form of presentation in fact belittles the health warning while glamourising the cigarette. If the cameras were not here I would have brought some to show your Lordships but I did not want to give them the added publicity of television. That is a fact. All your Lordships have to do is to go and study them and you will see that that is so.
The truth is that there is no room for compromise between the health risk and the enticement to smoke risk. Of course, Government could insist on the health warning being given more prominence than the product. I am pretty sure that they will not get the tobacco companies to accept that, but the only sort of tobacco advertising that makes sense is an advertisement which says, "This product is dangeous to your health, but"—at a lower level—"if you must smoke you can smoke X, Y or Z". But I am sure that that would not be acceptable to the tobacco companies.
Tobacco advertising continually tells people that smoking is desirable. It undermines the credibility of Government statements which say that smoking is bad for health. It is therefore incompatible with the

361
Government's wider smoking control policy, and it leads to widespread cynicism about health education messages.
In 1983, 44 per cent. of smokers questioned in a Government national survey agreed that smoking cannot be really dangerous or the Government would ban cigarette advertising. Tobacco advertising is not the only factor which promotes smoking but it is of special concern because it affects other influences to smoke such as peer groups and social pressures. It does that by suggesting that this dangerous, costly and addictive behaviour is widely held to be grown-up, relaxing, sociable or attractive. Tobacco advertising perpetuates such ideas and should be banned.
We must grasp this nettle, and I am inviting your Lordships to do so tonight. The Bill itself is very modest. In fact one of my friends asked me, "What is this puny Bill all about?" This Bill only requires the Secretary of State to make provision for the banning of all forms of advertisement for tobacco products by a date to be specified, not later then three years from the passing of the Act. First, the actual banning will be done by statutory instrument subject to the negative procedure. The three-year period will give the Secretary of State time to consult widely before making the order; and it will also give the tobacco industry time to adjust to the new situation. There are penalties for failure to comply; and a definition of "advertisement". I hope your Lordships will feel able to support it.
I first spoke about the subject of smoking and health when I made my maiden speech in your Lordships' House in 1975. In the 10 years that have elapsed, approximately 1 million people have died prematurely in the United Kingdom from the effects of smoking. There have been two reports from the Royal College of Physicians, and the tobacco companies, in collusion with Government departments, have developed new ways of promoting their products which evade successive voluntary agreements. At about the same time as I first spoke in this House, a Tobacco Act came into force. That Act followed a decision by the Norwegian Parliament to introduce a smoking control programme that included health education in schools, warnings on cigarette packets, and a ban on all tobacco advertising and promotion. Figures from the Norwegian Customs and Excise Department show that cigarette sales declined markedly at the time of the 1970 announcement, and also after the Norwegian Tobacco Act came into force in 1975.
The Norwegian programme and legislation is considered the outstanding model by international smoking control agencies and its correspondence with the decline in smoking in Norway has been cited often as evidence that advertising bans affect tobacco consumption. I am sure that we can do as well as Norway. Let us try to do so. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Pitt of Hampstead.)
7.48 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am sure we must be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, for introducing this debate. My own misgiving is that he has introduced it in the form of the Second Reading of a
362
Bill. This subject certainly needs discussing, but I do not think there needs to be legislation.
Perhaps I should begin by telling your Lordships what I do about smoking, so that it will be seen where my position lies. I endeavour to stop every winter; and I smoke in the summer because I like it. On the whole, in the last ten years I have been successful for about six winters out of ten. The reason why I adopt this practice is because I do not want to be a slave to tobacco, but neither do I want to bow to those who tell me not to indulge in this habit, which in health terms (although the noble Lord said that it was not until recently it was certainly thought to be) is of no harm to any others, and the difficulties of which, if they arose, would apply to myself. But I shall come back to that.
On that point I would add that at no time has advertising had any effect whatsoever on this plan. Indeed, advertising has never had any effect on my smoking. It is not a factor. I have to admit to your Lordships that last winter, when I should have given up, was not a good one because of pressure of work in your Lordships' House. I am now planning to switch to a new time of stopping, during recesses. I stopped during the Easter Recess. I shall certainly stop in the Summer Recess and, maybe, continue until Christmas. But what this shows is that I smoke because I like it, and I do not see why a lot of do-gooders should tell me to do otherwise.
Why should the anti-smoking lobby move on to banning advertisements? That is rather strange. The anti-smoking lobby's campaign over the last 20 years has been markedly effective—and, from their point of view, more power to their elbow, and well done! As an example, smoking declined by 28 per cent. between 1974 and 1984, and it is still going down.
One of the results of this campaign has been a series of voluntary agreements between the advertising association and the Government, which is reducing, step by step, the average tar yield of cigarettes offered to the public. I know that the noble Lord sought to decry the difference in tar values, but over the last 20 years it was thought to be an important factor and, by agreement with the advertising association, this change has come about. If this is shown not to be an important factor, and if there are other factors which are more important, it is surely quite possible that the (again voluntary) agreement with the advertising association will enable the Government to get the new factors presented to the public and the smoking habit will change in a different way—
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, the noble Lord will be winding up, and he can answer this point then. Otherwise, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, he will be intervening in every speech which objects to what he is trying to say. The noble Lord can tell me at the end, because he has the last word.
The evidence that smoking is not so much of a habit now is all around us. When I first entered your Lordships' House some 18 years ago, I think it is fair to say that, in the Peers' Guest Room, about 75 per cent. of the Peers there were smoking. Now I should be surprised to find more than 25 per cent. Smoking, and

363
that has all come about during the time that I have been in your Lordships' House. Cigarettes are banned at lunchtime in the Dining Room. There are no smoking compartments on the Tubes.
The campaign that is being operated is a very successful one, and if that is what the campaigners want to achieve, well and good. Let them go on campaigning and, if people care to listen, let them listen. I suggest that the trend will continue and that it does not require the added impetus of banning advertising—the effects of which are highly doubtful, as I shall try to explain later—to continue the great bandwagon of reducing smoking, which is already under way.
Not having smoking compartments on the underground railways has come about only during the past year, and smoking on the ordinary railways has reduced steadily. I shall not be surprised if we find all sorts of other examples. It is inconvenient to the smoker, but tolerable, and that is something which needs to be watched. But this total pattern of success by the anti-smokers does not need to have an Act of Parliament of the nature that is put before your Lordships tonight.
Until very recently, when the anti-smokers picked this new scientific fact out of a hat, we were told that smoking was potentially harmful only to the smoker. It may be unpleasant to others, but people need only to be reasonably polite. When I was a teenager before the war—and everybody smoked a great deal more during the war—one always used to ask whether one could smoke in the presence of ladies. Now, because of the Equal Opportunities Act, one cannot say that any more—but let that pass. One now finds oneself asking ladies, and possibly even gentlemen, "Do you mind if I smoke?" in certain circumstances. That is a very good thing, because it is all very polite. It is bringing back a courtesy which we had perhaps allowed to drop.
But that is in a different category from this Bill. Even if it is true that smoking is harmful to people who are breathing in your smoke, you would have to puff at them very heavily to make a difference because the air diffuses very quickly. If you sit in a pub for the whole of its opening time, that is something special, but in an ordinary place it is not an important point.
I suggest (though not for another purpose that I need to achieve) that, for example, drink can lead to harm for others through child-battering and road accidents. While not suggesting for one moment that we should do so (because I do not think it is right to ban advertising on specific objects, anyhow) banning the advertising of drink, of motor cars or of adventure training, which can all damage other people, would surely be more logical because others can be harmed. Whether you harm yourself is your own business.
To turn to the advertising aspect, there is no proof that banning advertising would achieve the aims of its protagonists. There is no evidence that advertising causes anyone, including children, to start smoking. I did not smoke until I was 21, and I started because my wife did. That has nothing to do with advertising, unless you say that she is an advertising person, which she is not. So there is no proof of that and there is no proof that advertising increases smoking. People who
364
smoke, smoke; people who do not smoke, do not smoke; and people who want to try to stop, which lots of people do, try to stop, and advertising is just on the edge of this.
In fact, voluntarily controlled advertising helps to reduce smoking, as I said earlier, and the banning of it would deny free choice. Voluntarily controlled advertising has helped the Government to create a change in smoking habits. For example, countries with advertising have switched more quickly to filter cigarettes and low tar cigarettes than those without, and this in a period when low tar was thought to be a good thing. Whether or not it is now is quite irrelevant, because I am talking about figures in 1982, when that was the great cry.
Averaging it out among nine nations, 72 per cent. of those without advertising were smoking filter cigarettes, whereas 94 per cent. with advertising were smoking filter cigarettes. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, made a great point about Norway. Norway, without advertising, has a figure of 85 per cent., which is much less than the average for those with advertising. So I do not think that there is enough of a case. It may be a very good thing to encourage people not to smoke and to have debates such as this; maybe there is some kind of spin-off. But I do not think there is a case for a Bill of this nature, which is very abrupt, whatever the noble Lord may say.
The noble Lord says that this is a mini-Bill with only one effective clause, and that there will be three years before it can be put into effect. If by some ghastly mistake the Bill was enacted, the Government of the day in three years' time would have to produce the order which would ban such advertising. So it really does not make much difference that it specifies three years. What would happen, for example, if during those three years the Government of the day found that there was not a case? They would have to repeal the Act because otherwise the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, would have told them that they had to have an order.
I have covered most of the ground. I think it is very important that people should take into account that as a result of this campaign—this, I think, is wholly right, and I have no objection to it—smokers have become much better behaved and do ask whether people mind if they smoke and do restrict their smoking under certain circumstances. I think that that is all to the good. The noble Lord said that 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. of deaths were due to tobacco, and he also mentioned that there was a great loss of working time and a heavy direct loss to the National Health Service. Those factors may be right; but, on the other hand, I suppose that if the deaths did not happen the National Health Service would have to pay more to keep those people alive in other ways. If one starts to bring in this sort of argument about whether an individual who is responsible for his own life should be ordered not to die, one is really on a very slippery slope of masterly control from the centre; and one does not necessarily achieve the saving, if that is what it is, to the National Health Service, which is there to deal with whatever ailments we have. One might just as well say that it is a bad thing when people break their legs, because that is a loss to the National Health Service, but they do that anyhow.
The noble Lord said that we have a duty to prevent smoking. I wonder whether we do. Certainly I should

365
not have thought that Parliament does. I think that we have a duty possibly to discourage people from smoking and to present them with all the arguments as to why it is wrong, which is what the great campaign has been doing. I am all for that: but the duty to prevent people from doing something which is wholly personal, or very nearly wholly personal, seems to me to be going a little too far.
In conclusion, I would suggest that there is no proof that banning advertising will accelerate the reduction in smoking. There is proof that voluntarily controlled advertising will change people's habits and lead them to adopt less harmful cigarettes. There is proof that the main campaign by doctors and others substantially reduces overall consumption, with voluntarily controlled advertising to help them in achieving this. Hence, my Lords, the Bill would not achieve what it intends. It would be in the nature of a "Big Brother knows best" piece of legislation, and would do harm in depriving the Government of a means of persuading an alteration in the smoking habits of those who will smoke anyhow. I trust that if we are asked to vote on this Bill we will reject it from the bottom.
8.4 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, may I say first of all that I think the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, has introduced his Bill in a very moderate way, although I disagree with it root and branch.
I of course accept that cigarettes, and to a lesser extent pipe-smoking, can be damaging to the health of many people but it clearly is not always so, to judge from the example of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. I do however think that there is a tendency for some people to espouse a cause and run it too far when emotion rather than common sense prevails.
Having said that, I nevertheless believe that young people should not start smoking if they can avoid it. Inevitably, in all societies, some people for one reason or another will use some drug or other; and smoking in moderation may be less harmful than other alternatives. We can now see what alcohol can do to affect those at football grounds. There is glue sniffing and of course there are harder drugs.
This debate, however, is not about banning smoking but about banning advertising. If we were to do so we should first convince ourselves that it would achieve worthwhile results and should take into account the inevitable undesirable side-effects of such a measure. I believe that advertising with the voluntary controls, which have been very well observed, has no noticeable effect on smoking. In fact I would go further and say that advertisements with a fairly prominent health warning may be a positive disincentive.
Not all young people realise that smoking can be harmful: or if they ever did they have forgotten about it. The advertisement is therefore a timely warning and an incentive to consider the matter seriously. In the few countries which have banned advertising, with the possible exception of Norway, there has been no reduction in smoking, and in certain cases there has been an increase. This compares with what has happened in Britain, where there has been a reduction in the past decade of something like 28 to 30 per cent.
366
But advertising has promoted low-tar cigarettes and filter tips, both of which are generally considered to lessen the undesirable effects of smoking. Furthermore, brand promotion has effectively prevented the import of cheaper and stronger cigarettes; and we cannot legally impose an import tax. The sponsorship by the tobacco companies of games and sports such as snooker and motor racing has been beneficial. I simply refuse to believe that seeing a tobacco logo on a racing car has any effect in encouraging people to start smoking. Its sole effect is on the brand image.
To summarise, I am making one point only, which is that an advertising ban is not the way forward for people who would like to see smoking reduced or even brought down to zero. I am afraid that some of the arguments that are put forward are extremely spurious. One which I think is particularly so and which was mentioned this evening is the cost to the National Health Service. We all have to die from some cause, and doing so or becoming old cabbages because our life is prolonged will always involve some medical and nursing expenditure. I doubt whether the cigarette-induced cancer makes any difference. And, very cynically, I might remark that it may save some old age social benefits if lives are somewhat shortened.
In any case one has to offset against that what is obtained by the Treasury from the tax on cigarettes. That does not mean that I think that this is any justification whatsoever for encouraging smoking; and I personally should like to see it continue to be reduced in England, but I do not believe that the banning of advertising is the way to do it. I deeply resent it if people worry me needlessly about my habit of smoking. I shall continue to smoke until I die.
8.10 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I would ask those noble Lords who know me well not to fall about laughing when I say that I rise to my feet to support the noble Lord, Lord Pitt. To those noble Lords who do not know me—unlike the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth—I must say that I am a nicotine addict. I am totally ashamed of the fact that I smoke 20 to 30 cigarettes a day. I am even more ashamed of the fact that I lack the will-power to overcome the powerful withdrawal symptoms of trying to give them up.
I had not intended to speak in this debate, but when talking to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, yesterday afternoon about his Bill I mentioned that I had spent the morning in situations where it would have been unwise for me to smoke. That did not worry me too much. But while I was being driven from one place to another I passed by a row of shops which were plastered with advertisements for cigarettes. Normally, the effect of such advertisements would not have penetrated my conscious state, but for some reason—perhaps because I was aware of the imminence of this Bill—I became acutely aware of the correlation between my seeing those advertisements and the sudden craving I felt to smoke a cigarette.
Advertising is not the only factor which affects my addiction, but it is certainly a strong one. It had been my intention to make just this point and then sit down. If the noble Lord, Lord Somers, were here, perhaps he would command me to sit—as he did another noble

367
Lord last week—but I hope your Lordships will hear me out.
Last night I was thinking about what I would say in my speech. It is easy to be flippant and amusing, especially when one knows others will make serious speeches for and against the Bill. The more I thought about this subject, the more I realised that if what I said today will deter just one person from smoking, I shall have achieved something.
Allow me to tell your Lordships what smoking has done to me. Apart from taking the odd cigarette as a teenager, I did not start to smoke until I was 30. I was just getting over a heavy cold and was miserable with nasal congestion. A colleague of mine offered me a mentholated cigarette—one of those advertised being smoked by people in a sylvan glen through which runs a cool mountain stream. When my symptoms returned I smoked another, and another. Before I knew it, I was hooked.
That was in 1970. In 1976 I was going through a period of severe stress and I developed a peptic ulcer. Those noble Lords who have suffered from one of these beasts will know that one has to lie low for long periods and that peptic ulcers have a nasty habit of raising their ugly heads at the most inappropriate moments. Just when one needs all one's reserves to overcome tiredness or anxiety, one is struck with acute pain. It was not until fairly recently that I was told of the relationship between smoking and ulcers, although I should have worked that out for myself. Smoking may not be the direct cause, but it certainly retards healing.
The trouble is that I use cigarettes to reduce stress. Without them I am impossible to live with and I feel physically ill. I have tried frequently to give up cigarettes. The last time was about two years ago, but after a fortnight of nicotine deprivation I was in such a state of physical and emotional tension that life itself became pointless. I had reached "the pits", as McEnroe might say.
I have never advocated the use of medicinal products as emotional props and I do not believe in substituting one addiction for another. Rather than do that, I returned to cigarettes. I am now smoking again and have, if I am honest with myself, given up giving up. I am well aware of all the hazards associated with cigarette smoking. I hate the taste of the weed, and an ashtray full of butts or the smell of a smoky room disgusts me; but the addiction is stronger than the aversion.
The realisation that my husband's and my own expenditure on cigarettes in a week combined is more than the unemployed benefit paid to a young person for a week horrifies me. It may be too late for me, but if we can stop others from taking their first cigarette—particularly children, and here again I have failed—I know that we will have done them a tremendous service. How can we morally justify the continuing promotion of a product which we know causes so much physical and emotional damage? I ask the House to support the noble Lord, Lord Pitt.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Kaberry of Adel: My Lords, confession seems
368
to be the order of the evening. I propose to make a very brief and, I am sure, extraordinarily dull speech. I have never smoked cigarettes, I have never smoked pipe tobacco, I have never chewed tobacco, and I have never taken snuff. It has been a very dull life.
I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, about the illnesses and ensuing death from respiratory diseases, from lung cancer and other lung diseases, and from heart diseases. For many years I was chairman of the board of governors of a large teaching hospital in Yorkshire. I was left in no doubt about the problems associated with all those diseases. What I do know is that not all those who suffered in that bad way were users of tobacco substances in any form. It does not necessarily follow that all deaths from those diseases are attributable in any measure to the use of tobacco.
I accept the necessity to wage a campaign constantly against those diseases. To that end certainly I will do all that I can. But this Bill—as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, reminded us quite rightly—is not to ban tobacco products and the use and smoking of those products, but is to ban the advertising of them. The Department of Health published a White Paper in December 1977, I believe it was; the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will put me right if I am wrong about the year. That White Paper dealt with the question of preventive health care and it stated, in relation to cigarette advertising and smoking:
"There is little direct evidence about the effects of cigarette advertising on total consumption. A ban would detract from Government strategy, which encourages smokers to smoke cigarettes in the relatively less harmful lower tar groups and would remove an important vehicle for the health warning which appears on all advertisements".
Since 1977 I believe that all the evidence associated with these problems supports what was then said. It leads me to say that I am wholly against any form of prohibition and certainly the prohibition of advertisements—advertisements which are used by the manufacturers and by the Government to bring home a warning as to the possible risks to the consumer from tobacco products.
I believe that practice has brought about quite a change—as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, so well illustrated—in the smoking and social habits of many of our fellow citizens. I believe I am correct in saying that about 40 per cent. of the adult population smoke cigarettes of one kind or another; cigarettes manufactured by themselves or by a tobacco company. Those people are not unaware of the problems associated with cigarette and tobacco smoking. I believe them to be sufficiently adult to take notice of all the propaganda which is, quite rightly, put out by the medical profession in respect of the difficulties associated with too much smoking or any smoking at all.
Over the past 10 years such propaganda has led the tobacco companies to spend considerable sums of money on better research and development on improved manufacturing of leaf tobacco, on the better use of the filter tip, and on other matters of that kind.
This Bill prohibits the use of all forms of advertisement for tobacco products. As Clause 3 says:
" 'advertisement', in relation to a tobacco product, includes every form of recommendation of the product to the public".
It then defines two particular matters which are of

369
specific importance. If all advertisements were banned, it would mean, first of all, the denial and removal of the Government warning on all cigarette and tobacco advertisements. That would go. It is a warning on all advertisements which says very clearly:
"Cigarettes can seriously damage your health".
That will go. We shall have a world where cigarettes are sold over a counter or surreptitiously somehow without any proper recommendation by the manufacturers on the content of the cigarettes and without any warning by the Government.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, may I suggest that in that case the warning could be put on the tobacco shops themselves?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: And, my Lords, on pubs and off-licences.
Lord Kaberry of Adel: My Lords, I am not quite sure what would happen if everything was banned, but certainly it would prevent competition among the tobacco companies. It would also deny a great deal of information being given to the public.
I do not know what "recommendation of the product" would mean. The noble Lord must have worked out what his Bill is proposing to do. At the other end of the corridor where there is another place I have heard one Member recommending to another to have a pinch of snuff as he goes into that Chamber. Is that to be banned? Are we to interfere with the privileges of that House? The phrase must at any rate be defined. Where are we going? Does it mean that all imported magazines, including those from the United States which have masses of advertisements for cigarettes and tobacco, are to be banned? Would a ban be effective? I think that we have had one or two illustrations as to what has happened in countries where there has been a ban.
So far—and that is why I introduce it—Italy has not been referred to specifically, but Italy banned tobacco advertisements in 1962. If we take comparable figures, say, from 1969 to the last completed year of 1983, we see that in 1969 some 68,000 million cigarettes were consumed in Italy; in 1983, after the ban on advertising, that consumption had risen to 120,000 million. It was almost double the quantity. In the United Kingdom taking 1969 again, there were 124,900 million cigarettes consumed. I think that as a result of the warnings and the change of habit consumption dropped in 1983 to some 100,600 million. I think that that shows that the voluntary scheme being used in the United Kingdom is effective.
What concerns me is that, if we remove the effective warning which presently is used, cigarette sales, and indeed all kinds of smoking, could well go underground without any expression publicly about the evils of the use thereof, which was so well illustrated by His late Majesty, James I of England, and into whose remarks I need not go.
There are other matters associated with the banning of advertisements. The term in the Bill is:
"every form of recommendation of the product to the public".
Almost daily on our television screens we see American or British—indeed, international—films of
370
all kinds in which people are apparently enjoying smoking cigarettes, pipes or tobacco of some kind. On old films we even see seamen chewing tobacco. Are they to be banned? It is a form of recommendation of the product. They seem to enjoy it very much.
One actor, Mr. Clint Eastwood, portrays a great wild west character who appears regularly and who is first seen in a film chewing a half smoked cigarette, hand-rolled obviously as one sees it. The film always fades out after the great hero has performed wonderful deeds as he lights up yet another hand-rolled, half smoked cigarette, with a great smile of satisfaction on his face. Is that to go? Is that to be banned? It is in fact a recommendation of the product. He seems to be enjoying it very much. So why should we not all say, "I shall enjoy one, too. No one in the newspapers is telling me that it will injure my health, except some old fuddy-duddies called the BMA who have all sorts of cockeyed ideas. But I will take no notice of them. I shall have a cigarette because Clint Eastwood has one"?
If this Bill goes through, does it mean that every film to be shown on BBC and IBA programmes has to be censored: Big Brother will be watching! He will have a pen or something else and whenever a cigarette comes up it will be struck out somehow. I do not know what will happen. It is nonsense and the Bill is nonsense. I agree with my noble friend Lord Mottistone: let us throw it out.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Pitt and support him for bringing in what I consider to be a long overdue Bill. I think that all noble Lords who have spoken accept that the scientific argument about smoking and health is over. I think that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Ka berry, might need a refresher course on that. Although his speech was a great deal more amusing than mine will be, I am not sure whether it has helped the case against the Bill. I shall refer to a number of his arguments at a later stage of my speech.
The damaging effects of smoking were already established as much as 30 years ago, following the pioneer statistical work of Sir Richard Doll and Sir Austin Bradford Hill in 1950. About 18 years ago I was working with Professor Walter Holland's team at St. Thomas' Hospital in research which at that stage was dotting the i's and crossing the t's of the established evidence linking smoking with aspects of ill health. We discovered that the lung function of schoolchildren was already impaired if they smoked, and so was the lung function of young children whose parents smoked at home. Referring to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, I point out that it is not just recently that the effect on others of people smoking has been established. It has been known for some time.
In that research group we also showed that men with chronic bronchitis survive much longer, with fewer episodes of acute bronchitis and pneumonia, if they stop smoking. It might be argued that that is obvious, but it was very important to establish that fact then and it has helped doctors to convince many people to give up smoking. We also found that carbon monoxide, which is a well-known poison, was present

371
in people's blood in direct proportion to the number of cigarettes they smoked and the depth to which they inhaled the smoke. Carbon monoxide is only one of the noxious substances present in cigarette smoke. The research unit at St. Thomas' was, incidentally, funded by the Department of Health and Social Security; it still is, and is doing excellent work.
Even then, the evidence was so clear that we could not understand why the Government did not take immediate action to prohibit the promotion of tobacco products. I should have been quite incredulous if I had known then that today, 18 years later, I should be speaking in this debate to support a Bill that should have become law 20 years ago. I am not making a party point here. All governments have failed to stop the advertising of what is, without exaggeration, when it is smoked, an insidious and addictive combination of poisons.
The message has reached most people. As noble Lords have mentioned, tobacco consumption is slowly coming down. But, as his Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester said in a remarkable maiden speech last June:
"Smoking is the single most important cause of preventable ill-health, disability and premature death in Britain today. This will continue to be so for many decades unless there is a much greater change in the rate of consumption."—[Official Report, 13/6/84; col. 1124.]
I will grant that the Government have taken some steps. They have financed the Health Education Council to the tune of some £3·5 million to undertake anti-smoking activities. They give a very small grant to ASH, Action on Smoking and Health, which does an amazingly effective job considering its really tiny budget. Tax is added year by year to the cost of tobacco. Cigarettes, and luckily cigars and pipe tobacco somewhat less, were hit this year. However, in relation to income, it is still cheaper to buy cigarettes now than it was pre-war. The price of a packet of 20 cigarettes should be £1·60, not 1·20, to represent the same proportion of average income as it did 50 years ago.
There is the voluntary agreement, about which noble Lords have spoken, with the industry on advertising, and the inclusion of health warnings regarding tar and nicotine, and the listing of tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide content. However, incidentally, information about carbon monoxide content is never printed on the packet, and never available in tobacconists. I wonder why, my Lords. Nevertheless, the industry spends at least £100 million, and probably considerably more (the figures are quite difficult to obtain) on advertising. That is 30 times as much as the Health Education Council's antismoking budget of £3·5 million. The Government receive £5 million a year in tobacco taxation revenue.
As the noble Countess, Lady Mar, has really very movingly pointed out, nicotine is a highly addictive substance. Some people say that it is even more addictive than heroin. Everybody knows how difficult it is for addicted smokers to give up, even when they know very clearly that their lives are at stake. Perhaps I may quote the noble Duke, the Duke of Gloucester, again (I am sorry he is not here tonight):
"even after undergoing major lung cancer surgery 48 per cent. of patients (if they survive) start smoking again".—[Official Report, 13/6/84; col. 1124.]
372
The addiction can start quite early in life. The Royal College of Physicians has said,
"The matter is largely settled by the age of 20. If a person is still a non-smoker at this age, he is unlikely to take it up."
In my experence, it is easier to give up if you start well into adult life—as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, discovered, for he seems able to give up and start again at will. I think the situation is rather different for women who may start later and get stuck. It is vital for the tobacco industry to get young smokers started.
Simon Chapman, who wrote the BMA booklet which produced some of the evidence about which we have been talking, says:
"The failure of a generation of young people to start smoking would devastate the industry within 10 years".
Perhaps he exaggerates. However, I submit that despite their protestations to the contrary, the main aim of cigarette advertising is to get young people started and addicted to the habit. If they get them young, like the Catholic Church, they have got them for life.
Recently, I received a letter from the Advertising Association enclosing an aubergine-coloured booklet entitled Advertising and Cigarette Consumption by M. J. Waterson. They said in the letter that it was in case I wished to speak against the Bill. I do not think they have done their research very well! Neverthless, it is very handy because it has helped me to look at some of the arguments of those who oppose the Bill.
First, let us look at the situation in Norway. Tobacco consumption has fallen more slowly there than in the United Kingdom, despite a tobacco Act banning advertising which was brought in in 1975. However, no one pretends that advertising, or the lack of it, is the only factor affecting tobacco sales. The fact remains that a vigorous Government compaign against smoking in Norway in 1970 arrested a steady increase and that the ban was followed by a decline in male smokers after a year or so. More significantly, the ban on advertising was followed immediately by a fall in smoking by children of both sexes aged 13, 14 and 15. That is something not yet achieved in Britain.
The second point made in the booklet is that cigarette consumption has risen steadily in Eastern Europe, the USSR and also in some other countries, such as Italy which the noble Lord, Lord Kaberry, mentioned. All these countries have a ban on advertising. I submit that this is quite a false analogy. In all these countires there is a very low public health awareness regarding smoking. They are 20 years behind us in this. Cigarettes are cheap there and other consumer goods, particularly in Eastern Europe, are often scarce. They also started from a lower level of smoking. As the table in the book shows, those countries which reached our level of smoking in the 1960s are now recording a fall. There was a fall in 1981, compared to 1980. I think it is too easy to use statistics to mislead people.
A point that is often made and has been made already by other noble Lords is that advertising helps to give information so that people can choose safer brands; for instance, those with filters or with less tar. The booklet gives two tables comparing the percentage of filter cigarettes and low tar cigarettes sold in countries with and without advertising bans. There is

373
no time to give a detailed analysis of the tables, but the countries are selected to prove the points that the author wishes to make. All the countries that he selects without advertising bans had over 90 per cent. filter cigarette sales, whereas those with bans mostly had lower rates, a median 70 per cent. of filter cigarettes. However, the authors failed to mention Mexico, India and Pakistan among the countries without advertising bans. Maybe the reason was because their filter rates are extremely low with figures of 20 per cent.; 39 per cent.; and 43 per cent.
There are other ways of encouraging people to smoke lower tar cigarettes: for instance, differential taxation and directives to the industry. In the United Kingdom tax on the high tar cigarettes, that is those with over 20 milligrammes per 100 grams, was increased over that level a few years ago. Consumption of these cigarettes after that plummeted from 15 per cent. to 3 per cent. of sales within three months. That was a much quicker effect than one might have expected from advertising.
In Finland, the criteria for the lowest tar grade has been progressively reduced, and high tar grades banned altogether. The consumption of the lowest tar cigarettes, that is those with less than 11 milligrammes per cent., has increased from 5 per cent. in 1978 to 31 per cent. in 1984. In the United Kingdom, the consumption of this lowest tar grade has remained steady at around 15 per cent. over the same period despite all the efforts of advertising.
In conclusion, I would submit that tobacco advertising cannot do anyone any good, except the tobacco industry. For the Government to continue to allow advertising is in effect condoning the habit and legitimising its continuation. As the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, said, anyone might say that if advertising is allowed, smoking cannot be all that bad. But the damage done by smoking is too great to allow this complacency. The tobacco industry, I suggest, should be prepared to put its house in order and wind up its affairs, with its early demise in prospect. I suggest that this might prevent hundreds of thousands of individuals who are our fathers, brothers, mothers and sisters and maybe our sons and daughters from having to do the same thing, as they face imminent death from lung cancer, heart disease or one of the many other smoking-related diseases.
Money saved by the industry by not advertising, if this Bill were to pass, could be used for retraining schemes for those who might be made redundant. But the industry is wealthy and has plenty of time to diversify, as it has already done. Many noble Lords will have received an extremely glossy brochure from BAT Industries which illustrates precisely this. I suggest that the tobacco fields of the world should be growing food or other useful crops. The change-over is going to take time. One has only to think of the millions of nicotine addicts. So no economic disaster will occur. I fully support the Bill. I feel that it is long overdue.
8.41 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I thought that from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, we
374
got a whiff of the real spirit behind many of the speeches, which is that the Bill is a kind of precursor of a total ban that he would clearly like to see on the use of these products.
Lord Rea: My Lords, when the noble Lord looks at Hansard tomorrow, I should like him to find the passage in my speech which says that, and send it to me.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I apologise if I have misrepresented the noble Lord. But the spirit of his remarks was one of great impatience and even contempt for those who use cigarettes or tobacco and some anger with those who continue production. I wish to say that despite the most amiable and moderate manner of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, I regard this Bill to ban advertising of all tobacco products as at once trivial and yet heinous. It seems to me yet another example of the profoundly anti-democratic temper of so many socialists, if I may say so, in all parties and their contempt both for individual liberty and for the common sense of ordinary people. It illustrates for me the casual, almost frivolous, resort to the full majesty of law to gratify what I hope, for the noble Lord, Lord Pitt's, sake, is no more than a passing professional whim. I am sure that he would not generally set himself up as the almighty censor of other people's everyday conduct. Yet here he is attempting to deploy the ultimate sanction of state coercion to influence or control the tastes and preferences of which he disapproves in his fellow men and women.
To me, the Bill is highly objectionable as breaching the sacred liberal principle that keeps compulsion in reserve for use against major threats to the peace and security of a free society. By the same token, it is essentially a trivial measure. At a time when this nation is faced with some fairly daunting economic and social challenges the noble Lord and his friends think it right that the attention and resources of this entire Parliament should be diverted to indulge their paternalistic itch to interfere in other people's affairs. Even from the narrow prohibitionist point of view, why deploy this legislative steam hammer to crack the little nut of tobacco advertising when, as we have heard, voluntary codes have already gone a long way to advance the cause both of less smoking and of what is regarded as less dangerous smoking?
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, did not deny that advertising has been directly instrumental in switching smokers to filter-tipped cigarettes and to lower-tar brands which have increased during the last decade from 5 per cent. to 57 per cent. of the market. I should like to ask the noble Lord, when he winds up, whether he acknowledges that in those model socialist states of Eastern Europe about which we have heard, where government monopoly countenances no tobacco advertising, smoking has increased without advertising and there has been no comparable shift to filter tips or lower tar.
I should also like to hear whether the noble lord disputes the view that we have heard (and I have certainly been instructed in) that since Norway banned advertising in 1975, consumption has not obligingly fallen as fast as it has in the United Kingdom. Indeed, the director of the Norwegian Council on Smoking has

375
himself explicitly poured cold water on the naïve expectation that this kind of censorship and suppression of advertising helps the noble Lord's cherished aims. The best commonsense view on the effects of advertising, in a well developed market such as cigarettes, is that of the Metra Consulting Group, which concluded that promotion influences brand shares but not the size of the total market.
Anyway, why should the noble Lord adopt such a superior and condescending contempt for the ability of smokers to make up their own minds? Does he honestly believe that a single citizen in this country has not heard that smoking is alleged to be dangerous? We have heard that by voluntary agreement 15 per cent. of every advertisement for cigarettes is devoted to a free display of the latest health warning which seems to be, "The more you smoke, the more you risk your health". I only wish that 15 per cent. of some of the speeches of Socialists to which I listen were required to include a warning against higher taxes and inflation that are their inevitable consequence.
I also recall from the dim recesses of a stubborn but selective memory a report in the BMJ in 1979 that doctors who heeded their own propaganda and stopped smoking risked worsening mortality from stress-related diseases including suicides, accidents and cirrhosis of the liver. It is a common observation that many people who stop smoking turn for consolation to over eating or over drinking and other damaging pursuits. This debate so far has also confirmed an impression that I have formed for some time—that non-smokers tend to make longer speeches in your Lordships' House. I believe that this is because they are not in such a hurry to leave the Chamber to have what I believe is called in the vernacular "a quick drag". If I may say so, without any disrespect to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, I guarantee that my comparison of the average length of speeches in favour of smokers will be much confirmed by the time that he sits down.
The decisive practical case against this Bill was well put by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, from the Alliance Benches. It is that it will not achieve the purpose sought by its authors. Even if all advertising could effectively be prevented—we have had some doubts expressed about that by the noble Lord, Lord Kaberry—it would not ensure the reduction in smoking and may end the current switch to lower-tar cigarettes. Thus, newspapers would be crippled by a decisive loss of advertising revenue, all to no avail. The big question is "Could all advertising be so easily prevented?" How about tobacconists' shop windows? Are they to be blacked out? What about point of sale display and other marketing devices? Are companies to be stopped offering free gifts, such as the cigarette cards I remember from my youth? How about lucky numbers or bingo prize games on the packet? Will Lord Pitt's Bill run me in for wearing a lapel badge or a T-shirt displaying the name of my favourite brand?
When this petty, persecutory Bill has been shown to fail in its feeble purposes, what further prohibitions would the noble Lord and his earnest friends dream up to impose their will on those of us who dared to choose to continue to smoke? It is on the grounds of practical expediency, no less than on the highest principle, that
376
I urge the House to reject what I consider to be an ineffective, objectionable, piffling Bill.
8.50 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, smoking is a filthy, disgusting habit. My wife tells me that, my son tells me that and my daughter tells me that. How is it that I have been smoking for all these years and have brought up two children—and I was going to say one wife—and none of them smokes?
The noble Lord who has just spoken to the Bill has called it a petty Bill. My Lords, it is petty. I had hoped that the people who promoted the Bill would produce some good, cogent arguments. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, referred to Norway. He said that when they banned advertising in Norway smoking decreased. However, why did he not tell your Lordships that at the same time they imposed a swingeing increase in the price? That was why smoking decreased in Norway.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, said that the tobacco companies say, "Get them young and you've got them for life". If your Lordships have been into a tobacconist or a sweet shop during this past year you will have seen a large sign saying that it is illegal to sell cigarettes to children under age. That was not a Government action; the tobacco industry did it themselves. It has spent a vast sum of money trying to stop children from smoking; it does not want children to smoke.
The Bill looks quite innocuous until you actually think about it. If your Lordships pass this Bill, there will be no more motor racing. The tobacco companies spend millions and millions of pounds every year supporting motor racing, and as a result of motor racing we get better tyres, better brakes and we save lives. If we stop all forms of advertising we are bound to stop promotion.
Your Lordships sit down at home—that is, when we get home—and watch television, and it is great. Your Lordships may watch the Embassy World Snooker Championship, which is great. Perhaps little Johnny will be sitting with you and he will see "Embassy". Are you honestly telling me that he will say, "Embassy. That is a cigarette." He will be watching snooker, he will not connect the two. You may be watching the John Player Special and see someone driving down the motor racing track at 180 miles an hour. Will little Johnny at home say, "Oh; I must have a cigarette"?. Do you see the driver who is driving at 180 miles an hour lighting a cigarette? I am sorry, but it just does not work in that way.
If advertising does anything it gets you to change from one brand to another. I smoke Rothmans cigarettes. I do not actually like John Player Special cigarettes. I am sorry about that, but I shall try another brand. I have smoked all my life and I started when I was too young to smoke legally. When I was a sailor they cost tuppence for 50. If my wife does not smoke, if my son does not smoke, and if my daughter does not smoke, what will this Bill do? I am sorry, but this is a petty Bill and even the arguments which have been put forward in support of the Bill are petty. Your Lordships must throw this Bill out.
8.55 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I ought first to declare an interest. I am a non-executive director of a public relations firm and one of our 45 clients is a tobacco firm. If I have to say that every time I speak on any subject, it is still better to be honest about it, and I should like to declare it before I begin.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, is a friend of many of us in all parts of the House. He is such a nice chap that we always feel sympathetic to anything that he promotes. He has certainly done us a service because until I began to study the problem I had no idea of the facts and figures and what was happening in other parts of the world which are all encountering this type of problem. He has brought the matter to our attention, and that is a very worthy cause. However, I do not think that so far anyone who is in favour of the Bill—even the noble Lord—has really put forward a good cause as to why we should abandon a voluntary agreement which has been extremely successful over the past 15 years, and substitute for it a law which will be very difficult to draw up—it is very imperfect in its present state—and which will forbid all advertising. And from advertising there will be a knock-on as regards sponsorship, which is a form of advertising, at least in the BMA's opinion. So I do not think that the case has been proved.
We have been asked to set aside two voluntary agreements: one on the health side and one covering advertising and sponsorship and the conditions under which that is done, and how much of it is done. That is to be abandoned and substituted for a complicated Bill making it essential that we abandon all advertising of every type of tobacco product. We are always groaning and saying, as we are kept up night after night, "There is too much legislation in this bloody place"—and, by the way, they are saying just the same down the corridor—"and so for God's sake stop legislation". Therefore, in that mood—and we are very much in that mood because so far as I can see we shall be permanently locked in here for June and July—I ask why we should have a further amount of legislation when a voluntary agreement is really working extremely well?
I had hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, would have spoken earlier so that I could have dealt with what he said. However, I hope that when he comes to speak he will explain what has happened since 1977 when he, as the Minister, signed the voluntary agreement. Has it not matched up to the hopes that he had for it? Perhaps he will tell us about that.
Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, will tell us from where he produced the astonishing figure that he quoted. I have looked at an innumerable number of charts, medical reports and the like. No one has suggested that 20 per cent. of the people in this country die from tobacco smoking. Perhaps in his wind-up speech the noble Lord will tell me where I may find that, and we shall study it. However, certainly everything that I have studied suggests that his figure is way over the figure which could possibly be justified.
What has happened as a result of the voluntary agreement? First, we have had the low tar content which in 1972 accounted for fewer than 5 per cent. of
378
the cigarettes that were bought; low tar cigarettes now make up 68 per cent, of the cigarettes that are bought. So that is a tremendous achievement. As regards filter tips, which were almost negligible in 1950, now 95·7 per cent, of cigarettes are filter tips. Therefore, in making the cigarettes less injurious, there has been a very real change in the habit in this country As a result, 30 per cent. fewer people smoke today than smoked a decade ago.
Meanwhile the industry—and the noble Lord, Lord Kaberry, touched on this—has understandably, because it is threatened, spent even more on improving its products. It has spent £300 million on research and development in the last decade. It will go on spending.
The BMA is an organisation that we all respect. It is a powerful advocate and it is a pretty resolute opponent. I noticed in its weekly journal of 28th April 1983 an article on how the BMA had beaten the Government over the police request for access to medical records. It was crowing over this success The article, by one Susan Edwards, concluded with these comments:
"They were not unhappy, however, that the profession got a chance to see the BMA at its most effective, and face the prospect of challenging the Data Protection Bill and later the tobacco industry with relish".
That is the relish we are enjoying this evening. 1 hope that we shall not let it get any further in the legislative programme.
As I have said, the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, is a nice chap, and he is also a doctor, and therefore he speaks with some authority. He is the future chairman of the BMA, so we must take anything he says seriously. The BMA is behind this Bill, and let us not brook that issue. It is behind the proposal that we reject the successful voluntary system.
Of course the BMA considers that sponsorship is another form of advertising. In a moment I shall draw attention to sponsorship and just what good it has achieved in both sport and the arts. But one thing has not been mentioned: let no one pretend that if this Bill is given a Second Reading tonight there will not be a follow-on, a knock-on, a domino effect. Once they have this banned, it will move on perhaps to certain forms of alcohol, and then broaden to other forms of alcohol. This is just a start.
Please, if a voluntary agreement is working, let it work. It is so much more flexible. Under a voluntary agreement you do not have to bring a case and have a criminal charge, and prove your case with all the courts taking it up and wasting their time, and with all the moneys expended. You get together with the industry and you adjust the conditions and make sure that what is being done is in the interests of better health.
We have had two doctors speaking tonight. I rather regret that the noble Lord, Lord Hunter of Newington, who is so renowned in medical circles, was not able to be present. He was chairman of the Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health, and he said this about the 10 years of service he gave there:
"By the time I completed my period as chairman the levels"—
referring to tar levels—
"had been reduced from somewhere in the region of 28 milligrams to about 15 milligrams".

379
Now of course the plan in the next few years is to cut it down to 13. It has been more than halved in that period. He went on:
"The effect of the introduction of filters and the reduction of tar levels … has been a substantial reduction in the incidence of carcinoma".
There it is from one of the great authorities who was chairman of a very important body.
Sir Richard Doll in his Harvean Lecture of 1983—and I have all those papers here—produced some encouraging graphs. Nothing that he produced has suggested that 20 per cent. die from tobacco. What is significant is not only the reduction in the last 10 years but the way in which this voluntary agreement has restricted the amount of advertising, has restricted the amount of sponsorship, and has succeeded in bringing about a very successful industry.
I would also mention that if we banned it here, if the demand for the product fell markedly here, if there had to be a cutback in research and development, there would be the question how we are to keep out the overseas product. There would be a massive increase. Most of those overseas products would have much hgher tar content and be much less well filtered than the products we produce here.
People have suggested that the advertisements are aimed at the young. That is not true. The tobacco industry goes on reminding shops that they must not sell to the young, and that it is against the law to sell to the young. It has been suggested that when the young see these sponsored events that they will be encouraged to smoke. I went to watch my county, Middlesex, play rather unsuccessfully in the Benson and Hedges Cup at Lord's last week. I saw a small number of schoolchildren there. Unfortunately, Middlesex were out cheaply and so the game did not last as long as was expected.
I asked them in the interval what they knew about Benson and Hedges. They said, "Well, this is the Benson and Hedges Cup". I got that. But very few of them knew that Benson and Hedges made cigarettes. I am sorry, but, at least from my personal survey, it does not seem that the idea that young people seeing cricketers playing, or other people who are energetic, will immediately take to smoking is borne out at all.
In this country, unlike in the controlled economies of the Soviet bloc, our sports are controlled by governing bodies (all volunteers, by the way), and some governing bodies do not want to be associated with tobacco sales and therefore they do not want tobacco sponsorship. The Amateur Swimming Association is one of those, and I read in the Daily Telegraph today that soccer and swimming are not to be associated with smoking.
There is a voluntary agreement cutting back on where sponsorship acts. But let us bear in mind that sponsorship of sport is now worth between £8 million and £10 million a year to sport. If sponsorship was banned, let no one think that there will be an immediate inrush of other sponsors. I looked at the figures recently, and as many as 60 sports are now looking for sponsors and cannot find them.
May I put in a word also for the arts? The sponsoring of the arts by the tobacco industry is now worth £4
380
million a year. Owing to the generous announcement we heard recently from the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, every £1 given in sponsorship is to be matched by another £1 from the Government. Therefore, that sponsorship is worth much more than £4 million to those concerned.
If one had to pick out one example, it would come from Ulster. The Ulster Orchestra is sponsored. They received a £260,000 grant from a tobacco company for four years of sponsorship. In fact it kept the orchestra going. It would have lapsed but for that. It now has another £260,000 for the next four years. It is a wonderful example of how the arts can be helped just as sport has been helped.
I submit to this House that so far we have heard nothing which proves that the voluntary system is at fault, and that a legalistic system would be a better and worthier replacement. I hope, therefore, that the House will, if it comes to a vote, turn down the Second Reading of this Bill.
9.8 p.m.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I did not put my name down to speak in this debate and to contribute the two sentences that I have in mind because I did not expect to hear the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, say that smoking is only personal or very nearly only personal. I know that that is what people like the noble Lord think, but the unhappy truth is that a person who lays himself open to getting hooked on cigarettes lays himself open also to being cut off, not when he already has one foot in the grave but probably when he is the head of a family at his maximum earning capacity, making his maximum contribution to society and very deeply affecting the lives of other people who hold him in the greatest affection and are probably financially dependent upon him. It behoves people who smoke to think a great deal more about other people. Smoking is not only personal or even very nearly only personal or anything like it.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should point out to him that I am still thriving (having smoked since I was 21) and I have passed the stage at which my children are a great care to me. None of my children smokes and I can think of not one friend in quite a long life who in his prime died from smoking. I cannot think of anyone, and I have a large number of friends. I think that is just a myth.
9.10 p.m.
Lord Newall: My Lords, I hope noble Lords will forgive me for not having put my name down, but I did not expect to be here today and I had given notice that I intended to speak. As usual, I shall be extremely brief.
I am a non-smoker and am therefore thoroughly impartial. There is one point that I feel ought to be aired which has not yet been raised. We all know that advertising agencies are very commercial. They have to work for their clients and tell their clients' story. Generally they are expert at it. It would be a great tragedy if this Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, were to go through because I should be denied, as would other people, some of the marvellous pictures that we see. The subtle way they have of reminding us of the warning also gives us wonderful pictures. I like

381
those which show pieces of material with little slits in. I like to see the shaving cream with all those funny letters on it. This afternoon on the Underground I saw a picture of something that looked like a banana skin which was just slightly the wrong shape. These pictures are very attractive and I should hate to be deprived of them. Every time we look at them—and they have nothing to do with cigarettes of course—they remind us that if were were smoking we would be in some danger.
Many people who smoke heavily definitely regard it as their only relief from stress. I do not believe that is true, but that is their decision and they have a right to take it. To ban all the advertising in its main form is ridiculous because it is, as I have said and others have said, only a warning and its ban would stop the arguments and conversations that go on because we are continuously faced with these messages. Everybody knows it is unhealthy, so why not let them sponsor sports. Let them help sport which helps a lot of people to enjoy life and keeps many people in employment. It also keeps many sports going, as the noble Lord, Lord On-Ewing, said. No trainer ever allows a sportsman to smoke. We all know that, but it helps to keep the sport going. This is a thoroughly bad Bill and I hope that it is killed here.
9.13 p.m.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lord, I apologise for speaking at this late hour. As a non-smoker I shall be very brief. I must plead guilty to a considerable bias—I am a youth leader. I am therefore strongly biased against damaging children and young people. I am not so worried about all you intelligent adults. Indeed I believe that in your case the tobacco companies are right, that their advertisements do not increase smoking among intelligent adults. But with children it is different.
Children are both enormously conformist and highly logical. I was about to say that they are more logical than your Lordships, but I believe that is true to some extent because they have not gone through the very long training in illogic which so many of us have had. They have not had time for that. When they see their youth leaders and school masters smoking, and when they see smoking advertisemens, it has an effect on them which is far greater than it would have on your Lordships. This is what worries me greatly. I have seen it happening and I have wept over it. It is for that reason that I strongly support the Bill.
9.14 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I should have felt very much more at ease tonight if it had been a Tory Peer who had sponsored this Bill, because I have been used to voting in the other place in an adversarial way. I rise to my feet not in any way to oppose the Bill but to tell my noble friend that I do not believe that it is possible to ban cigarette advertising. Let me give a little experience. I started smoking when I was eight or nine years of age. As many of your Lordships will know, the main street in Belfast is Royal Avenue. I was a very active member of the "Royal Avenue Butt Collectors' Association" when I was nine years of age. The RABCA was one of the few non-sectarian organisations that existed. The only thing that we
382
worried about in those days was the weather, because if there was a big shower of rain, which frequently happened in Royal Avenue, it did not make things very good for our smoking.
From then, I smoked for 37 years. I had two daughters who were nurses and they were petrified with the fear that I might get lung cancer. I remember them persuading me to watch television programmes where people's lungs were taken out surgically. I used to look at them and say, "If that's going to happen to me, it's going to happen!". No amount of advertisement or reading was going to stop me from smoking. By this time I was smoking 80 cigarettes a day and again, I was being partisan because these were cigarettes made in my own home city of Belfast—one of my reasons for standing here tonight.
I stopped smoking because of a rather fortuitous set of circumstances. I see my old friend the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, here. In 1976, I comprised the Labour Government majority at the other end of this building. There was a very contentious Bill going through, the Shipbuilding Industry Bill, which was eventually carried by one or two votes. On the particular night in question there was an all-night Sitting and, needless to say, I was a very popular Member among the Government supporters and much of that night was spent on the Terrace smoking my Gallaghers' Blues and drinking other things.
I awoke the next morning with such a hangover and such a taste in my mouth that I decided to give up cigarettes. It had absolutely nothing to do with people persuading or my reading advertising. I gave up cigarettes after 37 years and after a week or two I thought about starting them again but I did not. Then I began to count how many cigarettes I must have smoked throughout the 37 years. I told lies because as I say, for a number of years I had been smoking 40, 60 and 80 a day. I said to myself, "Tell a big lie to yourself. Say that I smoked only 20 cigarettes a day for 37 years". If you look at the arithmetic here, I smoked about 230,000 cigarettes. Just imagine the smoke that would emanate from such a pile of tobacco. But, thank God, it has not done me any great harm; and I would hope that it would do other people just as little harm.
The reason I take part in this debate tonight is that, first of all, I do not believe that the Bill can be made law. I do not believe it can be made effective. I do not think that my noble friend Lord Pitt is in any way trying to be piffling or persecuting. He has medical experience and I suppose that he is convinced that smoking can do tremendous harm. I do not believe that you can force people not to do something if they are intent on doing it. Most of all, the reason why I rise to take part in this debate tonight is that I represented a constituency in the Stormont House of Parliament. It contained within its boundaries Gallagher's tobacco factory and I know just how important it was for employment to be given to the people who worked in that factory. Later, when I represented West Belfast, there was, and still is, a tobacco factory in that constituency. I know how important it was that those two tobacco factories were there.
In Northern Ireland at the moment we have a 21 per cent. unemployment figure; we have a 121,000 people drawing social security benefit. I would not want to say

383
anything in this debate or to vote in this House tonight in any way which would mean one job less in either of those constituencies. I believe that the exports from the tobacco industry in Northern Ireland are somewhere in the region of 30 per cent. or 35 per cent., and that is keeping people in employment. I know the argument can be used in support of this Bill that I may be speaking on behalf of the interests of 4,000 or 5,000 people whereas lots of other people are getting cancer and they are costing the health service a similar amount.
I maintain that you could argue all night on this Bill. I am opposing it, though I do it somewhat reluctantly because I believe that the noble Lord who sponsored it is very sincere in his belief. However, I do not believe it is enforceable; I do not believe that you can stop people from doing something that they want to do. I believe it would set up a whole underground movement in the cigarette industry if we were to try to compel people to stop smoking in this way. But, most of all, I stand here tonight and hope that this Bill will not get a Second Reading because it would undoubtedly lead to an awful lot more people being thrown out of work in Northern Ireland.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, first may I say that I am under a challenge from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, that I must not make a long speech. What I will say is that I shall not make the longest speech of the evening. It is most interesting that the most powerful speeches in this debate have come from two medical practitioners, who know very much more about the subject than the rest of us here—certainly judging by some of the speeches that have been made. There has been a speech from one brave woman, who wishes that she could stop smoking and has desperately tried to do so. There has also been a speech by one noble Lord who is a youth leader and does not wish to see any young people caught up in smoking.
It is perfectly clear that this is not a party issue; but I have forgotten to do two things which I must do straight away. The first, as the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, did, is to declare my interest. I am the patron of the National Society of Non-Smokers, and so dedicated am I to that cause that I have missed the annual general meeting of that society which is taking place this evening. I can assure those of your Lordships who have been talking about the extremely expensive campaigns and the vast resources that are being used in this campaign that not a penny comes, I regret to say, from the Government in terms of the national society, though of course one must thank them for contributing significantly to the funds of ASH and the Health Education Council.
I want to say straight away that I do not speak for my party. I have two people on my Front Bench who are here purely for the purpose of ensuring that I do not make any suggestion that I am speaking for either of them. There are three Davids sitting here: one of them is in advertising and another is one of those long, solid men who smoke pipes. I do not think he is likely to suffer from it because he does not inhale the tobacco smoke, but he does not want me to make any suggestion that I am speaking for the party. My other
384
friend is involved in advertising, and naturally I understand his point of view. So I can say that I speak only for myself.
I want to support the Bill and to congratulate my noble friend Lord Pitt on the way that he has introduced it. I want to see a Second Reading for this Bill, because it is very clear that if we assume that doctors know something about this subject, and if we assume that the British Medical Association has no partisan interest or monetary gain in this but is concerned only with the health of the nation, we need a Second Reading in order to gain clarification of points to which noble Lords who have raised them have admitted that they did not know the answers. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, clearly needs to know the new evidence which is available concerning the effects of what has been called "secondary smoking".
It has been suggested that the passing of this Bill—and I cannot imagine that it will pass in its present state—is only going to lead on to more legislation from these vicious socialists who want to stop people doing everything, and that the next thing after stopping people smoking, is then to stop them drinking and then to stop them having sex, or whatever else you can think of. I am certain that that is not the intention of my noble friend Lord Pitt, and I think there should be a Second Reading in order to make all those points quite clear and to gain clarification on a number of other points.
Let me be serious just for a moment—and, as I say, I am not speaking on behalf of those in my party who enjoy smoking and think that smoking is a good thing. As regards advertising—and I can see the argument—it is said that because it is a warning it has more effect than if we were to stop advertising altogether. I have been looking at some of the things that British advertisers have been saying. David Abbott, who is a leading British advertiser, said:
"I think it is incontrovertible … that advertising things encourages people to use them".
I cannot imagine that people are going to advertise just in order to say, "Please, if you are going to smoke, use mine". It is that they want to campaign against we campaigners and to ensure that there is an increase in smoking in this country. David Abbott went on to say:
"The advertising industry believes that in every other product. I don't see why the rules are different for cigarettes".
Emerson Foote, who is a former chairman of one of the world's leading advertising agencies, said on the same issue:
"I am not even convinced that competition among brands is the most important purpose of such advertising. I suspect that creating a positive climate of social acceptability for smoking, which encourages new smokers to join the market, is of greater importance to industry".
I absolutely agree with the point that was made—some of the most interesting speeches came in the gap—that the people who are most likely to be influenced are in fact young people. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, shakes his head, but that is certainly the view of the Royal College of Physicians, and it is their reports which have been more authoritative than any others. They said:
"Learning to smoke usually occurs in childhood or in adolescence".

385
That is sometimes because the parents smoke, and if they are born in an atmosphere where everyone smokes they are much more likely to smoke. The Royal College went on:
"The matter is largely settled by the age of 20; if a person is still a non-smoker at this age he is unlikely to take it up".
I think that a youngster with any intelligence is likely to say that if the Government think this is thoroughly dangerous, and if he knows that the Government are taking advertising space and spending money, quite rightly, to speak of the dangers of other addictive drugs, then clearly, because they permit advertising in this field, they must feel it this is okay.
The Royal College continued:
"In Britain in 1982, children aged between 11–16 spent £60 million on smoking. Many young smokers maintain the habit throughout their lives and so, from a marketing perspective, constitute the highest priority market segment".
If there is going to be a whole generation of youngsters who will not start smoking, then I am afraid that it is too bad for the tobacco industry. The tobacco industry is concerned at the moment and is putting as much money as it can into advertising to capture the market of young people, who, once they have started smoking, are likely to get into the smoking habit. I cannot understand why the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, shakes his head. I shall not ask him to explain because he does not have the privilege of speaking after me that he originally hoped he would have.
There are so many questions that people would want to put to the BMA, who are running a campaign, and that they would want to put to the Royal College of Surgeons, but I cannot imagine anyone would say that they would stand up as authorities in the health field against those who are involved in the campaign for reasons of health. I can think of no reason to discourage people from smoking other than health. If it was purely that people enjoyed it, that they got fun out of it, that it was one of the pleasures of life but was not dangerous, there would be no campaign to discourage people from smoking. It is precisely only because it is known to be a great danger. This is not something that the noble Earl will stand up and disagree with. He knows, as any Minister and any spokesman for the DHSS knows, that it is tremendously costly for the National Health Service. That is why he DHSS itself is against smoking in this country and is pleased with the results and the success so far.
It is perfectly reasonable for the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, to say, "If Lord Ennals thinks this ought to be done, why did he not do it when he was in office?" I give the answer straight away. During the three years when I was Secretary of State for Social Services the voluntary agreement was negotiated and I was not going to go barging in and say: "Right—scrub it all!" I do not believe in acting in that way, particularly since—and this is an even more important point—at that stage the majority of the public were smokers. Now, thank heavens, as a result of campaigns that have gone on under successive Governments in the last 10 years, the majority of the public are non-smokers, and a very high proportion of those who are still smokers want to stop smoking.
It is most interesting that when there was a major programme on the dangers of smoking and an
386
indication that there was help available for people to stop smoking, that particular programme, which expected to get a response of 15,000 because the address was given actually had 650,000 people who wrote in and asked for some advice about how to stop smoking. I do not believe there is any single thing that would do more at the present stage to indicate the Government's attitude towards smoking than a decision to pass a Bill like this, saying, "This is now so serious that not only are we going, on the one hand, to advertise against addictive drugs, hut, as cigarettes are so clearly addictive, we believe that there should not be advertising in their favour." So I believe that the case has been made.
My only criticism, which does not perhaps fit very squarely with what some other noble Lords have said, is that the Bill does not go far enough. I think that it should have dealt specifically with sponsorship. I do not at all agree with those who intervened to say that if you see cricket, football and rugby sponsored by cigarette companies it does not give the impression that sport and smoking are compatible, when it is clear that the majority of those who play cricket, football and rugby and take part in athletics are not smokers. They have more sense than to be smokers.
The amount of coverage that is gained, not only by those people but by those who take part in snooker, darts, motor-cycling and car racing, is enormous, but actually it is less than 10 per cent. of the total sponsorship fund. So as regards sponsorship of sport or of the arts, about which my noble friend Lord Strabolgi is deeply concerned, this is a very small percentage of the total sponsorship, although it manages to get an enormous coverage on television.
In conclusion, while there are changes that I know many people want to make in the Bill, the issue is so important—and we have seen in this debate how important the issue is—the doubts are so vital and the need for knowledge is so important that I hope that noble Lords on the other side who do not agree with the principle will, nevertheless, say that if this is a Bill from the president-elect of the British Medical Association (and I congratulate my noble friend on the post that he is about to take over) and if this is what the BMA thinks, then this is an issue which we in this House ought to debate further. But we can debate it further only if we give a Second Reading to this Bill.
9.32 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I, too, must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, on his very good introduction of this Bill. The Government are gravely concerned at the appalling toll of disease and early death caused by smoking. Your Lordships debated these matters on 12th June last year and noble Lords who spoke then were virtually unanimous in their condemnation of smoking for causing an enormous amount of unnecessary suffering and death from diseases such as lung cancer, coronary heart disease and chronic bronchitis.
That view is based on the most authoritative medical opinion. It is well known that the Royal College of Physicians, whose latest report was the subject of our earlier debate, attributes no fewer than 100,000 premature deaths in the United Kingdom each year to smoking. To my noble friend Lord Orr-

387
Ewing I would say that that is about the 15 to 20 per cent. to which the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, referred in his opening speech, and we accept that assessment.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, accused me of complacency in my Answer on 7th May. I have reread the report of that Answer and this Government certainly are not complacent about the problems caused by smoking. He was also cynical about our health education programme. I would tell him that among its other expenditure last year the Health Education Council gave a substantial amount to an anti-smoking programme and, in addition, we gave it an extra £½ million for a special campaign aimed at children and young people, while also encouraging the council to maintain its efforts at warning children of the dangers of smoking. The Health Education Council is carrying out works in a variety of ways, including in schools, the media and through special campaigns. There has, in addition, been a television campaign aimed at educating and informing families about the whole of the grave risks to health that could arise from smoking and other factors. We have also doubled the maximum penalties for illegal sales to children under 16.
To say that this Government are not concerned is quite wrong. To the noble Lords, Lord Pitt and Lord Ennals, and to the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, I would say that we do concern ourselves very greatly with the future of young people, and with great respect they do not have a monopoly of concern.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, perhaps I may say that I entirely agree. I did not suggest in any words that I used that the Government were any less concerned than I was about the gravity of the situation.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord.
Differences of opinion arise only over the question of the most effective way of tackling the problem. We are, of course, well aware of the view of the British Medical Association and others in support of a statutory ban on the promotional activities of the tobacco industry. This Government, like their predecessors, are wholeheartedly in favour of regulating tobacco advertising in the interests of health. What they do not accept—as their predecessors also rejected—is the view that a statutory prohibition of all such activity is desirable or that it would be more effective in reducing smoking than the means currently employed. This conclusion is supported by such evidence as exists, though I must tell your Lordships that there are formidable problems in attempting to disentangle the effects of advertising from the many other factors that may influence smoking behaviour.
A key objective of the Government's policies on health promotion and disease prevention is to alert the public to the dangers of smoking and, by a wide range of means, to work towards reducing the prevalence of the smoking habit. We have been striving very hard in this direction, and not without success. The Government's strategic aims are, first and foremost, to try to discourage non-smokers, and especially young people, from taking up the habit; secondly, to try to
388
encourage smokers to give up smoking; and, thirdly, failing all else, to help smokers to smoke less harmfully.
This strategy requires action on a number of fronts—health education, which I have just mentioned, product modification, encouragement of greater provision for non-smokers, and also control of the advertising and promotion of cigarettes, which is the subject of the Bill before your Lordships' House today. In taking action in this last area we continue to believe that the most effective method of control is by way of voluntary agreement with the tobacco industry governing the advertising and promotion of cigarettes. Successive Governments have adhered to that view. So far as advertising on television and radio is concerned, cigarettes are already banned by law, but otherwise the tradition in this country is to proceed by voluntary agreement.
The terms of the current agreement regulate tobacco advertising in a number of ways. First, there is the Cigarette Code which forms part of the British Code of Advertising Practice and is interpreted and monitored by the Advertising Standards Authority. This code is largely concerned with the content of cigarette advertisements. Its essence is that advertisements should not seek to encourage people, particularly the young, to start smoking or, if they are already smokers, to increase their level of smoking or to smoke to excess. Detailed rules are laid down in furtherance of these basic principles.
To give just two examples, advertisements must not imply any link between smoking and success with the opposite sex, nor that smoking is associated with success in sport. I should like to pay tribute to the Advertising Standards Authority for the way in which they carry out their very responsible task. One has only to look at cigarette advertisements in countries where arrangements for their control do not exist to see how successful the code has been in controlling the content of advertisements.
There is also the Government's voluntary agreement with the tobacco industry which relates to the advertising and promotion of tobacco products generally, including the matter of health warnings. The present agreement was reached in 1982 and will last at least until March 1986. The scope of the voluntary restrictions has widened progressively since the first such agreement was concluded in 1971. As part of the current agreement the industry is in the process of reducing in real terms its advertising expenditure on posters to 50 per cent. of the level in the year ended March 1980 and its cinema advertising to 60 per cent. of the 1980 level. Both these reductions are to be achieved by 1986 and progress is being carefully monitored by my department. The agreement provides for strong and conspicuous Government health warnings on packs of cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco, in all main media advertising and on all major items of advertising and promotional material used at point of sale. Advertising on videos or by other aerial means is prohibited.
The sponsorship of sport by tobacco companies is also subject to a voluntary agreement. That agreement restricts expenditure on sponsored sports in real terms to the 1976 level. It stipulates that the Government

389
health warning should appear on advertisements for sponsored events and on promotional signs at these events, and it places a number of other restrictions on the industry. That agreement lasts until the end of this year.
In drawing up the voluntary agreements the Government have been particularly concerned about the vulnerability of young people and the influence cigarette advertising may have on them. We have, therefore, ensured that promotional offers are not addressed to people under 18, that cigarette posters are not sited near school playgrounds, that cinema advertisements are shown only at films seen by people aged 18 and over, and that sports activities in which the majority of participants are under 18 are not sponsored by tobacco companies. The Cigarette and Advertising Code also includes important provisions designed to protect young people. Taken together, I believe that the present arrangements provide an effective measure of control over tobacco advertising; which is not to say that they cannot be improved, and the Government will be giving attention to that matter in due course.
There are those who believe that a product which has been shown to be seriously harmful to health should not be allowed to be promoted at all. To them I would point to the substantial progress we have been able to achieve in recent years without such a ban. The series of voluntary agreements has undoubtedly contributed towards reducing the prevalence of cigarette smoking from 47 per cent. of adults in 1972 to 35 per cent. in 1982 and to the significant fall in cigarette consumption which has also taken place recently. I would just say to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that by the time he was Secretary of State the figure had fallen to under 50 per cent. of the population.
Thus, cigarette sales which stood at 137 billion in 1973 are reported as 98 billion in 1984. the United Kingdom's record in these respects stands comparison with those of countries such as Norway, which have legislation. Norway is not the shining example which the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, made it out to be. We may take, for instance, the incidence of smoking among females in Norway. In 1972–73 it was 32 per cent. In 1982 it was 34 per cent. The percentage actually increased despite the ban. Admittedly, the percentage had fallen in the case of men, but not at the rate it has decreased in this country. Our record, therefore, is much superior to that of Norway.
The voluntary system has brought other important benefits. Under separate agreements, for example, the tobacco industry has over the years achieved a reduction in the average tar yield of cigarettes from over 20 mg in 1972 to 15 mg in 1984. As part of the current agreement it has undertaken to achieve a further reduction in tar yields to 13 mg by the end of 1987. As part of this effort, which has almost certainly contributed to the recent reduction in lung cancer rates among men, the tobacco industry has agreed to devote a disproportionate amount of its advertising effort to promoting cigarettes in the two lower tar bands. If smokers are unable or unwilling to give up the habit, there are sound reasons for urging them to change to a lower tar brand. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris of
390
High Cross, said, this Bill would militate against spreading this particular form of guidance.
Other benefits of these agreements include the tobacco industry's funding of a programme of independent research into the effects of modified tobacco products and making available a sum of £11 million over four years for research into health promotion. The industry has also co-operated in efforts to discourage illegal sale of cigarettes by shopkeepers. These advantages have also to be considered in assessing the case for legislation.
This, then, is the background against which the House must debate this Bill, and which the Government have borne in mind in coming to their view. I would draw your Lordships' attention also to the fact that the measure before you draws no distinction between cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco on the one hand, and pipe tobacco and cigars on the other, about which medical opinion is clear that there is a much lower risk to health. This point was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, on 7th May.
Another factor of more than just a little significance is that this Bill would create something of a precedent in introducing wide-ranging statutory controls on the promotion of products which are themselves freely and legally available for sale. With all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, it is important that we know the Labour Party's official position on this subject. The Government have made their position clear, though it is of course up to individuals to vote as they wish tonight. The Government have clearly come out in favour of the voluntary agreement. I should very much appreciate it if the noble Lord would give the Labour Party's policy. Does it not have one?
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the noble Earl paused expecting me to get up. I did not think that he wanted an interruption, but I rise to my feet to make it perfectly clear that there are differences of view in the party. I thought that I had made it clear right at the beginning that I was speaking for myself and that I was not attempting to speak for the official Opposition.
The Earl of Caithness: Indeed, my Lords, but all I was asking for was the official Opposition view, which we still do not have.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, mentioned smoking among women. The Government have given the Health Education Council an extra grant this year of£½ million specifically to fund a campaign aimed at women smokers.
The noble Lord also raised the question of passive smoking, as did my noble friend Lord Mottistone. While breathing in other people's smoke is undoubtedly unpleasant and annoying at times to many non-smokers like myself, the extent to which it can damage otherwise healthy adults is as yet unclear.
My noble friend Lord Kaberry took a remark out of a publication in 1977 which was one of my department's documents of that year—Prevention and Health: Everybody's Business. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, knows it well. The point that my noble friend made was that there was little direct evidence linking

391
advertising to an increase in smoking, and that remains the case. That is why I find it difficult to accept some of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Rea. The noble Lord chided us for not producing figures on carbon monoxide yields. I have to tell him that they are published twice yearly and they are available to him at any time, as they are to other members of the public.
Noble Lords will wish to consider carefully not only the facts about smoking and health, about which there is little dispute, but also the considerable progress that we in this country have achieved by way of our system of voluntary agreements. As I have indicated, the Government will be reviewing the current agreements before too long and will be discussing with the tobacco industry what should succeed them. Without prejudicing those discussions, I should make it quite clear that we wish to continue to control such matters as advertising, promotion, the Government health warning and the sponsorship of sporting events. As long as progress by agreement is possible and the tobacco companies continue to adhere to the rules laid down, the Government believe that there is no case for introducing legislation of the kind that is before your Lordships' House tonight.
9.47 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, how should I say it? I am bloody but unbowed. I must begin by apologising to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. When I read his reply to the Question of the noble Baroness I gained the impression that the Government were being complacent, but there is no evidence of complacency tonight and so I certainly withdraw that accusation.
Incidentally, when I talked of cynicism I was not meaning cynicism by the Government or even by the Health Education Council, nor was I being cynical about it. I was saying that the fact of cigarette or tobacco advertising generally creates cynicism in people's minds. The view is held that, although the Government say that cigarettes are damaging to one's health, the fact that they permit advertising in the way that they do suggests that they are not serious about it. That was the point I was making when I talked about cynicism.
I paid tribute to the work of the Health Education Council, and I repeat that. It is doing a great deal of work in this field. However, the truth of the matter is that if we are concerned about stopping young people from starting to smoke—and I am most concerned about it—all the evidence suggests that what influences children to smoke or not to smoke is the status of smoking. They start smoking, just as most of the noble Lords who now smoke did, and as I did, because they think it is the manly thing to do. Until the atmosphere is altered there will not be the change that I certainly want to see. My concern about advertising is the fact that it perpetuates the present atmosphere. Even though a majority of people at the moment do not smoke, the atmosphere of acceptability and desirability of smoking continues and will continue as long as tobacco advertising is allowed.
392
It is not right to say, as the Minister says, that the product is legal and therefore can be advertised. It is legal only if it is sold to people over 16. There is no way of preventing people under 16 from seeing the advertisements. Therefore, the suggestion that because it is legal one should not restrict the advertising is quite wrong. The product is not entirely legal. It is legal only if sold to people over 16, and there is no way people under 16 can be prevented from seeing the advertisements.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, did not allow me to intervene in his speech, because he has obviously misunderstood my statement about low tar. I in fact said that there is plenty of evidence that low tar reduces the incidence of cancer of the lung but there is no evidence that low tar reduces the incidence of coronary disease or any other arterial vascular catastrophe. That is the difference. Therefore, I was not suggesting that we should not have the campaign for low tar. Yes; it is the right campaign to reduce the incidence of cancer of the lung in people who want to smoke. Although the evidence is not yet forthcoming about bronchitis and the other respiratory diseases, it may well emerge that that is so too. Therefore, the low tar campaign is right in that respect. However, none of the research into its effects on cardio-vascular diseases suggests that the low tar makes any difference. That was the point I was making. It is not enough merely to say that we will go for low tar. We have to do more than that.
I find quite surprising the suggestion that if there is no longer tobacco advertising, people will not know the level of tar in various brands. When all is said and done there will be nothing to prevent shopkeepers from making these presentations, having a table in the shop indicating the level of tar in all the brands of cigarettes they sell. If that is not done, there will be nothing to prevent regulations being brought in to make the shops do it. Thus, it is not true that merely banning advertising will prevent the level of tar being advertised; of course it will not.
Again, it is not true that banning advertising will prevent the health warnings from being given, because the health warning will be on the packets anyway. People who buy the cigarettes will receive the health warning. It is not true that by banning advertising, one will prevent that being done; no, those things can still be done.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, the noble Lord wants to ban advertising. He is now recommending advertising in shops.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, if a person is selling tobacco in a shop, he has to tell the people what he is selling. I do not see the point of the noble Lord's remark. If one sells anything in a shop, one has to tell the people what one is selling. Therefore, the noble Lord's remark is nonsense. If one sells anything in a shop, one has to tell the people what one is selling, Therefore, that remark is quite ridiculous. But it has thrown me off my stride and made me forget the next point that I was going to make.

393
I think, however, that I have put my arguments. I wish to come back to the real question regarding the atmosphere. It is that more than anything that concerns me—the need to create the atmosphere in which non-smoking is regarded as the acceptable and preferable thing and smoking as not the desirable, respectable or preferable thing. It is on that aspect that the Minister and I differ. The noble Earl accepts that because progress is being made through the voluntary agreement we do not need to do more. I am saying, because I feel strongly about this, that voluntary agreements will never really change the atmosphere. If you ban tobacco advertising, you will change the atmosphere. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
9.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read a second time?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 11; Not-Contents, 26.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L.

Ennals, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Rea, L.

Mar, C.

St. Davids, V.

Molloy, L.

Tonypandy, V. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Long, V.

Caithness, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Colwyn, L.

Monson, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mottistone, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Newall, L.

Faithfull, B.

Orr-Ewing, L. [Teller.]

Fitt, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Sandys, L.

Hanworth, V. [Teller.]

Shannon, E.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion for Second Reading disagreed to accordingly.
House adjourned at four minutes past ten o'clock.