HL Deb 16 May 1986 vol 474 cc1439-50

2.53 p.m.

Lord Bethell rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress is being made towards better East-West human contacts as a result of the present conference in Berne within the context of the Helsinki Agreement.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the fact that your Lordships' House is rapidly emptying after a spirited debate is perhaps one of the problems that has bedevil-led the Helsinki Agreement since it was signed at the high point of detente in 1975.

It is one of the most important agreements to be signed between East and West since the Second World War, yet its implementation and its future have not attracted very great attention from public opinion in signatory countries. This may well be because of the decline and deterioration in East-West relations since that period and especially since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. But I suggest to your Lordships that the provisions of the Helsinki Agreement, including the particular section on human contact between East and West that is before your Lordships today, are a vital part of our European and North American relations and contacts; and an important ingredient in the preservation of world peace. That is why I have detained your Lordships for a few moments on a Friday afternoon in order to ask my noble friend a number of questions about how discussions are progressing at Berne in Switzerland.

At this point I should like to express my appreciation to the British Ambassador who is conducting the negotiations in Berne, Sir Anthony Williams, and to commend him on his achievements in the past during the Madrid review conference and the conference last year on human rights in Ottawa. It certainly was not his fault that very little progress was made at the Ottawa talks. I think that to some extent it was due to him that they took place at all and that the meeting at Berne is now under way. I believe it is at least something that the Soviets and their allies are prepared to discuss at all at an international forum such matters as human rights and human contacts. We should at least be grateful for that.

I think that it would now be appropriate, since the Berne discussions have been in progress for about a month and since there may be no more than a couple of weeks to go before they are due to conclude, if the Government were to give us an updated progress report about what is happening now. I look forward with keen anticipation to what my noble friend Lady Young will say about it.

This is an Unstarred Question and most of my remarks from now on will be in the form of questions. I should be very glad if my noble friend will tell us what progress is being made on the vexed, very sensitive and very important question of emigration from the Soviet Union, and in particular Jewish emigration. Linked with this point is the vital question concerning the very large number of Soviet citizens, many of them of Jewish descent, who wish to have contact with members of their families in Israel and other countries outside the Soviet bloc. The number of such people is not known exactly but it may run into several hundred thousand. A large number of them have been living for years in the limbo of applying for exit visas and not having them granted, being dismissed from work and being unable to live a normal life in Soviet society, and being treated as pariahs and denied the company of men in the society in which they live.

I believe it is no coincidence that in 1979—the year before the invasion of Afghanistan—more than 50,000 Soviet Jews were allowed to leave, whereas last year the number was less than 1,000. I am afraid that this is arithmetical proof, if proof were needed, of the deterioration in East-West relations since 1979. The release from prison of Anatoli Shcharansky gave some of us hope that this important matter could be tackled again and some improvement achieved, but I have yet to detect that there is any movement on the Soviet side. I hope that my noble friend will be able to indicate to us what is the situation in the Berne discussions, what measures have been put forward by the British Ambassador in conjunction with our allies, and what answers are being received from the Soviet side.

I am delighted to note that in a few days' time a Parliamentary delegation will be visiting the Soviet Union under the leadership of my noble friend the Leader of the House. I believe that this kind of human contact between parliamentarians is extremely important and I wonder whether this matter is being discussed in Berne. If it is not, may I humbly suggest that perhaps it should be put on the agenda? I believe that human contact among parliamentary representatives must contribute towards the restoration of detente and help improve East-West contacts.

There has been a tendency in recent years for the Soviet side to pick and choose which parliamentarians from the West they will permit to enter their countries. I have been a victim of that. I therefore wonder whether my noble friend will add that matter to the agenda. It is the suggestion that parliamentarians and other representatives of the signatory states should be allowed human contact; the ability to travel and to communicate across Europe's great divide without discrimination against them on the grounds of their political views. It makes no sense at all if human contact is permitted by one side or the other—in this case the Soviet side—but only with those who are uncritical of the Soviet Union, whereas those who are critical and who have strong comments to make are excluded. Such human contact is not likely to build up our confidence.

It is not a matter only of physical movement across East-West boundaries; it is also a matter of communication. I should be grateful if my noble friend could indicate to us what discussions have taken place in Berne on telephone links between East and West. I know from my many friends in this country and in other parts of the West of Polish, Hungarian and Czechoslovak descent how tremendously valuable it is and what a great step forward it has been in recent years to have direct dialling facilities between Western countries and the three countries that I have just mentioned.

It is not just a matter of business and official links; it is a matter of the humanity and the family links which can be restored and kept alive so much more easily if it is possible to pick up a telephone and dial a number in Prague, Warsaw or Budapest, and the other way round, without having to go through so many filters of operators, delays and crackling wires. That is a great achievement not only of what remains of detente but also of our scientists and technocrats. In that respect they have made a tremendous contribution to the happiness of the many millions who have friends and relatives on the other side of the East-West divide.

The question of letters though, particularly when it comes to the Soviet Union, is not quite so encouraging. I have in mind in particular letters to the Soviet Union and letters to the people who have in some way incurred the ire of the Soviet Union authorities. My noble friend will have been made aware of the problems faced by many Jewish citizens of the Soviet Union who either have been critical of Soviet policies or who have applied to emigrate. It seems clear from research done by Jewish organisations, some of which I have presented to government departments and some of which has been made available by other bodies, that a substantial number of Soviet citizens simply do not receive mail from abroad.

The Soviet authorities are perfectly within their rights in setting out lists of prohibited articles or other material that may not be sent from an outside country to the Soviet Union. After all, we all have our lists of prohibited material which may not be sent into our countries. Nevertheless, it is not in accordance with international agreements for addressees to be prohibited and for recipients to be listed and to be banned from receiving mail or parcels.

I hope that my noble friend will be able to confirm that the balance of evidence submitted to the Government shows that there are individuals in the Soviet Union who do not receive mail from outside, however innocent that mail may be—even a postcard. As I mentioned in a previous debate, even a history of Ilford is not permitted to be sent to some people. I am not talking about Solzhenitsyn, whom we appreciate (though we do not agree) the Soviets may feel obliged to confiscate. We are talking about innocent material—a little letter or a postcard.

I was pleased to be told a few weeks ago that a British Ambassador is going to put a proposal before the Berne conference that there should be an improvement in East-West letter and parcel facilities. I hope that my noble friend will be able to tell us what happened about that proposal—whether it had been submitted and, if it has been, whether it was done by the British Ambassador on his own or in conjunction with our allies. If so, which allies—the European Community, our NATO allies, or both? What has been the response from the other signatory states, in particular the representatives of the Soviet bloc?

I emphasise that this is not just a matter of a letter, a parcel, a good morning or a birthday present; it is often something that is seen by people who are in a difficult position in Russia as a matter of their survival. One recalls how during the Second World War a prisoner under the Hitler regime could sometimes survive if contact could be maintained, even by letter, with someone in the West.

Once one is out of contact and cannot communicate by letter, telephone or messenger, one is at the mercy of a dictatorial government. Communication can help survival. I believe that it is a matter that can be discussed and bargained over in talks such as those taking place in Switzerland this month. There is no doubt that the Soviet side would like to increase contact with the West in some areas that suit them. I have in mind in particular scientific exchanges and trade. They are prepared to try to buy our technology and assistance and what in most respects is our superior knowhow by increasing individual human contact across the East-West line.

While that may seem unfair and unjust and in some ways reprehensible, my view is that we have to agree because the humanitarian reasons for so doing are so compelling. Distasteful though it may be, I urge my noble friend and her colleagues to work out, as carefully as possible, what concessions the Soviet side is prepared to make to improve the possibility of individual contact between East and West.

The underlying theme of the Helsinki Agreement when it was discussed in the early '70s was that it was a confidence-building measure. That phrase is used again and again in Basket I, in the first part of the agreement, which relates to military matters, in particular military manoeuvres. The idea is that if we can build up confidence by warning one another about matters such as military manoeuvres, the chances of misunderstanding and war are greatly reduced.

I suggest to my noble friend that confidence-building measures are just as appropriate in respect of Basket III of the Helsinki Agreement. If we get a sign from the Soviet Union that they are genuinely prepared to allow more individual contact between East and West. This will build up our confidence in the West that they really are prepared to see an improvement in relations between us and that Mr. Gorbachev's supposed liberalism, or openness, as some have described it, is more than a mirage.

On the other hand, if they stick firmly to the hard line that has come to prevail in East-West individual contacts as detente has declined and as they have controlled Afghanistan, then I fear that the Helsinki process is likely to deteriorate even further until it begins quite seriously to have no meaning whatever. I hope therefore that my noble friend will be able to indicate to us that there is some sign for optimism and that Helsinki is still alive. Whatever the truth of the matter, I look forward with keen anticipation to what she has to tell us.

3.11 p.m.

Lord Vernon

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, for raising this important topic this afternoon. I myself believe that it is difficult to look at the Helsinki Agreement in isolation. It must be considered in the whole context of Soviet relations with the West, and it may sometimes be necessary to look through Russian eyes, however difficult that may be. So my speech will range a little wider than that of the noble Lord, who described so eloquently and so movingly how the Russians have not implemented the final act of the agreement in the spirit that we had the right to expect. Coupled with the continued presence of Soviet troops in Afghanistan, this has led to disillusion in the West regarding Soviet immediate aims and long-term objectives. While this disillusion is understandable, the burden of my intervention is that we should continue to negotiate with the Russians both as regards the personal freedoms and contacts about which the noble Lord has spoken and also in the disarmament field.

Progress may be painfully slow, or, conceivably, there may be no progress at all. But we must go on trying to bridge the gap that separates us. There really is no alternative. Moveover, I do not accept that the outlook is necessarily as bleak as some have painted it. There was a conference in Milan during April of some very distinguished Sovietologists, held at much the same time as the Berne meetings referred to. This conference concluded that the new regime in Russia intended to make no change whatever in Lenin's objective of a single Communist world and that any concessions would be purely tactical in order to gain time and to improve the shaky Soviet economy.

I hesitate to question the view of such experts, except that my experience is that experts are so frequently wrong. Nevertheless, I am not myself so pessimistic. Indeed I think it is dangerous to be too pessimistic in present circumstances. Nothing remains the same indefinitely, even in Russia. It was the Brezhnev regime that invaded Afghanistan, just as it was the Brezhnev regime that signed the Helsinki Agreement. In the last year the Soviet leadership and virtually the entire Politburo has changed. Mr. Gorbachev and younger men are now in power. Admittedly, they are products of the Soviet system and subject to all the stultifying influences and repressions that that entails. But surely it is not impossible that they may have ideas of their own which are different from those of their predecessors and that there is a scope for a degree of movement. Such a situation is at least worth exploring.

Let us take the subject of disarmament. Mr Gorbachev put forward earlier this year new and comprehensive proposals—proposals which appear to have received scant consideration in Western Europe and America. This is not the occasion to go into details, but I should like to mention a single instance. At the time when American cruise and Pershing missiles arrived to be stationed in this country, we were told that their purpose was to counter the deadly SS.20s targeted on Europe, and it was not an unreasonable response. However, in February this year General Chervov, speaking in West Berlin in elaboration of the Gorbachev proposals, offered to destroy all Russian SS.20 missiles in Europe provided NATO would match the move. It was not, he said, a question of moving these missiles elsewhere: they would be physically destroyed under international control including on-site inspection.

What is wrong with this proposal? The noble Lord talked of confidence-building measures. If something like this could be implemented it would be an enormous confidence-building measure. If there were to be a super bonfire of Pershing, cruise and SS20 missiles, the world would sigh with relief. Admittedly, the intercontinental missiles with their massive overkill would still remain, but it would be a step in the right direction, and the psychological effect would be immense. It may be argued that the Russians are insincere. If this is so, let us test their insincerity by negotiation.

There are those who suggest that the recent Chernobyl disaster has made negotiation with the Russians more difficult because it has highlighted once again their phobia about secrecy—a secrecy which, in a case such as this, can be extremely damaging. Moreover, in yesterday's edition of The Times it was alleged that Western observers saw Mr Gorbachev's speech of 14th May as a blatant attempt to defuse international criticism of the Kremlin's handling of the disaster. I do not share that view. On the contrary, while Russian secrecy during the first three days must be unreservedly deplored, I believe that reaction in the Western media, and in some of the statements emanating from Washington, have been inept and unconstructive.

It is a time not for carping but for building from experience and from mistakes. If that is done, the tragedy of Chernobyl will in the longer term have the effect of making us all, including the Russians, realise that we are now part of a single world and that if humanity is to survive we must co-operate.

3.18 p.m.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, we are once again indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, for giving us the opportunity to consider what progress, if any, has been achieved in implementing the Helsinki Agreement.

In this uncertain and perilous world there is no shortage of high ideals or of people who desperately wish to put them into practice. What is important to remember is that these high ideals are respected by the man in the street in every country. This is partly why governments of every complexion East and West, North and South, make obeisance to them and join organisations to put them into practice. It is because the leaders know that people everywhere want a safer and better world for them and their children to live in. The big snag is that when the leaders begin to analyse what is good and what is safe their views vary and differ, and after a great deal of hope and prayer and hard work, we find ourselves back in square one.

Helsinki certainly falls into the category of high ideals and a worthwhile effort. Nearly 11 years ago 35 nations met in Finland to see whether they could plan a safer and better future and break down barriers. The final act was based on that objective and held out the hope of a progressive improvement in East-West relations. The Prime Minister at that time, my noble friend Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, who was I believe also elected chairman for a period, put the situation in simple terms when he said: There is no reason why, in 1975, Europeans should not be allowed to marry whom they want, hear and read what they want, travel abroad when and where they want, meet whom they want. And to deny that proposition is a sign not of strength but of weakness". I certainly agree fully with my noble friend Lord Wilson and I am sure that other Members in the Chamber would concur with him as well.

The most encouraging aspect of Helsinki, as I recall it at the time, was that the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc countries could agree to subscribe to the detail of the agreement and to the implementation of Basket III; that is, "Co-operation in Humanitarian and Other Fields", which is also the subject in which the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, has quite rightly taken the greatest interest.

The big question is this. How is it all working out? There have been a number of conferences, and so far as I can judge progress in them has not been notable. Perhaps the noble Baroness can give us a view on that. I believe strongly nevertheless that it is better to hold meetings even if they do not achieve as much as we would hope. After all, the meetings of experts on the range of subjects covered by the agreements have made some progress and the projected meeting in Vienna next November could be of immense value. Perhaps the noble Baroness will give us some idea what the Government hope they may achieve at the Vienna conference.

We are all interested in the Berne conference. It would be helpful to have an evaluation by the noble Baroness of what was achieved at the Berne conference. The human activities which were the basis of the meeting, and to which the noble Lord has referred in some detail, are beyond ideology and politics. Two people in love from different countries are not concerned with slogans and flags; they just want to get married! Mr. Gorbachev could do himself more good by relaxing cross-border contacts than by almost any action. I hope that he will see the sense of that.

I was very glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, take a hopeful line, because the tendency of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, whom I hold in great affection and respect, in his general view of the Helsinki agreement and its subsequent development, is to be pessimistic. He has no confidence that the Soviet bloc wishes to concede anything of substance on human rights. I understand that point of view and there have been times over the past 30 to 40 years when I have shared it. The noble Lord is of course knowledgeable in this field. However, I think that it is'a mistake to treat the Soviet bloc as one immovable, monolithic and unchangeable mass. There are changes and variations within the grouping and we must seek to improve our appreciation of their implications. It is also necessary to bear constantly in mind that on this particular journey we and the Soviet Union did not catch the train in the same station. That of course implies that we must be patient in our efforts to create a better understanding.

Nor can we leave Mr. Gorbachev out of our reckoning. Many assessments have been made of him since he assumed the leadership of the Soviet Union. Like the rest of us, he is moulded and influenced by his upbringing and background. If he had been born in Snowdonia he would be like me and no doubt a Presbyterian and a radical; however, unfortunately for him, he was born elsewhere. I believe that Mr. Gorbachev will slowly modify Soviet policies for the simple reason that he is the product of a new generation with new attitudes. I have said this before, and I strongly believe it.

His speech on the Chernobyl disaster on Wednesday was a constructive speech, and a step in the right direction. We can at least hope, and in this we are sustained by none other than Dr. Shcharansky (who was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell) who was permitted to leave Russia by Mr. Gorbachev. Dr. Shcharansky is of course critical of the Soviet performance after Helsinki, but he also said this in a recent speech: I am convinced that the international community's struggle to induce the Soviet Union to begin at last fulfilling the agreements it signed in Helsinki in 1975 is more urgent than ever before. I hope this work will be continued, so leading to constructive steps that will help build the conditions for genuine detente, for a genuine trust between great countries. As a necessary condition of this the human rights sections of the Helsinki agreement must be fulfilled. That is the view of Dr. Shcharansky, whom I regard as one of the greatest men of our time. That is the spirit in which we should go forward, and that is the view that I think the whole House will share.

3.27 p.m.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young)

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, for asking this Unstarred Question this afternoon. He is well versed in what has come to be known as the CSCE process, and I think all of us here today appreciate his sincerity in these matters. I listened carefully to what he said on the specific subject of the Berne Expert Meeting on Human Contacts, and of course I read as well his detailed and well-informed article with great interest in today's edition of The Times.

I believe, however, that it is still too early to judge the outcome of the Berne meeting. The main meeting convened on 15th April and is scheduled to last six weeks: it is therefore still under way, and it may well overrun. Nevertheless, your Lordships may find it useful to have a brief description of what has happened to date in Berne and of our objectives there, setting the scene for the run-up to the follow-up meeting due to start in Vienna in November.

It is no secret that the Government place strong emphasis on human rights and humanitarian questions in the Helsinki process. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary highlighted this point in a speech given on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the final act last year when he noted that one lesson of Helsinki is that "politics is about people". He went on to say: the Final Act emphasised the role and value of the individual by defining rights of direct concern to him. The right to travel abroad; the right to be reunited with his family; the right to his personal freedom and to freedom of conscience.". Human rights, which are enshrined in the seventh principle of the Helsinki Final Act, were the subject matter of the CSCE meeting held in Ottawa last May and June. The Ottawa meeting was the subject of a short and interesting debate in this House just over a year ago. The mandate for the Berne meeting, laid down at the time of the Madrid follow-up meeting in 1983, now gives us the opportunity to turn to the humanitarian questions, covered by the part of the third "basket" of the final act which deals with human contacts.

Together, the meetings represent an important step forward in relations between East and West: they illustrate the tacit acceptance of the Eastern European countries that the CSCE nations are entitled to gather around a table specifically to discuss each other's performance in the field of human rights and human contacts, and to assess this in the light of the commitments accepted through the signing of the Helsinki Final Act and the Madrid Concluding Document. They represent final acceptance that this is not interference in any country's internal affairs.

Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, that the final act covers the whole range of relations. The Berne meeting, which is the subject of the Question before the House, discusses human contacts, but the balance of all CSCE aspects, including disarmament, will be discussed at the Vienna follow-up meeting which, as I said earlier, opens in November.

The final act lays down guidelines for the conduct of relations between the states, and in the area of human contacts they are very specific indeed. I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that the mandate for the Berne meeting covers all the human contacts areas set out in the final act. These fall into two broad categories—family contacts and other contacts. The former embraces contacts and regular meetings on the basis of family ties, family reunification and marriage between citizens of different states. The latter covers travel for personal or professional reasons, improvement of conditions for tourism, meetings among young people, sport and the "catch all" area of expansion of contacts—including, for example, links between women's organisations. Human rights per se are not on the agenda at Berne except where we have been able to raise them, for example, in the context of family reunification.

We believe that better and freer contacts of the types covered in the Final Act can together make for a broader-based relationship between the peoples of the CSCE nations. In time, we would hope that the trust generated by this process, across national and ideological boundaries, will also increase confidence and understanding between governments.

If I may refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, said, he will recall that the Government invited Mr. Gorbachev before he succeeded Mr. Chernenko and this demonstrates both our foresight and our interest in maintaining contacts with the Soviet Union at all levels. The premise at the root of our concerns in Berne is that a healthy relationship between East and West requires the dismantling of obstacles to contacts between peoples.

I thank my noble friend Lord Bethell for his kind words about Sir Anthony Williams, the head of the UK delegation to Berne. Sir Anthony Williams described the mandate for the meeting as follows in his opening statement: Our meeting is about people. Though we meet here as the representatives of 35 participating States; though we speak for the Governments of those States, our meeting will revolve around the needs of the people: the peoples of 35 countries of different political systems and different customs: people governed or constrained by differing rules and regulations". My noble friend Lord Bethell referred to the delegation that my noble friend the Leader of the House is leading to the USSR in June. We look on this as a very useful contact between parliamentarians. The IPU is meeting in Bonn in the same week to discuss the CSCE, and contact and travel by parliamentarians will clearly be a subject for discussion then. Past United Kingdom delegations to the USSR have spoken their minds both during the visit and after the visit, but it is important that these contacts should be maintained.

After the usual sharp debate at the Berne preparatory meeting—in this case over how much of the proceedings should be open to the public—we secured a satisfactory and balanced agenda which includes scope for a review of the implementation of previous commitments and an opportunity to consider new proposals to add to those already agreed.

The first part of the meeting, the general debate on implementation, is now complete. Our approach to this aspect was to engage the Soviet Union and its allies in debate on their performances in these matters. We did not pull our punches. But at the time we attempted to concentrate the discussion on the practical—that is, on the obstacles to human contact and how to dismantle them—and not on fruitless ideological bickering. With a few exceptions, it proved possible to do this. The debate was combined with a series of useful corridor contacts at which we raised a number of personal cases with other delegations. Arrangements have been made for the text of the main statement delivered by Sir Anthony Williams to be placed in the Library of the House. I commend it to your Lordships.

The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, raised specifically the question of Jewish emigration. I can say to him that the Government share the concern that has been expressed over the problems faced by the Jewish community and the continued maltreatment of many individuals who seek to exercise the fundamental freedoms of religious expression and practice. We have repeatedly made clear our views on Soviet treatment of the Jewish community and on the drastic cutback in permitted levels of emigration in recent years. Most recently, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister stressed the issue of Jewish emigration with the departing Soviet Ambassador. Indeed, I can confirm the numbers that the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, quoted. We note that the total for 1985 was 1,140 immigrants. This was marginally higher than that for the previous year, which was 900, but it is still a long way short of the high emigration levels of the late 1970s, when in 1979 there was a peak of 51,000. The figures we have received so far this year suggest that emigration levels will remain low: 79 in January, 51 in February and 47 in March.

I should now like to say a word about the present stage of the meeting, the consideration of new proposals in the field of human contacts. There are rather more than 40 on the table. I draw your Lordships' attention to two on which the British delegation have taken a lead. The first is on a subject which I know is a matter of great concern and has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. It concerns freedom of postal and other communications. There are numerous well-documented cases of the Soviet Union failing to deliver mail from Britain but claiming to have done so when the Post Office makes inquiries. Our proposal is designed to remedy this by guaranteeing freedom of transit of postal communications in accordance with the Universal Postal Convention, making possible the rapid and unhindered delivery of personal mail; by ensuring that all necessary conditions exist to carry on rapid and uninterrupted telephone calls in accordance with the International Telecommunication Convention; and by establishing respect for the privacy and integrity of all such communications. I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, that Sir Anthony Williams has highlighted these points in the debate and our proposals, which he has submitted on our behalf, have been supported by Canada, Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands, Turkey and the United States of America. The matter is still under discussion as this debate takes place this afternoon.

The second British proposal is designed to ensure that travel applications for family reunification and other purposes are dealt with in a manner consistent with CSCE commitments. It calls for a careful review by governments of outstanding cases and recommends that such reviews be repeated in future.

Together with these proposals, we are supporting a number of others tabled by our Western partners and allies and in some cases by our neutral and nonaligned friends. These cover such diverse issues as increasing the possibilities of contacts between members of religious faiths; simplifying and improving procedures for leaving a country; holding periodical bilaterial meetings and Round Tables to promote human contacts; encouraging sporting exchanges; abolishing exit visas; publication of national legislation concerning travel abroad; ensuring expeditious processing of applications for travel on family matters of an urgent humanitarian nature; and simplifying the application procedures for family reunification.

I do not know whether in Berne we shall be able to agree on a package of such proposals. I hope so. We shall soon have a better idea of whether or not agreement on a concluding document is possible. We want one only if it says something of significance and represents a useful step forward on current commitments or at least reflects adequately the discussion which has taken place at Berne. In other words, if it is of real practical benefit to the people of Europe whom the CSCE process is designed to help. I am sure that your Lordships would agree that no document at all would be better than a purely cosmetic one.

To conclude, it is too early to say what will be achieved in Berne. But, at the very least, the opportunity to express concern over Soviet and Eastern European performance on the humanitarian issues and to suggest ways of further developing contacts must be valuable.

We want to see the maximum possible practical results coming from this meeting, expressed in terms of the number of families reunited. We want to work towards a removal of existing obstacles to human contacts. We also hope to impress upon the Eastern European countries that the outcome of Berne will affect the climate of East-West relations as we work towards the next main follow-up meeting, which is scheduled to open in Vienna on 4th November. We need to be able to show the people of Europe at Vienna that, agonisingly slow as the process may be, the commitments made at Helsinki have not be drained of meaning and value. I hope the Soviet Union will realise that if we cannot show this it will become more difficult to maintain public support for a process which Her Majesty's Government—and, I am quite sure, the whole of your Lordships' House—believe serves the interests of both the East and the West.

House adjourned at eighteen minutes before four o'clock.